ROY CLIFTON SWAFFORD, 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.
Roy Clifton Swafford, a death row inmate convicted of first-degree murder and sexual battery, appealed a circuit court order following DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's compliance with the Court's prior remand order directing DNA testing of available evidence and denied Swafford's requests for additional testing and evidentiary hearings.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order, finding that the circuit court complied with the remand instructions by conducting an evidentiary hearing, determining which evidence was capable of testing, and having the evidence tested by certified laboratories. The denial of Swafford's motions for additional evidentiary hearings and testing by non-certified laboratories was affirmed, without prejudice to Swafford presenting DNA issues in further proceedings under rule 3.851.
[1] A circuit court order denying a motion for DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 is appealable to the Florida Supreme Court.
[2] When remanding a case for DNA testing, a court must direct the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine which evidence is capable of testing.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The amended order is reversed, and this case is remanded to the circuit court with directions that the circuit court hold an evidentiary hearing to determine which pieces of evidence that appellant moved to have tested are capable of being tested for DNA.”
The prior remand order from the Court directing the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing and conduct DNA testing on capable evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSwafford was convicted of first-degree murder and sexual battery and sentenced to death. He filed a motion for DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of…
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 Motion For Dna Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on appeal from a circuit court order following DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. This Court has jurisdiction of the appeal under article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
Roy Clifton Swafford was convicted of first-degree murder and sexual battery and sentenced to death. The facts of this case are set out fully in our opinion affirming the convictions and death sentence on direct appeal. Swafford v. State, 533 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla.1988). We have since affirmed the denial of Swafford’s three post-conviction motions and have denied various petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Swafford v. State, 828 So. 2d 966 (Fla.2002); Swafford v. State, 636 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1994); Swafford v. Singletary, 584 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1991); Swafford v. Dugger, 569 So. 2d 1264 (Fla.1990).
Swafford filed a fourth motion for post-conviction relief, and he filed a motion for DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203 on October 9, 2002. The circuit court denied the motion for DNA testing and dismissed the motion for postconviction relief. Swafford appealed the two orders separately in Case Nos. SC03-931 and SC03-1153. On March 26, 2004, we remanded the DNA testing case to the circuit court for further proceedings, see Swafford v. State, 871 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2004) (No. SC03-931) (table report of unpublished order), in an order stating: Appellant Roy Clifton Swafford appeals an amended order denying his motion for DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. The amended order is reversed, and this case is remanded to the circuit court with directions that' the circuit court hold an evidentiary hearing to determine which pieces of evidence that appellant moved to have tested are capable of being tested for DNA. The evidence which the Court determines to be capable of being tested is to be tested pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853[c](7). The results of the tests shall be provided in writing pursuant to rule 3.853[e](8). The circuit court shall then enter an order making findings as to whether the evidence which was tested is authentic,' has been contaminated, or such other findings in respect to the tested evidence as the circuit court determines to be appropriate.
We reversed the order dismissing the motion for postconviction relief, remanding for further proceedings following the trial court’s ruling on the motion for DNA testing. See Swafford v. State, 871 So. 2d 874 (Fla.2004) (No. SC03-1153) (table). Swaf-ford now appeals to this Court, arguing that the circuit court erred in the proceedings below. We find that the circuit court has complied with our order. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on June 11, 2004. At that hearing, the parties determined which pieces of evidence were to be DNA tested. That evidence was tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and MitoTyping Technologies, LLC, as reflected in various reports filed by those laboratories from November 2, 2004, through November 18, 2005.
Following that testing, the circuit court entered an order which stated that it had complied with the directions from this Court on remand. Swafford v. State, No. 83-3425-BB (Fla. 7th Cir. Ct. order filed Jan. 25, 2006). We affirm the circuit court’s order, including its denial of Swaf-ford’s motions for an additional evidentiary hearing under rule 3.853 and his motion seeking further DNA testing by a laboratory not certified as required by rule 3.853(c)(7). This denial is without prejudice to Swafford presenting DNA issues, including any issues concerning possible contamination of DNA samples, in further proceedings under rule 3.851. Swafford is granted sixty days from the date this opinion is final to amend his rule 3.851 motion to present any DNA issues.
We therefore affirm the circuit court’s order. We also lift the stay previously granted on March 28, 2006, in this case.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swafford v. State, 125 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 2013)…issues, including any issues concerning possible contamination of DNA samples, in further proceedings under rule 3.851” and granted Swaf-ford sixty days “to amend his [pending fourth] rule 3.851 motion to present any DNA issues.” Swafford v. State, 946 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla.2006). Swafford accordingly filed an amended fourth motion for postconviction relief, arguing in pertinent part of his newly discovered evidence claim that, [a]t the time of trial in 1985, FDLE tested vaginal and anal swabs of the victi…1 / 2
-
Wright v. State, 995 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2008)…the circuit court followed Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(c)(7). After a hearing on the issue, the circuit court denied additional testing because Forensic Science Associates is not an accredited lab under rule 3.853. In Swafford v. State, 946 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.2006), we denied a similar claim concerning a lab that was not accredited. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Wright’s motion for additional DNA testing. Additionally, Wright contends that the DNA results of the pubic and hea…
-
Espinoza v. State, 13 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…k, they were provided to the parties as required by rule 3.853(c)(8). The rule does not require further findings once the tests results have been received. [*1090] We acknowledge that the defendant’s position finds some support in Swafford v. State, 946 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla.2006). In that case, the Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for DNA testing. The Court included in its order a requirement that after the testing was completed, the circuit court was to “enter an order making findi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Swafford v. State, 533 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1988)
- Swafford v. Dugger, 569 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1990)
- Swafford v. State, 828 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2002)
- Swafford v. State, 636 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1994)
- Swafford v. Singletary, 584 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1991)