Case Title: Amendments To Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC00-1447

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-1447
____________
AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE 3.850
[October 19, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
In Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592, 595-97 (Fla. 1999), this Court adopted an
amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, deleting the “in custody”
requirement of the former rule.  We also asked the Criminal Procedure Rules
Committee of The Florida Bar to consider the amendment and invited interested
parties to submit comments on the amendment.  The Committee and an assistant
state attorney filed comments.  First, an assistant state attorney submitted a
comment stating:
It would be my suggestion that the term "convicted" and
"sentenced" in newly amended Rule 3.850(a) be defined
to reflect whether an adjudication withheld and
probationary term imposed by the trial court would be
-2-
covered by the newly amended rule.     
Second, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee commented that it was
concerned with the definition of the terms “convicted”
and “judgment” within rule 3.850.  Specifically, does the
term “convicted” mean one who has been adjudicated
guilty, or simply one who has been sentenced regardless
of adjudication.  Accordingly, these terms should be
defined. 
In light of these comments, the Court asked the committee to review the
amendment further.  The committee now suggests the following amendment, in
pertinent part:
(a) Grounds for Motion. A person convicted and
sentenced, whether noncustodial or in custody under
sentence ofThe following grounds may be claims for
relief from judgment or release from custody by a person
who has been tried and found guilty or has entered a plea
of guilty or nolo contendere and has been sentenced by a
court established by the laws of Florida:, claiming the
right to be relieved of judgment or released from custody
on grounds that . . . .
The Bar explained:  “By this amendment, which no longer uses the term
‘conviction,’ the committee seeks to obviate confusion and to clarify the scope of
subdivision (a).”
By making the proposed rule applicable to those seeking relief from
“judgments” and “release from custody” the rule not only avoids the various
1 Prior to the deletion of the “in custody” requirement under rule 3.850, defendants who were
on probation were considered “in custody” and therefore eligible for relief through the rule.  In State v.
Bolyea, 520 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1988), this Court addressed the issue of "whether 
court-ordered probation in and of itself constitutes 'custody under sentence' for purposes of Rule
3.850."  Id. at 562.  In that case, the defendant had completed a jail term that was a condition of
probation and filed a rule 3.850 motion while still on probation yet free of incarceration.  See id.  The
State moved to strike the defendant's motion since he was no longer "in custody."  Id. at 562-63.  The
trial court granted the State's motion but the district court reversed.  On review here, this Court held
that a defendant on probation has standing to file a rule 3.850 motion.  See id. at 563.  The Court
explained that: 
We note initially that the state concedes that respondent is
entitled to seek habeas relief under Ex parte Bosso, 41 So.2d 322
(Fla.1949).  Because Rule 3.850 is a procedural vehicle for the
collateral remedy otherwise available by writ of habeas corpus, we find
that respondent plainly has standing to seek the relief requested.  As we
stated in Roy v. Wainwright, 151 So.2d 825, 828 (Fla.1963), 
[t]he rule is intended to provide a complete and
efficacious post-conviction  remedy to correct
convictions on any grounds which subject them to
collateral attack. 
(Emphasis added).  Indeed, the rule was designed to simplify the
process of collateral review and prescribe both a fact-finding function in
the lower courts and a uniform method of appellate review, State v.
Wooden, 246 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla.1971), not to modify the remedy
available at common law.         
Id.  The Court also expressly found nothing in the relevant Florida authorities to support the State's
claim that a probationer was barred from relying on rule 3.850 and noted that federal courts agreed that
a probationer was entitled to seek relief under the federal counterpart to rule 3.850.  See id.  The Court
also explained that the inclusion of probationers under rule 3.850 was in line with Florida's policy that
"habeas relief shall freely be grantable of right to those unlawfully deprived of their liberty in any
degree."  Id. at 564 (emphasis added); see art. I, § 13, Fla. Const.  
-3-
definitions of “conviction,” but makes the rule open to defendants who have been
adjudicated guilty and defendants who have had their adjudication withheld and
have been placed on probation.  See § 948.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1999).1  Therefore, the
2 The statute provides:
(2) If it appears to the court upon a hearing of the matter that
the defendant is not likely again to engage in a criminal course of
conduct and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not
require that the defendant presently suffer the penalty imposed by law,
the court, in its discretion, may either adjudge the defendant to be guilty
or stay and withhold the adjudication of guilt; and, in either case, it shall
stay and withhold the imposition of sentence upon such defendant and
shall place the defendant upon probation.
§ 948.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1999)(emphasis added). 
3 Additions are indicated by underlining and deletions are indicated by
strike-through type.
-4-
Court approves the proposed rule change as modified.
The Court strikes the specific proposed language:  “and has been sentenced
by.”  This language is stricken because a defendant who has had his or her
adjudication withheld and has been placed on probation is not “sentenced” under
the Florida Statutes.  See § 948.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1999);2 Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.700(a)(“The term sentence means the pronouncement by the court of the penalty
imposed on a defendant for the offense of which the defendant has been
adjudicated guilty.”).  Thus, the language places a limitation on the scope of
persons who can rightfully seek relief under the rule. 
Based on the foregoing, the Court amends rule 3.850 (a) to provide as
follows:
3
-5-
 (a) Grounds for Motion. A person convicted and
sentenced, whether noncustodial or in custody under
sentence ofThe following grounds may be claims for
relief from judgment or release from custody by a person
who has been tried and found guilty or has entered a plea
of guilty or nolo contendere before a court established by
the laws of Florida:, claiming the right to be relieved of
judgment or released from custody on ground that 
(1) The judgment was entered or that the sentence
was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States or of the State of Florida., that 
(2) The court was without did not have jurisdiction
to enter the judgment.or 
(3) The court did not have jurisdiction to impose
the sentence., that
(4) The sentence was in excess of exceeded the
maximum authorized by law., that
(5) The plea was given involuntarily, or that
involuntary.
(6) The judgment or sentence is otherwise subject
to collateral attack may move, in the court that entered the
judgment or imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or
correct the judgment or sentence.
We emphasize that this amendment pertains only to section (a) and that sections (b)
through (h) remain unchanged.  The amendment shall become effective immediately
upon publication.
It is so ordered.
-6-
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT.
Original Proceeding - Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,
and Jerome C. Latimer, Chair, The Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules
Committee, St. Petersburg, Florida; and Edwin S. Zeitlin, State Attorney’s Office,
Pensacola, Florida,
Responding