Case Name: Ronald Anthony CUCIAK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-01-21
Citations: 410 So. 2d 916
Docket Number: No. 60294
Parties: Ronald Anthony CUCIAK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 410
Pages: 916–920

Head Matter:
Ronald Anthony CUCIAK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 60294.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 21, 1982.
Rehearing Denied March 24, 1982.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Jon May, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
McDONALD, Justice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has certified the following questions to be of great public importance:
I. IS A DEFENDANT IN A VIOLATION OF PROBATION PROCEEDING ENTITLED TO FULL DISCOVERY UNDER THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?
II. IF DISCOVERY IS AVAILABLE IN A VIOLATION OF PROBATION PROCEEDING, IS A RICHARDSON INQUIRY REQUIRED AS TO NONCOMPLIANCE?
Cuciak v. State, 394 So.2d 500, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
We hold that a defendant in a probation revocation proceeding is entitled to reasonable discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. We further hold that an inquiry pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), should be made by the trial court when a violation of the discovery rules occurs, but the failure to make such an inquiry does not require reversal when an appellate court finds to its satisfaction that the error was harmless.
Ronald Cuciak pled guilty to burglary in February 1979 and received three years probation with adjudication of guilt withheld. The following April he was involved in a hit-and-run accident, and the state filed an affidavit for violation of probation. Shortly after the filing of the affidavit, Cuciak's defense counsel filed a written demand for discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a) to which the state never responded.
At the June 1979 probation revocation hearing, defense counsel objected and informed the court of the unanswered discovery demand. Cuciak's attorney continued to object as each of the state's four witnesses testified. The court denied all objections, noting that the affidavit named two witnesses and the remaining two were police officers whose names appeared on the accident report. No inquiry was made as to why the state failed to respond to the discovery demand or the resulting possible prejudice to the defendant. The court revoked Cuciak's probation and sentenced him to state prison.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation of probation because Cuciak failed to demonstrate that the lack of discovery was prejudicial to him. The court held that a defendant in a probation revocation proceeding is entitled to discovery but that the failure to hold a Richardson hearing does not require per se reversal. The court also stated that an appellant has the burden of proving prejudice on appeal.
A basic philosophy underlying discovery is the prevention of surprise and the implementation of an improved fact finding process. As Judge Hurley noted in his concurrence, "[l]ong ago we recognized . that trial by ambush is so unfair as to be viola-tive of due process." 394 So.2d at 505. Broad discovery rights are given by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which were designed in large part to effectuate this policy of fairness.
In Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978), this Court stated: "If a probationer needs additional information in order to properly prepare a defense to the charges, the various methods of discovery under our rules are available to him." This decision has been followed in Coby v. State, 397 So.2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Suarez v. State, 377 So.2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and Cioeta v. State, 367 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Fair play and justice require that a defendant in a probation revocation hearing be entitled to reasonable discovery pursuant to rule 3.220.
The framers of rule 3.220 utilized the American Bar Association's Standards for Criminal Justice relating to discovery and procedure before trial. Discovery requirements are set forth in this standard while the recommendations for revocation of probation proceedings are contained in the standard designated Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures. That standard makes no mention of the use of discovery in preparing for a probation revocation hearing. This appears to be because the standard recommends that a final revocation hearing be held after the disposition of any criminal charges that were the cause of the violation of probation. Pre-revocation hearing discovery would then be unnecessary. We are aware that rule 3.220 contemplates a trial context, but basic fairness requires an extension of discovery into the probation revocation setting.
The district court notes that discovery is not widely used in violation of probation proceedings. 394 So.2d at 501. Most probation violations are also substantive offenses upon which criminal charges can be brought; in those instances the probationer is already entitled to discovery. The right to discovery in probation revocation proceedings will not significantly burden the trial courts because there are fewer instances where the violation of probation is not a substantive offense.
Additionally, we recognize the clear distinctions between a criminal trial and a violation of probation proceeding. A probation revocation hearing is more informal, the charging affidavit need not comply with the requirements indictments and informa-tions must meet, the strict rules of evidence can be deviated from, and the admission of hearsay is not error. Furthermore, there is a lesser burden of proof because only the conscience of the court must be satisfied. This informality highlights the desirability of pre-hearing discovery; the probationer needs the greater accuracy and reliability which discovery affords.
The trial court has the inherent power to decide what is reasonable discovery in a probation revocation proceeding. The state may apply to the judge for a modification of the probationer's demand for discovery if it becomes too burdensome. At the very least a probationer is entitled to the name and identification of his accusers and other basic information that is reasonably necessary to the preparation of his defense.
The second question certified by the district court is whether a violation of discovery in a probation revocation proceeding requires a Richardson hearing. In Richardson we held that a violation of the rules of criminal procedure by the state requires reversal of a conviction unless the trial court conducts an inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the breach, with the state having the burden of showing the trial court that the defendant was not prejudiced.
We hold that a trial court is required to make the necessary inquiry regarding possible prejudice to a probationer when the discovery rules are violated. The probationer has the burden of bringing the violation to the court's attention in a timely manner. We modify the holding of Richardson in revocation hearings by ruling that failure to conduct a Richardson hearing after notification does not require reversal when the appellate court finds to its satisfaction that the error is harmless. Contrary to the district court's ruling, however, we hold that the burden will remain on the state to prove to the appellate court that the failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry was nonprejudicial.
The trial court did not make an inquiry into the possible prejudice to the defendant in the instant cause. The facts of this case, however, make it clear that there was no prejudice to Cuciak. We agree with the district court's conclusion that Cuciak had not been prejudiced and approve the result.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
ALDERMAN, J., concurs in result only with an opinion, in which ADKINS, J., concurs.
The Florida Bar Committee on Criminal Justice may wish to investigate the distinctions between discovery in a criminal trial and discovery in a probation revocation hearing and suggest amendments to the rules of criminal procedure setting forth these distinctions.