Bates v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. SC07-611.,No. SC08-66.,SC07-611.,SC08-66. |
| Citation | 3 So.3d 1091 |
| Parties | Kayle Barrington BATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Kayle Barrington Bates, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNeil, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Neal A. Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Terri L. Backhus and Suzanne Myers Keffer, Assistant CCR Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Meredith Charbula, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellee.
Kayle Barrington Bates appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.
In 1983, Bates was convicted for the 1982 murder of Janet Renee White. We described the unfortunate facts of the murder previously, stating, "Bates abducted a woman from her office, took her into some woods behind [a State Farm Insurance office] building [where she worked], attempted to rape her, stabbed her to death, and tore a diamond ring from one of her fingers." Bates v. State, 465 So.2d 490, 491 (Fla.1985) (Bates I).
We have previously described Bates' procedural history in detail. See id. However, we briefly summarize it again here. Bates was convicted in 1983 of first-degree murder, kidnapping, attempted sexual battery, and armed robbery. Id. He was sentenced to death, two terms of life imprisonment, and fifteen years of imprisonment. Id. After two direct appeals1 and a rule 3.850 motion,2 Bates was ultimately again sentenced to death. Bates v. State, 750 So.2d 6, 8-9 (Fla.1999) (Bates IV).3 In Bates' most recent resentencing,
the jury recommended death by a vote of nine to three. The court found three aggravating circumstances: capital murder committed during an enumerated felony (kidnapping and attempted sexual battery); capital murder committed for pecuniary gain; and HAC. The court found two statutory mitigating circumstances: no significant history of prior criminal history (significant weight); and appellant's age of twenty-four at the time he committed the murder (little weight). The court found eight nonstatutory mitigating circumstances: appellant was under some emotional distress at the time of the murder (significant weight); appellant's ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired to some degree (significant weight); appellant's family background (some weight); appellant's national guard service (little weight); appellant was a dedicated soldier and patriot (little weight); appellant's low-average IQ (little weight); appellant's love for his wife and children and being a supportive father (some weight); and appellant was a good employee (little weight).
After weighing the relevant factors, the court determined that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and imposed the death penalty.
At Bates' 1995 resentencing, the State advanced essentially the same theory of the case that it put forth in the 1983 trial. It called witnesses to testify that Bates was found at the scene of the crime; that he had the victim's blood on his clothing; that he had the victim's ring in his pocket when arrested; that Bates had given various inconsistent confessions that implicated him in the crime; and that other physical evidence implicated him. That physical evidence included a watch pin found at the scene of the crime that was consistent with Bates' watch; Bates' buck knife case and hat found near the victim; two green fibers found on the victim's clothing that were consistent with Bates' pants; and chemically indicated semen found both on the victim's underwear and Bates' underwear.
The State also argued that the crime occurred in the course of a very short window. At 1 p.m., the victim was seen arriving at the State Farm Insurance Office. The victim answered the phone at State Farm upon arriving and immediately screamed. At 1:07 p.m., the State Farm Insurance agent arrived. At 1:08 p.m., law enforcement officers began to arrive. At approximately 1:20 p.m., Bates was apprehended as he emerged from the woods at the scene of the crime. The State also emphasized the dozens of bruises, abrasions, and lacerations that the victim suffered, as well as the two stab wounds and the indications that she had been strangled. The State noted that the stab wounds were consistent with the exact type of knife that Bates carried, the same type of knife that matched Bates' knife case found at the scene of the crime.
Bates then filed the postconviction motion at issue in this case, raising eighteen claims with several subclaims. The postconviction court held a Huff4 hearing, granted an evidentiary hearing on two of the claims, and summarily denied the remaining claims. State v. Bates, No. 82-661 () (Huff Order). The postconviction court also denied Bates' motion for postconviction DNA testing. See State v. Bates, No. 82-661B () (DNA Order). Finally, the postconviction court denied Bates' remaining two claims after conducting an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Bates, No. 82-661C () (Postconviction Order).
Bates has now appealed to this Court the denial of four of those claims, containing numerous subclaims, and has also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the postconviction court's denial of relief and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus on both issues raised.
In Bates' first claim, he argues that the postconviction court improperly denied his motion for DNA testing of several items under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. He claims that he did not commit the murder and that DNA testing of hairs, blood, semen, and other evidence would prove his innocence.
In order to be entitled to postconviction DNA testing, a defendant's motion must include "a description of the physical evidence containing DNA to be tested and, if known, the present location or last known location of the evidence and how it originally was obtained." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(1). The motion must also allege that the evidence was not previously tested or that the results of such testing were inconclusive. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(2).
