Hitchcock v. State
Decision Date | 15 January 2004 |
Docket Number | No. SC02-2037.,SC02-2037. |
Citation | 866 So.2d 23 |
Parties | James HITCHCOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James L. Driscoll, Jr., Assistant CCC, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel—Middle, Tampa, FL, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Appellee.
James Hitchcock appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const., and affirm the decision below.
Hitchcock was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of his brother's thirteen-year-old stepdaughter. This Court's decision on direct appeal summarized the facts of the crime as follows:
Hitchcock v. State, 413 So.2d 741, 743 (Fla. 1982). The jury convicted Hitchcock of first-degree murder and recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence; however, postconviction proceedings resulted in a lengthy procedural history and three resentencing proceedings.1 Hitchcock's last sentence of death was affirmed by this Court in 2000. See Hitchcock v. State, 755 So.2d 638 (Fla. 2000)
. On November 30, 2001, he filed a second amended rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which is now pending in the circuit court.
On December 29, 2001, Hitchcock also filed a motion for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. In that motion, he alleged the following facts:
Under the heading of "Statement of Innocence," Hitchcock asserted his innocence of the murder charge and death penalty, maintaining that the true murderer was Richard Hitchcock. Specifically, he stated in the motion that "[w]hile James Hitchcock admits to sexual intercourse with Cynthia Driggers, it was Richard Hitchcock who committed the murder." He also asserted that the physical evidence presented at trial was incompetently analyzed by the Sanford Crime Laboratory microanalyst who conducted the hair comparisons in this case and testified at trial. Most relevant to this appeal, Hitchcock alleged the following, under the heading of "Relevance of DNA Testing":
Hitchcock concluded his motion with a request for the circuit court to order "nuclear DNA typing by short tandem repeat STR DNA typing or other method that can distinguish between brothers" by an independent lab on the following enumerated items: (1) a "red, white and blue pullover men's shirt"; (2) a "pink and white towel"; (3) a "gold towel"; (4) a "red, white and pink wash cloth"; (5) a "brown leather belt"; (6) a "small container with dirt sample"; (7) "hairs from victim's bed pillow"; (8) "foreign objects from vagina"; (9) "weeds from left leg"; (10) "foreign objects from left leg"; (11) "vegetation from the abdomen"; (12) "finger nails from left hand"; (13) "scrapings from buttocks"; (14) a "soil sample from under body"; (15) a "soil sample from area of struggle"; (16) "one paper sheet used to wrap the body at the scene and bags from hands"; (17) "clothing criminal—blue jeans"; (18) "medical criminal—blood"; (19) "medical criminal—saliva"; (20) "clothing criminal—sweatshirt"; (21) "clothing criminal—shorts"; (22) "clothing criminal—shirt"; (23) "medical criminal— hair"; and (24) "medical criminal—foreign matter."
In its response, the State argued that Hitchcock's motion failed to set out the evidentiary value of the evidence proposed to be tested and how such testing would exonerate or mitigate the sentence. The State specifically noted that James Hitchcock, Richard Hitchcock, and the victim all occupied the same household. The State asserted that "[i]t is therefore likely that biological samples such as hair, sloughed off skin, small amounts of bodily fluids, eyelashes, and finger and toe nail clippings would constantly be inadvertently deposited by all three persons throughout the house and curtilage they shared." After receiving Hitchcock's motion and the State's response, the circuit court held a hearing, at which the State further argued that any DNA evidence from the victim's vaginal area would not be exonerating because James Hitchcock confessed to having sexual intercourse with the victim. Despite the State's suggestion that the court provide Hitchcock with additional time to file a more substantive motion, Hitchcock stood by his original motion, arguing that it met the statutory requirements.
On June 25, 2002, the circuit court denied Hitchcock's motion, writing:
Defendant next alleges that the testing would tend to exonerate him and show that the hair analysis improperly excluded Richard Hitchcock as a suspect, but he does not explain why this is so. Finally, he alleges the testing would show that even if he was involved in the death of the victim, he was a minor participant, which would mitigate his death sentence. Again, however, he fails to explain why this is so.
It is undisputed that Defendant confessed to having sexual intercourse with the victim, and Defendant fails to establish a reasonable probability that DNA testing would be able to exonerate him of the subsequent murder. The presence of physical evidence linked to Richard Hitchcock would not establish that Defendant was not at the scene or that he did not commit the murder. See Galloway v. State, 802 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Overton v. State, SC04-2071.
...conjecture," and that the defendant could not "obtain DNA testing based on the speculative allegations in his motion"); Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 26 (Fla.2004) (speculative claims cannot form the basis of granting a motion for postconviction DNA Based on the foregoing, the trial cou......
-
Willacy v. State
...law is set forth in section 925.11(2), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853, as well as Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla.2004). Section 925.11(2) states: (a) The petition for postsentencing DNA testing must be made under oath by the sentenced defend......
-
Hitchcock v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., CASE NO. 6:08-cv-1719-Orl-31KRS
...Petitioner appealed, and the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Petitioner's Rule 3.853 motion. Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2004) ("Hitchcock VII"). Petitioner subsequently filed a second amended Rule 3.851 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging thirteen claims......
-
Hitchcock v. State
...and exonerate Hitchcock. Hitchcock admits that this Court has already concluded that DNA testing would not exonerate Hitchcock, see Hitchcock VII, but argues that this Court should nevertheless order DNA testing of the hair samples in light of the postconviction evidence that the original h......
-
Post-conviction relief
...and the issues in the case. When the motion fails to show that connection, the motion is legally insufficient. Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2004) First District Court of Appeal The court errs in summarily denying a 3.853 motion seeking post-conviction DNA testing on the ground th......