Rafael Toirac-Aguilera v. The State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 10, 2024
• Docket: 2024-0857
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0857 Lower Tribunal No. F09-40479 ________________

Rafael Toirac-Aguilera, 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, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

Rafael Toirac-Aguilera, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bates v. State, 3 So. 3d 1091, 1098 (Fla. 2009) (“In

order to be entitled to postconviction DNA testing, a defendant's motion must

include ‘a description of the physical evidence containing DNA to be tested

and, if known, the present location or last known location of the evidence and

how it originally was obtained.’ The motion must also allege that the

evidence was not previously tested or that the results of such testing were

inconclusive. Additionally, a defendant's motion must explain how the DNA

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

sentence.”) (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(b)(1)-(4)); Hitchcock v. State, 866

So. 2d 23, 27 (Fla. 2004) (“The clear requirement of these provisions is that

a movant, 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. Here, [the defendant] failed to

demonstrate such a nexus.”); See Scott v. State, 46 So. 3d 529, 533 (Fla.

2009) (“[T]he motion remains legally insufficient because [the defendant]

failed to show that there is a reasonable probability the test results would

exonerate him or lessen his sentence. As we have stated, ‘It is the

2 defendant's burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the

crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will

exonerate the defendant of the crime or will mitigate the defendant's

sentence.’ And, when the defendant cannot show that DNA will prove or

negate a material fact, the request for testing should be denied.” (quoting

Robinson v. State, 865 So. 2d 1259, 1265 (Fla. 2004))); Overton v. State,

976 So. 2d 536, 569 (Fla. 2007) (affirming denial of postconviction DNA

testing because it would not prove or disprove any material fact); King v.

State, 808 So. 2d 1237, 1247–49 (Fla. 2002) (affirming denial of DNA testing

when defendant could not show that the result would raise a reasonable

probability of acquittal); Galloway v. State, 802 So. 2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2001) (affirming denial of DNA testing, concluding that a mere

allegation that the DNA would not match was insufficient to establish that the

defendant was not participant in the crime).