FELIX CARBONELL
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A successive motion for postconviction DNA testing is procedurally barred when it seeks to relitigate questions of law already decided by a court, and the movant fails to demonstrate, with reference to specific facts, how DNA testing would exonerate him or mitigate his sentence.
[1] A successive motion for postconviction DNA testing is procedurally barred when it seeks to relitigate questions of law already decided by a court in a prior proceeding.
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“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.”
Standard for postconviction DNA testing motions, cited from Zeigler v. State
Felix Carbonell filed a successive motion for postconviction DNA testing in a Miami-Dade County criminal case. The lower court denied the motion.…
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 Motion For Postconviction Dna Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Bates v. State, 218 So. 3d 426, 427 (Fla. 2017) (Examining a successive motion for postconviction DNA testing and holding, “[b]ecause Bates seeks to relitigate questions of law already decided by [the Florida Supreme Court], his claims as to these seven items are procedurally barred.”) (citation omitted); see also Zeigler v. State, 116 So. 3d 255, 258 (Fla. 2013) (“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.”) (citations omitted); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(5)(C) (When ruling on a motion for postconviction DNA testing, the court must determine “[w]hether there is a reasonable probability that the movant would have been acquitted or would have received a lesser sentence if the DNA evidence had been admitted at trial.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Midland-Ross Corp. v. United States, 485 F.2d 110 (6th Cir. 1973)…at 4896. See also Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Commissioner, 448 F. 2d 228, 230 (6th Cir. 1971); Commissioner v. Kuckenberg, 309 F. 2d 202, 205-206 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 909, 83 S.Ct. 1296, 10 L.Ed.2d 411 (1963); Frank W. Yerito, 43 T.C. 429, 438-40 (1965); B. Bittker & J. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders, para. 11.64 at 11-58 (3d ed.1971). Standing alone, the language of the statute does not appear to fully serve this purpose. Obvious problems arise in…1 / 3
-
United States v. Diamond, 788 F.2d 1025 (4th Cir. 1986)…ances as a rise in value or an advantageous purchase to enable them to sell at a price in excess of cost. Such sellers are known as “traders.” 16 T.C. at 1032-33. See also Currie v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 185, 199-200 (1969); Verito v. Commissioner, 43 T.C. 429, 442 (1965); Adnee v. Commissioner, 41 T.C. 40, 43 (1963); Polachek v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 858, 862 (1954). Although the taxpayers in Kemon were partners in a firm engaged in large volume securities transactions, with two regular offices, a Pennsy…
Authorities Cited
- Zeigler v. State, 116 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 2013)
- Kayle Barrington Bates v. State, 218 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 2017)