JOHN LATHAM
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 postconviction motion for DNA testing must specifically demonstrate with particularity how DNA testing of each item of evidence would establish a reasonable probability of acquittal or lesser sentence, and must establish a nexus between potential test results and the issues in the case.
[1] A postconviction motion for DNA testing must specifically explain how testing of each piece of evidence would establish a reasonable probability of acquittal or sentence…
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“The clear requirement of [the] provisions [of rule 3.853] is that a movant . . . must lay out with specificity how the DNA testing of each item requested to be tested would give rise to a reasonable probability of acquittal or a lesser sentence.”
From Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23, 27 (Fla. 2004), cited for the specificity requirement.
John Latham, a convicted defendant, filed a postconviction motion for DNA testing. The circuit 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 Reasonable Probability Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed April 17, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0232 Lower Tribunal No. F15-4909
________________
John Latham,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, Judge. John Latham, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(b) (requiring that a motion for postconviction DNA testing contain, inter alia: a statement that the evidence was not previously tested for DNA, that the results of previous DNA testing were inconclusive and that subsequent scientific developments in DNA testing techniques likely would produce a definitive result establishing that the movant is not the person who committed the crime; a statement that the movant is innocent and how the DNA testing requested by the motion will exonerate the movant of the crime for which the movant was sentenced, or a statement how the DNA testing will mitigate the sentence received by the movant for that crime; and a statement that identification of the movant is a genuinely disputed issue in the case and why it is an issue or an explanation of how the DNA evidence would either exonerate the defendant or mitigate the sentence that the movant received). See also Bates v. State, 3 So. 3d 1091, 1098 (Fla. 2009) (“[A] defendant's motion must explain how the DNA testing requested will exonerate the defendant or mitigate the defendant's sentence. A defendant's motion ‘is facially sufficient with regard to the exoneration issue if the alleged facts demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if the DNA evidence had been admitted at trial.’ Knighten v. State, 829 So. 2d 249, 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). ‘The clear requirement of [the] provisions [of rule 3.853] is that a movant . . . must lay out with specificity how the DNA testing of each item requested to be tested would give rise to a reasonable probability of acquittal or a lesser sentence.’ Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23, 27 (Fla. 2004). Further, ‘the movant must demonstrate the nexus between the potential results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case.’ Id.”) (emphasis added).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2004)
- Toney Knighten v. State, 829 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)