In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 629, 26 So. 3d 534, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 629, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1948
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 19, 2009
DocketSC09-159
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 629 (In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure) 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 the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 629, 26 So. 3d 534, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 629, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1948 (Fla. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has filed with the Court its triennial report of regular-cycle proposed rule amendments in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140(b)(4). We have jurisdiction. See art. Y, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

Background

The Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 (Pretrial Release); 3.132 (Pretrial Detention); 3.190 (Pretrial Motions); 3.191 (Speedy Trial); 3.203 (Defendant’s Mental Retardation as a Bar to Imposition of the Death Penalty); 3.210 (Incompetence to Proceed: Procedure for Raising the Issue); 3.211 (Competence to Proceed: Scope of Examination and Report); 3.216 (Insanity at Time of Offense or Probation or Community Control Violation: Notice and Appointment of Experts); 3.220 (Discovery); 3.231 (Substitution of Judge); 3.240 (Change of Venue); 3.800 (Correction, Reduction, and Modification of Sentences); 3.851 (Collateral Relief After Death Sentence has been Imposed and Affirmed on Direct Appeal); 3.852 (Capital Postconviction Public Records Production); 3.853 (Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing); and 3.986 (Forms Related to Judgment and Sentence). In addition, the Committee proposes new rule 3.192 (Motions for Rehearing), an amendment to the title of Part VII (Disqualification and Substitution of Judge), and deletion of rule 3.984 (Application for Criminal Indigent Status).

In accordance with rule 2.140(b)(2), the Committee published its proposals for comment prior to filing them here in July 2008. No comments were received. The Committee also submitted the proposals to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, which voted unanimously to approve *535 the proposals. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(3). We republished the proposals, which appeared in the March 1, 2009, edition of The Florida Bar News.

The Florida Public Defender Association (FPDA) filed a comment, indicating its concerns with several of the rules proposals. In its response, the Committee agreed with some of the FPDA’s suggestions but reaffirmed some of its original proposals. After reviewing the proposals, comment, and response, and upon consideration of the oral arguments heard in this case, we hereby (1) adopt with modifications the Committee’s proposed amendments to rules 3.131, 3.191, 3.852, and 3.986; (2) adopt as proposed rules 3.190, 3.192, 3.203, 3.210, 3.211, 3.216, 3.220, 3.231, 3.240, 3.800, and 3.851; (3) decline to delete rule 3.984, the Application for Determination of Indigent Status; and (4) sua sponte amend rule 3.172. We have addressed the amendments to rule 3.132, Pretrial Detention, by separate opinion. 1 We thank the Committee for its hard work under the capable leadership of its chair, Thomas Bateman, III, noting that most of the proposals were unanimously approved by the Committee.

Amendments

The first proposal addresses amendments to rule 3.131(a) (Right to Pretrial Release) to reflect that, pursuant to section 903.047(2), Florida Statutes (2009), a condition of pretrial release is that the defendant shall have no contact with the victim except for authorized pretrial discovery. The FPDA has pointed out that the proposed rule omits language from that same statute providing that the mandatory “no contact” provision may be modified if good cause is shown and the interests of justice so require. Although the statutory language need not always be incorporated into our rules, we agree with the FPDA that by amending the rule to include the “no contact” provision as a condition of pretrial release, the rule should also include a procedure to allow for the possibility of modification in accordance with the statute. Accordingly, we modify the Committee’s proposal to include the following additional language in accordance with section 903.045(2) pertaining to modification of the condition of no contact with the victim:

Upon motion by the defendant when bail is set, or upon later motion properly noticed pursuant to law, the court may modify the condition regarding victim contact if good cause is shown and the interests of justice so require. The victim shall be permitted to be heard at any proceeding in which such modification is considered, and the state attorney shall notify the victim of the provisions of this subsection and of the pendency of any such proceeding.

Rule 3.190 (Pretrial Motions) is amended largely to correct technical issues, including deleting the definition for the phrase “order quashing,” currently in subdivision (f), because section 924.07, Florida Statutes (2009), Appeal by state, no longer refers to “quashing”; renumbering subdivisions (g) through (k); and specifically identifying the contents required to be included in a motion to suppress a confession or admission illegally obtained.

Subdivision (i)(4) (When Time May Be Expanded) of rule 3.191 (Speedy Trial) is amended to permit extending the speedy trial period for DNA testing ordered on *536 the defendant’s behalf pursuant to section 925.12(2), Florida Statutes (2009).

As to this rule, we adopt the suggestion by the FPDA that we clarify the rule to state that the court may postpone the proceeding on the defendant’s behalf “upon the defendant’s motion specifying the physical evidence to be tested.” This is in accordance with the intent of section 925.12(4). We also amend rule 3.172(d) on our own motion to provide: “If such physical evidence is known to exist, upon defendant’s motion specifying the physical evidence to be tested, the court may postpone the proceeding and order DNA testing.”

We next address proposed rule 3.192 (Motions for Rehearing), which is an entirely new rule. This rule would authorize the State to file a motion for rehearing from any order that is currently appeal-able by the State as an interlocutory appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c) or sections 924.07 or 924.071, Florida Statutes (2009). Rule 3.192 expressly states what shall be included in a motion for rehearing. The rule provides strict time limits for filing a motion for rehearing, for the defendant to file a response, and for the trial court to rule on the motion. The rule further provides that the time for filing the appeal is tolled during pendency of the motion for rehearing. The FPDA opposes adoption of new rule 3.192, asserting that the rule would “delay the trial for a month before any notice of appeal is filed, resulting in further delay of the defendant’s right to speedy trial.” It expresses further concern that the proposed rule would apply not only to authorized appealable nonfinal orders but also more broadly. The Committee, which approved this proposal unanimously, concluded that allowing the State to seek rehearing of orders that the state may appeal before trial could obviate the need for the appeal in some cases.

We have considered the arguments on both sides and defer to the collective expertise of the Committee that the rehearing rule will advance, rather than frustrate, the interests of justice. We also expressly note that this rule does not authorize or expand the category of authorized nonfinal appeals by the State.

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

Related

WESLEY PAUL v. STATE OF FLORIDA
268 So. 3d 754 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.192
229 So. 3d 1116 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
Gardner v. State
194 So. 3d 385 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Latrail Onrillious Jones v. State of Florida
189 So. 3d 853 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
167 So. 3d 395 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
Manuel v. State
162 So. 3d 1157 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Fireline Bail Bonds v. Brock
110 So. 3d 11 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Dufour v. State
69 So. 3d 235 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
TITA v. State
42 So. 3d 838 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Caraballo v. State
39 So. 3d 1234 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 629, 26 So. 3d 534, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 629, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-criminal-procedure-fla-2009.