Title: In Re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

536 So. 2d 992 (1988)
In re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
No. 72468.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 3, 1988.
Revisions Approved December 30, 1988.
Rutledge R. Liles, President, Jacksonville, Stephen N. Zack, President-elect, Miami, Gerald Thomas Bennett, Chairman, Crim. Procedure Rules Committee, Gainesville, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Tallahassee, for petitioner, The Florida Bar.
Richard A. Belz, Executive Director, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, responding.
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Bar Rules of Criminal Procedure Committee has petitioned this Court to consider proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130. In addition, this Court has submitted two proposed rule amendments for consideration. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
The rule changes proposed by the committee, and approved by the Court are intended, inter alia, to conform the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure to the 1985 enactment of the "Florida Mental Health Act" amending chapters 394 and 916 of Florida Statutes. The rule changes replace the term "competence to stand trial" with "incompetence to proceed," and also amend the standards to be applied to that determination. The intended effect of the amendments is to avoid tying mentally ill or deficient defendants in the criminal justice system to civil commitment procedures.
The rule changes proposed by the Court concern the pretrial detention of defendants as well as requiring additional plea colloquy when a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere.
Rule 3.133 is amended to provide for pretrial release for defendants who have not been charged in an indictment or information within thirty days of being taken into custody.
Rule 3.172(c)(viii) is added to require judges presiding at plea colloquies to inform the defendant pleading guilty or nolo contendere that, if they are not a United States citizen, their plea subjects them to deportation subject to the laws and regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. However, in order to protect the defendant's due process rights, the judge shall not be required to inquire as to whether the defendant is a United States citizen.
We hereby adopt these amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. *993 Appended to this opinion are the amended and new Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Deletions are indicated by use of struck-through type. New language is indicated by underscoring. All rules and statutes in conflict with the following rules are hereby superceded as of the effective date of these rules. The committee notes are not adopted by the Court. These amendments shall become effective January 1, 1989, at 12:01 a.m.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
GRIMES, J., concurs with an opinion, in which SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which McDONALD, J., concurs.
GRIMES, Justice, concurring.
Contrary to the view of Justice Overton, I do not construe the amendment to rule 3.172(c)(viii) as affecting our decision in State v. Ginebra, 511 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1987), or creating a new constitutional right. The amendment simply represents a policy decision that in a state where so many non-U.S. citizens reside, it is desirable henceforth to advise defendants that deportation may be one of the consequences of their guilty pleas.
SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur with all rule amendments except the addition of section 3.172(c)(viii) mandating that the trial judge, in taking a plea, must advise a defendant who is not a United States citizen that his plea may subject him to deportation. There is no constitutional right to such notification and the rule overrules our decision in State v. Ginebra, 511 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1987). All the effects of a plea can never be fully covered by the court, and that is one of the primary reasons we require a defendant to have counsel. This new rule establishes a new procedural due process right, and trial judges should understand that the failure to so notify noncitizens of the possibility of deportation may result in successful postconviction relief challenges to their pleas. I see no need to add this requirement to our rules.
McDONALD, J., concurs.