Andrew Michael Gosciminski, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Summary

The court affirmed the partial denial of Gosciminski's motion for postconviction DNA testing. It held that the circuit court could adopt the State's closing memorandum because the memorandum was not facially deficient and was supported by the record, that his challenge to testing procedures was not ripe because no testing plan had yet been prepared or approved, and that neither substantive nor procedural due process required additional relief. The court also concluded that only evidence satisfying the rule's requirements for untested or inconclusive evidence was eligible for testing.