Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.852

754 So. 2d 640, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 2370, 1999 WL 462631
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 1, 1999
DocketNo. 93,845
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 754 So. 2d 640 (Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.852) 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 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.852, 754 So. 2d 640, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 2370, 1999 WL 462631 (Fla. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On September 18, 1998, this Court adopted on an emergency basis a revised version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852, which had been proposed by the Committee on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852 established by this Court to recommend amendments to the rule in light of the legislature’s enactment of a new section of the Public Records Law, section 119.19, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), concerning public records production for capital postconviction defendants. Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 723 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1998). In that decision, we asked interested persons to submit to this Court by December 1, 1998, their comments concerning the rule as adopted. Since that date, we have held oral argument, reviewed comments and proposed changes, and otherwise considered the rule. In addition to making changes based on comments we received, this Court sua sponte has made additional substantive and technical modifications. As to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.993, which provides accompanying forms, we have amended forms (d) and (f) to conform to subdivisions (e)(2) and (e)(4) in rule 3.852, and we have made technical corrections in several of the forms. We hereby adopt the appended amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.852 and 3.993 and address below the substantive changes we have made in rule 3.852.

We have added subdivision (c)(3), requiring proof of receipt, in order to assure that the record in each case is complete as to receipt of notification.

During oral argument, the necessity of indicating that duplicate production is not required became apparent. Thus, we have also added subdivision (c)(4), which exempts from production any public records previously filed in the trial court.

We have amended subdivision (d)(1) at the request of the attorney general to provide that the state attorney shall be directed to provide each law enforcement agency involved “in the investigation of the capital offense” with notification of this court’s mandate affirming the death sentence. We have clarified subdivisions (d) and (e) to indicate that time periods for further notification and production shall begin after “receipt of written notification” of this Court’s mandate.

We have clarified subdivision (d)(4) to provide that the attorney general is to “notify” all persons or agencies identified pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) or (d)(3) that the persons or agencies are required by section 119.19(6)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), to copy, index, and deliver records to the records repository. This subdivision previously required the attorney general to “request” of the persons or agencies that public records be “copied, [641]*641sealed, indexed and delivered” to the repository. This change was suggested by the attorney general to clarify that the attorney general’s notification directs the persons or agencies to carry out acts that are required and are not discretionary. For further clarification we have implemented in subdivision (d)(4) the statutory mandate that the identified persons or agencies bear the costs related to copying, indexing, and delivering records to the repository.

We have amended subdivision (e)(2) at the request of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (Middle Region) (CCRC-M) to clarify that state attorneys shall bear the costs of copying, indexing, and delivering their records to the records repository. This change is consistent with the requirements for other agencies to bear such costs.

As to subdivision (f), concerning exempt or confidential public records, both the attorney general and CCRC suggested in oral argument that costs could be reduced if we amended the rule to provide that exempt or confidential records be transported directly to the trial court rather than initially to the records repository and then to the trial court as now provided in subdivision (f). > Although we find some merit in this approach, we decline to make this substantive amendment because section 119.19(7)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), specifically provides that exempt or confidential public records be delivered to the records repository and then, upon the entry of an appropriate court order, to the trial court. We encourage the legislature to revisit this provision and to consider whether the most efficient method of transferring this category of records would be to require that the records be transferred directly to the trial court rather than to the repository.

We do, however, modify technical aspects of subdivision (f) for purposes of clarification. First, we permit the use of “containers” rather than “boxes” for public records production in order to clarify that there may be discretionary use of containers when appropriate that are not “boxes” for storage and transportation of sealed records. Second, in response to CCRC’s raising of an issue as to the potential for ex parte communications concerning exempt or confidential records, we have removed from (f)(2) the provision as to the presence of a representative of the delivering agency at an unsealing. We leave the handling of the chain of custody of the records to the trial court, and we caution against any ex parte communications.

We have modified subdivision (h)(2) as follows (new language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by strike-through type):

(2) If on October 1, 1998, a defendant is represented by collateral counsel and has initiated the public records process, collateral counsel shall, within 90 days of after October 1, 1998, or within 90 days after the production of records which were requested prior to October 1, 1998, whichever is later, file with the trial court and serve a written demand for any additional public records that have not previously been the subject of a request for public records. The request for these records shall be treated the same as a request pursuant to subdivisions (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this rule, and the records shall be copied, indexed, and delivered to the records repository as required in subdivision (e)(5) of this rule. A- person or agency may-objeet-to-any request- under this subdivision, and the trial court shall hold a hearing and rule on the objection — within 30' days-after filing of the objection.

The preceding amendment to subdivision (h)(2) is in response to comments by CCRC indicating that issues continue to exist in respect to records requested by postconviction counsel prior to October 1, 1998, that have not been produced within the required time period for requests for additional records.

[642]*642We have amended subdivision (h)(3) as follows:

(3) If on October 1, 1998, the defendant-has had-a- rule-3.850 or rule 3.851 motion denied and no rule-3:850 or rule 3.851 motion is pending,- no additional public-records request under this rule is permitted by collateral -counsel until a death warrant has -been signed by the Governor and an execution has been scheduled. Within 10 days of the signing of the a defendant’s death warrant, collateral counsel may request in writing the production of public records from a person or agency from which collateral counsel has previously requested public records. A person or agency shall produce copy, index, and deliver to the records repository any public record:
(A) that was not previously the subject of an objection;
(B) that was received or produced since the previous request; or

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

Related

James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida, 2026
In Re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.852
140 So. 3d 507 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2014)
Amendments To Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852, & 3.993
797 So. 2d 1213 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Allen v. Butterworth
756 So. 2d 52 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Sims v. State
753 So. 2d 66 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
754 So. 2d 640, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 2370, 1999 WL 462631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-florida-rules-of-criminal-procedure-3852-fla-1999.