Terrance L. McCloud v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Terrance L. McCloud v. State of Florida

177 So. 3d 310, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14892, 2015 WL 5836160

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 2015

Docket4D15-1774

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 3d 310 (Terrance L. McCloud v. State of Florida) 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

Terrance L. McCloud v. State of Florida, 177 So. 3d 310, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14892, 2015 WL 5836160 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s motion for DNA testing, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853.

Appellant alleged the Coral Springs Police Department had his fingerprints. They were allegedly obtained after his arrest in three separate cases in which he was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. He claimed DNA testing of the “crime sceen fingerprint” [sic] would exonerate him in the three cases.' He alleged that identity was an issue in the cases, but he did not include a statement as to why it was, or how the DNA evidence would exonerate him as he claimed. This is required in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(b)(4). Also, the motion was not verified as required in Rule 3.853(b).

Affirmance is without prejudice to appellant promptly filing a legally sufficient motion if he can do so in good faith. Rosa v. *311 State, 147 So.3d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)).

Affirmed without prejudice.

TAYLOR and LEVINE, 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 summarily denying appellant’s motion for DNA testing, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853.

Appellant alleged the Coral Springs Police Department had his fingerprints. They were allegedly obtained after his arrest in three separate cases in which he was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. He claimed DNA testing of the “crime sceen fingerprint” [sic] would exonerate him in the three cases.' He alleged that identity was an issue in the cases, but he did not include a statement as to why it was, or how the DNA evidence would exonerate him as he claimed. This is required in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(b)(4). Also, the motion was not verified as required in Rule 3.853(b).

Affirmance is without prejudice to appellant promptly filing a legally sufficient motion if he can do so in good faith. Rosa v. *311 State, 147 So.3d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)).

Affirmed without prejudice.

TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 3d 310, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14892, 2015 WL 5836160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terrance-l-mccloud-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack