Title: In Re: Amendments to The Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure (Three Year Cycle)

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC06-169 
____________ 
 
 
 
 
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE (THREE YEAR CYCLE). 
 
[November 9, 2006] 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (Rules Committee) 
has filed its regular-cycle report of proposed rules changes in accordance with 
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140(b)(4).  We have jurisdiction.  See 
art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
BACKGROUND 
The Rules Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal 
Procedure 3.170 (Pleas); 3.180 (Presence of Defendant); 3.213 (Continuing 
Incompetency to Proceed, Except Incompetency to Proceed with Sentencing: 
Disposition); and 3.640 (Effect of Granting New Trial).  Prior to filing its proposed 
rule changes with the Court, the Rules Committee published a summary of the 
proposals for comment in the November 1, 2005, issue of The Florida Bar News.  
See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(2).  No comments were received.  The Board of 
Governors of The Florida Bar voted unanimously to approve the proposed 
amendments.  See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(3).  The Court republished a 
summary of the proposals for comment in the March 1, 2006, issue of The Florida 
Bar News, and no comments were filed.  After reviewing the Rules Committee’s 
proposals, we adopt the proposed amendments as reflected in the appendix to this 
opinion.1
AMENDMENTS 
 
Rule 3.170(f), Withdrawal of Plea of Guilty, which currently allows a 
defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, is amended to allow a 
defendant to also withdraw a no contest plea before sentencing.  The Rules 
Committee proposed the amendment in response to Pope v. State, 857 So. 2d 271, 
272-73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (noting that although rule 3.170(f) provides for the 
withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing, it does not provide for the 
withdrawal of a no contest plea before sentencing, and noting that “[t]here seems 
to be no rational basis to create such a distinction”).  The present amendment 
addresses the issue presented by Pope. 
                                          
 
 
1.  The Court severs from this case and defers consideration of the proposed 
amendments to rules 3.850 and 3.851 that were offered in response to the Court’s 
opinion in Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004). 
 
- 2 -
 
Rule 3.180(c), Defendant Absenting Self, is amended by adding new 
subdivision (2), Sentencing, which allows a court under certain circumstances to 
proceed with sentencing when a defendant absents himself or herself from the 
courtroom.  The Committee proposed the amendment in response to Capuzzo v. 
State, 596 So. 2d 438, 439-40 (Fla. 1992) (explaining that whereas “[r]ule 3.180 
codifies the well-established principle that defendants may voluntarily waive their 
right to be present during crucial stages of the trial that occur prior to verdict,” the 
rule “stops short of guidance regarding waiver by absence after the return of the 
verdict”).  The present amendment addresses the issue presented by Capuzzo. 
 
Rule 3.213, Continuing Incompetency to Proceed, Except Incompetency to 
Proceed with Sentencing: Disposition, is amended in two respects.  First, new 
subdivision (2) is added to rule 3.213(a), Dismissal without Prejudice during 
Continuing Incompetency, setting forth a procedure for dismissing charges against 
persons who are incompetent to stand trial because of retardation or autism.  And 
second, new subdivision (2) is added to rule 3.213(b), Commitment or Treatment 
during Continuing Incompetency, providing for the involuntary admission of such 
persons to residential services as provided by law.  The Committee proposed these 
amendments in response to Byrd v. State, 834 So. 2d 872, 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) 
(“[G]iven the Legislature’s clear intention to differentiate between defendants who 
are incompetent to proceed due to mental illness, which is often curable, and those 
 
- 3 -
whose incompetence is due to mental retardation or autism, for which there is no 
‘cure,’ the Florida Supreme Court may find it appropriate to consider amending 
Rule 3.213 to reflect such a distinction.”).  Section 916.303(1), Florida Statutes 
(2005), provides that “[t]he charges against any defendant found to be incompetent 
to proceed due to retardation or autism shall be dismissed without prejudice.”  The 
present amendment renders the rule consistent with the statute. 
 
Finally, rule 3.640, Effect of Granting New Trial, is amended to delete 
subdivision (b), Witnesses and Former Testimony at New Trial, which sets forth 
criteria governing the use of a witness’s former trial testimony at a new trial.  The 
Committee proposed the amendment in response to State v. Billie, 881 So. 2d 637, 
640 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (noting that rule 3.640(b) has been superseded by the 
Florida Evidence Code (Code) and urging the Court and the Rules Committee “to 
revisit [the rule] with a view toward repealing or revising it”).  Rule 3.640(b) was 
adopted before the Code was enacted, and the Code now addresses this area of law.  
We adopt the proposed amendment to avoid any potential conflict between the rule 
and the Code in this respect. 
 
Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure as reflected 
in the appendix to this opinion.  New language is indicated by underscoring; 
deletions are indicated by struck-through type.  The amendments shall become 
effective January 1, 2007, at 12:01 a.m. 
 
- 4 -
 
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. 
 
 
Original Proceeding – The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 
 
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
William C. Vose, Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Orlando, Florida, 
George E. Tragos, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Clearwater, 
Florida, Gerry Rose, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Chris W. Altenbernd, Past Chair, Postconviction Rules Workgroup, Second 
District Court of Appeal, Tampa, Florida; James T. Miller, Jacksonville, Florida; 
Paula S. Saunders, Co-Chair, The Florida Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers (FACDL) Amicus Curiae Committee, Office of the Public Defender, 
Leon County, and Michael R. Ufferman, Co-Chair, FACDL, Tallahassee, Florida; 
and David A. Demers, Chief Judge, B. Elaine New, Court Counsel, and Alexis M. 
Walker, Senior Staff Attorney, Sixth Judicial Circuit, St. Petersburg, Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments 
 
 
- 5 -
APPENDIX 
 
RULE 3.170.PLEAS 
 
(a) – (e)  [No Change] 
 
(f) Withdrawal of Plea of Guilty or No Contest. The court may in its 
discretion, and shall on good cause, at any time before a sentence, permit a plea of 
guilty or no contest to be withdrawn and, if judgment of conviction has been 
entered thereon, set aside the judgment and allow a plea of not guilty or, with the 
consent of the prosecuting attorney, allow a plea of guilty or no contest of a lesser 
included offense, or of a lesser degree of the offense charged, to be substituted for 
the plea of guilty or no contest. The fact that a defendant may have entered a plea 
of guilty or no contest and later withdrawn the plea may not be used against the 
defendant in a trial of that cause. 
 
(g) – (l)  [No Change] 
 
COMMITTEE