Summary
finding defendant who sought discovery of physical evidence related to his postconviction claims demonstrated irreparable harm because without access to that physical evidence, "[t]his would not only eviscerate his ability to litigate and demonstrate his claims, but would deprive this Court of being able to conduct a meaningful review on appeal"
Summary of this case from DNJS Holdings, LLC v. Pet Doctors Operating LLCOpinion
Nos. SC12–605 SC12–633.
2013-06-11
Jason Andrew SIMPSON, Petitioner/Appellant(s) v. STATE of Florida, Respondent/Appellee(s).
Jason Andrew Simpson, a prisoner under sentence of death, seeks review of the circuit court's order denying his Motion to Require Preservation and Allow Inspection and Testing of Physical and Biological Evidence, which was filed during the course of Simpson's initial postconviction proceedings that are still pending below. Simpson's conviction and sentence of death were affirmed on direct appeal, Simpson v. State, 3 So.3d 1135, 1138 (Fla.2009), and this current motion was filed in connection with his initial motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3 .851.
In the motion for inspection and testing of physical and biological evidence, Simpson requested the following: (1) DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853; and (2) access to, and examination and testing of, evidence in order to develop and prove his postconviction claims. After the circuit court denied Simpson's motion, Simpson filed a notice of appeal in this Court with respect to the denial of DNA testing under rule 3.853 (Case No. SC12–633), and a petition for review of non-final order with respect to the denial of access to, and examination and testing of, evidence (Case No. SC12–605).
As an initial matter, we note that the trial judge who ruled on the motion in this case is no longer the assigned judge after this Court granted Simpson's petition for writ of prohibition in Case No. SC12–763. Specifically, Simpson sought disqualification of Judge Arnold based on statements made when denying Simpson's Motion for Appointment of Handwriting Expert. Subsequently, the Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit assigned Senior Judge Michael Weatherby as the presiding judge in the postconviction proceedings below.
Request for DNA Testing, Case No. 12–633
Simpson seeks DNA testing in order to exonerate him or produce exculpatory results with respect to four categories of evidence: (1) scrapings from under victim Kimberli Kimbler's fingernails; (2) the clothing allegedly worn by the killer; (3) a pair of socks found near the murder weapon; and (4) blood collected at the crime scene.
After a thorough examination of the record in this case, we conclude that Simpson has met the requirements for DNA testing under rule 3.853 and under our applicable case law, and he is entitled to DNA testing on all four categories of evidence. See Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla.2004).
We do not address Simpson's contentions that he is entitled to testing by a laboratory other than the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, leaving that issue to be considered by the circuit court.
Request for Access to, Examination of, and Testing of Evidence, Case No. 12–605
Simpson also seeks access to the physical evidence collected in this case, as well as examination and testing of evidence in order to prove his postconviction claims, which include claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to have evidence in this case analyzed and tested by DNA experts, as well as by experts in crime scene reconstruction. In addition, Simpson raises a claim in his postconviction motion that the State violated due process by failing to adequately preserve evidence. We consider the circuit court's order denying access, examination, and testing under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c), and Trepal v. State, 754 So.2d 702 (Fla.2000).
We conclude that the circuit court's order departed from the essential requirements of law in two respects. First, it denied access to evidence collected in this case without articulating any legally justifiable reason. Second, it denied Simpson the ability to examine and test items of evidence pertinent to claims in his initial postconviction proceeding currently pending in the circuit court. In doing so, the circuit court not only misapprehended the nature of Simpson's request, but it failed to apply the proper considerations or standard.
After reviewing the record in this case, the postconviction claims raised, and the examination and testing requested, and after applying the correct standards, we conclude that the results of the examination and testing that Simpson requests would assist him in demonstrating entitlement to postconviction relief. We further conclude that Simpson has demonstrated irreparable harm under the facts of this case, because without the requested access, examination, and testing, Simpson would be unable to demonstrate his postconviction claims. This would not only eviscerate his ability to litigate and demonstrate his claims, but would deprive this Court of being able to conduct a meaningful review on appeal. Thus, the requirements for the review of non-final discovery orders have been met. SeeFla. R.App. P. 9.142(c); Trepal, 754 So.2d at 707.
Accordingly, we grant Simpson's petition. We do not resolve the issues of under what conditions access, examination, and testing should take place. Instead, those issues should be resolved by the circuit court in a timely fashion.
Conclusion
We conclude that Simpson is entitled to relief in both cases. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's order denying Simpson's Motion to Require Preservation and Allow Inspection and Testing of Physical and Biological Evidence, and we remand for further proceedings in accordance with this order.
It is so ordered. PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.