Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 925.11 (2025)
Postsentencing DNA testing.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009).
Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). “OSBORNE Opinion of the Court 2009); Fla. Stat. §925.11 (2)(a)(3) (2006); N. H.”
King v. State, 808 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2002). “Fla. Stat. § 925.11 (2)(f)3; Fla. R.Crim.”
Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2004). “In the latter order, entered on June 15, 2001, the trial court expanded on its reason for denying the motion for DNA testing in light of the enactment of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). Section 925.”
Amendment to Fla. Rules of Cr. Proc., 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2001). “We have modified proposed subdivision (a) of the proposed rule to explain that the new rule simply provides procedures for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11, Florida Statutes. Subdivision (b) of rule 3.”
Alvarez v. Attorney Gen. for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2012). “853 and Fla. Stat. § 925.11 . Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853 specifically governs the procedures in Florida for obtaining postconviction DNA testing.”
Cole v. State, 841 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2003). “We note that the trial court's denial of Cole's DNA request came prior to the effective date of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”
Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2003). “The proper procedure for these petitions is to file actions in the circuit courts to test the constitutionality of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). This is what was contemplated when we adopted the rule.”
Guzman v. State, 868 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2003). “luation; (5) violation of due process rights in the State's withholding material exculpatory evidence or failing to correct material false testimony; (6) prosecutorial misconduct in presenting misleading evidence and improper argument; (7) Florida's capital sentencing statute is…”
League of Women Voters v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014). “Further, as petitioners point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2002), may result in the non- preservation of physical evidence for DNA testing under section 925.”
Glenn v. State, 954 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “853 or section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2006), places this type of burden on the defendant.”
Willacy v. State, 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 Procedure 3.”
Amendments to Florida Rule of Crim. Procedure 3.853(d)(1)(A) (Postconviction DNA Testing), 884 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2004). “Subsequently, an emergency writ petition was filed raising constitutional challenges to the October 1, 2003, statutory deadline set forth in section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2003), in addition to other provisions of the statute.”
— 925.11(1) — 2 cases
Glenn v. State, 954 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “853 or section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2006), places this type of burden on the defendant.”
James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida (Fla. 2026).
— 925.11(1)(a) — 15 cases
Glenn v. State, 954 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “853 or section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2006), places this type of burden on the defendant.”
Amendment to Fla. Rules of Cr. Proc., 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2001). “We have modified proposed subdivision (a) of the proposed rule to explain that the new rule simply provides procedures for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11, Florida Statutes. Subdivision (b) of rule 3.”
Stewart v. State, 840 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Marsh v. State, 812 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
— 925.11(1)(a)(2) — 3 cases
McDole v. State, 46 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Lindsey v. State, 936 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Brim v. State, 969 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
— 925.11(1)(b) — 4 cases
League of Women Voters v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014). “Further, as petitioners point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2002), may result in the non- preservation of physical evidence for DNA testing under section 925.”
Dedge v. State, 832 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Murray v. State, 978 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Thomas v. State, 3 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
— 925.11(1)(c) — 1 case
Stewart v. State, 840 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
— 925.11(2) — 2 cases
Willacy v. State, 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 Procedure 3.”
McDole v. State, 46 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
— 925.11(2)(a) — 4 cases
Crow v. State, 866 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
Newberry v. State, 870 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Eddy v. State, 861 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Paul Glen Everett v. State of Florida (Fla. 2024).
— 925.11(2)(a)(1) — 1 case
Warren v. State, 851 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
— 925.11(2)(a)(4) — 1 case
Gonzalez v. State, 41 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
— 925.11(2)(f) — 6 cases
Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2004). “In the latter order, entered on June 15, 2001, the trial court expanded on its reason for denying the motion for DNA testing in light of the enactment of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). Section 925.”
Cardona v. State, 109 So. 3d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Yvelan Pierre Vs State of Florida (Fla. 1st DCA 2023).
Paul Glen Everett v. State of Florida (Fla. 2024).
Trevino v. Andrews (M.D. Fla. 2023).
— 925.11(2)(f)(1) — 1 case
Moore v. State, 903 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
— 925.11(2)(f)(3) — 1 case
Trevino v. Andrews (M.D. Fla. 2023).
— 925.11(2)(h) — 2 cases
Amendment to Fla. Rules of Cr. Proc., 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2001). “We have modified proposed subdivision (a) of the proposed rule to explain that the new rule simply provides procedures for obtaining DNA testing under section 925.11, Florida Statutes. Subdivision (b) of rule 3.”
James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida (Fla. 2026).
— 925.11(2)(i) — 3 cases
James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida (Fla. 2026).
Stratton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2020).
Smith v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Duval Cnty.) (M.D. Fla. 2025).
— 925.11(3) — 1 case
James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida (Fla. 2026).
— 925.11(3)(a) — 1 case
James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida (Fla. 2026).
— 925.11(4)(a) — 2 cases
League of Women Voters v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014). “Further, as petitioners point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2002), may result in the non- preservation of physical evidence for DNA testing under section 925.”
Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2003). “The proper procedure for these petitions is to file actions in the circuit courts to test the constitutionality of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). This is what was contemplated when we adopted the rule.”
— 925.11(4)(b) — 2 cases
League of Women Voters v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014). “Further, as petitioners point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2002), may result in the non- preservation of physical evidence for DNA testing under section 925.”
Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2003). “The proper procedure for these petitions is to file actions in the circuit courts to test the constitutionality of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). This is what was contemplated when we adopted the rule.”
— 925.11(l)(a) — 5 cases
Cardona v. State, 109 So. 3d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Delidle v. State, 866 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
McDole v. State, 46 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Rawls v. State, 56 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
Starr v. State, 944 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
— 925.11(l)(a)(2) — 2 cases
McDole v. State, 46 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Rawls v. State, 56 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
— 925.11(l)(b) — 2 cases
Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2003). “The proper procedure for these petitions is to file actions in the circuit courts to test the constitutionality of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002). This is what was contemplated when we adopted the rule.”
League of Women Voters v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014). “Further, as petitioners point out, operation of the same deadline in section 925.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2002), may result in the non- preservation of physical evidence for DNA testing under section 925.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.