REINALDO MENENDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that while the trial court's initial reasoning for denying DNA testing was erroneous due to a statutory amendment, the denial is affirmed on a right-for-wrong-reason basis because the defendant failed to show how DNA testing would exonerate him.
The defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder and later moved for DNA testing. The State initially argued against testing based on the guilty plea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.853 cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Reinaldo Menendez pled guilty to second-degree murder in 2000. In 2008, he filed a motion for DNA testing. The State filed a response, arguing that the defendant was not entitled to DNA testing because he pled guilty. The State relied on Smith v. State, 854 So.2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which so held. The trial court denied the motion.
In its response in this court, the State acknowledges that this analysis was erroneous. The DNA testing statute was amended in 2006. As amended, the statute allows postconviction DNA testing in cases where a defendant entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony prior to July 1, 2006. § 925.11(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2006); Glenn v. State, 954 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In light of the statutory change, the Smith case is no longer good law.
We affirm, however, on a right-for-wrong-reason basis. See Dade County Sell. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla.1999). “It is the defendant’s burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will exonerate the defendant of the crime or will mitigate the defendant’s sentence.” Robinson v. State, 865 So.2d 1259, 1265 (Fla.2004). In this case, *1068the murder victim was a prostitute. The Medical Examiner collected various samples from the victim’s body. The defendant maintains that he falsely confessed to the killing. He acknowledges that he paid the victim to have sex, and other witnesses confirmed this. The problem with the DNA motion is that, given the victim’s profession, it would not be unexpected to find DNA from other individuals. Finding such material would not create a reasonable probability that the movant would have been acquitted or would have received a lesser sentence. We therefore affirm the order now before us.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erick Joel Lopez v. State, 47 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Menendez v. State, 41 So. 3d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).…
-
Rawls v. State, 56 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ostconviction DNA testing in cases where a defendant has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony before July 1, 2006. § 925.11(l)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2010); McDole v. State, 46 So. 3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Menendez v. State, 41 So. 3d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Glenn v. State, 954 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Lindsey v. State, 936 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Accordingly, Mr. Rawls’ nolo contendere plea is no longer a bar to his motion for postconviction DNA test…
-
Mosley v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…ion for DNA testing on merits without requiring State response where it was apparent claims for testing were meritless as it was undisputed that no DNA evidence linked appellant to victim, but other evidence supported conviction); Menendez v. State, 41 So. 3d 1066, 1067-68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (although trial court denied motion for DNA testing for wrong reason, court affirmed as evidence sought for testing would not exonerate defendant convicted of murdering a prostitute where he confessed to murder and to pay…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Robinson v. State, 865 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 2004)
- Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Glenn v. State, 954 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)