ROBINSON

v.

CROSBY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Lott v. State, 931 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2006)
  …eference 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.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1171 (2004). Lott has not made a sufficient showing. He requested DNA testing of (1) hairs found in the victim’s shower drain and bed pillow; (2) the victim’s fingernails; (3) the pliers found at the scene; and , (4) the sheets, pillows, panties, vagin…
• Loran K. Cole v. State, 895 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2004)
  …xual relations with Pamela Edwards” is pure conjecture. There is not a reasonable probability that the testing would exonerate the Defendant or mitigate his sentence. Id. at 6-7. In Robinson v. State, 865 So. 2d 1259, 1264-65 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1171, 124 S.Ct. 1196, 157 L.Ed.2d 1224, and cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1171, 124 S.Ct. 1197, 157 L.Ed.2d 1225 (2004), we held: Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853, the defendant must allege with specificity how the DNA testing of each item…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Fuentes v. State, 907 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
  …endant must allege 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’ ’’)(quoting Robinson v. State, 865 So. 2d 1259, 1264-65 (Fla.)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1171, 124 S.Ct. 1196, 157 L.Ed.2d 1224, and cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1171, 124 S.Ct. 1197, 157 L.Ed.2d 1225 (2004); Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla.2004). Additionally, we note that the defendant pled guilty to each of these offenses. A review of t…

  ← 1 / 2 →