AMEND. TO FLA. RULES OF CRIM. PROC. 3.851, SC96646.
| Decision Date | 12 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. SC96646.,SC96646. |
| Parties | AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.851, 3.852, and 3.993 and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Honorable Stan R. Morris, Chairperson, Supreme Court Committee on Postconviction Relief in Capital Cases (The Morris Committee), Gainesville, FL; Honorable Philip J. Padovano, Judge, First District
Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, FL; Honorable O.H. Eaton, Jr., Chair, The Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Sanford, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL; Honorable Scott J. Silverman, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Miami, FL; Robert R. Wills, Immediate Past Chair of the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Fort Lauderdale, FL; and Honorable Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Richard B. Martell, Chief, Capital Appeals, and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Division Director, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioners.
Charles Canady, General Counsel, Reginald J. Brown, Deputy General Counsel, and Martin P. McDonnell, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, FL, for Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida; Arthur I. Jacobs, General Counsel, Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Fernandina Beach, FL; Neal A. Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, and Todd G. Scher, Litigation Director, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Gregory C. Smith, Capital Collateral Counsel, Northern Region, Andrew Thomas, Chief Assistant CCRC, Northern Region, and Timothy P. Schardl, Special Assistant CCRC, Northern Region, of the Law Offices of Mark E. Olive, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; John P. Moser and Michael P. Reiter, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Tampa, FL; Roger R. Mass, Executive Director, Commission on Capital Cases, Tallahassee, FL; Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and W.C. McLain, Michael J. Minerva and Chet Kaufman, Assistant Public Defenders, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, and Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Christina A. Spaulding, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, FL, for the Florida Public Defender Association, Inc.; Cary Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, Chief, Capital Crimes Division, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, FL; Gerard T. York, Assistant General Counsel for the Department of State, Tallahassee, FL; Helene E. Marks, Legal Counsel to Richard Ake, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Tampa, FL; Harvey Ruvin, Clerk, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, FL; Michael R. Ramage, General Counsel to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Thomas E. Warner, Solicitor General, and T. Kent Wetherell, II, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General, Tallahassee, FL; Lawrence J. Fox, Chair, Judy A. Gallant, Staff Attorney, and Elisabeth Semel, Director of the American Bar Association, Washington, DC; Robert Augustus Harper and Steven Brian Whittington, Robert Augustus Harper Law Firm, P.A., of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Tallahassee, FL; and Stephen Krosschell of Goodman & Nekvasil, P.A., Clearwater, FL, Responding.
Tom Feeney, Johnnie B. Byrd, Jr., and John Dudley Goodlette, Tallahassee, FL for John E. Thrasher, former Speaker, House of Representatives, Amicus Curiae.
This Court has engaged in exhaustive efforts to balance the concerns of fairness and justice with the need for finality in postconviction proceedings in death penalty cases. During that process, we believe that a consensus has been reached as to the essential ingredients necessary to balance these competing concerns. Although we have not had the case management resources to provide information regarding the average length of capital postconviction proceedings, anecdotal evidence demonstrates and this Court has recognized that the time for resolving these matters has been excessive.2
After thoroughly considering the numerous concerns and issues raised in response to this Court's proposed amendments to rules 3.851 (Collateral Relief After Death Sentence Has Been Imposed and Affirmed on Direct Appeal), 3.852 (Capital Postconviction Public Records Production), and 3.993 (Forms Related to Capital Postconviction Records Production) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, we amend rule 3.851 as reflected in appendix A to this opinion.3 We are hopeful that the new rule will allow future capital postconviction proceedings to be resolved within two years from the time the case becomes final, thereby eliminating the months and years of needless delay that we have seen in the past.
