Santiago Robles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Santiago Robles v. State

264 So. 3d 366

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 2019

DocketCase No. 5D18-2742

StatusPublished

This text of 264 So. 3d 366 (Santiago Robles 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

Santiago Robles v. State, 264 So. 3d 366 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*367Ernesto Santiago Robles appeals the order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing. This rule requires, among other things, that if the motion is facially sufficient, the court shall order the prosecuting authority to respond to the motion within thirty days or such other time as may be determined by the court. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2). Here, the trial court erred in ruling on Robles's motion without ordering a response from the State. See Poole v. State , 225 So.3d 418, 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Suber v. State , 178 So.3d 973, 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand with directions that the court order the State to file a response to the motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, HARRIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

*367Ernesto Santiago Robles appeals the order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing. This rule requires, among other things, that if the motion is facially sufficient, the court shall order the prosecuting authority to respond to the motion within thirty days or such other time as may be determined by the court. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2). Here, the trial court erred in ruling on Robles's motion without ordering a response from the State. See Poole v. State , 225 So.3d 418, 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Suber v. State , 178 So.3d 973, 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand with directions that the court order the State to file a response to the motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, HARRIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 So. 3d 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-robles-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack