Hartline v. State

Full title: DALLAS HARTLINE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Feb 1, 2002

806 So. 2d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 5D01-3381

Opinion filed February 1, 2002.

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Carven D. Angel, Judge.

Dallas Hartline, Quincy, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

SHARP, W., J.

Hartline appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, in which he sought DNA testing. Although the motion was filed prior to the enactment of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section, 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001),¹ the trial court nonetheless considered the motion on the merits. We affirm.

1 See Amendment to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Creating Rule 3.853, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S687 (Fla. Oct. 18, 2001). See also Ch. 01-97, Laws of Florida.

Hartline was tried and convicted of sexual battery (multiple perpetrators),² lewd and lascivious act on a child,³ and three counts of sexual battery on a minor under sixteen years.⁴ On appeal, his conviction and sentence for sexual battery by multiple perpetrators was reversed. See Hartline v. State, 743 So.2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

2 §§ 800.04(3) and 794.023, Fla. Stat. (1995).

3 § 800.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).

4 § 800.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1995).

In his motion, Hartline claims the state's expert witness testified the DNA tests were inconclusive and requested that the court below have the DNA evidence re-analyzed. The court concluded there was no reasonable probability that Hartline would be acquitted if the DNA evidence was reexamined.

Upon review of the attached portions of the trial transcript, we agree with the court below that there is no reasonable probability of acquittal if the DNA evidence was reexamined. Hartline's identity was not in question and based on the sexual activity with the child victim which he admitted performing, the victim's testimony, and acts an eyewitness described, even exculpatory DNA results would not have been given any weight by the jury.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, CJ., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.