Ray v. State

Full title: Earl J. RAY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 12, 2023

375 So. 3d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)

Opinion

Case No. 5D23-1457

12-12-2023

Earl J. RAY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Earl Ray, Jr., Raiford, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

3.853 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge. LT Case No. 2005-CF-1788-A

Earl Ray, Jr., Raiford, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s facially sufficient motion for post-conviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Rule 3.853 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court erred when it failed to order a State response before summarily denying the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2) ("The court shall review the motion and deny it if it is facially insufficient. If the motion is facially sufficient, the prosecuting authority shall be ordered to respond to the motion within 30 days or such other time as may be ordered by the court."). However, we agree with the First District that this error is re- viewed for harmless error. See Gresham v. State, 181 So. 3d 1207, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ("A harmless error analysis should be applied when a trial court denies a facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion without first receiving a response from the State."). Upon review of the motion, the postconviction court’s order, and exhibits attached to the order, we conclude that the court’s error was harmless and, therefore, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Edwards, C.J., Lambert, and Pratt, JJ., concur.