Cain v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cain v. State

219 So. 3d 854, 2017 WL 2264616, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7537

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cain v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3483 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 24, 2017·No. No. 4D16-2997·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. See Scott v. State, 46 So.3d 529, 532-33 (Fla. 2009) (any error in trial court’s finding that defendant’s motion for postconviction DNA testing was technically insufficient was harmless where defendant’s motion for postconviction DNA testing was legally insufficient because he failed to show a reasonable probability existed that the test results would exonerate him).

Gerber, Conner and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. See Scott v. State, 46 So.3d 529, 532-33 (Fla. 2009) (any error in trial court’s finding that defendant’s motion for postconviction DNA testing was technically insufficient was harmless where defendant’s motion for postconviction DNA testing was legally insufficient because he failed to show a reasonable probability existed that the test results would exonerate him).

Gerber, Conner and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

Cain v. State, 219 So. 3d 854, 2017 WL 2264616, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7537 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

219 So. 3d 854 (Cain v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related