WILLIE A. STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant who pleads nolo contendere cannot seek postconviction DNA testing under the statute.
Stewart, who pled nolo contendere to sexual battery, sought postconviction DNA testing of evidence. The trial court denied his motion.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Postconviction Dna Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Willie A. Stewart appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Stewart pled nolo contendere to sexual battery. He now maintains that DNA testing of certain evidence in the State’s possession will exonerate him. The trial court denied Stewart’s motion because he pled nolo conten-dere to the charge and did not go to trial. We affirm.
Section 925.11(l)(a)1 provides that a defendant “who has been tried and found guilty of committing a crime” may petition the court for DNA testing, (emphasis added). A defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on language of the statute. See Reighn v. State, 834 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); accord Epps v. State, 835 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).2
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur. . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 provides the procedure for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11, Florida Statutes.
. We observe that in adopting Rule 3.853 to provide a procedural mechanism to implement section 925.1 l(l)(c), the Florida Supreme Court refused to extend the right to DNA testing to defendants who entered guilty or nolo contendere pleas. See Amendment to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure Creating Rule 3.853, 807 So. 2d 633, 634-35 (Fla.2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royce M. Reed v. State, 874 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…trial court’s denial because “[a] defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on the language of the statute.” Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(citing Stewart v. State, 840 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). Affirmed.…
-
Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…nd guilty of committing a crime” may petition the court for DNA testing. (Emphasis added.) A defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on the language of the statute. See Stewart v. State, 840 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also Reighn v. State, 834 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), cause dismissed by SC03-370, 845 So. 2d 892 (Fla. May 6, 2003); accord Epps v. State, 835 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The Florida Supreme Court refused to extend…
-
Lindsey v. State, 936 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…dably relied on the language set forth in section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2005), [*1214] which limited the right to file motions for post-sentencing DNA testing to individuals whose convictions had resulted from a trial. See also Stewart v. State, 840 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Although the trial court’s decision was correct when made, it later became incorrect as a result of the amendments made to section 925.11 in this year’s legislative session. Newly enacted section 925.11(l)(a)(2) extends the ri…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amendment TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure Creating Rule 3.853 (DNA Testing). Amendment to Fla. Rules of App. Procedure 9.140 & 9.141, 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2001)
- Steacyanne Reighn v. State, 834 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Ortiz v. State, 835 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Felton Epps v. State, 835 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)