Amendments to Crim. Proc. 3.851 and 3.590

945 So. 2d 1124, 2006 WL 3511520
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 7, 2006
DocketSC05-1165
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 945 So. 2d 1124 (Amendments to Crim. Proc. 3.851 and 3.590) 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
Amendments to Crim. Proc. 3.851 and 3.590, 945 So. 2d 1124, 2006 WL 3511520 (Fla. 2006).

Opinion

945 So.2d 1124 (2006)

In re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.851 AND 3.590.

No. SC05-1165.

Supreme Court of Florida.

December 7, 2006.

The Honorable O.H. Eaton, Jr., Chair, Criminal Court Steering Committee, Seminole County Circuit Court Judge, Sanford, FL, for Petitioner.

Paula S. Saunders, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, and Michael Ufferman, Attorney at Law, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, responding with comments.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Court Steering Committee (Committee) proposes amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590, Time for and Method of Making Motions; Procedure; Custody Pending Hearing, and rule 3.851, Collateral Relief After Death Sentence Has Been Imposed and Affirmed on Direct Appeal. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

BACKGROUND

For purposes of uniformity, the Court asked the Committee to draft a proposed rule of procedure addressing the appeal of circuit court orders finding death-sentenced inmates competent to waive postconviction proceedings and counsel. In conjunction with that referral, the Committee identified the need for several additional changes to rule 3.851. The Committee also proposes several changes to rule 3.590 that address the filing of motions for a new trial in capital cases where the death penalty is an issue. The Committee's unanimously recommended proposals were published for comment in the October 1, 2005, edition of The Florida Bar News, and a single comment was filed.[1] The Court reviewed the proposals, considered the comment, and made several changes to the proposed amendments to *1125 subdivision (b) of rule 3.590 and subdivision (i) of rule 3.851; the Court then submitted the modified proposals to the Committee for further consideration. The Committee filed a report proposing further amendments to those subdivisions.

After reviewing the revised proposals, we adopt the amendments, as proposed by the Committee, to subdivisions (a) and (b) of rule 3.590 and to subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of rule 3.851. We also adopt proposed new subdivision (i) of rule 3.851, with minor modifications. The major substantive amendments are discussed below.

AMENDMENTS

Rule 3.590, Time for and Method of Making Motions; Procedure; Custody Pending Hearing, is amended by retitling subdivision (a) to read "Time for Filing in Noncapital Cases," and by adding new subdivision (b), Time for Filing in Capital Cases Where the Death Penalty Is an Issue. The retitling of subdivision (a) is necessitated by the addition of new subdivision (b), which sets forth the time limits and procedure for filing a motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment in cases where the death penalty is an issue. The Committee proposed the amendment in response to a capital case, which arose in Seminole County, wherein the motion for a new trial was filed within ten days after the penalty phase was completed but not within ten days after the guilt-phase verdict was rendered. Existing rule 3.590(a) fails to address this situation, and the Committee concluded that a new provision was necessary to address the bifurcated trials that take place in capital cases. New subdivision (b) addresses this situation.

Rule 3.851(b), Appointment of Postconviction Counsel, which currently does not address the appointment of registry counsel, is amended to provide for the appointment of registry counsel, where appropriate, upon issuance of the mandate affirming a judgment and sentence of death on direct appeal. The Committee proposed the amendment in response to section 27.701(2), Florida Statutes (2005) (providing that "the responsibilities of the regional office of capital collateral counsel for the northern region of the state shall be met through a pilot program using only attorneys from the registry of attorneys maintained pursuant to s. 27.710"). The present amendment renders the rule consistent with the statute.

Rule 3.851(e), Contents of Motion, is amended to provide that the rule "does not authorize relief based upon claims that could have or should have been raised at trial and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence." This amendment is based on a similar provision in rule 3.850. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c).

Finally, new rule 3.851(i), Dismissal of Postconviction Proceedings, is added to set forth a procedure whereby death-sentenced prisoners can dismiss postconviction proceedings and discharge counsel. The Committee proposed this amendment in response to the Court's request. The Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which opposes the amendment, argues that the Court should extend its holding in Klokoc v. State, 589 So.2d 219, 222 (Fla.1991) (holding that despite defendant's wishes to the contrary, "counsel for appellant is directed to proceed to prosecute the appeal in a genuinely adversary manner, providing diligent advocacy of appellant's interests"), to include postconviction proceedings. We reject this suggestion. After the decision in Klokoc was issued, the Court consistently has held that death-sentenced prisoners may waive collateral proceedings and counsel. See, *1126 e.g., Alston v. State, 894 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2004) (setting forth criteria for dismissing postconviction proceedings and discharging counsel). The present amendment renders the rule consistent with the Court's precedent in this area.

Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The committee notes and commentary are offered for explanation only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective January 1, 2007, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 3.590. TIME FOR AND METHOD OF MAKING MOTIONS; PROCEDURE; CUSTODY PENDING HEARING

(a) Time for Filing in Noncapital Cases. A motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment, or both, in cases in which the state does not seek the death penalty, may be made within 10 days after the rendition of the verdict or the finding of the court. A timely motion may be amended to state new grounds without leave of court prior to expiration of the 10-day period and in the discretion of the court at any other time before the motion is determined.

(b) Time for Filing in Capital Cases Where the Death Penalty Is an Issue. A motion for new trial or arrest of judgment, or both, or for a new penalty phase hearing may be made within ten days after written final judgment of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment or death is filed. The motion may address grounds which arose in the guilt phase and the penalty phase of the trial. Separate motions for the guilt phase and the penalty phase may be filed. The motion or motions may be amended without leave of court prior to the expiration of the ten day period, and in the discretion of the court, at any other time before the motion is determined.

(b)(c) Oral Motions. When the defendant has been found guilty by a jury or by the court, the motion may be dictated into the record, if a court reporter is present, and may be argued immediately after the return of the verdict or the finding of the court. The court may immediately rule on the motion.

(c)(d) Written Motions.

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

Related

James v. State
974 So. 2d 365 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
945 So. 2d 1124, 2006 WL 3511520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-crim-proc-3851-and-3590-fla-2006.