Case Title: Amendments to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC96646
____________
AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL 
                               PROCEDURE 3.851, 3.852 AND 3.993
[July 14, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
In our April 14, 2000 opinion in this case, we proposed amendments to rules
3.851 (Collateral Relief After Death Sentence Has Been Imposed and Affirmed on
Direct Appeal), 3.852 (Capital Postconviction Public Records Production), and
3.993 (Forms Related to Capital Postconviction Records Production).  We also
proposed a new rule that would require real-time transcription of all trials in which
the State seeks the death penalty and rule 3.851 proceedings.  See Amendments to
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S285
(Fla. April 14, 2000)(corrected opinion at 25 Fla. L. Weekly S383).  With one
exception, we postpone the adoption of new rules governing capital postconviction
proceedings because, after receiving comments and hearing oral argument, we have
1  We have jurisdiction.  Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
2  See § 119.07(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999) (exempting “active criminal investigative 
information”); § 119.07(3)(l), Fla. Stat. (1999) ( exempting records prepared by an agency      
attorney exclusively for civil or criminal litigation until the conclusion of litigation); §     
119.011(3)(d)(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (providing that criminal investigative information is 
-2-
been persuaded that further consideration and study is required.1  
Our original proposals were designed to “eliminate those capital
postconviction procedures that have historically created unreasonable delays in the
process.”  See id. at S286.  Together, the proposed amendments would create a
“dual-track” system similar to that contained in the Death Penalty Reform Act of
2000, chapter 2000-3, Laws of Florida.  Like the direct appellate process, the
postconviction process would begin immediately after the imposition of the death
sentence.  Within fifteen days of sentencing, collateral counsel would be appointed
under proposed rule 3.851 and the production of public records would begin under
proposed rule 3.852.  This design was meant to allow postconviction counsel the
opportunity to immediately begin the investigation of the case and have access to the
necessary public records, so that, as proposed, the motion for postconviction relief
could be filed within 180 days after this Court issued its mandate on direct appeal.  
In proposing these amendments, we expressed concern that if sections
119.07(3)(b), and 119.07(3)(l), Florida Statutes (1999)2, which exempt certain
considered “active while such information is directly related to pending prosecutions or appeals”)
(emphasis added).
3 See State v. Kokal, 562 So. 2d 324, 326-27 (Fla. 1990) (explaining that these statutory
exemptions do not end until the conviction and sentence become final after direct appeal). 
-3-
records from chapter 119 disclosure, remained in place, the proposed capital
postconviction procedures would not function as intended.   We feared that the
subject exemptions, which the Court has held do not end until the conviction and
sentence become final after direct appeal, 3 could preclude collateral counsel from
effectively investigating potential postconviction claims immediately upon
appointment.  See id. at S286-87.  With this concern in mind, the Court called on
the Legislature to assist it in resolving the situation. 
When the regular legislative session ended with the exemptions (as applied to
capital defendants) intact, we proposed revised rules that extended the time for filing
an initial rule 3.851 motion to one year after this Court’s mandate issues on direct
appeal.  We also proposed an additional subdivision to rule 3.852 providing that
after mandate issues on direct appeal, records identified as exempt under the subject
exemptions would be unsealed and forwarded to the records repository. 
Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852, and 3.993, 25
Fla. L. Weekly S395 (Fla. May 17, 2000)(published order).  Both the original and
revised proposals were published in The Florida Bar News, and interested persons
-4-
were given until June 1, 2000 to file comments.  Sixteen comments addressing the
Court’s proposals were filed.
