Proposed Florida Appellate Rules., In re
| Decision Date | 27 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 50409,50409 |
| Citation | 351 So.2d 981 |
| Parties | In re PROPOSED FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
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.
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 their views before these provisions become effective, 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.
I respectfully dissent to the order adopting the new appellate rules. Whatever benefits flow from the changes are offset by the expenditure of funds and time by the legal profession in acquiring and learning them.
What is needed is a set of rules which would speed and streamline appellate processes to prevent long delays after trial court proceedings.
On October 27, 1977, we adopted a new set of appellate rules to become effective on March 1, 1978, reserving the right to alter the proposed rules before January 1, 1978, on the basis of additional comments received
from interested persons. We have received numerous suggestions for technical and substantive changes, for which we are grateful. Having considered all of these suggestions and adopted several, we now adopt the following Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (1977 Revision) effective at 12:01 A.M., March 1, 1978It is so ordered.
BOYD, J., dissents. Prior dissenting opinion of October 27, 1977, applies.
These rules are the culmination of nearly four years of study and discussion. In the autumn of 1973 the Florida Supreme Court called upon the Court Rules Steering Committee of The Florida Bar to conduct an intensive study of the existing appellate rules of procedure. The Florida Appellate Rules Committee, under Chairman William H. F. Wiltshire, Pensacola, and Vice Chairmen Judge Robert T. Mann, Second District Court of Appeal; Judge Stephen H. Grimes, Second District Court of Appeal; and Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Sarasota, held extensive hearings over a period of nearly three years. On September 17, 1976, the Committee's proposal was approved by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and on October 14, 1976, the proposal as approved was submitted to the Supreme Court of Florida.
By direction of the Supreme Court of Florida, the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, created by Rule 2.1(g) of the former rules, conducted further proceedings over a period of five months under the Chairmanship of Justice Arthur J. England, Jr., The Supreme Court of Florida. Voting members: Judge Guyte P. McCord, Jr., First District Court of Appeal; Judge Joseph P. McNulty, Second District Court of Appeal; Judge Thomas H. Barkdull, Jr., Third District Court of Appeal; Judge James C. Downey, Fourth District Court of Appeal; Judge Howell W. Melton, Seventh Judicial Circuit, St. Johns County; Woodie A. Liles, former Public Counsel for the Citizens of Florida; William H. F. Wiltshire, Pensacola; and Robert Orseck, Miami. Non-voting participants: James D. Little, Miami; Tobias Simon, Miami; Lawrence J. Robinson, Sarasota; C. Marie King, Tampa; Andrew A. Graham, Cocoa; and Joan H. Bickerstaff, Cocoa. Minutes and Commentary: Michael P. McMahon, Research Aide to Justice Arthur J. England, Jr.
The Florida appellate rules, 1977 Revision, and accompanying Commentary, were submitted by the Advisory Committee to the Florida Supreme Court for its consideration and final approval on April 13, 1977. A summary of the proposed rules was published in the Florida Bar Journal, following which the Florida Appellate Rules Committee met to consider changes proposed by the Advisory Committee. Oral argument on the proposed rules was held on June 24, 1977. Limited portions of this Commentary have been added by the Supreme Court of Florida to explain modifications adopted by the Court after the proposed rules were submitted.
It was the intent of the many persons involved in the drafting of these revised rules to implement the public policy of Florida that appellate procedures operate to protect rather than thwart the substantive legal rights of the people by alleviating existing burdens on the judicial system, by reducing the cost of appeals, by standardizing and expediting the appellate process, and by eliminating unnecessary technical procedures which have at times frustrated the cause of justice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sholkoff v. Boca Raton Community Hosp., Inc., 95-3865
...committee, like the supreme court's opinion approving the new rules, does not cite or even mention Chatlos. See In re Proposed Florida Appellate Rules, 351 So.2d 981 (Fla.1977). There is no clear expression in the current appellate rules, therefore, that would allow a court to determine tha......
-
State v. Petagine
...law, however, I am dubious about whether the supreme court can "broaden" our authority in this manner. Cf. In re Proposed Fla. Appellate Rules , 351 So. 2d 981, 988 (Fla. 1977) (treating authority of a court to resolve disputes (i.e. , jurisdiction) as a matter of "substantive law").The pro......
-
Bryant v. State, s. 71356
... ... James Allen BRYANT, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, ... STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-Appellant ... Dee Dyne CASTEEL, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, ... Some general rules have, however, been established. Specifically, the fact that the ... ...
-
Nelson v. State
...current rule 9.140(b)(1)(D), stating that a defendant may appeal from an illegal sentence, first appeared in In re Proposed Florida Appellate Rules, 351 So.2d 981, 999 (Fla.1977). As initially adopted, rule 9.140(b)(1) foreclosed a defendant from appealing a judgment entered upon a plea of ......
-
Appellate stays in civil cases: Florida and federal courts offer more security flexibility than believed, but stay violations still have teeth.
..."except as provided by general law" clause, which preserves "any statutory right to a stay." (33) In re Proposed Florida Appellate Rules, 351 So. 2d 981, 1010 (Fla. 1977), expressly stated in the commentary to Rule 9.310 that "[t]he rule preserves any statutory right to a F.S. [section]45.0......