Robles v. State

Full title: ERNESTO SANTIAGO ROBLES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Date published: Feb 15, 2019

264 So. 3d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 5D18-2742

02-15-2019

Ernesto SANTIAGO ROBLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Felix A. Felicier, of Felix Law Center P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Felix A. Felicier, of Felix Law Center P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.Ernesto Santiago Robles appeals the order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing. This rule requires, among other things, that if the motion is facially sufficient, the court shall order the prosecuting authority to respond to the motion within thirty days or such other time as may be determined by the court. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2). Here, the trial court erred in ruling on Robles's motion without ordering a response from the State. See Poole v. State , 225 So.3d 418, 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Suber v. State , 178 So.3d 973, 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand with directions that the court order the State to file a response to the motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, HARRIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.