After careful consideration of these comments and hearing oral argument on
the proposed rules, the Court has determined that it must postpone adoption of new
rules governing capital postconviction proceedings until it can thoroughly consider 
a number of critical issues and concerns.  For example, before proceeding with new
rules, we must give adequate consideration to the Solicitor General’s suggestion 
that this Court has authority to adopt a rule of discovery requiring disclosure of
records prior to the conviction and sentence of death becoming final,
notwithstanding the continued existence of the public records exemptions 
discussed above.  Another issue of utmost concern is how to ensure the availability
of qualified postconviction counsel to handle the increased caseloads that likely  
will result from the adoption of a dual-track system.  This concern appears to be
directly impacted by statutes governing the compensation of and scope of
representation by registry counsel.  We also must address critical issues regarding
what constitutes an adequate postconviction motion under rule 3.851.  Although it
did not use the term “fully pled,” our proposal contemplated a rule 3.851 motion
sufficiently pled to put the parties and the Court on notice of the issues raised and
which of those issues require an evidentiary hearing.   However, judging from the
-5-
views expressed in the comments and at oral argument, our intent in this regard  
was less than clear from the rule as proposed. Accordingly, more consideration and
revision of the requirements of an adequate motion is required.  The Court also 
must develop procedures to govern postconviction proceedings once a death
warrant has been signed.  Further consideration likewise is warranted for a number
of serious concerns raised as to the appropriateness of the time limits contained in
the proposed rules. 
 The need to adequately consider these and other issues precludes us from
adopting new rules at this time.  See In re Rules Governing Capital Postconviction
Actions, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S119 (Fla. Feb. 7, 2000)(published order).  However,
we reiterate that the current rules governing capital postconviction proceedings  
were revived by our decision in Allen v. Butterworth, 756 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2000), 
and those rules will remain in effect until this Court adopts new ones.
Although not necessary to the adoption of new rules, we also intend to
explore other issues we feel are vitally important to the streamlining and betterment
of the capital postconviction process.  The first is whether we should create a
statewide roster of trial judges qualified to try capital cases.  This Court already has
mandated a training course on capital cases for circuit judges that preside over 
those cases.  Based on the comments, a statewide roster of these trial judges also
-6-
may be needed.  We have asked the Morris Committee to consider this issue and
make recommendations to the Court by October 1, 2000.  
The Court also is considering extending its recently adopted minimum
standards for conflict counsel in capital cases to public defenders, collateral
counsel, and private counsel who handle capital cases.  See In re Amendment to
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure–Rule 3.112 Minimum Standards for Attorneys
in Capital Cases, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S513 (Fla. Oct. 28, 1999).  Proposed
amendments to rule 3.112 were published for comment in the June 15, 2000 issue 
of The Florida Bar News, with comments due July 17, 2000.   
Finally, although as explained above, there are serious obstacles that must be
overcome before the majority of our proposed rules can be adopted, there is an
important step toward improving the system which can be taken immediately.  We
hereby adopt a new rule of judicial administration requiring the chief judge of each
circuit to enter an administrative order developing and implementing a circuit-wide
plan to expedite the preparation of transcripts in all cases in which the death  
penalty is sought and in capital postconviction proceedings.  Previously, we
proposed a rule that would require the State Attorney to obtain and pay for real-
time court reporting services in such cases.  While the comments and arguments of
interested persons reveal agreement that the preparation of transcripts has been a
-7-
major source of unnecessary delay in capital cases and that real-time transcription 
of capital trials and postconviction proceedings could remedy this situation, we are
aware that this technology is not currently available in all circuits and that other
measures, such as the use of text editors or alternating court reporters and the
management of court reporter workloads, may be necessary to expedite the
preparation and finalization of transcripts.  We also have been persuaded that it
should be the circuit court’s responsibility, not the State Attorney’s, to ensure that
such measures are taken.  Accordingly, we adopt new subdivision (i) to Rule 2.070,
Court Reporting, as follows:
   (i) Court Reporting Services in Capital Cases.  On
or before January 1, 2001, the chief judge, after
consultation with the circuit court judges in the circuit,
shall enter an administrative order developing and
implementing a circuit-wide plan for court reporting in all
trials in which the state seeks the death penalty and in
capital postconviction proceedings.  The plan shall require
the use of all measures necessary to expedite the 
preparation of the transcript, including but not limited to:
  
  
   (1) where available, the use of a court reporter who has
the capacity to provide real-time transcription of the
proceedings; 
  
  
   (2) if real-time transcription services are not available,
the use of a computer-aided transcription qualified court
reporter;  
  
  
   (3) the use of  scopists, text editors, alternating court
-8-
reporters, or other means to expedite the finalization of the
certified transcript; and
  
  
   (4) the imposition of reasonable restrictions on work
assignments by employee or contract court reporters to
ensure that transcript production in capital cases is given a
priority.
We have included this matter in the Rules of Judicial Administration rather
than the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as recommended by the Rules of Judicial
Administration Committee, because although it applies only in a limited class of
criminal cases, it mandates a function to be carried out by the chief judge of each
circuit in his or her administrative capacity.  It also applies to trial-level   
proceedings as well as postconviction proceedings and therefore does not logically
belong in proposed rule 3.851.  This new subdivision will become effective upon
issuance of this opinion.              
It is so ordered.  
SHAW, HARDING, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
WELLS, C.J., concurs with an opinion, in which HARDING and PARIENTE, JJ.,
concur.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in result only.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS NEW RULE.
WELLS, J., concurring.
I concur with the majority in the need for this to be an actively deliberative
-9-
process.
I write to state my view that an additional part of the necessary procedure in
these cases is effective management.  We have a rule of judicial administration
requiring the chief judges to report to this Court each quarter concerning each case
which is pending in their circuits in postconviction.  The intent of this rule is that
these cases are to be a focus on the trial court dockets and progressed each quarter. 
To be certain that this occurs, we expect the reports to be filed with this Court
timely and to be complete.  However, progressing the case requires that the state
attorneys and Attorney General do all that can be reasonably done to have public
records produced by various agencies that possess relevant documents and to bring
matters which need to be heard to the attention of the trial judges.
We are likewise taking active steps in this Court to have records timely
perfected so that these cases are appropriately progressed while in this Court.
HARDING and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding - Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
Honorable Stan R. Morris, Chairperson, Supreme Court Committee on
Postconviction Relief in Capital Cases, Gainesville, Florida; Honorable Philip J.
Padovano, Judge, First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, Florida; O. H. Eaton,
Jr., Committee Member, Seminole County Courthouse, Sanford, Florida; Robert R.
Wills, Immediate Past Chair, The Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Jerome C. Latimer, Chair, The Florida Bar Criminal
Procedure Rules Committee, St. Petersburg, Florida; John F. Harkness, 
-10-
Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; and Robert A.
Butterworth, Attorney General, and Richard B. Martell, Chief, Capital Appeals, and
Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Division Director, Office of the Attorney General,
Tallahassee, Florida,  
for Petitioners
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Division
Director, Tallahassee, Florida; Thomas E. Warner, Solicitor General, and T. Kent
Wetherell, II, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida; Reginald J. Brown,
Deputy General Counsel, Office of the Governor, and Martin P. McDonnell,
Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida; Arthur I. Jacobs, General Counsel,
Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Fernandina Beach, Florida; Nancy A.
Daniels, Public Defender, and W. C. McLain, Michael J. Minerva and Chet
Kaufman, Assistant Public Defenders, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida;
Neal A. Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, and Todd
G. Scher, Litigation Director, Fort Lauderdale, Florida;  Gregory C. Smith, Capital
Collateral Counsel, Northern Region, and Andrew Thomas, Chief Assistant CCRC,
Northern Region, Tallahassee, Florida;  Timothy P. Schardl, Special Assistant
CCRC, Northern Region, and Mark E. Olive of the Law Offices of Mark E. Olive,
P.A., Tallahassee, Florida;  John P. Moser and Michael P. Reiter, CCRC, Middle
Region, Tampa, Florida; Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Christina A.
Spaulding, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; 
Richard Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender,
Chief, Capital Crimes Division, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida;
and Stephen Krosschell of Goodman & Nekvasil, P.A., , Clearwater, Florida,  
Responding
Tom Feeney,  Johnnie B. Byrd, Jr., and John Dudley Goodlette, Tallahassee, Florida
for John E. Thrasher, Speaker, House of Representatives, Amicus Curiae