In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure - Corrected Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 21, 2016·No. SC15-177·Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida

No. SC15-177

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

[October 29, 2015] CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the regular-cycle report

of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure filed by The

Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (Committee). See Fla. R. Jud.

Admin. 2.140(b). We have jurisdiction1 and adopt the amendments as discussed

below.

BACKGROUND

The Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal

Procedure 3.112 (Minimum Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases), 3.121(a)

1. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

(Arrest Warrant (Issuance)), 3.172(c) (Acceptance of Guilty or Nolo Contendere

Plea (Determination of Voluntariness)), 3.192 (Motions for Rehearing), 3.212(d)

(Competence to Proceed: Hearing and Disposition (Release on Finding of

Incompetence)), 3.220 (Discovery), 3.281 (List of Prospective Jurors), 3.300(d)

(Voir Dire Examination, Oath, and Excusing of Member (Juror Voir Dire

Questionnaires)), 3.410 (Jury Request to Review Evidence or for Additional

Instructions), 3.590(a) (Time for and Method of Making Motions; Procedure;

Custody Pending Hearing (Time for Filing in Noncapital Cases)), 3.984

(Application for Criminal Indigent Status), 3.985 (Standard Jury Instructions), and

3.986 (Forms Related to Judgment and Sentence). As required by rule 2.140(b)(2),

the Committee published the proposals in The Florida Bar News before filing its

report with the Court. Numerous comments were received by the Committee. The

Board of Governors of The Florida Bar unanimously approved the Committee’s

proposals. The Court also published the proposals for comment. Eight comments

were received pertaining to the proposals to amend rules 3.112, 3.172(c), and

3.220, to which the Committee responded.

Having considered the Committee’s proposals, the comments filed, and the

response to the comments, we adopt the Committee’s proposals to amend rules

3.121(a), 3.192, 3.212(d), 3.220, 3.410, 3.590(a), 3.984, and 3.986 as proposed.

The proposals to amend rules 3.112 and 3.172 are adopted with modifications,

while we reject the proposals to amend rules 3.281, 3.300(d), and 3.985.

AMENDMENTS

The amendments to the rules are discussed below.2

The Court adopts the proposal to amend rule 3.112, except with respect to

subdivision (f) of rule 3.112 (Minimum Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases

(Lead Trial Counsel)). In subdivision (f), the Court rejects the proposal to remove

the word “defense” from the term “lead defense counsel.” In In re Amendment to

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure—Rule 3.112 Minimum Standards for

Attorneys in Capital Cases, 759 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 1999), the Court took “an

important step in ensuring the integrity of the judicial process in capital cases by

adopting a rule of criminal procedure to help ensure that competent representation

will be provided to indigent capital defendants in all cases.” The Court advanced

that goal when it extended rule 3.112 to apply to public defenders and private

counsel, while rejecting a “grandfather clause” that would have allowed attorneys

who did not meet the new requirements but who had previously handled capital

cases to continue representing capital defendants. In re Amend. to Fla. Rules of

Crim. Pro.—Rule 3.112 Minimum Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases, 820

2. Minor, technical changes to the rules are not elaborated upon.

So. 2d 185, 186-87, 192 (Fla. 2002). To remove “defense” from “lead defense

counsel” in order to permit prosecutors to substitute prior capital trial prosecution

experience for experience as defense counsel so that they may participate as lead

defense counsel in capital cases is contrary to the goals in adopting rule 3.112, and

fails to account for the differences in the roles of prosecutors and defense

attorneys.

Rule 3.121 (Arrest Warrant) is amended in two regards. First, subdivision

(a)(4), which requires that the arrest warrant specify the name of the person to be

arrested, is amended to require a photograph of the individual if one is available.

Second, subdivision (a)(7), which pertains to bailable offenses, is amended to

require not only the amount of bail, but also “other conditions of release.”

Rule 3.172(c) (Acceptance of Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea

(Determination of Voluntariness)) includes a number of amendments. First, the

trial judge is required, when determining voluntariness, to place the defendant

under oath, address him or her personally, and determine on the record that he or

she understands certain rights. Second, those rights are now set out individually

with headings, which include the following: “Nature of the Charge,” “Right to

Representation,” “Right to Trial by Jury and Attendant Rights,” “Effect of Plea,”

“Waiving Right to Trial,” “Questioning by Judge,” “Terms of Plea Agreement,”

“Deportation Consequences,” “Sexually Violent or Sexually Motivated Offenses,”

and “Driver’s License Suspension or Revocation.” The Court rejects the

Committee’s proposal to label subdivision (c)(8) as “Immigration Consequences,”

and to include in that subdivision consequences that exceed deportation. Instead,

subdivision (c)(8) is designated “Deportation Consequences,” and includes various

requirements placed on the lower court accepting a guilty or nolo contendere plea

when deportation may be a consequence of said plea. These amendments follow

the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356

(2010), and this Court’s decision in Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d 757 (Fla.

2012), each pertaining to ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to

whether counsel has a duty to advise his or her client whether an offense to which

he or she is pleading guilty would subject the client to deportation.

Rule 3.192 (Motions for Rehearing) is amended to add a reference to rule

3.801 (Correction of Jail Credit) as another of the postconviction proceedings to

which the rule does not apply.

In rule 3.212(d) (Competence to Proceed: Hearing and Disposition (Release

on Finding of Incompetence)), the phrase “for a period not to exceed 1 year” is

deleted in order that the circuit court will retain jurisdiction to allow for the

repeated process of reexamination of mental competency and the setting of the

same or new conditional release conditions where the defendant is found to not be

mentally competent and does not meet the criteria for commitment.

The Court amends rule 3.220(h)(1) (Discovery (Discovery Depositions;

Generally)) by deleting the phrase “except a subpoena duces tecum” to remove the

distinction between the criminal and civil discovery rules with respect to the

procedure for taking depositions.

Rule 3.410 (Jury Request to Review Evidence or for Additional Instructions)

is amended in light of this Court’s decision in Hazuri v. State, 91 So. 3d 836 (Fla.

2012). In Hazuri, the Court held that after a jury request for trial transcripts during

deliberations at trial, the trial court is required to inform the jury that it has a right

to request a read-back of testimony and that the jury should clarify which portion

of the testimony it wants to review. The addition of subdivision (b), which sets out

the procedures the trial judge is to follow when the jury requests to have the

transcripts of trial testimony, is added in response to the Hazuri decision. Finally,

new subdivision (c) requires that the read-back of transcripts be conducted

consistent with subdivision (a).

In rule 3.590(a) (Time for and Method of Making Motions; Procedure;

Custody Pending Hearing (Time for Filing in Noncapital Cases)), the phrase “in

cases in which the state does not seek the death penalty” is moved to the beginning

of the rule to clarify when the rule applies. In addition, the rule is amended to

reflect that the motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment may be made either

orally in open court or in writing and filed with the clerk’s office.

With regard to rule 3.984 (Application for Criminal Indigent Status), the

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

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure - Corrected Opinion, (Fla. 2016).

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure - Corrected Opinion (In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure - Corrected Opinion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court, 2010)
McDonald v. State
321 So. 2d 453 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Hernandez v. State
124 So. 3d 757 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Hazuri v. State
91 So. 3d 836 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)