Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993

802 So. 2d 298, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 644, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1911, 2001 WL 1155090
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided September 26, 2001·No. No. SC96646·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

HARDING, J.

In Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure S.851, 3.852, and 3.993 and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050, 797 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 2001) (July 2001 opinion), this Court adopted an amended version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We invited interested parties to submit comments on the amended rule. The Attorney General, the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel — North, Middle, and South Regions — (CCRC), and the Florida Public Defender Association filed comments. Pursuant to these comments, we adopt the following changes.

We start by addressing two suggestions made by CCRC. First, CCRC points out that the time period that the state attorney has to submit public records in rule 3.851(c)(4) conflicts with the time period in rule 3.852. Rule 3.851(c)(4), as amended in our July 2001 opinion, states in part:

Within 45 days of appointment of post-conviction counsel, the state attorney’s office that prosecuted the defendant shall provide to the postconviction counsel copies of all pretrial and trial discovery and all contents of the state’s file, except for information that the prosecuting attorney has a legal right under [300] state or federal law to withhold from disclosure.

In contrast, rule 3.852(d)(1) provides in relevant part:

Within 15 days after receiving written notification of the Supreme Court of Florida’s mandate affirming the sentence of death, the attorney general shall file with the trial court a written notice of the mandate and serve a copy of it upon the state attorney who prosecuted the case, the Department of Corrections, and the defendant’s trial counsel. The notice to the state attorney shall direct the state attorney to submit public records to the records repository within 90 days after receipt of written notification....

To alleviate this conflict, we delete the above language from rule 3.851(c)(4).

Second, CCRC claims that the time period for collateral counsel to request additional public records in rule 3.852 is unrealistic in light of the recent change concerning the appointment of collateral counsel. Rule 3.852(g)(1) states:

Within 90 days after collateral counsel is appointed, retained, or appears pro bono, such counsel shall send a written demand for additional public records to each person or agency submitting public records or identified as having information pertinent to the case under subdivision (d) of this rule.

Prior to our July 2001 changes to rule 3.851, collateral counsel was appointed within thirty days after the judgment and sentence became final.1 See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.851(b)(3). However, in our July 2001 opinion, we amended rule 3.851 to allow for the appointment of collateral counsel upon the issuance of the mandate affirming a judgment and sentence of death on direct appeal. See Amendments to Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.851, 3.852, & 3.993 & Fla. R. of Jud. Admin. 2.050, at Appendix A, rule 3.851(b). Under the new appointment scheme, collateral counsel would be required to request additional public records prior to the deadline for agencies to submit initial public records to the record repository, which is within ninety days after receipt of written notification of mandate. Therefore, we amend rule 3.852(g)(1) to increase the time period that collateral counsel has for requesting additional public records from ninety days after appointment to 240 days after appointment.

We now turn to the suggestions submitted by the Attorney General. First, the Attorney General asks that rule 3.851 provide more guidance regarding the ability of CCRC to withdraw from a case after the deadline for filing a motion to withdraw has expired. The Attorney General suggests language similar to the following:

No other motion to withdraw shall be entertained after the initial time allowed in subsections (2) and (3), unless the motion to withdraw is based on a specific conflict of interest as set forth in section 27.703, Florida Statutes.

We agree that it would be helpful to provide more clarity on this issue. Hence, we adopt the suggested language and add it as section (3) under rule 3.851(b).

[301] Next, the Attorney General requests that the State be given more time to file an answer to a successive rule 3.851 motion. In our July 2001 opinion, the State was given ten days to file an answer. See Amendments to Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.851, 8.852, & 3.993 & Fla. R. of Jud. Admin. 2.050, at Appendix A, rule 3.851(f)(3)(B). The Attorney General asks this Court to give the State twenty days to file an answer. This is a reasonable request, and rule 3.851(f)(3)(B) is amended accordingly.

Finally, the Attorney General suggests that rule 3.851(f)(5) be amended to specifically instruct the trial court to “resolve all disputes arising from the exchange of information” during the case management conference. We agree and therefore amend rule 3.851(f)(5) to reflect this change.

Accordingly, we amend Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 as reflected in appendix A to this opinion.2 We also amend Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852 as reflected in appendix B to this opinion. Additions to the rules are indicated by underlining; deletions are indicated by strike-through type. As stated in our July 2001 opinion, the amendments to rule 3.851, rule 3.852, and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050 shall become effective October 1, 2001, at 12:01 a.m., and shall apply to all motions filed on or after that date. Motions pending on that date are governed by the versions of rule 3.851 and 3.852 in effect immediately prior to that date. In order to avoid any confusion, this Court will issue orders appointing the appropriate CCRC office to all ca'ses where mandate has issued but counsel has not yet been appointed. We will also issue orders directing the chief judges in those circuits to assign such cases to qualified judges. For mandates issued on or after October 1, 2001, this Court will appoint counsel simultaneously with the issuance of the mandate.

As we did in our July 2001 opinion, we again emphasize that the goal of these changes is to achieve a prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of capital postconviction proceedings. Our pursuit of this goal will not end upon the implementation of the amended rules. We are hopeful that interested parties will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the amended rules and make further suggestions for improvement. Therefore, we ask interested parties to submit any further comments by October 1, 2002.3 Comments should be submitted to the Supreme Court Committee on Postconviction Relief in Capital Cases (the Morris Committee)4 and the Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee5. Both of these committees should consider the comments and submit a report to this Court by January 1, 2003. It is so ordered.

[302] WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX A

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

Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993, 802 So. 2d 298, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 644, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1911, 2001 WL 1155090 (Fla. 2001).

802 So. 2d 298 (Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mungin v. State
932 So. 2d 986 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
McLin v. State
827 So. 2d 948 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
In Re Amend. to Fla. Rules of Crim. Proc.
820 So. 2d 185 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)