In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure—Capital Postconviction Rules.

CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 3, 2014
DocketSC13-2381
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure—Capital Postconviction Rules. (In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure—Capital Postconviction Rules.) 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 Judicial Administration The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure—Capital Postconviction Rules., (Fla. 2014).

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC13-2381 ____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION; THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; AND THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE—CAPITAL POSTCONVICTION RULES.

[July 3, 2014]

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of amendments to the

Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure,

and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, proposed by the Capital

Postconviction Proceedings Subcommittee of the Criminal Court Steering

Committee. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

This Court has previously stated a specific goal that capital postconviction

proceedings in the trial court be concluded within two years from the filing of an

initial postconviction motion. See In re: Circuit Court Death Penalty

Postconviction Proceedings—Reporting and Processing Requirements, Fla.

Admin. Order No. AOSC11-32 (Sept. 14, 2011). Consistent with this objective, the Capital Postconviction Proceedings Subcommittee undertook to determine the

causes of delay in existing capital postconviction procedures and recommend

solutions. Its proposed rule amendments in this case are intended to improve the

overall efficiency of the capital postconviction process through, among other

things, case management tools, new minimum qualifications for the lead attorney

representing a defendant in a capital postconviction case, a new requirement that

defendants in postconviction cases be represented by an attorney, and the

application of realistic, meaningful time frames and deadlines. The proposals are

also intended to encourage chief judges in each circuit, and trial judges assigned to

capital postconviction cases, to engage in proactive case management, and to

provide those judges with the tools to effectively manage capital cases.

BACKGROUND

In conjunction with the Florida Legislature’s enactment of the Timely

Justice Act during the 2013 legislative session, see ch. 2013-216, Laws of Fla., on

March 22, 2013, the Court established the Capital Postconviction Proceedings

Subcommittee (Subcommittee). See In re: Subcommittee on Capital

Postconviction Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-11 (Mar. 22, 2013).

The Subcommittee was directed to “undertake a comprehensive review of capital

postconviction proceedings, including Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851,

and to make recommendations to the Court whether that rule, or any other rule,

-2- should be amended to improve the overall efficiency of the capital postconviction

process.” Id. at 1.

Consistent with the Court’s direction, the Subcommittee has filed a petition

to amend six rules impacting capital postconviction cases. According to the

petition, the Subcommittee held several meetings and sought input from specific

stakeholders identified in AOSC13-11—the Criminal Court Steering Committee,

the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Office of Capital Collateral Regional

Counsel, and the Office of the Attorney General. The Subcommittee surveyed

twenty-six circuit court judges with significant experience in capital postconviction

cases. It also heard input from the Appellate Court Rules Committee, the Florida

Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Florida Public Defender Association, the

Florida House of Representatives, the Governor’s Office, and the Clerk of the

Florida Supreme Court. The Subcommittee indicates that the overwhelming

consensus from these groups is that the existing rules governing the capital

postconviction process generally work well, and that a complete overhaul of those

rules is not necessary. It recommends amendments to six rules: Florida Rules of

Judicial Administration 2.215 (Trial Court Administration) and 2.535 (Court

Reporting); Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.112 (Minimum Standards for

Attorneys in Capital Cases), 3.851 (Collateral Relief After Death Sentence has

been Imposed and Affirmed on Direct Appeal), and 3.852 (Capital Postconviction

-3- Public Records Production); and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142

(Procedures for Review in Death Penalty Cases). The Subcommittee also proposes

four new case management orders to assist circuit court judges in managing capital

postconviction cases.

After the Subcommittee filed its petition, the Court published the proposed

amendments for comment. The Court received comments from six groups: the

Florida Attorney General; the Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar; the

Criminal Procedure Rules Committee; the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys

Association; Capital Collateral Regional Counsels for the Southern and Middle

Regions of Florida; and the Florida Public Defender Association. The

Subcommittee also received an additional comment from Judge Chris W.

Altenbernd, of the Second District Court of Appeal. The Subcommittee filed a

response addressing all seven comments; in some instances, the response includes

revised rule proposals.1 The Court heard oral argument on the proposed

amendments.

We have considered the Subcommittee’s proposals and revised proposals,

the comments provided, and the issues raised at oral argument. As discussed in

1. The Court also received a supplemental comment and a Notice of Supplemental Authority from Capital Collateral Regional Counsel South. The Subcommittee filed a response to the supplemental comment.

-4- this opinion, we defer to the expertise of the Subcommittee and adopt most of the

proposed amendments, with some modifications. However, we decline to adopt

the proposed amendment to Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851(d)(2) (Time

Limitation). We discuss the more significant rule amendments below.

AMENDMENTS

The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

First, Rule of Judicial Administration 2.215 (Trial Court Administration) is

amended to provide that the chief judge in a circuit shall monitor the status of all

postconviction or collateral relief proceedings for defendants sentenced to death,

beginning at the time this Court issues the mandate affirming the death sentence.

Additionally, capital postconviction cases are added to the list of “priority cases” in

subdivision (g) (Duty to Expedite Priority Cases) that should be expedited to the

extent reasonably possible.

We also amend Rule of Judicial Administration 2.535 (Court Reporting), as

proposed, to prohibit the use of digital court reporting as the primary court

reporting system in trials where the state seeks the death penalty or in capital

postconviction proceedings. The Subcommittee indicates its goal is that the circuit

courts will use real-time transcription services to the extent possible.

-5- The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

In the Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 3.112 (Minimum Standards for

Attorneys in Capital Cases), is amended to add new subdivision (k) (Qualifications

of Lead Counsel in Capital Postconviction Proceedings), which provides minimum

qualifications for the attorney serving as lead counsel for the defendant in a capital

postconviction case. Specifically, the lead attorney must have been a member of

any state Bar for at least five years, and must have at least three years of

experience with postconviction litigation. Additionally, the lead counsel must

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

Related

Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Giglio v. United States
405 U.S. 150 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Davis v. State
789 So. 2d 978 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Jimenez v. State
997 So. 2d 1056 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)
Long v. Dillinger
701 So. 2d 1168 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Arbelaez v. Butterworth
738 So. 2d 326 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Gordon v. State
75 So. 3d 200 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure—Capital Postconviction Rules., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-judicial-administration-the-fla-2014.