Case Name: Demestrist COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-04-07
Citations: 869 So. 2d 723
Docket Number: Nos. 4D02-1755, 4D03-1927
Parties: Demestrist COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: TAYLOR, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 869
Pages: 723–725

Head Matter:
Demestrist COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 4D02-1755, 4D03-1927.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 7, 2004.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Margaret Good-Earnest, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Hyndman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHAHOOD, J.
This is a consolidated appeal in which appellant challenges his judgment of conviction and sentence as well as the summary denial of his post-conviction motion for DNA testing. We affirm appellant's conviction and sentence. We reverse and remand the summary denial of appellant's post-conviction motion for DNA testing and direct the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings in conformity with the requirements of rule 3.853(c)(5), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
After his conviction and sentence appellant filed a motion for DNA testing pursuant to rule 3.853. Appellant claimed that his case was that of mistaken eyewitness identification and that the testing of DNA evidence would exonerate him and demonstrate that he was not the burglar and that it was not his blood at the point of entry into the apartment. The trial court adopted the state's response and summarily denied appellant's motion.
Upon the facts of this particular case, we hold that appellant's motion was legally sufficient in satisfying the requirement of explaining how the DNA evidence could exonerate him or mitigate his sentence and the record does not conclusively refute appellant's claim. The trial court is directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to consider the merits of the claim and whether the evidence is in testable form. See Riley v. State, 851 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
TAYLOR, J., concurs.
FARMER, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.