Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.

780 So. 2d 834, 2000 WL 1508541
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 12, 2000
DocketSC00-718
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 780 So. 2d 834 (Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 780 So. 2d 834, 2000 WL 1508541 (Fla. 2000).

Opinion

780 So.2d 834 (2000)

AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.

No. SC00-718.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 12, 2000.

Herman J. Russomanno, President, The Florida Bar, Miami, Florida; Terrence J. Russell, President-elect, The Florida Bar, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; Susan W. Fox, Past Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, of Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, Tampa, Florida; and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, Bartow, Florida, for Petitioner.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Paula S. Saunders and Chet Kaufman, Assistant Public Defenders, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida; and David B. Pakula, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Responding.

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the quadrennial report of proposed rule amendments filed by The Florida Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee ("the committee"). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.130(c).

The committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020, 9.030, 9.040, 9.120, 9.125, 9.130, 9.140, 9.141, 9.146, 9.180, 9.190, 9.200, 9.210, 9.330, 9.350, 9.420, 9.800, and 9.900. The committee's proposed amendments were submitted to The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, which recommends approving them. The committee's proposed amendments were published for comment and several comments were filed.

After reviewing the committee's proposed amendments, considering the comments filed by interested persons, and hearing oral argument, we adopt the committee's *835 proposed amendments with the exceptions noted below. Purely editorial amendments are not discussed.

In rule 9.020 ("Definitions"), we decline to adopt the committee's proposal to add new subdivision (h)(4) regarding rendition of appellate orders which, as proposed, provides:

If such a motion or motions [i.e., an authorized and timely motion for new trial, for rehearing, for clarification, for certification, to alter or amend, for judgment in accordance with prior motion for directed verdict, for arrest of judgment, to challenge the verdict, to correct a sentence or order of probation pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1), to withdraw a plea after sentencing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l), or to vacate an order based upon the recommendations of a hearing officer in accordance with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.492] have been filed in a district court of appeal, the final order shall not be deemed rendered as to any party to the appeal until the filing of a written order disposing of all such motions.

In referring to "such a motion or motions," the text of this proposed subdivision directly refers to several non-appellate motions (such as, for example, a motion for new trial or motion to challenge the verdict), thereby rendering it at least partially inapplicable to district courts of appeal. Additionally, although as urged by the committee the language of this proposed subdivision is facially consistent with this Court's holding in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, 675 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1996), the committee's underlying intent in proposing this subdivision exceeds the scope of St. Paul. Specifically, this Court's holding in St. Paul that "a district court's order is not `rendered' until there has been a disposition of all motions relative to the order," id. at 592, neither compels nor directly supports the committee's underlying intent in proposing subdivision (h)(4) to establish that "[a] party [in a district court] who wishes to seek further review in the Supreme Court may not do so until the [district] court has disposed of all motions for rehearing, clarification, certification, or rehearing en banc." We accordingly decline to adopt proposed subdivision (h)(4).

However, we do adopt the committee's proposal to amend subdivision (h) ("Rendition (of an Order)") of rule 9.020 to replace the term "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" with "judgment to challenge the verdict," and to include provisions currently located in subdivision (i) ("Rendition (of an Order Based on Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.492)"), which is stricken.

In rule 9.140 ("Appeal Proceedings in Criminal Cases"), we decline to adopt the committee's proposal to add a new subdivision (i) to set forth comprehensive rules regarding the filing of Anders briefs.[1] In addition to setting forth existing procedures for filing Anders briefs, proposed subdivision (i) also creates new procedures for filing Anders memoranda (as opposed to briefs) in cases where the appellant has pled guilty or nolo contendere without reserving a right to appeal or raising any substantive issue. Additionally, as urged by Public Defender Nancy A. Daniels and Assistant Public Defender Paula S. Saunders of the Second Judicial Circuit, the portion of proposed subdivision (i) providing that "Anders briefs or memoranda may include arguments on the merits relating to minor sentencing errors" may conflict with this Court's recent decision construing the Criminal Appeals Reform Act in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000). Another portion of proposed subdivision (i) may be improperly substantive in nature by requiring that "counsel who file Anders briefs or memoranda ... shall not argue against the interests of their clients" *836 and that such briefs or memoranda "shall reflect a thorough review of the record." We recognize the merit of codifying Anders procedures and commend the committee for its extensive efforts in this regard but, due to these and other possible problems with proposed subdivision (i), we decline to adopt it at this time. We instead request that the committee further study this issue with input from all the district courts of appeal and any other interested persons.

However, we do adopt the committee's proposal to amend subdivision (b)(1)(B) of rule 9.140, which addresses appeals permitted by defendants, to provide that a defendant may appeal a final order withholding adjudication after a finding of guilt. We likewise adopt the committee's proposal to renumber subdivision (b)(1)(C) as subdivision (b)(1)(D) and to amend it to provide that a defendant may appeal orders denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or 3.850. We also adopt the committee's proposal to amend subdivision (b)(6)(B), which addresses the procedure in death penalty appeals, to require court reporters to file transcripts on computer disks in the appellate record in capital cases. Finally, we adopt the committee's proposal to delete existing subdivisions (i) ("Appeals from Summary Denial of Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or 3.850") and (j) ("Petitions Seeking Belated Appeal or Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel") and to transfer their substance in large part to new rule 9.141 (discussed immediately below).

In rule 9.141 ("Review Proceedings in Collateral or Post-conviction Criminal Cases"), the committee proposes moving the subject matter of existing subdivisions 9.140(i) and (j) (discussed immediately above) to new rule 9.141 in order to separately address review proceedings in collateral or post-conviction criminal cases.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

PINESIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. ANA M. REY
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
911 Dry Solutions v. Florida Family Ins. Co.
259 So. 3d 167 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm. v. William Daws, Jr. and Ouida Gershon
256 So. 3d 907 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Jeffery Saidin v. Jorg Korecki, Alexander Joerg Korecki
202 So. 3d 468 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
AAOEP USA, INC. v. PEX German OE Parts, LLC
202 So. 3d 470 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Heartland Express, Inc. v. Torres
89 So. 3d 1074 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Rife v. A.W.A. Contracting Co.
87 So. 3d 69 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Buchalter
14 So. 3d 1100 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Singleton v. REALTY LAND INVESTMENTS, INC.
5 So. 3d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Sims v. State
998 So. 2d 494 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)
Caribbean Fire and Associates, Inc. v. Coastal Const. Group
985 So. 2d 1197 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Centennial Insurance Co. v. Life Bank
953 So. 2d 1 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Cabrera v. State
884 So. 2d 482 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Duval County School Board v. Kebert
842 So. 2d 993 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
State v. Partlow
840 So. 2d 1040 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Griffin v. Sistuenck
816 So. 2d 600 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
Tedesco v. State
807 So. 2d 804 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tracz
799 So. 2d 413 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
DEPT. OF ENVIRON. PROTECTION v. Youel
787 So. 2d 923 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
780 So. 2d 834, 2000 WL 1508541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amend-to-fla-rules-of-appellate-proc-fla-2000.