CARSON CITY -- A Reno man who voluntarily submitted DNA evidence to support his claim of innocence in a robbery case could not later prohibit the same sample from being used to convict him of a separate murder charge, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The opinion by a three-judge panel upholds the 2004 murder conviction of Willie Herman. However, Herman will get a new sentencing hearing because of an unrelated error in that phase of his trial. Herman was sentenced to life without the chance for parole for the murder of Leslie Carter in a Reno park in 1997.

Carter was found dead in a bathroom in a park along the Truckee River. Blood that was not Carter's was found in the bathroom, but no DNA match could be made in the database in 1997.

In 1999, Herman gave a DNA sample after being charged with robbery. He voluntarily submitted the sample through his public defender, and the evidence led to his acquittal on the robbery charge.

After the trial, the district court directed that all of Herman's property be made available for pickup. Herman could not collect his belongings because he was serving time in prison on a different charge. His attorney made no effort to collect Herman's property.

Herman's DNA results were then entered into a criminal database without his knowledge or permission.

In 2000, law enforcement officials retested the blood evidence found at Carter's murder scene and matched it to Herman's DNA.

Police then obtained another DNA sample from Herman in 2001 while he was incarcerated at the Lovelock Correctional Center to verify the match.

At trial, two jailhouse informants testified against Herman. One testified that Herman tried to have sex with Carter and that she screamed rape. Herman said crack cocaine made him kill Carter.

On appeal, Herman said the DNA evidence obtained at his robbery trial was inadmissible at his murder trial.

The issue was not raised at trial and so would not normally be considered on appeal, but the court opinion looked at the issue.

But the court found that prosecutors correctly argued that Herman consented to the use of his DNA sample and so waived any potential privacy interests.

"The law in this area consistently demonstrates that an individual's consent to provide a DNA sample precludes any claim of constitutional malfeasance," the court said. "If an individual consents to provide or voluntarily provides a sample in an unrelated case, there is no Fourth Amendment violation."