Florida Statute 925.11 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2024 Florida Statutes (including 2025 Special Session C)

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS

Chapter 925
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 925.11

925.11 Postsentencing DNA testing.—

(1) PETITION FOR EXAMINATION.—

(a)1. A person who has been tried and found guilty of committing a felony and has been sentenced by a court established by the laws of this state may petition that court to order the examination of physical evidence collected at the time of the investigation of the crime for which he or she has been sentenced that may contain DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and that would exonerate that person or mitigate the sentence that person received.

2. A person who has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony prior to July 1, 2006, and has been sentenced by a court established by the laws of this state may petition that court to order the examination of physical evidence collected at the time of the investigation of the crime for which he or she has been sentenced that may contain DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and that would exonerate that person.

(b) A petition for postsentencing DNA testing under paragraph (a) may be filed or considered at any time following the date that the judgment and sentence in the case becomes final.

(2) METHOD FOR SEEKING POSTSENTENCING DNA TESTING.—

(a) The petition for postsentencing DNA testing must be made under oath by the sentenced defendant and must include the following:

1. A statement of the facts relied on in support of the petition, including a description of the physical evidence containing DNA to be tested and, if known, the present location or the last known location of the evidence and how it was originally obtained;

2. A statement that the evidence was not previously tested for DNA or a statement that the results of any previous DNA testing were inconclusive and that subsequent scientific developments in DNA testing techniques would likely produce a definitive result establishing that the petitioner is not the person who committed the crime;

3. A statement that the sentenced defendant is innocent and how the DNA testing requested by the petition will exonerate the defendant of the crime for which the defendant was sentenced or will mitigate the sentence received by the defendant for that crime;

4. A statement that identification of the defendant is a genuinely disputed issue in the case, and why it is an issue;

5. Any other facts relevant to the petition; and

6. A certificate that a copy of the petition has been served on the prosecuting authority.

(b) Upon receiving the petition, the clerk of the court shall file it and deliver the court file to the assigned judge.

(c) The court shall review the petition and deny it if it is insufficient. If the petition is sufficient, the prosecuting authority shall be ordered to respond to the petition within 30 days.

(d) Upon receiving the response of the prosecuting authority, the court shall review the response and enter an order on the merits of the petition or set the petition for hearing.

(e) Counsel may be appointed to assist the sentenced defendant if the petition proceeds to a hearing and if the court determines that the assistance of counsel is necessary and makes the requisite finding of indigency.

(f) The court shall make the following findings when ruling on the petition:

1. Whether the sentenced defendant has shown that the physical evidence that may contain DNA still exists;

2. Whether the results of DNA testing of that physical evidence would be admissible at trial and whether there exists reliable proof to establish that the evidence has not been materially altered and would be admissible at a future hearing; and

3. Whether there is a reasonable probability that the sentenced defendant would have been acquitted or would have received a lesser sentence if the DNA evidence had been admitted at trial.

(g) If the court orders DNA testing of the physical evidence, the cost of such testing may be assessed against the sentenced defendant unless he or she is indigent. If the sentenced defendant is indigent, the state shall bear the cost of the DNA testing ordered by the court.

(h) Any DNA testing ordered by the court shall be carried out by the Department of Law Enforcement or its designee, as provided in s. 943.3251.

(i) The results of the DNA testing ordered by the court shall be provided to the court, the sentenced defendant, and the prosecuting authority.

(3) RIGHT TO APPEAL; REHEARING.—

(a) An appeal from the court’s order on the petition for postsentencing DNA testing may be taken by any adversely affected party.

(b) An order denying relief shall include a statement that the sentenced defendant has the right to appeal within 30 days after the order denying relief is entered.

(c) The sentenced defendant may file a motion for rehearing of any order denying relief within 15 days after service of the order denying relief. The time for filing an appeal shall be tolled until an order on the motion for rehearing has been entered.

(d) The clerk of the court shall serve on all parties a copy of any order rendered with a certificate of service, including the date of service.

(4) PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE.—

(a) Governmental entities that may be in possession of any physical evidence in the case, including, but not limited to, any investigating law enforcement agency, the clerk of the court, the prosecuting authority, or the Department of Law Enforcement shall maintain any physical evidence collected at the time of the crime for which a postsentencing testing of DNA may be requested.