Additionally, a defendant's motion must explain how the DNA testing requested will exonerate the defendant or mitigate the defendant's sentence. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(3)-(4). A defendant's motion "is facially sufficient with regard to the exoneration issue if the alleged facts demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if the DNA evidence had been admitted at trial." Knighten v. State, 829 So.2d 249, 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). "The clear requirement of [the] provisions [of rule 3.853] is that a movant ... must lay out with specificity how the DNA testing of each item requested to be tested would give rise to a reasonable probability of acquittal or a lesser sentence." Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla.2004). Further, "the movant must demonstrate the nexus between the potential results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case." Id.
Bates' motion requested testing of biological material and identified it as being in the possession of the Bay County Clerk of Court and the Bay County Sheriff's Office. These items include blood found on the defendant's blue shirt and the defendant's pants, semen found on the victim's underwear, vaginal swabs and washing, semen found on Bates' white briefs, cotton fibers that were linked to Bates' green pants, and head and pubic hairs. The motion alleged:
11. Mr. Bates maintains that he did not kill Ms. White. By showing that Mr. Bates was not the source of the hairs, semen or blood found on the body of Ms. White, Mr. Bates can establish that someone else committed the murder. Knighten v. State, 829 So.2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Likewise, testing of the rape kit, the victim's clothing, the blue cord and Mr. Bates' clothing can establish the presence at the crime scene of DNA profiles that are not Mr. Bates.
12. The identity of Ms. White's assailant was litigated at trial and has been disputed during the post-conviction litigation process. The DNA testing of all the biological evidence could establish that Mr. Bates commit [sic] the crime for which he is now serving a death sentence. The DNA testing will bear "directly on [Mr. Bates'] guilt or innocence." Zollman v. State, 820 So.2d at 1063.
In a detailed order, the postconviction court denied the motion after determining based upon the record that "there [was] no reasonable probability that DNA evidence would either exonerate the defendant or mitigate his sentence." DNA Order at 6. The postconviction court concluded:
This was not solely a circumstantial evidence type of case. In People v. Travis, 329 Ill.App.3d 280, 264 Ill.Dec. 785, 771 N.E.2d 489 (2002)[,] DNA testing was disallowed because the defendant had admitted to committing the crimes with a co-defendant and the presence or absence of the defendant's DNA would not conclusively establish that the defendant did not participate in the crimes. Here, the defendant, in his second statement, never mentioned the presence of a third party at the time the scissors were stabbed into the victim's chest. The defendant never mentioned a third party being present when he carried the victim to the wood line. The defendant never mentioned a third party throwing away the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...involved in the victim's murder. Bates stated during a telephone call to his wife after his arrest that he killed a woman.Bates v. State, 3 So.3d 1091, 1099 (Fla.2009).The jury convicted Bates of first-degree murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and attempted sexual battery (a lesser-included......
-
Barwick v. State
...While [the defendant] has alleged generally that error occurred, as in Thompson, [he] has not pointed to specific error.Bates v. State, 3 So.3d 1091, 1107 (Fla.2009); accord Pardo v. State, 941 So.2d 1057, 1073 (Fla.2006) (citing cases). Similarly, because Barwick has failed to specifically......
-
Bates v. Sec'y
...involved in the victim's murder. Bates stated during a telephone call to his wife after his arrest that he killed a woman.Bates v. State, 3 So.3d 1091, 1099 (Fla.2009). The jury convicted Bates of first-degree murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and attempted sexual battery (a lesser-include......
-
State v. Hessler
...Cir.1987); Nelson v. State, 43 So.3d 20 (Fla.2010); Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671, 227 P.3d 925 (2010). 28. See, e.g., Bates v. State, 3 So.3d 1091 (Fla.2009). FN29. People v. Shelburne, 104 Cal.App.3d 737, 744, 163 Cal.Rptr. 767, 772 (1980). 30. See Hull v. Kyler, supra note 27. 31. See,......
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...motion. A claim that a jury or jury pool was chosen in an intentionally discriminatory manner must be raised on appeal. Bates v. State, 3 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 2009) Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to strike entire jury panel after a potential juror made comments that the ......
-
Post-conviction relief
...have resulted in an acquittal. (See this case for discussion of the pleading requirements for a motion under rule 3.853.) Bates v. State, 3 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 2009) The court properly denies a motion for additional DNA testing at a lab requested by the defendant when the lab is not an accred......