Dyson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dyson v. State

89 So. 3d 1071, 2012 WL 2011171, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8893, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1351

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 2012

DocketNo. 3D12-1132

StatusPublished

This text of 89 So. 3d 1071 (Dyson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dyson v. State, 89 So. 3d 1071, 2012 WL 2011171, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8893, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1351 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla.2004) (holding “[A] mov-ant, in pleading the requirements of rule 3.853, 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. In order for the trial court to make the required findings, the movant must demonstrate the nexus between the potential results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case.”); Van Poyck v. State, 908 So.2d 326, 330 (Fla. 2005) (holding a capital defendant could not make requisite showing that DNA evidence proving he was not the “triggerman” would create reasonable probability of receiving a lesser sentence, where State’s theory, jury’s recommendation, and trial court’s death sentence, was based primarily upon defendant’s status as a major participant in crime, not upon his status as a triggerman).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla.2004) (holding “[A] mov-ant, in pleading the requirements of rule 3.853, 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. In order for the trial court to make the required findings, the movant must demonstrate the nexus between the potential results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case.”); Van Poyck v. State, 908 So.2d 326, 330 (Fla. 2005) (holding a capital defendant could not make requisite showing that DNA evidence proving he was not the “triggerman” would create reasonable probability of receiving a lesser sentence, where State’s theory, jury’s recommendation, and trial court’s death sentence, was based primarily upon defendant’s status as a major participant in crime, not upon his status as a triggerman).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 3d 1071, 2012 WL 2011171, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8893, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyson-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack