The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .
. . . Further, as petitioners point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(l)(b)l., Florida . . . Statutes (2002), may result in the non-preservation of physical evidence for DNA testing under section 925.11 . . . should it determine it has jurisdiction, from the “complete exercise” thereof, the deadline in section 925.11 . . . Accordingly, by operation of the terms of the statute, the evidence described in section 925.11(4)(a) . . .
. . . motion for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .
. . . appellant filed a motion for DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . . DNA testing is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes . . . Section 925.11(2)(f)3. through (g) contains nearly identical provisions. . . . intent of the rule, which was promulgated to establish procedures for testing pursuant to sections 925.11 . . . Section 925.11(l)(a)l. allows the defendant to “petition th[e] court to order the examination of physical . . .
. . . . § 925.11. Fla. R.Crim. . . . Stat. § 925.11 also addresses postsentencing DNA testing and similarly requires the trial court to answer . . . Stat. § 925.11(2)(f). . . .
. . . See § 925.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); Smith v. . . . where a defendant has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony before July 1, 2006. § 925.11 . . .
. . . postconvietion DNA testing which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .
. . . P. 3.853; § 925.11(l)(a)2.; (2)(a)l.-6., Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . State, 954 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (stating that the 2006 amendment to section 925.11, which governs . . . . § 925.11(l)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. . . . Furthermore, under sections 925.11(2)(f)(l)-(3), Florida Statutes, the trial court must ultimately determine . . . subjected to DNA testing, will not prove entitlement to DNA testing under the holding of Lott or section 925.11 . . .
. . . Section 925.11(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (2007), mandates that a motion allege “identification of the . . .
. . . . § 925.11(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2006); Glenn v. State, 954 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). . . .
. . . . § 925.11 (2007); GEORGIA — Ga. Code Ann. § 5-5-41 (Supp.2008); HAWAII— Haw. Rev. . . .
. . . . § 925.11 (2007); Ga. Code Ann. § 5-5-41 (Supp. 2008); Haw. Rev. Stat. §844D-123 (2008 Cum. . . . Stat. § 925.11(2)(a)(3) (2007). . . . . §925.11(2)(a)(3) (2007); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651-D:2(I)(b) (West 2007); S. C. . . .
. . . On September 13, 2001, prior to the enactment of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2008), and Florida . . . apply to his motion although the motion was filed and considered well after the enactment of section 925.11 . . . Rule 3.853 delineates the procedures for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11, and states that . . .
. . . Because the motion was not untimely under rule 3.853 or section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2007), we reverse . . . amended motion should nevertheless be considered on its merits because neither rule 3.853 nor section 925.11 . . . As Thomas correctly points out, neither section 925.11 nor rule 3.853 provide any time limit for filing . . . When initially enacted, section 925.11 provided a deadline of two years after a judgment and sentence . . . In doing so, the First District noted that “nothing in rule 3.853 or section 925.11, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . That Rule “provides procedures for obtaining DNA ... testing [authorized] under sections 925.11 and 925.12 . . . Rule 3.853(c)(8); § 925.11(2)(i). . . .
. . . was pending, we granted jurisdiction to the trial court to conduct DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11 . . .
. . . of his motion for DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . . Brim did not become eligible to seek DNA testing until June 23, 2006, when section 925.11 was amended . . . See Ch.2006-292, § 1, at 2205, Laws of Fla.; § 925.11(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .
. . . However, due to an amendment to section 925.11, Florida Statutes, enacted on June 23, 2006, no time limit . . . (codified in § 925.11, Fla. Stat. (2006)). . . .
. . . The applicable law is set forth in section 925.11(2), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Rule of Criminal . . . Section 925.11(2) states: (a) The petition for postsentencing DNA testing must be made under oath by . . .
. . . postconviction DNA testing, to effectuate chapter 2001-97, section 1, Laws of Florida, creating sections 925.11 . . .
. . . See 925.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . The trial court denied Appellant’s motion, relying on language in section 925.11(l)(a), Florida Statutes . . . However, section 925.11(l)(a)2. was amended in 2006 to allow for postconviction DNA testing in cases . . . See § 925.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Lindsey v. State, 936 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). . . . Section 925.11(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2006), provides: A person who has entered a plea of guilty . . .
. . . This rule provides procedures for obtaining DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing under sections 925.11 . . .
. . . Section 925.11(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2006), permits a person who has entered a plea of guilty or . . .
. . . In denying the motion, the trial court understandably relied on the language set forth in section 925.11 . . . decision was correct when made, it later became incorrect as a result of the amendments made to section 925.11 . . . Newly enacted section 925.11(l)(a)(2) extends the right to file a motion for post-conviction DNA testing . . .
. . . Based on the State’s concession that this case must be reversed and the requirements of section 925.11 . . .
. . . Although rule 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2004), do not delineate which form of DNA testing . . .
. . . the conclusion that the defendant had failed to allege all the requirements found in subparagraphs 925.11 . . .
. . . The defendant, therefore, cannot seek postconviction DNA testing based upon section 925.11(l)(a), Florida . . . tried and found guilty of committing a crime” may petition the sentencing court to order DNA testing. § 925.11 . . . guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on the language of [section 925.11 . . .
. . . ANALYSIS Rule 3.853 sets forth the procedures for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11, Florida . . .
. . . P. 3.853(c)(5)(A); see § 925.11(2)(f)(l), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .
. . . note that the trial court’s denial of Cole’s DNA request came prior to the effective date of section 925.11 . . . decision should not be read to prohibit Cole from seeking such testing pursuant to the mandates of section 925.11 . . . ANALYSIS In 2001, this Court adopted rule 3.853, which tracks the provisions of section 925.11, Florida . . .
