Kayle Barrington Bates v. State of Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 604

Kayle Bates, a death‑sentenced inmate, filed a successive motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853 seeking DNA testing of ten items from the murder investigation.
Seven of the ten items had been the subject of his prior rule 3.853 motion, which the trial court denied and this Court affirmed in Bates v. State, 3 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 2009).
The three remaining items sought in the successive motion were: debris from the victim’s clothing (including a Caucasian hair), the victim’s fingernail clippings, and the victim’s blood/hair/saliva standards for comparison.
Bates argued that testing could exclude his DNA and/or identify another male contributor, thereby exonerating him; he emphasized the Caucasian hair as inconsistent with his race.
The Court reviewed the totality of the evidence tying Bates to the murder (arrest at the scene minutes after death; victim’s ring in his pocket; missing watch pin; footprints, hat, fibers, knife case, and matching stab‑wound characteristics; incriminating statements) and held the new testing would not create a reasonable probability of acquittal or reduced sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a successive rule 3.853 request for seven previously litigated items is permissible	Bates: DNA testing of these items could exonerate him	State: Claims are relitigation of matters previously denied and affirmed; procedurally barred	Denied as procedurally barred — relitigation of issues previously decided by this Court
Whether DNA testing of three additional items (clothing debris/hair, fingernail clippings, and comparison standards) creates a reasonable probability of acquittal	Bates: Exclusion of his DNA or identification of unknown male DNA would exonerate him	State: Overwhelming non‑DNA evidence ties Bates to the crime; DNA presence/absence on these items does not undermine that proof	Denied on the merits — results would not reasonably affect outcome given overwhelming evidence of guilt

Bates v. State, 3 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 2009) (prior denial of DNA testing affirmed)
Zeigler v. State, 116 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 2013) (successive rule 3.853 claims barred when previously litigated and affirmed)
Overton v. State, 976 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2007) (limitations of hair evidence when time/manner of deposition unknown)
Hodgkins v. State, 175 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 2015) (DNA under fingernails can result from casual contact; timing of deposition uncertain)
State v. Fitzpatrick, 118 So. 3d 737 (Fla. 2013) (no scientific method to determine when DNA was deposited)