A Broward circuit judge denied a wrongful-incarceration petition without following the procedures in section 961.03, Florida Statutes, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed on October 21, 2026. The case is Lindsey v. State, No. 4D2025-3395, decided on the State’s confession of error.
The background. Herman Lindsey was charged in 2006 with first-degree murder and armed robbery for a pawn-shop robbery that happened twelve years earlier. He was convicted and sentenced to death. In 2009 the Florida Supreme Court reversed and directed entry of a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was legally insufficient (Lindsey v. State, 14 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 2009)). When that acquittal was entered, he could not apply for compensation for the time he spent in custody.
The 2025 amendments. On July 1, 2025, the Legislature amended sections 961.03 and 961.04. In the court’s words, the amended text “enables wrongfully convicted persons to seek compensation.” Three weeks later Lindsey filed a petition under the amended law.
What went wrong below. The State opposed the petition on four grounds: it was not under oath, it was filed more than 90 days after the conviction was vacated, it did not show verifiable and substantial evidence of actual innocence, and it did not describe that evidence with particularity. Lindsey filed a sworn amended petition with more evidence of innocence. He also argued his filing was timely because the 2025 amendments gave people in his position until July 1, 2027 to file. The circuit court denied the petition anyway, relying on the arguments in the State’s response to the first petition, and apparently ignoring the sworn amended one.
The ruling. On appeal the State conceded the circuit court erred by not following section 961.03’s procedures. The Fourth District accepted the confession of error, reversed the denial, and remanded for the circuit court to follow those procedures.
What the court did not decide. The panel did not decide whether Lindsey qualifies as a “wrongfully incarcerated person,” whether his evidence of innocence is sufficient, or whether his petition is timely. Lindsey asked the court to expand the statutory definition of a wrongfully incarcerated person, and the court declined to reach that request because it was reversing on another ground. No compensation amount appears in the opinion. The July 1, 2027 date comes from Lindsey’s own argument as the opinion describes it, not from a holding.
What to take from it. The petition was filed in 2025, about sixteen years after the acquittal, and the amended petition was sworn. The court held only that the circuit court must follow section 961.03’s procedures. It did not rule on the State’s four objections and did not decide whether Lindsey qualifies.
Panel: Judges Shaw (author), Forst and Shepherd. The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is decided.
Source: Lindsey v. State, No. 4D2025-3395 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.