Case Name: In re PROPOSED FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-10-27
Citations: 351 So. 2d 981
Docket Number: No. 50409
Parties: In re PROPOSED FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES.
Judges: OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 351
Pages: 981–1020

Head Matter:
In re PROPOSED FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES.
No. 50409.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 27, 1977.
On Reconsideration Dec. 22, 1977.
Russell Troutman, President, Orlando, Marshall R. Cassedy, Executive Director, Tallahassee and W. H. F. Wiltshire, Chairman, Appellate Rules Committee, Pensacola, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Following three years of analyzing appellate practices in Florida under our 1962 Florida Appellate Rules, the Appellate Rules .Committee of The Florida Bar in October 1976 submitted to the Court for adoption a wholly new set of appellate rules. Pursuant to Rule 2.1(g) of the 1962 Rules, the chief justice directed the Court's advisory committee on rules to study the proposal of the bar committee and to submit its recommendation to the Court. The advisory committee has now completed its evaluation and requests the Court to adopt the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (1977 Revision) and to publish with these rules the accompanying Commentary which the advisory committee has approved. Pursuant to the rule-making authority vested in this Court under Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, we adopt the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (1977 Revision) and we direct publication of the Commentary with them.
At oral argument on the new rules it became apparent that certain provisions in the new rules could be re-worked to some degree to resolve minor ambiguities and to meet the objections of some protestants. We have endeavored to redraft these provisions in light of the written and oral presentations made to the Court. The more significant rule changes made by the Court, together with appropriate Commentary changes, include:
(1) A rule [9.100(D)] to establish procedures for the review of orders excluding the press or public, designed to meet the appellate aspects of the problem confronted in English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293 (Fla.1977).
(2) Renumbering of the rules to group related rules within a series denominated by the first number to the right of the decimal.
(3) A change in the effective date provision [9.010] to move the effective date of the rules to 12:01 A.M., March 1, 1978, and to add a transitional provision to clarify the applicability of the former rules to appellate proceedings commenced prior to the effective date of the new rules.
(4) A change in the language of the filing fee provision [9.040(F)] to allow the payment of filing fees by cash, as under present rules.
(5) Changes in the rule on criminal appeals:
(a) to require not only an express reservation of the right of appeal in conjunction with a plea of nolo contendere, where desired, but the identification of the specific point of law being reserved [9.140(B)(1)];
(b) to enable counsel for the non-indigent defendant to obtain a copy of the record upon request at a price not to exceed the clerk's cost of preparation [9.140(D)];
(c) to add a parenthetical clause to make clear that trial counsel has a duty to work together with appellate counsel, where the two are different, in determining what portions of the transcript are to be designated on appeal by an indigent defendant [9.140(D)];
(d) to permit but not require briefs and oral arguments on appeals from summary denials of Rule 3.850 motions [9.140(G)]; and
(e) to delete a provision which would' have automatically tolled the running of time for a speedy trial during the pendency of an appeal under these rules.
(6) Elimination of the color coding for briefs [9.210(A)(1)];
(7) The addition of a requirement that motions for extensions of time contain a certificate by counsel that opposing counsel has been consulted and either acquiesces or will file objections [9.300(A)];
(8) Addition of a provision that the grant or denial of a certiorari request to the Supreme Court is not subject to a motion for rehearing or clarification [9.330(D)]; and
(9) Addition of a rule [9.520] to codify current procedures for recommendations received from the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
To insure the technical accuracy and clarity of the new rules, and to guarantee again that all interested parties have an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the new rules and to offer theii^ views before these provisions become efféétive, we invite all interested persons to submit to the Court, not later than December 1, 1977, any comments or requests for clarification as to the'*; rules or the Commentary. Any proposal for a change in the rules should contain the precise language which the proponent would have the Court add, delete or change.
Absent any modifications by the Court before January 1, 1978, the following rules shall take 'effect on 12:01 A.M., March 1, 1978. All references to judicial administration have been deleted from these rules, to be compiled and promulgated in the near future as a set of rules dealing solely with judicial administration matters.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion.