Ira L. Lane v. State , 242 So. 3d 506 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    IRA L. LANE,
    Appellant,
    v.                                                   Case No. 5D17-1982
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed April 6, 2018
    3.853 Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Orange County,
    Keith A. Carsten, Judge.
    Ira L. Lane, Chipley, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
    Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire,
    Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
    Beach, for Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    Ira L. Lane appeals the summary denial of his sworn motion for DNA testing filed
    pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Because the postconviction court
    failed to attach any court records to its order to refute Lane’s motion, we reverse and
    remand for further proceedings.
    Lane was convicted after trial of second-degree murder, false imprisonment, and
    robbery; and his convictions were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. See Lane v.
    State, 
    979 So. 2d 240
    (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In his present motion, Lane requested that
    DNA testing be performed on a Schwinn bicycle that he alleged was used by the murderer
    to fracture the victim’s skull, resulting in his death. Lane admits that he and the victim
    engaged in a physical altercation in the victim’s apartment and that he left the victim lying
    there in a fetal position, with his hands and feet bound. Lane alleged that the crime scene
    photos admitted into evidence at his trial showed that the victim’s body was found not in
    a fetal position but with the bicycle on top of him. Lane asserted, however, that the victim
    was alive when Lane left, and he denied using the bicycle during the altercation. Lane
    further averred in his motion that: (1) he is innocent of the murder; (2) according to the
    testimony from the medical examiner, the victim died from blunt force trauma to the head
    and neck area; (3) the victim was found by the police lying face up, without his hands and
    feet bound; (4) one of the witnesses at trial testified to seeing other individuals entering
    and leaving the victim’s apartment long after Lane had last left the apartment; (5) DNA
    testing was not previously performed on the bicycle; (6) the bicycle was last in the
    possession of the Orlando Police Department’s Evidence Division; and (7) DNA testing
    of the bicycle will exonerate Lane and provide forensic evidence of the identity of the
    murderer.
    Rule 3.853(c) procedurally provides that if the postconviction court concludes that
    the motion for DNA testing is facially sufficient then, as was done here, it must order the
    prosecuting attorney to respond to the motion. Upon receipt and review of the State’s
    response, the court must either enter an order on the merits of the motion or set the
    2
    motion for hearing. Furthermore, because the sworn allegations of a defendant’s motion
    must be taken as true, at least until conclusively refuted by the record, Montez v. State,
    
    86 So. 3d 1243
    , 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), if the postconviction court denies a legally and
    facially sufficient motion for DNA testing without a hearing, it must attach to its order those
    portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim. Poole v. State, 
    225 So. 3d 418
    , 419
    (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Padgett v. State, 
    15 So. 3d 35
    , 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Schofield v.
    State, 
    861 So. 2d 1244
    , 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
    In summarily denying Lane’s motion, the postconviction court articulated two bases
    in support of its conclusion that Lane had not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
    possibility that DNA testing of the bicycle, although likely admissible evidence at trial,
    would lead to an acquittal or lesser sentence. See King v. State, 
    808 So. 2d 1237
    , 1247-
    49 (Fla. 2002) (affirming denial of motion for DNA testing when the defendant could not
    show that the results would raise a reasonable probability of an acquittal or lesser
    sentence). First, the court observed that in his motion, Lane admitted that “about 10
    punches were thrown” during his fight with the victim and that he had left the victim in a
    fetal position with his hands and feet bound. Second, the court noted that Lane had also
    admitted that a detective testified that no fingerprints were recovered from the bicycle
    connected to Lane.
    We conclude that the lower court erred in denying Lane’s motion without attaching
    any court records to its denial order. By failing to do so, there is nothing before us refuting
    Lane’s claims that someone else murdered the victim using the bicycle long after Lane
    left the victim alive and that there is a reasonable probability that DNA evidence will be
    found on the bicycle providing the true identity of the killer, thus raising a reasonable doubt
    3
    as to Lane’s guilt. Moreover, the reasons provided by the court for denying the motion fail
    to refute the sworn facts alleged in Lane’s motion that the victim was found in an entirely
    different position than the position in which Lane left the victim and that the DNA of the
    actual killer, and not Lane’s DNA, will be found on the bicycle.
    Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying Lane’s rule 3.853 motion for
    postconviction DNA testing of the bicycle, and we remand for the court either to conduct
    an evidentiary hearing on the motion or to attach to its order those parts of the record that
    conclusively refute Lane’s claim.1
    REVERSED and REMANDED.
    TORPY, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
    1  See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (“On appeal from the denial of relief [sought
    in a rule 3.853 motion], unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled
    to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing
    or other appropriate relief.”).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 5D17-1982

Citation Numbers: 242 So. 3d 506

Filed Date: 4/2/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/13/2018