Title: Paul Christopher Hildwin v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC10-1082
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 2011

Supreme Court of Florida 
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2011 
 
 
CASE NO.:  SC10-1082 
 
PAUL CHRISTOPHER HILDWIN 
vs. STATE OF FLORIDA 
Petitioner(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
Paul Christopher Hildwin, a prisoner under sentence of death, filed an all 
writs petition, seeking an order from this Court directing the Florida Department of 
Law Enforcement (FDLE) to upload the DNA profile from semen and saliva found 
on items at the crime scene into the National DNA Index System (NDIS) so that it 
may be compared in CODIS (the Combined DNA Index System) with forensic 
profiles obtained from other crime scenes and the profiles of known offenders.  
Hildwin alternatively requests that the profile be uploaded in Florida‟s State DNA 
Index System (SDIS) or that a one-time manual “keyboard” search be performed in 
NDIS or Florida‟s SDIS.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(7), Fla. Const. 
The State responded that the petition is procedurally barred; the State also 
contended that the profile may not be eligible to upload and that factual 
development as to the profile‟s eligibility may be appropriate.  After determining 
that this petition is not procedurally barred, the Court relinquished jurisdiction to 
the circuit court for fact-finding as to the profile‟s eligibility to be uploaded and 
manually searched in the databases. 
Prior to the evidentiary hearing, all impediments to the profile‟s upload were 
resolved with the exception of NDIS Procedure 6.4.2, which provides: 
 
A laboratory submitting a DNA profile to the Forensic Index at 
NDIS that is derived from forensic evidence, shall only offer those 
alleles that are attributed to the putative perpetrator(s).  Alleles 
derived from forensic profiles that are unambiguously attributed to a 
victim or individuals other than the perpetrator(s), such as, but not 
limited to a husband or boyfriend, shall not be offered to NDIS. 
 
After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered an order 
finding that the profile was from “an unknown source derived from forensic 
evidence which has some nexus to the crime scene, crime investigation, and 
„evidence‟ at trial, and which cannot unambiguously . . . be attributed to an 
identifiable individual not a perpetrator in the homicide of Vronzettie Cox.”  The  
 
 
CASE NO.:  SC10-1082 
PAGE TWO 
 
 
circuit court found that NDIS Procedure 6.4.2 did not preclude uploading the 
profile into NDIS.  The circuit court therefore found that the profile was eligible to 
be uploaded into, as well as manually searched in, both NDIS and Florida‟s SDIS.  
The circuit court further suggested that the DNA profile should be compared in the 
DNA databases. 
Having reviewed the record and the facts of this case, we conclude that 
competent, substantial evidence supports the circuit court‟s finding that the profile 
is eligible to be uploaded into NDIS.  We conclude that the profile at issue is 
probative and meets the requirements of NDIS Procedure 6.4.2.  Accordingly, we 
hereby grant Hildwin‟s all writs petition and order the State to ensure that the 
profile is promptly uploaded into the forensic index in NDIS so that it may be 
included in that database and searched in CODIS. 
In light of our order that the profile be uploaded into NDIS, it is unnecessary 
to decide whether the profile is eligible for upload into Florida‟s SDIS or eligible 
for a manual keyboard search in NDIS or Florida‟s SDIS. 
It is so ordered. 
 
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
CANADY, C.J., concurs in result. 
POLSTON, J., concurs in result only. 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
jn 
Served: 
ROCK E. HOOKER 
 
 
 
 
NINA R. MORRISON 
KENNETH SLOAN NUNNELLEY  
 
MARTIN J. MCCLAIN 
STEPHEN F. HANLON  
 
 
 
GIGI  ROLLINI 
HON. KAREN  NICOLAI, CLERK  
 
TALBOT  D'ALEMBERTE 
HON. RICHARD  TOMBRINK, JR., JUDGE