Case Name: In re AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-CAPITAL POSTCONVICTION PUBLIC RECORDS PRODUCTION
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-10-31
Citations: 683 So. 2d 475
Docket Number: No. 87688
Parties: In re AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-CAPITAL POSTCONVICTION PUBLIC RECORDS PRODUCTION.
Judges: KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 683
Pages: 475–481

Head Matter:
In re AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-CAPITAL POSTCONVICTION PUBLIC RECORDS PRODUCTION.
No. 87688.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 31, 1996.
Dedee S. Costello, Chair, The Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Panama City, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Richard B. Martell, Chief, Capital Appeals and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Tallahassee, on behalf of Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida; Michael J. Minerva, Capital Collateral Representative and Martin J. McClain, Chief Assistant Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, on behalf of the Office of the Capital Collateral Representative; Robert L. Shevin of Strooek & Stroock & Lavan, Miami; Michael R. Ramage, General Counsel, Tallahassee, on behalf of the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement; Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney and Penny H. Brill, Assistant State Attorney, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami; Michael J. Satz, State Attorney and Carolyn V. McCann, Assistant State Attorney, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale; Stephen F. Hanlon of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee; David S. Bralow and Susan Til-lotson Mills of Holland & Knight, Tampa, on behalf of First Amendment Foundation; Maury Kolehakian, General Counsel; Electra Theodorides, Deputy General Counsel, Tallahassee, and Thomas R. Scanlan, Legal Advis- or, Sarasota, on behalf of the Florida Sheriffs Association; and Phillip D. Holland, pro se, Crestview, Responding.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On April 25, 1996, this Court issued an opinion in this case promulgating a new rule of criminal procedure to be known as rule 3.852. In re Amendment to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure — Capital Postconviction Public Records Production, 673 So.2d 483 (Fla.1996).
This rule requires that discovery on behalf of capital postconvietion defendants of public records under chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1995), relating to proceedings for relief pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.851, be directed to the trial court hearing the postconvietion motion. The rule was promulgated on this Court's own motion in response to the Court's study of problems with procedures pertaining to the production of public records in capital postconvietion proceedings. The Court solicited comments to be submitted regarding the proposed rule. The time for filing comments has now expired, numerous comments have been received, and the Court has heard oral arguments regarding the comments. After considering all the comments, this Court adopts the rule as amended. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
We specifically address the comments of those who are concerned that the rule will unconstitutionally limit a capital postconviction defendant's right to production of public records pursuant to article I, section 24, Florida Constitution, and chapter 119, Flori da Statutes (1995). We conclude that the rule does not invade those constitutional and statutory rights.
This rule is a carefully tailored discovery rule for public records production ancillary to rule 3.850 and 3.851 proceedings. The time requirements and waiver provisions of the rule pertain only to documents which are sought for use in these proceedings. The rule does not affect, expand, or limit the production of public records for any purposes other than use in a 3.850 or 3.851 proceeding. This is a rule of procedure which directs the use of the courts' power to require, regulate, or prohibit the production of public records for these postconviction capital proceedings. We also note specifically that the rule is not a rule of evidence. Any public record that a postconviction defendant offers into evidence in a postconviction proceeding shall be admitted on the basis of the applicable law of evidence.
In its comment, The Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee expressed its concern about the need to expedite hearings pursuant to rule 3.852 by requiring a timetable for such hearings. The Committee suggested amending the rule to require that a moving party set for hearing a motion to compel production of public records within ten days of filing the motion. We believe the proposed requirement is unwarranted because it would interfere with the various local practices the judicial circuits use for setting their hearing dates. However, we have added the requirement in subdivisions (f)(1) and (f)(2) that a copy of any motion to compel production of public records relating to a postconviction proceeding be furnished to the trial judge in addition to being filed in the trial court. We also note that these motions are to be served upon the Attorney General and all counsel of record. We expect due diligence by the State in having these motions presented for hearing. We also expect Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050(b)(7), requiring the chief judge of each judicial circuit to file periodic reports regarding the status of postconviction proceedings, to bring to the attention of chief judges for appropriate administrative direction any motions which are not being timely heard by trial judges.
In its comment, the office of the Attorney General proposed that the rule be applied prospectively in order to prevent further delay in postconviction proceedings that could be caused by defendants with pending public records requests who might choose to restart the discovery process under the new rule. We have decided instead to view the discovery process as a continuum, with a requirement that any pending public records civil ' actions that seek public records to be used in 3.850 or 3.851 proceedings be transferred within thirty days of the effective date of this rule to the postconviction court and consolidated within 3.850 or 3.851 motions which are pending on the date of transfer or which will be filed thereafter. We here direct the office of the Attorney General to undertake the duty of seeing that these actions are transferred within the time requirements of the rule. The rulings in these pending actions made prior to consolidation shall have the same effect as the rulings would have had if the motions or complaints had been in a 3.850 or 3.851 proceeding from the inception of the 3.850 or 3.851 proceeding. As noted in our amendment of subdivision (i), the rule shall not be a basis for relitigating any requests for production or objections which have been ruled upon on the effective date of this rule.
Accordingly, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852 is amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. We have amended the following subdivisions of the rule since its publication for comment: (c)(1); (d)(2)(D); (e)(1), (2), (4); (f)(1), (2); (g)(2), (3); (i)(l), (2), (3), (4); (k); (m); (n); and (o). New language is indicated by underscoring, and deletions are indicated by strike-through type. The court commentary is offered for explanation only and is not adopted as an official part of the rule. These amendments become effective on the date this opinion is filed.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ" concur.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which KOGAN, C.J. and GRIMES, J., concur.
. This statement is intended to make clear that the admissibility of a public record in the possession of a postconviction defendant but not obtained under provisions of this rule is to be determined based on the law of evidence applicable to the record's admissibility in the particular proceeding. Determination of admissibility shall not be based on whether the record was obtained pursuant to this rule.
. This rule supersedes Hoffman v. State, 613 So.2d 405 (Fla.1992).