(b) In a case in which the death penalty is imposed, the evidence shall be maintained for 60 days after execution of the sentence. In all other cases, a governmental entity may dispose of the physical evidence if the term of the sentence imposed in the case has expired and no other provision of law or rule requires that the physical evidence be preserved or retained.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2001-97; s. 1, ch. 2004-67; s. 1, ch. 2006-292.

F.S. 925.11 on Google Scholar

F.S. 925.11 on CourtListener

Amendments to 925.11

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 925.11

Total Results: 62

Guzman v. State

868 So. 2d 498, 2003 WL 22722404

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2003 | Docket: 2518259

Cited 147 times | Published

fundamentally fair trial. [6] Florida's DNA statute, section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002), was enacted effective

Alvarez v. Attorney General for Fla.

679 F.3d 1257, 2012 WL 1579489, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9325

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 8, 2012 | Docket: 753889

Cited 93 times | Published

pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853 and Fla. Stat. § 925.11. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853 specifically governs the

King v. State

808 So. 2d 1237, 2002 WL 54414

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 2002 | Docket: 1738455

Cited 40 times | Published

the murder victim, Natalie Brady. Pursuant to section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule

Hitchcock v. State

866 So. 2d 23, 2003 WL 23162540

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 15, 2004 | Docket: 1273947

Cited 27 times | Published

Procedure 3.853 in 2001, tracking the provisions of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001). See Amendment to

Gudinas v. State

816 So. 2d 1095, 2002 WL 464268

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2002 | Docket: 1559911

Cited 27 times | Published

similar motion for DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), which became effective

Cole v. State

841 So. 2d 409, 2003 WL 124508

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 2003 | Docket: 413079

Cited 23 times | Published

request came prior to the effective date of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule

Willacy v. State

967 So. 2d 131, 2007 WL 1836848

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2007 | Docket: 1733550

Cited 19 times | Published

perpetrator. The applicable law is set forth in section 925.11(2), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Rule

Tompkins v. State

872 So. 2d 230, 2003 WL 22304578

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 2004 | Docket: 1356912

Cited 19 times | Published

light of the enactment of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). Section 925.11 requires that the trial

Brown v. Secretary for Department of Corrections

530 F.3d 1335, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12912, 2008 WL 2445763

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 19, 2008 | Docket: 922096

Cited 18 times | Published

the prosecuting authority." Rule 3.853(c)(8); § 925.11(2)(i). Thus, a Rule 3.853 proceeding involves

Zollman v. State

820 So. 2d 1059, 2002 WL 1466525

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2002 | Docket: 112002

Cited 18 times | Published

postconviction DNA testing pursuant to newly enacted section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule

Rivera v. State

995 So. 2d 191, 2008 WL 2369219

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 2008 | Docket: 1684476

Cited 13 times | Published

trial court to conduct DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), or Florida Rule of

Amendment to Fla. Rules of Cr. Proc.

807 So. 2d 633

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2001 | Docket: 1505804

Cited 12 times | Published

2001-97, section 1, Laws of Florida, creates section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that

Knighten v. State

829 So. 2d 249, 2002 WL 2007881

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 2002 | Docket: 1454401

Cited 11 times | Published

NOTES [1] The rule mirrors the language of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), in which the legislature

Eric Scott Branch v. State of Florida & SC18-218 Eric Scott Branch v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

236 So. 3d 981

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2018 | Docket: 6305666

Cited 7 times | Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2015). Branch v. State

Cole v. State

895 So. 2d 398, 2004 WL 2696901

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 2004 | Docket: 1674357

Cited 6 times | Published

request came prior to the effective date of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule

Saffold v. State

850 So. 2d 574, 2003 WL 21338921

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 2003 | Docket: 1783561

Cited 5 times | Published

postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule

Stewart v. State

840 So. 2d 438, 2003 WL 1386759

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 21, 2003 | Docket: 2570609

Cited 4 times | Published

postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida

Hartline v. State

806 So. 2d 595, 2002 WL 125678

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2002 | Docket: 2575448

Cited 4 times | Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section, 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001),[1] the trial court

