“A year after the restoration of Louis XVIII, a visit was made by the inspector-general of prisons.” In 1998 a Florida appellate court considered the post-conviction relief request of a prisoner named Wilton Dedge in Dedge v. State. “‘I do not know what reason government can assign for these useless visits; when you see one prisoner you see all—always the same thing—ill-fed and innocent.’” Two of three appellate judges on the Dedge court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Dedge’s request. The court did not issue a majority opinion. Dedge contends he is innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted in 1984. “‘I must conscientiously perform my duty.’ . . . ‘Let us visit this one first.’” The lone dissenter in Dedge, Judge Winifred J. Sharp, wrote a three-page opinion that revisited the trial, explored a new scientific test, Polymerase Chain Reaction Deoxyribonucleic Acid (PCR DNA) analysis, considered the applicability of the new test to Dedge’s case, and criticized the majority’s application of a ticking two-year- time-bomb lurking within Florida’s post-conviction relief statute. “[T]urning to the prisoner, ‘What do you demand? ’. . . . ‘[I]f innocent, I may be set at liberty.’” Since no DNA tests were available at the time of his 1984 trial, Dedge asks for DNA tests, now available, which could exonerate him.