In recent years, we have found that cases are being resolved more expeditiously, due in large part to the implementation of this Court's requirements for quarterly reports from the chief judges to the Chief Justice on the status of capital postconviction cases, the Court's requirement of mandatory training for judges handling capital cases, the Court's adoption of rule 3.852 ("Capital Postconviction Public Records Production"), and the development of registry counsel. These improvements notwithstanding, there is still more that needs to be done. Four components are essential to a balanced capital postconviction system. First, a capital defendant facing execution must be promptly provided competent4 postconviction counsel charged with the responsibility of investigating the facts and circumstances of the case and researching the applicable law in order to present all postconviction claims in a timely manner. Second, in order for postconviction counsel to effectively carry out this responsibility, counsel must be given reasonable time and adequate resources. Third, postconviction counsel must have timely access to all information concerning the defendant's case, especially public records from investigating and prosecuting agencies. Fourth, there must be active and reasonable judicial oversight of the postconviction process to ensure that the defendant's claims are timely investigated and fairly and efficiently processed once presented. Pursuant to the changes we adopt today, in addition to the continued support of the above components, the Court is confident that we can obtain the goal of achieving a prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of capital postconviction proceedings.
Although we have incorporated several of the features of our original proposals into current rule 3.851, we have determined that a procedure that would begin the capital postconviction process concurrently with the direct appeal process cannot be adopted at this time. This is because of the continued application of certain public records exemptions to capital postconviction defendants which would impede the efficacy of our original proposed procedure by precluding collateral counsel from investigating potential postconviction claims in a timely manner.
In developing our original proposals, we considered the proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 submitted by the Supreme Court Committee on Postconviction Relief in Capital Cases (the Morris Committee), which was charged with developing a case management plan for capital postconviction relief and recommending amendments to the existing capital postconviction procedures. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993, 772 So.2d 488, 489 (Fla.2000). We also were guided by the "dual-track" concept for capital postconviction proceedings contained in the Death Penalty Reform Act of 2000 (DPRA).5
Our original proposals were designed to create a "dual-track" system similar to that contained in the DPRA. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993, 772 So.2d 532 (Fla.2000); see also Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993, 772 So.2d 488, 490 (Fla. 2000). They were intended to "eliminate those capital postconviction procedures that have historically created unreasonable delays in the process, while still maintaining quality and fairness." Id. at 489; see also 772 So.2d at 533. The proposed rules were designed to promote the prompt and efficient processing of capital cases in a fair, just, and constitutionally sound manner while at the same time effectuating the Legislature's intent, as expressed in the DPRA, to reduce unnecessary delays in capital cases by beginning the capital postconviction process as early as possible after the imposition of a sentence of death and setting time limits for certain actions to be taken. See 772 So.2d at 489.
Under our original proposed amendments, fifteen days after the death sentence is imposed collateral counsel would be appointed under rule 3.851 and the public records production process would begin under rule 3.852. An initial motion for postconviction relief must be filed with the trial court within 180 days after this Court issues its mandate on direct appeal. Under the original scheme, counsel would begin a meaningful investigation of potential postconviction claims and all public records issues would be resolved well before the motion for postconviction relief was due to be filed in the circuit court. We noted, however, that if public records exemptions that do not end until the conviction and sentence become final on direct appeal6 remained in place, counsel could be precluded from effectively investigating potential postconviction claims in a timely manner. Thus, in order to ensure that the proposed scheme functioned as intended, we asked the Florida Legislature to address these exemptions. See 772 So.2d at 491. When the regular legislative session ended with the exemptions as applied to capital cases intact, the Court proposed revised rules. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993, 772 So.2d 512 (Fla.2000) (published order).
After reviewing the numerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henyard v. State
... ... See Henyard v. State, 689 So.2d 239 (Fla.1996). In that opinion we noted that the trial ... R.Crim. P. 3.851(f)(5)(B). Although evidentiary hearings ... See Amend. to Fla. Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.851, 797 So.2d ... ...
-
Davis v. State
... ... See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const ... BACKGROUND ... In ... See generally Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.851(f)(5)(B). Further, this Court is guided ... See generally Amendments to Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro. 3.851, 797 So.2d 1213, 1219-20 ... court to strike the motion with leave to amend within a reasonable period if the technically ... ...
-
Gonzalez v. State
... ... See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we ... motion without permitting him leave to amend; (6) the application of the new rule 3.851 to ... See generally Amendments to Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro. 3.851, 772 So.2d 488, 491 n. 2 ... ...
-
Rivera v. State
... ... See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth below, we ... to utilize the versions of the criminal rules in effect prior to October 1, 2001. Rivera v ... See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d); see also Floyd v. State, 808 ... court's determination regarding a motion to amend a postconviction motion is whether there was an ... ...