Bain v. State

963 So. 2d 913, 2007 WL 2428514

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 2007 | Docket: 1146344

Cited 3 times | Published

of process. However, due to an amendment to section 925.11, Florida Statutes, enacted on June 23, 2006

Girley v. State

935 So. 2d 55, 2006 WL 2096000

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 2006 | Docket: 1670986

Cited 3 times | Published

case must be reversed and the requirements of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2004), I concur with the

Van Poyck v. State

908 So. 2d 326, 2005 WL 1176050

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2005 | Docket: 1724834

Cited 3 times | Published

procedures for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2004). The rule provides

Spaziano v. State

879 So. 2d 51, 2004 WL 1530889

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2004 | Docket: 463745

Cited 3 times | Published

evidence collected during the police investigation. § 925.11, Fla. Stat. (2002); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853. Spaziano

Crow v. State

866 So. 2d 1257, 2004 WL 305748

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2004 | Docket: 1274043

Cited 3 times | Published

the defendant has a right to testing under section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2003). The state does not

Smith v. State

854 So. 2d 684, 2003 WL 21655026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2003 | Docket: 441168

Cited 3 times | Published

postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida

Smith v. State

854 So. 2d 684, 2003 WL 21655026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2003 | Docket: 441168

Cited 3 times | Published

postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida

Manual v. State

855 So. 2d 97, 2003 WL 21360387

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2003 | Docket: 1510934

Cited 3 times | Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001). In 1987, Manual was

Reighn v. State

834 So. 2d 252, 2002 WL 31519914

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 2002 | Docket: 2507989

Cited 3 times | Published

the motion was barred by section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). Section 925.11(1)(a) provides that a defendant

Marsh v. State

812 So. 2d 579, 2002 WL 491914

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2002 | Docket: 792419

Cited 3 times | Published

been one of consensual sex, not identity. See § 925.11(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); Hartline v. State, 806

Cardona v. State

109 So. 3d 241, 2013 WL 440143

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 2013 | Docket: 60229524

Cited 2 times | Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2008). Appellant filed this

Glenn v. State

954 So. 2d 732, 2007 WL 1213419

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 2007 | Docket: 1166258

Cited 2 times | Published

Appellant's motion, relying on language in section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), which limits

Lindsey v. State

936 So. 2d 1213, 2006 WL 2570873

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 2006 | Docket: 315551

Cited 2 times | Published

understandably relied on the language set forth in section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2005), *1214 which limited

Reed v. State

874 So. 2d 648, 2004 WL 840556

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2004 | Docket: 2211012

Cited 2 times | Published

for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida

Zeigler v. State

116 So. 3d 255, 2013 WL 627117, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 272

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2013 | Docket: 60232340

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes.1 For the reasons set forth

Zeigler v. State

116 So. 3d 255, 2013 WL 627117, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 272

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2013 | Docket: 60232340

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes.1 For the reasons set forth

Gonzalez v. State

41 So. 3d 1050, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11711, 2010 WL 3155027

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2010 | Docket: 1238106

Cited 1 times | Published

statute addressing the same subject matter. Section 925.11(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (2007), mandates

Consalvo v. State

3 So. 3d 1014, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 88, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 129, 2009 WL 196364

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 2009 | Docket: 60289122

Cited 1 times | Published

September 13, 2001, prior to the enactment of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2008), and Florida Rule

Murray v. State

978 So. 2d 176, 2007 WL 1201703

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2007 | Docket: 208668

Cited 1 times | Published

also Ch. 2006-292, § 1, Laws of Fla. (amending section 925.11(1)(b) to allow that "[a] petition for postsentencing

Fuentes v. State

907 So. 2d 609, 2005 WL 1681485

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 2005 | Docket: 1513053

Cited 1 times | Published

seek postconviction DNA testing based upon section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), which provides

Moore v. State

903 So. 2d 238, 2005 WL 954645

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 2005 | Docket: 1258157

Cited 1 times | Published

still exist. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(c)(5)(A); see § 925.11(2)(f)(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). A rule 3.853 proceeding

Newberry v. State

870 So. 2d 926, 2004 WL 840629

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2004 | Docket: 347077

Cited 1 times | Published

the statute allowing postconviction testing, section 925.11(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), provides for

