Opinion ID: 1817558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sireci's Claims

Text: Sireci contends that the circuit court erred in ruling that his motion failed to meet the requirements of rule 3.853(b)(3) and (4). We agree. As required by rule 3.853(b)(3), Sireci's motion contains a statement of innocence: Henry Sireci states that he is actually and legally innocent of the murder. The motion also contains a statement explaining how DNA testing would exonerate him: Due to the location of the evidence, DNA testing will tend to show that Barbara Perkins or her accomplices battered and fatally stabbed the victim. The motion also contains a statement explaining how DNA testing would mitigate his sentence: Lastly, the evidence would also show that Henry Sireci was innocent of the death penalty by showing that even if he was involved in the death of the victim, Henry Sireci was a minor participant. Additionally, as required under section 3.853(b)(4), Sireci's motion contains a statement that the identity of the murderer is genuinely in dispute: The identification of the true murderer of the victim is as genuinely disputed now as it was during trial. Further, the motion contains an explanation as to how the DNA evidence would either exonerate him or mitigate his sentence: (a) Mitochondrial testing of the hair found on Mr. Poteet's sock would eliminate all physical evidence of Mr. Sireci's presence at the carlot; (b) [S]hould the hairs on the towels at the abandoned motel prove to be Ms. Perkins's or eliminate Henry Sireci, her testimony that she had never been present at this locale which was alleged to contain physical evidence from the person of Mr. Poteet would again be undermined and point inescapably to the likelihood that Ms. Perkins was either directly or indirectly involved in Mr. Poteet's homicide; (c) Perkins's presence in the abandoned hotel room would also diminish the argument relied upon by the State that the denim jacket located within the hotel room was tied only to Henry Sireci; and (d) Proof of Ms. Perkins's involvement establishes Mr. Sireci's innocence of the murder of Howard Poteet and innocence of the death penalty. Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court erred in ruling that Sireci failed to meet the technical requirements of rule 3.853(b)(3) and (4). We find the error harmless, however, as explained below. Sireci also contends that the circuit court erred in ruling that his motion failed to meet the reasonable probability standard in rule 3.853(c)(5)(C). He contends that DNA testing would show the following: (a) that the hair on Poteet's sock was not Sireci's hair; (b) that the blood on the denim jacket found in the motel room was not Poteet's blood; and (c) that hairs found on towels in the motel room were Perkins's hairs. Sireci contends that this proposed DNA evidence satisfies the reasonable probability standard. We disagree. First, if DNA testing had shown that the hair on Poteet's sock was not Sireci's hair, the State would not have introduced that hair into evidence at his trial. Second, the testing of blood on the denim jacket was not asserted by Sireci as an issue in his present rule 3.853 motion and is procedurally barred at this point. [5] Third, the Court has already addressed the testing of hairs on the towels and has decided this issue adversely to Sireci. [6] Finally, we conclude that, in light of the other evidence of guilt, there is no reasonable probability that Sireci would have been acquitted or received a lesser sentence if the State had not introduced into evidence the hair on Poteet's sock. As we have noted, seven witnesses testified that Sireci admitted to them that he killed Poteet. We find no error in this regard. See generally Cole v. State, 895 So.2d 398 (Fla.2004); Tompkins v. State, 872 So.2d 230 (Fla.2004); Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23 (Fla.2004); Robinson v. State, 865 So.2d 1259 (Fla.2004); King v. State, 808 So.2d 1237 (Fla.2002). Sireci's remaining claims are without merit. [7] Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court order denying Sireci's rule 3.853 motion. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.