Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

824 So. 2d 958

Docket No. 3D02-2007.

Coombs v. State

Peter Errol COOMBS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 14, 2002.

Rehearing Denied September 4, 2002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-08-14

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 2002

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) a statement of the facts relied on, including a description of the physical evidence containing DNA to be tested, and, if known, the present or last known location of the evidence, and how it was originally obtained; (2) a statement that the evidence was not previous tested for DNA, or a statement that the results of previous DNA testing were inconclusive and that subsequent scientific developments in DNA testing techniques likely would produce a definitive result; (3) a statement that the movant is innocent, and a statement how the DNA testing requested will exonerate the movant of the crime for which he was sentenced, or a statement how the DNA testing will mitigate the sentence; (4) a statement that identification of the movant is a genuinely disputed issue, and why it is an issue, or an explanation of how the DNA evidence would either exonerate the defendant or mitigate the sentence;”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 832 So. 2d 835 - Dedge v. State

Relies on Baker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-08-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Peter Errol Coombs, in proper person.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Peter Errol Coombs appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853.

¶6Defendant-appellant Coombs states that for purposes of his 1995 murder trial, DNA testing was performed on stains on a green cap owned by the defendant. According to defendant, the DNA testing was inconclusive as to whether the results matched the victim or the defendant. The defendant contends that under newer DNA testing techniques, a conclusive result could now be obtained. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(2).

¶7We agree with the trial court's denial of the motion. The motion does not contain the required statement "that the movant is innocent and how the DNA testing requested by the motion will exonerate the movant of the crime for which the movant was sentenced, or a statement how the DNA testing will mitigate the sentence received by the movant for that crime ...." Id. R. 3.853(3). See Galloway v. State,802 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

¶8Affirmed.

/824/so2d/958 · .json · Public domain