James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2026

James Aren Duckett, SC2026-0959 Appellant(s) Lower Tribunal No(s).: v. 351987CF001347AXXXXX

State of Florida, Appellee(s)

We hereby dismiss Appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 925.11, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.853 do not contemplate the holding of an evidentiary

hearing after the results of DNA testing have been provided to the

court, the defendant, and prosecuting authority, which all parties

agree has occurred here. Appellant’s request for an evidentiary

hearing is not authorized, and the circuit court’s order denying that

request is not appealable.

The State’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied as moot.

COURIEL, C.J., and MUÑIZ, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, SASSO, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion.

LABARGA, J., dissenting.

I write fully aware that section 925.11, Florida Statutes, and CASE NO.: SC2026-0959 Page Two

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 do not provide for an

appeal of a circuit court’s order denying an evidentiary hearing

regarding methods and procedures used to obtain DNA results.

As a procedural matter, however, I disagree that this Court

lacks jurisdiction to even review the circuit court’s order. Duckett

filed his corrected notice of appeal on June 25, 2026, with his post-

warrant successive 3.851 appeal (SC2026-0449) and his petition for

writ of habeas corpus (SC2026-0450) still pending in this Court.

We have long recognized that “[a]s a practical matter, we

routinely entertain appeals from final orders in death penalty

collateral proceedings, and on occasion review interlocutory orders

in such proceedings” and have further clarified that “in addition to

our appellate jurisdiction over sentences of death, we have exclusive

jurisdiction to review all types of collateral proceedings in death

penalty cases.” State v. Fourth Dist. Ct. of Appeal, 697 So. 2d 70, 71

(Fla. 1997) (citations omitted).

With this scope in mind, rather than dismiss Duckett’s notice

of appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction, we should treat Duckett’s

notice of appeal as a petition for review of nonfinal order pursuant CASE NO.: SC2026-0959 Page Three

to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c). See Willacy v.

State, 431 So. 3d 254, 260-61 (Fla.) (treating notice of appeal of

post-warrant rule 3.852 public records orders as a petition for

nonfinal review), cert. denied, No. 25-7220, 2026 WL 1074143 (U.S.

Apr. 21, 2026). In doing so, we would then apply the standard set

forth in rule 9.142(c)(4)(F).

Not only does this procedural path have precedential value, I

find it a more appropriate path given that (1) Duckett’s motion

seeking an evidentiary hearing relates to proceedings stemming

from this Court’s April 30, 2026, decision in Duckett v. State, 431

So. 3d 990 (Fla. 2026), and (2) his post-warrant successive 3.851

appeal and petition for writ of habeas corpus are still before this

Court.

A True Copy Test:

SC2026-0959 7/1/2026

SC2026-0959 7/1/2026 CASE NO.: SC2026-0959 Page Four

CD

Served:

CAPAPPEALS TLH ATTORNEY GENERAL LAKE CLERK COURTNEY MARIE HAMMER BRITTNEY LACY HON. DANIEL B. MERRITT, JR. CHARMAINE MILLSAPS NAOMI NICHOLS KENNETH NUNNELLEY NICOLE ROCHELLE SMITH HON. BRIAN JEROME WELKE MARY WELLS