. . . 3.853(a) (“This rule provides procedures of obtaining DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing under section 925.11 . . .
. . . (creating §§ 925.11 and 943.3241 and amending § 943.325, Fla. Stat.). . . . filed raising constitutional challenges to the October 1, 2003, statutory deadline set forth in section 925.11 . . . Governor Jeb Bush signed into law legislation that extended the DNA testing deadline set forth in section 925.11 . . . Further, to make the rule consistent with section 925.11, Florida Statutes, we amend rule 3.853(d)(1) . . . This rule provides procedures for obtaining DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing under section 925.11, . . .
. . . . § 925.11, Fla. Stat. (2002); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853. . . .
. . . Royce Reed appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11 . . .
. . . Neither Rule 3.853 nor the statute allowing post-conviction testing, section 925.11(2)(a), Florida Statutes . . .
. . . for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . . Because rule 3.853 and section 925.11 are fairly new, there is little case law interpreting and applying . . .
. . . from the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11 . . .
. . . affirmed because .the motion fails to establish that the defendant has a right to testing under section 925.11 . . . A certificate that a copy of the petition has been served on the prosecuting authority. § 925.11(2)(a . . .
. . . See § 925.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). Recently, in Stewart v. . . .
. . . Court adopted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 in 2001, tracking the provisions of section 925.11 . . .
. . . Florida's DNA statute, section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002), was enacted effective October 1, 2001 . . .
. . . See § 925.11(1)(a), Fla. Stat. See also Stewart v. . . .
. . . expanded on its reason for denying the motion for DNA testing in light of the enactment of section 925.11 . . . Section 925.11 requires that the trial court make the following findings after the defendant has filed . . . acquitted or would have received a lesser sentence if the DNA evidence had been admitted at trial. § 925.11 . . . See § 925.11(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2002); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853; see also King v. . . .
. . . Further, as petitioners point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(l)(b)l., Florida . . . Statutes (2002), may result in the non-preservation of physical evidence for DNA testing under section 925.11 . . . should it determine it has jurisdiction, from the “complete exercise” thereof, the deadline in section 925.11 . . . Accordingly, by operation of the terms of the statute, the evidence described in section 925.11(4)(a) . . . for these petitions is to file actions in the circuit courts to test the constitutionality of section 925.11 . . . believe that the Legislature did a great service in the furtherance of justice by adopting section 925.11 . . . the October 1, 2003 deadline for filing motions for postconviction DNA testing provided in section 925.11 . . .
. . . order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . . A postcon-viction motion for DNA testing is governed by rule 3.853 and section 925.11. . . . P. 3.853(b)(1); see also § 925.11(2)(a)(l). . . . Because we conclude that Warren also complied with the other requirements of rule 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .
. . . challenges the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11 . . . Section 925.11(l)(a) provides that a defendant “who has been tried and found guilty of committing a crime . . .
. . . for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .
. . . court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11 . . . We first note that under section 925.11(l)(a), a “person who has been tried and found guilty of committing . . .
. . . Stewart appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11 . . . Section 925.11(l)(a) provides that a defendant “who has been tried and found guilty of committing a crime . . . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 provides the procedure for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11 . . .
. . . note that the trial court’s denial of Cole’s DNA request came prior to the effective date of section 925.11 . . . decision should not be read to prohibit Cole from seeking such testing pursuant to the mandates of section 925.11 . . . however, is without prejudice to allow him to seek such a test consistent with the provisions of section 925.11 . . .
. . . limited remedy for convicted persons to seek to exonerate themselves by resort to DNA evidence, section 925.11 . . . this statute was enacted on October 1, 2001, for persons convicted prior to the date of the statute. § 925.11 . . . person seeking this remedy must file a timely petition with the required allegations and information. § 925.11 . . .
. . . having been filed under rule 3.850, we nevertheless affirm, because the motion was barred by section 925.11 . . . Section 925.11(l)(a) provides that a defendant may file a postsentence motion requesting DNA testing . . .
. . . The rule mirrors the language of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), in which the legislature provided . . .
. . . years later, Zollman filed a motion for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to newly enacted section 925.11 . . . However, this finding ignores the fact that the purpose of section 925.11 and rule 3.858 is to provide . . .
. . . See § 925.11(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); Hartline v. . . .
. . . We are aware that Gudinas may elect to file a similar motion for DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11 . . .
. . . . §§ 925.11, '943.3251 (West Supp. 2001); Cal.Penal Code § 1405 (West Supp. 2002). . . .
. . . the motion was filed prior to the enactment of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section, 925.11 . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853, the . . . was prepared during the summer of 2001, anticipating the October 1, 2001, effective date of section 925.11 . . . Stat. § 925.11(2)(f)3; Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(c)(5)(C). 2. . . . Stat. § 925.11, or Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853. . . . Stat. § 925.11(2)(f)3; Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(c)(5)(C). State v. . . .
. . . (creating §§ 925.11 and 943.3241 and amending § 943.325, Fla. Stat.). . . . Chapter 2001-97, section 1, Laws of Florida, creates section 925.11(l)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides . . . Chapter 2001-97, section 1, also creates section 925.11(2)(h), Florida Statutes, which provides for court-ordered . . . rule to explain that the new rule simply provides procedures for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11 . . . In response to the comments and consistent with subsection (l)(a) of section 925.11, which authorizes . . . This rule provides procedures for obtaining DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing under section 925.11, . . .