Hector Rosa v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hector Rosa v. State

147 So. 3d 583, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13405, 2014 WL 4209214

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 27, 2014

Docket4D14-1496

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 147 So. 3d 583 (Hector Rosa 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

Hector Rosa v. State, 147 So. 3d 583, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13405, 2014 WL 4209214 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order which summarily denied appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for DNA testing.

We disagree with the State’s position that the motion was barred as successive. Appellant filed a prior motion for DNA testing of different items which was denied and affirmed by this Court on appeal. Rosa v. State, 881 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “[Ajppellant sought different relief ... and did not raise ‘substantially the same ground’ as previously raised.” Ochala v. State, 93 So.3d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Rule 3.853(c)(2) provides: “The court shall review the motion and deny it if it is facially insufficient.” The trial court provided no explanation for its denial in this case. The better practice is for the trial court to explain the basis for denial in its order. See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1993); Terry v. State, 970 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Dieudonne v. State, 958 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Without an explanation, the movant may not have a meaningful opportunity to cure the deficiency.

“Ordinarily, a facially insufficient rule 3.853 motion should be dismissed or denied without prejudice to the refiling of a facially sufficient motion.” Bain v. State, 963 So.2d 913, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The State acknowledges that typically our affir-mance of a denial like this would be without prejudice to the refiling of a facially sufficient motion. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 925 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Lemay v. State, 921 So.2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

*584 We agree that the motion was facially insufficient because it did not assert that identity was a genuinely disputed issue in this case. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(b)(4). Appellant’s motion alleged that none of his DNA would be found in the victim’s sexual assault kit. He does not explain how, under- the circumstances of this case, this would exonerate him or mitigate the sentence that he received.

Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant filing a facially sufficient motion but only if he can do so in good faith. See Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 762 (Fla.2007)). We caution appellant, and all postconviction movants, that sanctions may be imposed for false, frivolous, or bad faith filing. Oquendo, 2 So.3d at 1006-07.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order which summarily denied appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for DNA testing.

We disagree with the State’s position that the motion was barred as successive. Appellant filed a prior motion for DNA testing of different items which was denied and affirmed by this Court on appeal. Rosa v. State, 881 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “[Ajppellant sought different relief ... and did not raise ‘substantially the same ground’ as previously raised.” Ochala v. State, 93 So.3d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Rule 3.853(c)(2) provides: “The court shall review the motion and deny it if it is facially insufficient.” The trial court provided no explanation for its denial in this case. The better practice is for the trial court to explain the basis for denial in its order. See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1993); Terry v. State, 970 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Dieudonne v. State, 958 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Without an explanation, the movant may not have a meaningful opportunity to cure the deficiency.

“Ordinarily, a facially insufficient rule 3.853 motion should be dismissed or denied without prejudice to the refiling of a facially sufficient motion.” Bain v. State, 963 So.2d 913, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The State acknowledges that typically our affir-mance of a denial like this would be without prejudice to the refiling of a facially sufficient motion. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 925 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Lemay v. State, 921 So.2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

*584 We agree that the motion was facially insufficient because it did not assert that identity was a genuinely disputed issue in this case. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(b)(4). Appellant’s motion alleged that none of his DNA would be found in the victim’s sexual assault kit. He does not explain how, under- the circumstances of this case, this would exonerate him or mitigate the sentence that he received.

Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant filing a facially sufficient motion but only if he can do so in good faith. See Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 762 (Fla.2007)). We caution appellant, and all postconviction movants, that sanctions may be imposed for false, frivolous, or bad faith filing. Oquendo, 2 So.3d at 1006-07.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 3d 583, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13405, 2014 WL 4209214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hector-rosa-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack