Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog
Postconviction proceedings can provide an important avenue for criminal defendants to challenge convictions and sentences when new evidence or legal errors warrant further review. However, Florida law also places significant limits on successive postconviction motions, particularly when a defendant has already received extensive judicial review and seeks additional relief shortly before a scheduled execution. A recent Florida ruling demonstrates how courts evaluate repeated requests for DNA testing and claims that the State improperly handled evidence during postconviction proceedings. If you are facing serious felony charges or pursuing postconviction remedies, it is essential to consult an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney to assess your options.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the defendant was convicted of sexual battery and first-degree murder decades earlier and was sentenced to death. After the Governor signed a death warrant, the defendant pursued multiple postconviction proceedings, including requests for DNA testing and relief under Florida’s postconviction rules.
It is reported that the circuit court previously granted DNA testing of a biological sample recovered from the victim’s clothing, and the execution was temporarily stayed while testing was completed. When the testing failed to exonerate the defendant, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, denied habeas relief, and lifted the stay of execution.
Reportedly, the defendant later filed another motion seeking DNA testing of several additional items of evidence, along with a sixth successive motion for postconviction relief. The circuit court summarily denied both motions.
Basis for Additional DNA Testing or Postconviction Relief
On appeal, the defendant argued that the State improperly refused to allow testing at an out-of-state laboratory using a different DNA testing methodology and asserted that the State violated due process by permitting the original biological sample to be consumed during testing.
The appeal required the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether the additional DNA request was procedurally proper and whether the defendant established a constitutional violation arising from the handling of the evidence.
The Florida Supreme Court first examined whether the defendant’s renewed request for DNA testing complied with Florida’s postconviction procedures. The court concluded that the motion was procedurally barred because the defendant had known about the evidence he sought to test months earlier when filing his previous DNA motion but failed to request testing at that time.
The court further determined that the motion lacked merit because the requested items either contained no identifiable DNA or no testable genetic material, meaning they did not satisfy the statutory requirements governing postconviction DNA testing.
The court next addressed the defendant’s due process argument concerning the destruction of the original biological sample during testing. Applying United States Supreme Court precedent governing the loss or destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence, the court explained that a due process violation requires proof that the State acted in bad faith. According to the court, bad faith exists only when the State intentionally destroys evidence it believes would exonerate the defendant.
The court concluded that no such showing had been made. Instead, the record demonstrated that the defendant himself requested advanced DNA testing, understood that the deteriorated sample would likely be consumed during the process, and accepted that possibility before testing began. The State also articulated reasonable grounds for declining to send the evidence to a different laboratory, including its desire to keep the evidence within Florida, its belief that the selected laboratory could perform appropriate testing, and concerns that the alternative testing method would unnecessarily delay the scheduled execution.
Under those circumstances, the court held that the State’s conduct did not constitute bad faith and therefore did not violate due process. Having rejected each claim, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of both postconviction motions and declined to stay the defendant’s execution.
Consult a Dedicated Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney
Whether you are pursuing postconviction relief or defending against serious criminal charges, it is critical to consult an attorney. The dedicated Tampa violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law represent clients throughout Florida in criminal trials, and if you hire us, we can gather the evidence needed to provide you with a strong chance of a good result. Contact Hanlon Law through our online form or call 813-228-7095 to schedule a confidential consultation and learn how we can help protect your rights.