Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

837 So. 2d 924, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1011, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 2580, 2002 WL 31718857
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Read the opinion of the Court — 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 568
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided December 5, 2002·No. No. SC02-230·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar’s Rules of Criminal Procedure Committee (Rules Committee) has filed its biennial report of regular-cycle proposed rules changes in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(4). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

BACKGROUND

The Rules Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111, Providing Counsel to Indigents; 3.170, Pleas; 3.190, Pretrial Motions; and 3.361, Witness Attendance and Subpoenas. The Rules Committee also proposes new rule 3.994, Order Certifying No Incarceration. The Rules Committee submitted its proposals to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and the Board unanimously approved the proposals. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.130(c)(2)-(3). The proposals were published for comment, and one comment was received addressing the proposed amendments to rule 3.111 and proposed new rule 3.994. After hearing oral argument, the Court asked the Rules Committee to file a supplemental report addressing several issues of concern relative to the discharge of court-appointed counsel upon the issuance of an order of no incarceration. The Rules Committee filed its supplemental report on July 1, 2002. Due to time constraints, the revised proposals were not considered by the Board of Governors.1 The revised proposals were published for comment, and two comments were received.

After reviewing the Rules Committee’s proposals, hearing oral argument, and considering the comments filed, we adopt the amendments to rules 3.170, 3.190, and 3.361 as proposed in the Rules Committee’s original report. We also adopt the revised amendments to rule 3.111 and re[925]*925vised new rule 3.994 as proposed in the committee’s supplemental report, with a minor modification suggested by the Florida Public Defender Association.2 The major substantive amendments are summarized below.

AMENDMENTS

The amendments to rule 3.111, Providing Counsel to Indigents, and the 2002 committee note to that rule provide guidance to the trial courts regarding the discharge of court-appointed counsel in prosecutions for misdemeanors or violations of municipal ordinances in which the court issues an order certifying that there will be no incarceration. New rule 3.994, Order Certifying No Incarceration, was originally included, under another title, with the Rules Committee’s regular-cycle report of proposed rule changes for the year 2000. At the Rules Committee’s request, the Court postponed consideration of the proposed new rule in order to allow for further study of several issues of concern. See Amendments to Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro., 794 So.2d 457, 457 n. 1 (Fla.2000). The Rules Committee’s revised amendments to rule 3.111 and revised new rule 3.994 address those concerns as well as several relevant recent decisions.

The first concern addressed by the amendments is whether court-appointed counsel should be discharged merely upon notification that the State is not seeking incarceration. As amended, rule 3.111(b)(1) specifically gives the trial court the discretion not to discharge court-appointed counsel even if it determines that it will not incarcerate the defendant following a plea or a finding of guilt. Amended subdivision (b)(1)(A) provides that if the court issues an order of no incarceration after counsel has been appointed, it “may discharge appointed counsel unless the defendant is incarcerated or the defendant would be substantially disadvantaged by the discharge.” These amendments clarify that it is ultimately the trial court’s determination whether to discharge court-appointed counsel. According to the Rules Committee, the amendments also recognize that situations may arise in which due process concerns justify court-appointed counsel’s continued representation of the defendant, consistent with this Court’s pronouncement in State v. Ull, 642 So.2d 721 (Fla.1994). The 2002 committee note to rule 3.111 sets forth the factors the trial court should consider as delineated in Ull.

Another concern addressed by new rule 3.994, Order Certifying No Incarceration, and the revised amendments to rule 3.111 is the practice of the state announcing it is not seeking incarceration of a defendant in custody and the court immediately discharging court-appointed counsel and continuing the case for another date, thereby leaving the defendant in custody without the benefit of counsel. See Hardy v. State, 776 So.2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (when indigent defendant is incarcerated prior to trial, counsel must be appointed notwithstanding certification that no jail time will be served upon conviction). When originally proposed, new rule 3.994 was entitled “Order of No Imprisonment.” As adopted, the rule 3.994 form is renamed “Order Certifying No Incarceration” and the term “imprisonment” is replaced with the term “incarceration” throughout amended rule 3.111. The Rules Committee made these revisions because it felt the term “incar[926]*926ceration” is more readily understood to mean being held in custody prior to trial as well as serving a jail sentence imposed after a plea or trial. As noted above, under amended subdivision (b)(1)(A), if the court issues an order of no incarceration after counsel has been appointed, the court may not discharge appointed counsel if the defendant is incarcerated. Consistent with this amendment, the rule 3.994 order certifying no incarceration contains a finding that the defendant is not incarcerated pending trial. Amended rule 3.111(b)(1) also requires the court to file an order of no incarceration at least fifteen days before trial, thereby preventing the court from discharging court-appointed counsel immediately before trial. However, the fifteen-day requirement may be waived by the defendant or defense counsel.

The amendment to rule 3.111 and new rule 3.994 also address the concern that a defendant who is placed on probation after an order of no incarceration is issued and whose counsel is discharged will be incarcerated after a probation violation. As amended, rule 3.111(b)(1) specifically requires the trial court to certify in its order of no incarceration that the defendant will not be incarcerated pending a probation violation hearing or as part of a sentence after probation revocation. The Rules Committee proposed this amendment in response to recent decisions in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 122 S.Ct. 1764, 1767, 152 L.Ed.2d 888 (2002) (Sixth Amendment forbids imposition of suspended sentence that may “end up in the actual deprivation of a person’s liberty” unless defendant is accorded “the guiding hand of counsel”); Tur v. State, 797 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (where jail sentence could not be imposed because defendant was not represented by counsel, a jail sentence cannot thereafter be imposed following revocation of probation); and Harris v. State, 773 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (same), which are discussed in the 2002 committee note to rule 3.111. Finally, subdivision (b)(1)(C) is amended to provide that the court may not withdraw its order of no incarceration once the defendant has been found guilty or pled nolo contendere.

Rule 3.170, Pleas, is amended to change the reference to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 to correctly identify the appropriate subdivision of that rule.

In response to the Court’s request in State v. Gaines,

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

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 837 So. 2d 924, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1011, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 2580, 2002 WL 31718857 (Fla. 2002).

837 So. 2d 924 (Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boykin v. Alabama
395 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 1969)
McKaskle v. Wiggins
465 U.S. 168 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Alabama v. Shelton
535 U.S. 654 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Peter R. Fitzpatrick v. Louie L. Wainwright
800 F.2d 1057 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)
Bobby R. Savage v. Wayne Estelle, Warden
924 F.2d 1459 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
State v. Kemp
305 So. 2d 833 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
State v. Cappetta
216 So. 2d 749 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)
Hardy v. State
776 So. 2d 962 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
State v. Bowen
698 So. 2d 248 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Garcia v. State
228 So. 2d 300 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
State v. Ull
642 So. 2d 721 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
State v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, First Dist.
569 So. 2d 439 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)
Harris v. State
773 So. 2d 627 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Cappetta v. State
204 So. 2d 913 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Graham v. State
372 So. 2d 1363 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Tur v. State
797 So. 2d 4 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Sullivan v. State Ex Rel. McCrory
49 So. 2d 794 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1951)
State v. Gaines
770 So. 2d 1221 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Marks v. State
155 So. 727 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
794 So. 2d 457 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)