Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 26, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0657

Lower Tribunal No. F12-15851

________________

Silvio Rojas Narvaez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, Judge.

Silvio Rojas Narvaez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. 

LINDSEY, J.
2

Pro se Appellant (Defendant below) Silvio Rojas Narvaez appeals from 

the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA and fingerprint 

testing of a Swiss Army knife, which was used during the commission of the 

crime for which he was convicted. Because the record conclusively shows 

that (1) there is no reasonable probability Defendant would have been 

acquitted or received a lesser sentence if DNA evidence had been admitted 

and (2) Defendant failed to show good cause for postconviction fingerprint 

analysis, we affirm.

In 2012, Defendant was charged with the murder of his girlfriend. 

Defendant confessed to killing the victim in a post-Miranda police interview. 

According to Defendant himself, he and the victim began arguing when he 

came home from work. The victim grabbed a Swiss Army knife and 

threatened Defendant. He hit her twice in the face, causing her to drop the 

knife. Defendant then picked up the knife and stabbed the victim in the 

stomach. Moments later, Defendant used a large kitchen knife to cut the 

victim’s neck, which ultimately resulted in her death. Defendant also 

admitted to using the kitchen knife to cut his own wrists because he felt guilty 

for what he had done.

A jury found Defendant guilty of second-degree murder, and he was 

sentenced to life in prison. In November 2022, Defendant filed the underlying 
3

Motion for Postconviction DNA and Fingerprint Testing of the Swiss Army

knife. Defendant contends, contrary to his own confession, that DNA and 

fingerprint evidence would show that the victim attacked Defendant with the 

Swiss Army knife and used the knife to cut Defendant’s wrists and that 

Defendant then used the kitchen knife to defend himself. The trial court 

denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that “Defendant’s claims are clearly 

refuted by the law and the record, and he is not entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing.” Defendant appeals.1

We agree with the trial court that Defendant is not entitled to 

postconviction discovery of DNA or fingerprint evidence. Defendant’s 

request for postconviction DNA testing is governed by Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.853. Under the rule, the trial court is required to make 

certain findings when ruling on a motion for postconviction DNA testing. 

Relevant here is 3.853(c)(5)(C), which is “[w]hether there is a reasonable 

probability that the movant would have been acquitted or would have 

received a lesser sentence if the DNA evidence had been admitted at trial.”

Based on the record before us, we agree with the trial court that “there 

is no reasonable probability that the Defendant would have been acquitted 

1 Defendant did not file an initial brief. 
4

or would have received a lesser sentence if the DNA evidence had been 

admitted at trial.” As the trial court explained:

[T]here is no issue as to identity or question as to who 

slashed the victim’s neck, and there is no question 

that both the victim and Defendant held the subject 

knife during the incident. The Defendant provided a 

confession excluding any other person from the 

scene, and he admitted to fatally slicing the victim’s 

neck and then inflicting knife wounds on himself. Any 

DNA analysis of the knife would not reveal anything 

relevant or material: It would not provide any 

information on who handled the knife first or last, 

precisely when it was used, or how it was used. The 

Defendant’s attorney did the best he could with the 

insurmountable evidence presented by the State 

against the Defendant, and the jury did not believe 

the defense’s theories that the victim’s death was the 

result of a mistake, accident, or mutual fray. There is 

no reasonable probability that DNA analysis of a 

knife admittedly held by both the victim and the 

Defendant would have resulted in the Defendant’s 

acquittal or lesser sentence.

(Record citations omitted).

We also agree with the trial court that Defendant is not entitled to 

postconviction fingerprint testing of the Swiss Army knife. With respect to 

the scope and availability of postconviction discovery, our Supreme Court 

has held that “it is within the trial judge’s inherent authority, rather than any 

express authority found in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, to allow limited 

discovery.” State v. Lewis, 656 So. 2d 1248, 1249 (Fla. 1994); see also
5

Muhammad v. State, 132 So. 3d 176, 204 (Fla. 2013). Moreover, the 

following parameters apply:

[T]he motion seeking discovery must set forth good 

reason; the court may grant limited discovery into 

matters which are relevant and material; the court 

may set limits on the sources and scope of such 

discovery; and on review of orders limiting or denying 

discovery, the moving party has the burden of 

showing an abuse of discretion. 

Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1279 (Fla. 2005), as revised on denial 

of reh’g (Jan. 19, 2006).

We have no trouble concluding that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it summarily denied Defendant’s request for postconviction 

fingerprint testing. We agree with the trial court that given the record, any 

fingerprint testing would be immaterial:

Here, the uncontroverted facts are that the 

Defendant and victim resided together for years, and 

the Defendant’s own statements reveal that the 

subject knife was handled by both of them. The 

Defendant further revealed that he used the knife to 

stab the victim in the stomach and was the last to 

hold it. Any fingerprint analysis of the knife would be 

immaterial to any claims or defenses raised: Again, it 

would not provide any information on who handled 

the knife first or last, precisely when it was used, or 

how it was used.

(Record citations omitted).
6

Because the record conclusively shows that Defendant is not entitled 

to postconviction DNA or fingerprint testing, we affirm.

Affirmed.