Ernesto’s Court Documents

     On this page I have provided you with easy access to the long journey of Ernesto’s DNA legal battles. From his trial proceedings which took place at the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, throughout the Fourth District Court of Appeal and all the way to the Florida Supreme Court’s discretionary review. Although it has been a long journey of over 20 years of litigation, the whole focus of attention on this page is centered on the different motions filed while challenging the DNA evidence in this case. However, if you wish to see or review other post conviction motions filed in the past, please refer to the Clerk of the Circuit Court under case number: 98-5739 CF10A,  or if you wish to see and review the currently pending pleadings in the court, just click here for a quick access to it.

CHRONOLOGICAL RELEVANT FACTS

JURY TRIAL

I.  Clerk of the Circuit Court Docket Case No. 98-5739 CF10A

Trial and Sentencing Transcripts.

DIRECT APPEAL

II.  Clerk of the District Court Docket Case No. 4D00-4484

1. Appellant’s Initial Brief.
2. Appellee’s Response Brief.
3. Appellant’s Reply Brief.
4. Court’s Opinion.

III.  Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court Docket Case No. SC02-2748 

1. Petitioner’s Discretionary Review Brief.
2. Respondent’s Discretionary Review Response.
3. Court Discretionary Review Denial.

POST CONVICTION RELIEF MOTIONS

IV.  Clerk of the Circuit Court Docket Case No. 98-5739CF10A 

1. Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for DNA 3.853.
2. State’s Response to the Defendant’s Motion for DNA testing per Rule 3.853.
3. Court’s Denial Defendant’s Motion 3.853 for DNA testing.
4. Motion for Rehearing.
5. State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Rehearing on Rule 3.853 Claims.
6. Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Rehearing of Motion for DNA Testing.
7. Appeal Show Cause Order DNA 3.853.
8. Reply to State’s Show Cause Order.
9. State’s Response to Show Cause Order.
10. District Court’s Denial DNA 3.853.

V.  Clerk of the District Court Docket Case No. 4D04-4156

1. Motion 3.850
2. Courts Order to Show Cause.
3. States Response 3.850
4. Courts Denial.
5. Motion For Rehearing
6. Courts Denial Order On Rehearing.
7. Notice of Appeal.
8. Initial Brief of Appellant.
9. States Response to Show Cause.
10. Appellant Reply Brief.

VI.  Clerk of Circuit of Docket Case No. 98-5739CF10A

1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel the State to Disclose the Existence, Location and Availability of the Physical Evidence Collected in this, which are Indispensable for DNA Testing.
2. Addendum to Defendant’s Motion to Compel the State to Disclose the Existence, Location and Availability of the Physical Evidence Collected in this, which are Indispensable for DNA Testing.
3. Response to Motion to Compel the State to Disclose the Existence, Location and Availability of the Physical Evidence Collected in this, which are Indispensable for DNA Testing.
4. Defendant’s Reply to State’s Response.
5. Court’s Order of Denial.

*No appeal was taken.

VII.  Clerk of the Circuit Court Docket Case No. 98-5739CF10A

1. Motion for Post Conviction Relief and Request for Appointment of Counsel.
2. Order on Defendant’s Motion for Post Conviction Relief and Request for Appointment of Counsel.
3. Motion for Rehearing and/or Reconsideration.
4. Order on Defendant’s Motion for Rehearing and/or Reconsideration.

VIII.  Clerk of the District Court Docket Case No. 4D17-1848

1. Court’s Show Cause Order.
2. Appellee’s Response to the October 10, 2017 Order to Show Cause.
3. Appellant’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Pending Appeal without Prejudice for Appellant to Refile in the Lower Court a New Motion Claiming Newly Discovered Evidence that Has Come to Light while this Appeal has Been Pending.
4. Court’s Order Dismissing the Appeal.

IX.  Clerk of the District Court Docket Case No. 4D17-2938

1. Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
2. Court’s Order Transferring Petition to Lower Court.
3. Motion to Enforce the Transferred Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
4. Court’s Order Stricken Petition as Unauthorized.
5. Chief Judge Request.
6. Chief Judge Second Request
7. Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Supreme Court of Florida )
8. Acknowledgment of New Case.
9. Court’s Order on Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

