ERNESTO SANTIAGO ROBLES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2019-02-15
No. 18-2742
Lubet, J., Lambert, J., Harris, J., Sasso, J.
264 So. 3d 366 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2019)

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.


Holding

When a Rule 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing is facially sufficient, the trial court must order the prosecuting authority to respond within thirty days before ruling on the motion.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court must order the prosecuting authority to respond to a facially sufficient Rule 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing within thirty days before ruling o…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“This rule requires, among other things, that if the motion is facially sufficient, the court shall order the prosecuting authority to respond to the motion within thirty days or such other time as may be determined by the court.”

Court explaining the mandatory procedural requirement of Rule 3.853(c)(2)

Facts & Procedural History

Ernesto Santiago Robles filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing. The trial court summarily denied the m…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Sasso

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ERNESTO SANTIAGO ROBLES,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-2742

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 15, 2019

3.853 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge.

Felix A. Felicier, of Felix Law Center P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Ernesto Santiago Robles appeals the order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing. This rule requires, among other things, that if the motion is facially sufficient, the court shall order the prosecuting authority to respond to the motion within thirty days or such other time as may be determined by the court. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2). Here, the trial court

2 erred in ruling on Robles’s motion without ordering a response from the State. See Poole v. State, 225 So. 3d 418, 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Suber v. State, 178 So. 3d 973, 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand with directions that the court order the State to file a response to the motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, HARRIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw