MATHEW L. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Postconviction Dna Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
[*685] CASANUEVA, Judge.
Mathew L. Smith challenges the summary 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. We affirm.
Smith pleaded guilty to sexual battery. He now seeks DNA testing of certain evidence. Section 925.11(l)(a) 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 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 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). We therefore align ourselves with the First, Fourth, and Fifth Districts and conclude that a defendant is not entitled to seek DNA testing if he or she entered a plea of guilty or nolo conten-dere.
Affirmed.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royce M. Reed v. State, 874 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…2), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm the 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.…
-
Menendez v. State, 41 So. 3d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…aldo Menendez pled guilty to second-degree murder in 2000. In 2008, he filed a motion for DNA testing. The State filed a response, arguing that the defendant was not entitled to DNA testing because he pled guilty. The State relied on Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which so held. The trial court denied the motion. In its response in this court, the State acknowledges that this analysis was erroneous. The DNA testing statute was amended in 2006. As amended, the statute allows postconvictio…
-
Delidle v. State, 866 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…03). Recently, in Stewart v. State, 840 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), this court opined: “A defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek post conviction DNA testing based on language of the statute.” Accord Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Reighn v. State, 834 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). affirmed! PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Stewart v. State, 840 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- 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)