IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.853(D)

Fla. | 2006-09-21
No. SC05-1702
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
938 So. 2d 977 Florida Supreme Court (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d) eliminating the deadline for filing postconviction DNA testing motions, consistent with legislative action taken in chapter 2006-292, Laws of Florida, which became effective June 23, 2006.


Holding

The Court adopted the proposed amendments to rule 3.853(d) eliminating the deadline for filing postconviction DNA testing motions, effective immediately, as the amendments are consistent with the legislative action taken in chapter 2006-292, Laws of Florida.


Headnotes

[1] A legislative act removing a deadline for postconviction DNA motions supersedes a rule of criminal procedure that imposes such a deadline to the extent the rule is incons…

[2] A legislative act amending chapter 925, Florida Statutes, which removes the deadline for filing postconviction DNA motions, applies retroactively to a specified prior dat…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“The Committee's proposed amendments would eliminate the deadline altogether.”

States the core purpose of the amendment to rule 3.853(d)

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Rule 3.853 originally set an October 1, 2003 deadline for filing postconviction DNA testing motions, which was extended to October 1, 2005. Prior to t…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (Committee) has filed in this Court an emergency recommendation and report to amend Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853, which governs motions for posteon-viction DNA testing We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. The history of rule 3.853 is set forth in the Court’s prior opinions. See Amendments to Fla. Rule Crim. Pro. 3.853(d)(1)(A), 884 So. 2d 934 (Fla.2004); Amendments to Fla. Rule Crim. Pro. 3.853(d)(1)(A), 857 So. 2d 190 (Fla.2003); Amendment to Fla. Rule Crim. Pro. 3.853, 807 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla.2001). Subdivision (d) of rule 3.853 sets forth a deadline for filing certain motions for postconviction DNA testing, and that deadline, which originally was October 1, 2003, was later extended to October 1, 2005. See Amendments to Fla. Rule Crim. Pro. 3.853(d)(1)(A), 884 So. 2d 934 (Fla.2004). Prior to expiration of the October 1, 2005, deadline, the Committee filed in this Court the present emergency recommendation and report. The Committee’s proposed amendments would eliminate the deadline altogether. In order to give the Court sufficient time to consider the Committee’s report and to seek and consider comments concerning the proposed amendments, the Court, on September 29, 2005, issued an order amending rule 3.853(d)(1) on an interim basis, extending the deadline to July 1, 2006. The Committee’s proposed amendments were published for comment in the October 15, 2005, edition of The Florida Bar News, and comments from interested persons were invited.1 Because the Legislature was considering this matter, the Court held this case in abeyance pending legislative action.

The Legislature has since enacted chapter 2006-292, Laws of Florida (the Act), which became effective June 23, 2006, and applies retroactively to October 1, 2005. The Act amends chapter 925, Florida Statutes (2006), and among other things, removes the deadline for filing postconviction DNA motions. Further, the Act repeals rule 3.853 to the extent it is inconsistent with the Act. In light of the fact that the Committee’s proposed amendments are consistent with the Act, we adopt the amendments as set forth in the attached appendix. Deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective immediately upon release of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. APPENDIX

RULE 3.853. MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING (a)-(c) [No Change] (d) Time Limitations.

(-D-The-mofion-Jo-r-posteonvi&tio-B-D-NA testmg-must-be-fileek (A) Within 4 years following the date that the judgment and sentence in the case became final if no direct appeal was taken;' within-4-years-following-the-dafe-the-eon-vietion-was-affeHedr-en-diee&t-appeal-if-an appeal was taken; within 4 years following the date collateral counsel was appointed or-retained subsequent' to the conviction bein-g-afirmed-omd-ireet-appeal-i-n-a-eapital case-in which the death penalty was imposed-; — -or "by-July-1,--2006r-whichever-occurS'later; or (B) At any time, if the facts on which the-petition is predicated were unknown to fhe-petitioner-or-the-movanfe-attorney-and' could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.

(2)-A motion to vacate filed under rule 3.850 or a motion for postconviction or collateral relief filed under rule 3.851, which is based solely on the results of the court-ordered DNA testing obtained under this rule, shall be treated as raising a claim of newly-discovered evidence and the time periods set forth in rules 3.850 and 3.851 shall commence on the date that the written test results are provided to the court, the movant, and the prosecuting authority pursuant to subsectioadivision (c)(8).

(e)-(D [No Change]

. Comments have been filed by three entities: the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Florida Innocence Initiative, Inc., and a prison inmate. The comments all support the amendments.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Johnston v. State, 27 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 2010)
    …ct), which amended chapter 925, Florida Statutes. The Act removed the deadline for filing postconviction DNA motions, and the Court responded by adopting the amendment to rule 3.853(d) in In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d), 938 So. 2d 977 (Fla.2006). In 2007, rule 3.853 was amended to state that the motion may be filed or considered at any time after the judgment and sentence become final, as the statute provides. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.170 & 3.172…
  • …g the corresponding rules. First, the Act removed the deadline for filing postconviction DNA motions, and the Court responded by adopting the rules committee’s proposed amendment to rule 3.853(d). See Amendments to Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro. 3.853(d), 938 So. 2d 977 (Fla.2006) (hereinafter Amendments I). And second, the Act provided that courts should inquire into the existence of DNA evidence before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony, and the Court responded by sua sponte adopting emerge…
    1 / 2
  • Chanel Nomnombre v. State, 963 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
    …trial court for further review of the motion. KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur. . By the time the motion was filed, in December 2006, the time limit had been deleted from the rule. See In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d), 938 So. 2d 977 (Fla.2006).…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw