In Re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 & 3.851

72 So. 3d 735, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 305, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1483, 2011 WL 2472990
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 23, 2011
DocketSC09-1733
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 72 So. 3d 735 (In Re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 & 3.851) 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
In Re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 & 3.851, 72 So. 3d 735, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 305, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1483, 2011 WL 2472990 (Fla. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.851, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.141 and 9.142. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

In In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 & Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142, 1 So.3d 163 (Fla.2008), the Court amended rule 3.851, adding subdivision (j), thereby clarifying that belated appeals may be sought from the denial of a postconviction motion under rule 3.851 under specific narrow circumstances. 1 Additionally, the Court amended rule 9.142, adding subdivision (d), specifically identifying the circumstances in which a motion for belated appeal may be brought. 2

On the basis of that decision, the Court referred the matter to the chairs of The Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, The Florida Bar’s Appellate Procedure Rules Committee, and the Florida Supreme Court Criminal Court Steering Committee. The Court directed that

*736 [t]he committees, in preparing one joint report, should consider procedural matters pertaining to belated appeals, including, but not limited to, the placement of the provisions authorizing belated appeals, the need for cross-referencing the corresponding rules to the extent the rules remain in both the criminal and appellate rules, and time limits for seeking a belated appeal. See § 924.09, Fla. Stat. (2008) (“An appeal may be taken by the defendant only within the time provided by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure after the judgment, sentence, or order appealed from is entered.... ”).

In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.851, 1 So.3d at 163-64.

Pursuant to that referral, the three committees formed a Belated Criminal Appeals Joint Committee (Joint Committee), 3 and subsequently filed an out-of-cycle report. The Joint Committee has proposed amendments to rules 3.850 (Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence), 3.851 (Collateral Relief After Death Sentence Has Been Imposed and Affirmed on Direct Appeal), 9.141 (Review Proceedings in Collateral or Post-Conviction Criminal Cases; Belated Appeals; Belated Discretionary Review; Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel), and 9.142 (Procedures for Review in Death Penalty Cases). The report reflects the collaborative effort of the members of the three committees constituting the Joint Committee and approved by each of the individual committees. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee included additional unrelated proposals to amend rule 3.850. The proposed amendments to rules 3.850, 3.851, 9.141, and 9.142 were published by the Court in the November 15, 2009, edition of The Florida Bar News. Two comments were filed in response to the Joint Committee’s proposals. We address the rule amendments in chronological order.

Rule 3.850 — Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence

Rule 3.850(b) is amended to remove language pertaining to the time limitation for seeking postconviction relief under the rule in capital cases; rule 3.851, pertaining to cases where a death sentence has been imposed, includes its own time limitation provision, in subdivision (d).

With respect to the time limitation for seeking postconviction relief in noncapital cases, rule 3.850(b) is amended as follows. First, we amend subdivision (b)(1) to include the requirement that any motion under the rule based upon a claim previously unknown to the defendant or his counsel that could not have been ascertained through the exercise of due diligence must be filed within two years of when the facts were or could have been discovered through due diligence. Subdivision (b)(2) adds the requirement that for any motion raising a claim of a fundamental right held retroactive which was not established within the time for seeking postconviction relief, the rule 3.850 motion must be filed within two years of the date of the mandate of the decision announcing retroactivity. Lastly, subdivision (b)(3) adds an additional two-year limitation period to the original period for seeking postconviction relief under the rule for motions alleging that the defendant retained counsel to file a timely rule 3.850 motion and counsel, through neglect, failed to file the motion.

Rule 3.850(c), pertaining to the contents of the postconviction motion, is amended to reflect that under the rule, the motion *737 shall be typewritten or hand-written in legible block letters, in blue or black ink, double-spaced, with margins no less than one inch, on white eight and one-half by eleven-inch paper. In addition, the motion, including any memorandum of law, shall not exceed fifty pages without leave of the court upon a showing of good cause.

We amend rule 3.850(g) (Appeal; Rehearing; Service on Movant) by separating out the three subject areas into individual subdivisions (g), (h), and (i). Under subdivision (g), the term “Movant” is replaced by “Parties,” as the rule requires service by the clerk of court on the parties, rather than only on the prisoner. Service also includes all orders pertaining to the post-conviction motion, rather than only orders denying a rule 8.850 motion or motion for rehearing. Under new subdivision (h), any party may file a motion for rehearing. New subdivision (i) amends the provisions that previously pertained to appeals in rule 3.850 proceedings. Included is the requirement that nonfinal orders expressly provide the following language: “This order is a nonfinal, nonappealable order.” These provisions clarify the various procedures and obligations under rule 3.850 upon issuance of an order.

New subdivision (j) identifies the circumstances for seeking a belated appeal and cross-references rule 9.141; the Court modifies the Joint Committee’s proposal by limiting the subdivision to reference the appellate rule governing the procedures for seeking such relief. The Court also modifies the Joint Committee’s proposal to include new subdivision (k) (Belated Discretionary Review), which similarly cross-references rule 9.141.

Former subdivision (h) (Habeas Corpus) is redesignated subdivision (l) in keeping with the Court’s amendments to rule 3.850.

The Joint Committee’s last proposed amendment to rule 3.850 provides for sanctions under certain circumstances. In light of section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2010), we adopt new subdivision (m) 4 as modified. Under section 944.279(1), a prisoner is subject to possible discipline upon certification by a court that a claim or proceeding is either frivolous or malicious. 5 Accordingly, rule 3.850(m), as adopted, addresses the procedure a court may follow in the event of a malicious or frivolous action, either on a party’s motion or on the court’s own motion.

Rule 3.851 — Collateral Relief After Death Sentence Has Been Imposed and Affirmed on Direct Appeal

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

Related

Wardlow v. State
212 So. 3d 1091 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Schwagler v. State
118 So. 3d 923 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Russell v. State
114 So. 3d 483 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Al-Hakim v. State
87 So. 3d 836 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Jackman v. State
88 So. 3d 325 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 So. 3d 735, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 305, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1483, 2011 WL 2472990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rules-of-criminal-procedure-3850-3851-fla-2011.