the amendment to rule 3.853(d) in In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d), 938 So.2d 977 (Fla.2006). In 2007, rule 3.853 was amended to state that the motion may be filed or considered at any time after the judgment and sentence become final, as the statute provides. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.170 & 3.172, 953 So.2d 513 (Fla.2007). However, we urge postconviction counsel to file any viable motion for DNA testing at the earliest opportunity and not wait until the eve of execution to determine that DNA testing is necessary. 3 . Items K2 (shorts), K36 (right tennis shoe), K37 (left tennis shoe), K41a (striped sock), K41b (plain white sock), K42a (big sock), and K42b (small sock). 4 . Duckett v. State, 918 So.2d 224, 238-39 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). 5 . See Nat’l Research Council, Strengthening
holding that where a relinquishment order gave narrow instructions to the circuit court to determine if clothing existed for dna testing it was not intended to open the case up to new claims holding that no  1983 claim exists for injunctive relief to compel dna testing holding pcra counsel was not ineffective for declining to pursue postconviction dna testing where technology for testing existed at time of trial verdict came after january 1 1995 and court had not refused request for funds for testing consequently appellant could not have met his threshold burden under section 95431a2 holding that trial delay for dna testing was attributable to the state but was mere negligence holding that there is no federal due process right to present new evidence of actual innocence such as dna testing