Ortiz v. State

884 So. 2d 70, 2004 WL 625633

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2004 | Docket: 1281990

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001). We reverse because

Warren v. State

851 So. 2d 817, 2003 WL 21749052

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 2003 | Docket: 294713

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). We reverse the trial

Dedge v. State

832 So. 2d 835, 2002 WL 31525291

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2002 | Docket: 1699995

Cited 1 times | Published

exonerate themselves by resort to DNA evidence, section 925.11, which the courts have not done. Dedge v. State

Paul Glen Everett v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 2024 | Docket: 68152548

Published

postconviction DNA testing under rule 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes. In his motion, Everett

YVELAN PIERRE vs STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2023 | Docket: 67604712

Published

required to make legislatively mandated findings. § 925.11(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2022). Even if non-binding

League of Women Voters v. Data Targeting, Inc.

140 So. 3d 510, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 355, 2014 WL 2186202, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 1704

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 27, 2014 | Docket: 57512

Published

point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(l)(b)l., *516Florida Statutes (2002), may result

Carl Robert Alvarez v. Attorney General for the State of Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 8, 2012 | Docket: 2904755

Published

pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853 and Fla. Stat. § 925.11. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853 specifically governs the

Rawls v. State

56 So. 3d 920, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3999, 2011 WL 1086762

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 2011 | Docket: 60298707

Published

disqualified him from obtaining the requested relief. See § 925.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); Smith v. State, 854

Lee v. State

54 So. 3d 573, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1434, 2011 WL 362235

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 7, 2011 | Docket: 60298329

Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes. Appellant raises several

McDole v. State

46 So. 3d 1154, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16610, 2010 WL 4292197

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2010 | Docket: 2399307

Published

facially sufficient. See Fla. R.Crim. P. *1155 3.853; § 925.11(1)(a)2.; (2)(a)1.-6., Fla. Stat. (2009). Thus

Menendez v. State

41 So. 3d 1066, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11725, 2010 WL 3154970

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2010 | Docket: 1668214

Published

contendere to a felony prior to July 1, 2006. § 925.11(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2006); Glenn v. State, 954

Thomas v. State

3 So. 3d 387, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 262, 2009 WL 103154

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 2009 | Docket: 60289164

Published

motion was not untimely under rule 3.853 or section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2007), we reverse and remand

Brim v. State

969 So. 2d 552, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18716, 2007 WL 4181029

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 28, 2007 | Docket: 64853151

Published

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2006). The postconviction

Starr v. State

944 So. 2d 1121, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 20042, 2006 WL 3452932

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 2006 | Docket: 64848317

Published

the area where the victim had been assaulted. Section 925.11(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2006), permits a

Knighten v. State

927 So. 2d 239, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6805, 2006 WL 1194302

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 2006 | Docket: 64844235

Published

testing available. Although rule 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2004), do not delineate

Block v. State

885 So. 2d 993, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 16452, 2004 WL 2452522

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 2004 | Docket: 64833899

Published

obtaining DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing under section 925.11, Florida Statutes.”). GUNTHER, KLEIN and SHAHOOD

Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d)(1)(A) (Postconviction DNA Testing)

884 So. 2d 934, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 482, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 1521, 2004 WL 2047658

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 2004 | Docket: 64833621

Published

October 1, 2003, statutory deadline set forth in section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2003), in addition to other

Harris v. State

868 So. 2d 589, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2151, 2004 WL 360896

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 2004 | Docket: 64828974

Published

for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2003). We affirm. Harris

Delidle v. State

866 So. 2d 748, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1534, 2004 WL 256550

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2004 | Docket: 64828357

Published

the defendant was convicted after a trial. See § 925.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). Recently, in Stewart

Eddy v. State

861 So. 2d 115, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19536, 2003 WL 23009043

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 24, 2003 | Docket: 64826974

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 925.11(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003)(“petition for postsentencing DNA testings

Linssens v. State

859 So. 2d 1248, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18187, 2003 WL 22927718

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 2003 | Docket: 64826550

Published

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 925.11(1)(a), Fla. Stat. See also Stewart v. State, 840 So.2d 438 (Fla.

Wilson v. State

857 So. 2d 190, 2003 WL 22243950

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2003 | Docket: 64825860

Published

point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(l)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2002), may result