John Latham v. The State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 17, 2024
• Docket: 2024-0232
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 17, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0232 Lower Tribunal No. F15-4909 ________________

John Latham, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, Judge.

John Latham, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(b) (requiring that a motion for

postconviction DNA testing contain, inter alia: a statement that the evidence

was not previously tested for DNA, that the results of previous DNA testing

were inconclusive and that subsequent scientific developments in DNA

testing techniques likely would produce a definitive result establishing that

the movant is not the person who committed the crime; a statement that the

movant is innocent and how the DNA testing requested by the motion will

exonerate the movant of the crime for which the movant was sentenced, or

a statement how the DNA testing will mitigate the sentence received by the

movant for that crime; and a statement that identification of the movant is a

genuinely disputed issue in the case and why it is an issue or an explanation

of how the DNA evidence would either exonerate the defendant or mitigate

the sentence that the movant received). See also Bates v. State, 3 So. 3d

1091, 1098 (Fla. 2009) (“[A] defendant's motion must explain how the DNA

testing requested will exonerate the defendant or mitigate the defendant's

sentence. A defendant's motion ‘is facially sufficient with regard to the

exoneration issue if the alleged facts demonstrate that there is a reasonable

probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if the DNA evidence

had been admitted at trial.’ Knighten v. State, 829 So. 2d 249, 252 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2002). ‘The clear requirement of [the] provisions [of rule 3.853] is that

2 a movant . . . 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.’ Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23, 27 (Fla. 2004).

Further, ‘the movant must demonstrate the nexus between the potential

results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case.’

Id.”) (emphasis added).