Court sets procedures for postconviction DNA testing.

The Florida Supreme Court has amended its procedural rules to allow only inmates who were "tried and found guilty" to seek exoneration or a sentence reduction through DNA evidence.

The adoption of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853, and amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.140 and 9.141 also impose a two-year time limit on inmates to request testing and is very similar to a state law (Ch. 2001-97) that went into effect October 1.

The court also said because the amendments to Rules 9.140 and 9.141 had not previously been published, it will accept comment on the changes until December 17. (The text of the amended rules can be found beginning on page 14.) Case nos. SC01-363 & SCO1-1649.

The 4-3 court declined to make postconviction DNA testing available to those who plead guilty or no contendere, which was advocated by the Criminal Procedures Rules Committee,, but was not permitted in the new DNA law.

In a brief, House Speaker Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, told the court that expanding the rule to authorize DNA testing for those who plead guilty or no contest "would violate the separation of powers provision of the Florida Constitution," because expanding the pool of those eligible for DNA testing is substantive in nature "and cannot be reasonably construed to be procedural."

The majority -- Chief Justice Charles Wells and Justices Leander Shaw, Major Harding and Fred Lewis - said the court adopted "the appended procedures to effectuate the 'new legislation without reaching the constitutional issues raised in this proceeding."

In a separate opinion by Justice Harry Lee Anstead -- concurring in part and dissenting in part - Anstead said he would' have adopted a comprehensive rule providing for postconviction DNA testing of all those convicted who could meet the "rigorous requirements of the proposed rule."

"I cannot agree with the majority's apparent decision to reject the committee's proposal, and to essentially postpone any consideration of those issues not resolved by the enactment of legislation providing for limited postconviction DNA testing until an inmate claiming an unjust conviction and entitlement to DNA testing brings those, issues to the court." wrote Anstead in his opinion, in which Justices Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince concurred. "Rather than delay, we should enthusiastically embrace the use of science which can only serve to enhance confidence in, our, criminal justice system and bring more certainty to a...