CURRENTLY PENDING PLEADING

X.  Clerk of the Circuit Court Docket Case No. 98-5739CF10A

1. Motion for Post Conviction Relief.
2. Court’s Order Requesting State to Respond.
3. State’s Response (Extension…)
4. Court’s Order on the State’s Motion  for Extension of Time.
5. States Second Motion for Extension of  Time.
6. Court’s Order on State’s Second Motion for Extension of Time.
7. Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief Rule 3.850(b)(1).
8. Court’s Order on the Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief Rule 3.850 (b)(1).
9. State’s Second Motion for Extension of Time.
10. Court’s Second Order on State’s Motion for Extension of Time.
11. Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Postconviction Relief.
12. Motion to obtain DNA Testing
13. Court’s Order on Motion for DNA Testing.
14. Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief.
15. Court’s Order on Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief.
16. Court’s Order Requesting State To Respond.
17. State’s Motion For Extension Of Time.
18. Court’s Order Granting State’s Motion for Extension Of Time.
19. Defendant’s Opposition Motion to any Further State’s Motion for Ext. of Time.
20. State’s Motion For Extension Of Time.
21. Governor’s Letter.
22. Court’s Order Granting State’s Motion for Extension Of Time.
23. The Conviction Review Unit of The Broward State Attorney’s Office.
24. Innocence Project of Florida.
25. Motion to Preserve All DNA Evidence.
26. State’s Motion For Extension Of Time.
27. Court’s Order Granting State’s Motion For Extension Of Time.
28. Court’s Order Granting State’s Motion For Extension Of Time.
29. Disqualification Of Judge.
30. State’s Response To Defendant’s Motion For Postconviction Relief, 3.850.
31. State’s Response To Defendant’s Motion Compelling All DNA Evidence.
32. Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Postconviction Relief, 3.850.
33. Clerk Of Court’s Certificate Of Service.
34. Defendant’s Reply To State’s Response Compelling All DNA Evidence.
35. Defendant’s Motion For Leave To Reply State’s Response To Motion For Postconviction Relief.
36. Defendant’s Motion For Rehearing.
37. Court’s Order Denying Motion For Rehearing.
38. Defendant’s Motion To Quash Prior Rulings.
39. Ernesto’s Letter To New Appointmented Judge.
40. Notice of Appeal
41. Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction
42. Mandamus
43. Denial of Motion
44. Response to Motion to Relinquish
45. Denial of Appeal
46. Court Sanction
47. Petitioners Response
48. Court Order
49. Mandate from DCA

FINAL UPDATE OF THIS PAGE

I am writing the following update to emphasized the above unfair decision entered by the Fourt h District Court of Appeal on October 5, 2021 in Ernesto’s already controversial case. The Court ultimately sanctioned Ernesto by barring him from ever filing another pro se motion in that Court. This means, that because Ernesto is an indigent defendant, he would not be able to file motions unless he has a private/paid attorney who do it for him. Stated in another way, the Court just denied Ernesto’s free access to the public courts and prevented him from defending his claim of actual innocence and manifest injustice that he has been claiming for the last 25 years, and that the courts so vigorously keep refusing to address!

However, the injustice of this decision is specifically that the Court states in its Order for Sanctions, in pertinent part:

”Appellant used an inapplicable generic Brady notice sent by the State regarding case involving complex DNA samples as grounds for a claim of newly discovery evidence. Appellant’s case involved a DNA sample that only contained one DNA profile therefore, the State’s Brady notice was not applicable to appellant’s case… The Clerk of this Court is directed to no longer accept any paper filed by Ernesto Behrens unless the document has been reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar who certifies that a good faith exists for each claim presented…”

Nevertheless, Ernesto’s ”Motion for Rehearing” filed in the lower court, incorporates as the only ”Exhibit” in support to his claim for relief, the Forensic DNA Consultant, Tiffany Roy’s Report done on September 25, 2020. This Report, unambiguously states, in pertinent part:

”I have concerns the original results were reported incorrectly and that it was presented in the report as a single source match, but the notes table in the file appear to show the profile obtained from the green fitted sheet was mixed… Finally, an ambiguous DNA database ‘hit’ report was contained in the file. I have attached the language from the concerning hit report here… On its face, this report appears to link Renee Ahladis’ DNA profile to item 9. At the very least, this is confusing.”

Thus, based on the above clear contradictions between the Court’s decision and the Forensic DNA Consultant’s concerns. As well as the lack of evidence refuting Ernesto’s claim been attached to the Court’s Order denying relief. At the bare minimum, this Court should have ordered an evidentiary hearing to conduct additional DNA testing to confirm whether the DNA sample contains a single or multiple profiles. But more importantly of all, the Court should not have barred Ernesto from filing future pro se motions. In other words, the Court should not have imposed such severe sanctions upon him, where the record clearly supports his Forensic DNA Consultant’s concerns about the original results previously obtained by the BSO Crime Lab. But most importantly, where this Crime Lab has been previously sanctioned for performing erroneous DNA testing related to complex DNA samples.

Now, that Ernesto is officially without any possibilities of having any motions heard in this Court. He has completed the Broward Conviction Review Unit (CRU) Questionnaire, in his efforts to have the Office of the State Attorney revisit his case. If any of the readers of this page, is interested in seeing and reviewing Ernesto’s Petition to the Integrity Unit of the State Attorney’s Office for Broward County, please click his new page ”Petition for Conviction Review.”


Sincerely,

Franziska Kaltenbach