In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

132 So. 3d 123, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 890, 2013 WL 6500885, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2685
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 12, 2013
DocketNo. SC13-2066
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 So. 3d 123 (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, 132 So. 3d 123, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 890, 2013 WL 6500885, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2685 (Fla. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In response to 2013 legislation, the Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (Committee) has filed an out-of-cycle, fast-track report of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(e). The Executive Committee of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar unanimously approved the Committee’s proposals. After considering the proposals and reviewing the relevant legislation, we adopt the proposed amendments.1

The amendment to rule 3.121 (Arrest Warrant) adds language to subdivision (a)(6) recognizing that if certain conditions are met, a judge may electronically sign an arrest warrant. See ch.2013-247, § 1, Laws of Fla. (amending section 901.02, Fla. Stat. (2012), to authorize a judge to electronically sign arrest warrant, if certain conditions are met).

The title of rule 3.203 (Defendant’s Mental Retardation as a Bar to Imposition of the Death Penalty) and various subdivisions of that rule and rules 3.211 (Compe[124]*124tence to Proceed: Scope of Examination and Report); 3.212 (Competence to Proceed: Hearing and Disposition); 3.213 (Continuing Incompetency to Proceed, Except Incompetency to Proceed with Sentencing: Disposition); and 3.851 (Collateral Relief after Death Sentence has been Imposed and Affirmed on Direct Appeal) are amended to substitute the terms “intellectual disability” and “intellectually disabled” for the terms “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded.” See ch.2013-162, Laws of Fla. (changing terminology throughout the Florida Statutes).

Rule 3.692 (Petition to Seal or Expunge) is amended to reference newly created section 943.0583, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides for the expungement of the criminal history record of a victim of human trafficking. See ch.2013-98, § 2; ch.2013-99, § 1, Laws of Fla. (each creating subsections of new section 943.0583, Fla. Stat. (2013)). Subdivisions (e) through (g) are added to rule 3.989 (Affidavit, Petition, and Order to Expunge or Seal Forms) to provide corresponding forms.

The amendments to rule 8.852 (Capital Postconviction Public Records Production) conform the rule to chapter 2013-216, section 8, Laws of Florida, which substantially reworded section 27.7081, Florida Statutes (2013).

Accordingly, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure are hereby amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is underscored. The amendments to rules 3.692 and 3.989 shall become effective January 1, 2014, at 12:01 a.m.2 The remainder of the amendments shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.3 Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to their adoption, interested persons shall have sixty days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.4

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

[125]*125APPENDIX

RULE 3.121. ARREST WARRANT

(a) Issuance. An arrest warrant, when issued, shall:

(1) — (5) [No Change]

(6) be signed by the judge with the title of the office; or, may be electronically signed by the judge if the arrest warrant bears the affiant’s signature, or electronic signature, is supported by an oath or affirmation administered by the judge, or other person authorized by law to administer oaths, and, if submitted electronically, is submitted by reliable electronic means; and

(7) [No Change]

(b) [No Change]

Committee Notes

[No Change]

RULE 3.203. DEFENDANT’S MENTAL RETARDATION INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY AS A BAR TO IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY

(a) Scope. This rule applies in all first-degree murder cases in which the state attorney has not waived the death penalty on the record and the defendant’s mental retardationintellectual disability becomes an issue.

(b) Definition of Mental Retardation-intellectual Disability. — As used in this rule, the term “mental retardationintellec-tual disability” means significantly subav-erage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conception to age 18. The term “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” for the purpose of this rule, means performance that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test authorized by the Department of Children and Family Services in rule 65G-4.011 of the Florida Administrative Code. The term “adaptive behavior,” for the purpose of this rule, means the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age, cultural group, and community.

(c) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardationintellectual Disability as a Bar to Execution: Contents; Procedures.

(1) A defendant who intends to raise mental retardationintellectual disability as a bar to execution shall file a written motion to establish mental retardationin-tellectual disability as a bar to execution with the court.

(2) The motion shall state that the defendant is mentally retardedintellectually disabled and, if the defendant has been tested, evaluated, or examined by one or more experts, the names and addresses of the experts. Copies of reports containing the opinions of any experts named in the motion shall be attached to the motion. The court shall appoint an expert chosen by the state attorney if the state attorney so requests. The expert shall promptly test, evaluate, or examine the defendant and shall submit a written report of any findings to the parties and the court.

(3) — (4) [No Change]

(5) If the defendant refuses to be examined or fully cooperate with the court appointed experts or the state’s expert, the court may, in the court’s discretion:

(A) order the defense to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant’s expert;

(B) prohibit the defense experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant regarding the defendant’s [126]*126mental retardationintellectual disabili-⅛ or

(C) order such relief as the court determines to be appropriate.

(d) Time for filing Motion for Determination of Mental Retardationintellec-tual Disability as a Bar to Execution. The motion for a determination of mental retardationintellectual disability as a bar to execution shall be filed not later than 90 days prior to trial, or at such time as is ordered by the court.

(e) Hearing on Motion to Determine ty. The circuit court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion for a determination of mental — retardationintel-lectual disability. At the hearing, the court shall consider the findings of the experts and all other evidence on the issue of whether the defendant is mentally-retarded intellectually disabled.

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

Related

In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
137 So. 3d 1015 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 So. 3d 123, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 890, 2013 WL 6500885, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-criminal-procedure-fla-2013.