Opinion ID: 1129288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis of 3.853 claim

Text: After we remanded for an evidentiary hearing, Lott filed a motion for DNA testing under rule 3.853 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The circuit court denied the motion on December 4, 2003. Under the rule, [a]n appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party within 30 days from the date the order on the motion is rendered. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(f). Lott, however, waited until the circuit court denied his 3.850 motion and then appealed both rulings together on September 2, 2004. The State contends that Lott's appeal of the DNA ruling is untimely. We decline to construe rule 3.853 so strictly. When a prisoner has a pending motion for postconviction relief under rules 3.850 or 3.851, and in that context moves for DNA testing, the most efficient use of judicial resources will normally be to appeal all the circuit court's rulings upon appeal from the final order determining the postconviction motion. In analogous circumstances, the rules allow parties to raise issues addressing nonfinal orders upon appeal of the final order. Cf. Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(k) (stating that partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case); Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(g) (stating that the rule allowing review of certain non-final orders shall not preclude initial review of a non-final order on appeal from the final order in the cause). To promote judicial efficiency, we grant Lott and others in his position the same choice. On the merits, we agree with the circuit court that Lott is not entitled to DNA testing. Under rule 3.853, the defendant must begin by show[ing] that physical evidence that may contain DNA still exists. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(c)(5)(A). Then, as we have explained, [i]t is the 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. Robinson v. State, 865 So.2d 1259, 1265 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1171 (2004). Lott has not made a sufficient showing. He requested DNA testing of (1) hairs found in the victim's shower drain and bed pillow; (2) the victim's fingernails; (3) the pliers found at the scene; and (4) the sheets, pillows, panties, vaginal and anal swabs of the victim, and fecal matter, primarily in search of sperm. But nothing in the record suggests that the pliers, which were dusted for fingerprints, or the victim's fingernails, which were scraped and sent for analysis, contain any genetic material that could be submitted for testing. Lott is merely speculating about these items. Additionally, as Lott conceded in his motion, previous tests did not indicate the presence of sperm at the crime scene. Lott is not entitled to DNA testing to confirm its absence. As for the hairs found in the victim's shower drain and on her pillow, Lott has not offered any reason to suspect they are specifically connected to the murder, as opposed to being hairs left behind by normal guests, which any house would have. He certainly has not shown a reasonable probability that [he] would have been acquitted or would have received a lesser sentence if they had been tested. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(c)(5)(C). We have repeatedly cautioned that [r]ule 3.853 is not intended to be a fishing expedition. Cole v. State, 895 So.2d 398, 403 (Fla.2004) (quoting Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla.2004)). For example, in Hitchcock, we affirmed the denial of a rule 3.853 motion where in [the defendant's] motion, only a general reference and identification of the type of item was given, without any other relevant information. 866 So.2d at 27. The defendant in that case merely listed a number of items of clothing, but did not indicate whether those clothes belonged to the victim, the defendant, or [another person] ... or whether there is any indication from evidence logs, crime lab reports, or trial testimony that any bodily fluids may exist on these items. Id. at 27 n. 2. In this case, too, the defendant has embarked on a fishing expedition for genetic material whose existence and potential relevance is pure conjecture. We therefore affirm the circuit court's ruling that Lott cannot obtain DNA testing based on the speculative allegations in his motion.