Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 925.11 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 925.11 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 925.11

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including 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 Casetext

Amendments to 925.11


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 925.11
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 925.11.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

BRANCH, v. STATE v. L., 236 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 2018)

. . . for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, v. DATA TARGETING, INC., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014)

. . . 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) . . .

ZEIGLER, Jr. v. STATE, 116 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 2013)

. . . motion for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .

CARDONA, v. STATE, 109 So. 3d 241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . 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 . . .

ALVAREZ, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR FLORIDA,, 679 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 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). . . .

T. RAWLS, v. STATE, 56 So. 3d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . 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 . . .

LEE, v. STATE, 54 So. 3d 573 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . postconvietion DNA testing which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .

McDOLE, v. STATE, 46 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . 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 . . .

GONZALEZ, v. STATE, 41 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 925.11(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (2007), mandates that a motion allege “identification of the . . .

MENENDEZ, v. STATE, 41 So. 3d 1066 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 925.11(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2006); Glenn v. State, 954 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). . . .

S. McDOWELL, v. K. SHINSEKI,, 23 Vet. App. 207 (Vet. App. 2009)

. . . . § 925.11 (2007); GEORGIA — Ga. Code Ann. § 5-5-41 (Supp.2008); HAWAII— Haw. Rev. . . .

DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT v. OSBORNE, 557 U.S. 52 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 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. . . .

CONSALVO, v. STATE, 3 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 2009)

. . . 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 . . .

E. THOMAS, v. STATE, 3 So. 3d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . 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 . . .

BROWN, a. k. a. v. SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 530 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . 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). . . .

RIVERA, v. STATE, 995 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2008)

. . . was pending, we granted jurisdiction to the trial court to conduct DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11 . . .

BRIM, v. STATE, 969 So. 2d 552 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . 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). . . .

BAIN, v. STATE, 963 So. 2d 913 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . 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)). . . .

WILLACY, v. STATE v. R., 967 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2007)

. . . 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 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE- FINAL ARGUMENTS, 957 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2007)

. . . postconviction DNA testing, to effectuate chapter 2001-97, section 1, Laws of Florida, creating sections 925.11 . . .

GLENN, v. STATE, 954 So. 2d 732 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . 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 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND, 953 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2007)

. . . This rule provides procedures for obtaining DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing under sections 925.11 . . .

STARR, v. STATE, 944 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Section 925.11(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2006), permits a person who has entered a plea of guilty or . . .

LINDSEY, v. STATE, 936 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . 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 . . .

GIRLEY, v. STATE, 935 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Based on the State’s concession that this case must be reversed and the requirements of section 925.11 . . .

KNIGHTEN a k a v. STATE, 927 So. 2d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Although rule 3.853 and section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2004), do not delineate which form of DNA testing . . .

C. PETERSON, v. STATE, 919 So. 2d 573 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . the conclusion that the defendant had failed to allege all the requirements found in subparagraphs 925.11 . . .

FUENTES, v. STATE, 907 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . 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 . . .

VAN POYCK, v. STATE, 908 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2005)

. . . ANALYSIS Rule 3.853 sets forth the procedures for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11, Florida . . .

MOORE, v. STATE, 903 So. 2d 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . P. 3.853(c)(5)(A); see § 925.11(2)(f)(l), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

K. COLE, v. STATE, 895 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2004)

. . . 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 . . .

J. BLOCK, v. STATE, 885 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . 3.853(a) (“This rule provides procedures of obtaining DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing under section 925.11 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE d A POSTCONVICTION DNA TESTING, 884 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2004)

. . . (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, . . .

SPAZIANO, v. STATE, 879 So. 2d 51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . . § 925.11, Fla. Stat. (2002); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853. . . .

M. REED, v. STATE, 874 So. 2d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Royce Reed appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11 . . .

NEWBERRY, v. STATE, 870 So. 2d 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Neither Rule 3.853 nor the statute allowing post-conviction testing, section 925.11(2)(a), Florida Statutes . . .

ORTIZ, v. STATE, 884 So. 2d 70 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . 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 . . .

HARRIS, v. STATE, 868 So. 2d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . from the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11 . . .

F. CROW, v. STATE, 866 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . 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 . . .

C. DELIDLE, v. STATE, 866 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 925.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). Recently, in Stewart v. . . .

HITCHCOCK, v. STATE, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2004)

. . . Court adopted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 in 2001, tracking the provisions of section 925.11 . . .

EDDY, v. STATE, 861 So. 2d 115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 925.11(2)(a), Fla. . . .

GUZMAN, v. STATE v., 868 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2003)

. . . Florida's DNA statute, section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002), was enacted effective October 1, 2001 . . .

LINSSENS, v. STATE, 859 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 925.11(1)(a), Fla. Stat. See also Stewart v. . . .

TOMPKINS, v. STATE, 872 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2003)

. . . 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. . . .

AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE d A POSTCONVICTION DNA TESTING C. s v. s, 857 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

WARREN, v. STATE, 851 So. 2d 817 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

L. SMITH, v. STATE, 854 So. 2d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

J. MANUAL, v. STATE, 855 So. 2d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section 925.11 . . .

W. SAFFOLD, v. STATE, 850 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

A. STEWART, v. STATE, 840 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

COLE, v. STATE v. V. Jr., 841 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 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 . . . however, is without prejudice to allow him to seek such a test consistent with the provisions of section 925.11 . . .

DEDGE, v. STATE, 832 So. 2d 835 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . 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 . . .

REIGHN, v. STATE, 834 So. 2d 252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . 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 . . .

KNIGHTEN, v. STATE, 829 So. 2d 249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The rule mirrors the language of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), in which the legislature provided . . .

M. ZOLLMAN, a k a M. DOC v. STATE, 820 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . 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 . . .

MARSH, v. STATE, 812 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 925.11(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); Hartline v. . . .

GUDINAS, v. STATE v. W., 816 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2002)

. . . We are aware that Gudinas may elect to file a similar motion for DNA testing pursuant to section 925.11 . . .

HARVEY, v. F. HORAN, Jr. s R., 285 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2002)

. . . . §§ 925.11, '943.3251 (West Supp. 2001); Cal.Penal Code § 1405 (West Supp. 2002). . . .

HARTLINE, v. STATE, 806 So. 2d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . the motion was filed prior to the enactment of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section, 925.11 . . .

KING, v. STATE v. W., 808 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2002)

. . . 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. . . .

AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CREATING RULE DNA, 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2001)

. . . (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, . . .