What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Kleckley's motion for postconviction DNA testing under rule 3.853.

Who is affected by this decision?

Robert Kleckley, whose rule 3.853 motion was denied, is directly affected; the State of Florida remains the prevailing party.

Can this decision be changed?

The decision is subject to change only if Kleckley files a timely motion for rehearing; otherwise the affirmation stands.

What happens next procedurally?

If no timely rehearing is filed, the appellate mandate will issue and the circuit court's denial will remain final for purposes of appeal.

Robert Kleckley v. State of Florida

Docket 4D2025-3859

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 16, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 4D2025-3859

Appeal from an order denying a rule 3.853 postconviction motion in a criminal case in Broward County Circuit Court.

Summary

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed Robert Kleckley's appeal of the circuit court's denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion (a postconviction claim challenging DNA testing). The appellate court, per curiam, affirmed the lower court's order denying the motion without further opinion. The decision leaves the circuit court's ruling in place and notes the appellate mandate is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

Issue Decided

Whether the circuit court erred in denying the defendant's rule 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing.

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court issued a short per curiam ruling affirming the denial, indicating it found no reversible error in the circuit court's decision. The opinion provides no extended analysis, so the affirmation rests on the court's determination that the trial court's resolution of the rule 3.853 motion was legally correct and did not warrant reversal. The court also noted the judgment is subject to change only if a timely rehearing is filed.

Parties

Appellant: Robert Kleckley
Appellee: State of Florida
Judge: Bernard I. Bober

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-16

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If the appellant wants to pursue further review, he may file a timely motion for rehearing in the Fourth District to request reconsideration of the affirmation.
2
Consult appellate counsel
The appellant should consult with an attorney to evaluate grounds for rehearing or further appellate relief and to ensure deadlines are met.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Kleckley's motion for postconviction DNA testing under rule 3.853.
Who is affected by this decision?: Robert Kleckley, whose rule 3.853 motion was denied, is directly affected; the State of Florida remains the prevailing party.
Can this decision be changed?: The decision is subject to change only if Kleckley files a timely motion for rehearing; otherwise the affirmation stands.
What happens next procedurally?: If no timely rehearing is filed, the appellate mandate will issue and the circuit court's denial will remain final for purposes of appeal.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                        ROBERT KLECKLEY,
                            Appellant,

                                     v.

                        STATE OF FLORIDA,
                             Appellee.

                          No. 4D2025-3859

                              [April 16, 2026]

   Appeal of order denying rule 3.853 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober,
Judge; L.T. Case No. 061999CF015141A88810.

  Robert Kleckley, South Bay, pro se.

  No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

  Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and SHEPHERD, JJ., concur.

                          *          *           *

  Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.