Case ID: so2d_700/html/0680-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WELLS, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CAPITAL POSTCONVICTION PUBLIC RECORDS PRODUCTION-RULE 3.852.
    No. 87688.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Oct. 20, 1997.
    Gregory C. Smith, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel-Northern District, Tallahassee; Peter Warren Kenny, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel-Southern District Counsel; John F. Mosher and Terri L. Backus, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel-Middle District, Tampa, for Petitioner.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Carolyn Snurkowski, Assistant Deputy Attorney General and Richard B. Martell, Chief, Capital Appeals, Tallahassee.
   ORDER

The offices of the Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Regions have moved to toll the time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852 for the postconviction defendants for each region set forth in the list attached to this order and for the periods stated in such list. The major bases asserted in the motions are to allow for the transition from a single CCR office to three regional offices and to allow sufficient time to hire the necessary lawyers to represent death penalty defendants in each of the regional offices in order to replace lawyers who have recently left the prior CCR office. . ,

We find that there presently exists a serious problem in both the staffing of the regional offices as well as how pending cases are assigned to ensure that the offices are separate and thereby can avoid the question of conflicts in their representations. We conclude that we have no choice but to grant a tolling of rule 3.852 until January 15, 1998, for those postconviction defendants on the attached list, pending the filing of a detailed inventory and projected schedule for processing of all of the cases for postconviction defendants for which each region of CCR has responsibility pursuant to chapter 27, Florida Statutes. Such inventory and schedule shall include not only the posteoilviction defendants whose names appear on the attached list but also all of the posteonvietion defendants for whom the region has filed motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851and for other postconviction defendants who are to be represénted by a region of CCR, because by the date of the inventory their direct appeal has become final according to the provisions of rule 3.851 and chapter 27, Florida Statutes. The inventory and schedule is to provide a realistic expectation of the earliest date upon which an initial 3.851motion (or amended 3.851 motion if a motion was filed in March 1997 with leave to amend) will be filed on behalf of the postcon-viction defendants or if there is a motion already pending which is not within the March 1997 initial motions, when that motion will be ready for a hearing pursuant to rule 3.851(c) or an evidentiary hearing if it had already been determined that an evidentiary hearing is necessary. We caution the parties that the requested extensions contained in this motion appear to be too long. It is our belief at this time that any further extensions in the filing under rule 3.852 will be of very limited duration because any such extensions will result in further delays in the filing of 3.851motions.

It is ordered that each regional CCR office file the inventory and schedule before December 30, 1997; that the attorney general may file a response to that plan on or before January 6, 1998; and that this Court will consider the plan and hear this matter in oral argument on January 8,1998.

It is ordered that each regional CCR office file an inventory and plan for the filing of all rule 3.850 petitions and dispositions and disposition of all other pending matters on or before December 30, 1997; that the attorney general may file a response to that plan on or before January 6, 1998; and that this Court will consider the plan and hear this matter in oral argument on January 8,1998.

NORTHERN CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL

Samuel Derrick 90 days

Crosley Green 90 days

Ronald Heath 90 days

Frank Walls 90 days

Gary Whitton 90 days

Brett Bogle 90 days

Curtis Windom 180 days

Darryl Barwiek 180 days

Mark Geralds 180 days

Donald Dillbeck 180 days

James Patrick Bonifay 180 days

MIDDLE CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL

John Marquard 90 days

Patrick Hannon 90 days

Alfred Fennie 90 days

Derrick Smith 90 days

Aileen Wuornos (I) 90 days

Aileen Wuornos (II) 90 days

George Brown 90 days

David Pittman 90 days

Charlie Thompson 90 days

John Henry (I) 90 days

John Henry (II) 90 days

Henry Davis 90 days

Michael Lockhart 90 days

Victor Farr 90 days

Anthony Washington 90 days

James Dailey 90 days

Charles Finney 90 days

Guy Gamble 90 days

James Hunter 90 days

Emanuel Johnson (I) 90 days

Emanuel Johnson (II) 90 days

Aileen Wuornos (IV) 90 days

SOUTHERN CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL

Dwayne Parker 90 days

Michael Griffin 90 days

Lancelot Armstrong 90 days

Henry Garcia 120 days

Norberto Pietro 120 days

Kenneth Watson 150 days

Rodney Lowe 150 days

Kenneth Foster 150 days

Lloyd-Allen 180 days

Robin Archer 180 days

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

SHAW, J., concurs in result only.

WELLS, J., concurs with an opinion.

WELLS, Justice,

concurring.

In view of the status of reorganization of CCR, I must concur that a tolling is required. However, it is also my view that at the end of this tolling, the three regions must have developed a plan for each defendant’s case to be substantially and materially progressed during 1998. This progress would preferably be accomplished by CCR staff counsel. However, if the CCR in each region does not conclude that each case can be substantially and materially progressed in 1998 by CCR staff counsel, then I believe it is the responsibility of each regional CCR to find a competent contract counsel who will so progress the case in 1998, enter into a contract with that counsel, and apprise the commission and the legislature of the estimated costs of that contract and its impact on OCR’s budget.

What I see from my review of these lists of defendants are many defendants who already have been in postconviction status for two and three years, and nothing has been done toward adjudicating their posteonviction motion. Additionally, from my review of the quarterly reports from the circuits, many hearings are being postponed because of change of counsel. A complete plan by each region to progress all posteonviction capital cases must be developed. The public, the legislature, and the defendants have a right to know target dates for ending the delays in these cases.

Finally, I believe extensions of time by this Court must cease. More than a year ago, we crafted and adopted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852, with specific time periods so that the public records complications of post-conviction motions could be addressed. Through this date, these time periods have not gone into effect for far too many cases because we have repeatedly entered extensions. I recognize the circumstances of the extension requests have appeared to necessitate these extensions. However, in January 1998, a plan with time periods which will be adhered to by counsel and the Court will be the only further extension in which I will concur.