SC14-1530 Appendix E - Supreme Court of Florida · 2018. 7. 16. · Filing # 21900669...
Transcript of SC14-1530 Appendix E - Supreme Court of Florida · 2018. 7. 16. · Filing # 21900669...
Filing # 21900669 Electronically Filed 12/23/2014 10:13:44 AM
RECEIVED, 12/23/2014 10:18:47, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court
APPENDIX E
Appendix E-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE SC14-1530 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES POSTCONVICTION RULES
------------------------~/
COMMENTS OF DARYL S. GUILDFORD INTERESTED PERSON
COMES NOW, Daryl Guildford, an interested person, and offers the
following comments on the proposed amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal
Procedure 3.987 (Motion for Postconviction Relief). I have been an inmate
certified law clerk in the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) for over
fifteen ( 15) years and this experience enables me to provide very useful feedback
on the proposed rule changes.
Proposed amendments to the unnotarized oath and notarized oath
I have concerns regarding multiple changes to Florida Rules of Criminal
Procedure 3.987 (Motion for Postconviction Relief). First, the Florida Bar's
Criminal Procedure Rules Committee is proposing the Oath on the form must be
by notary only and unnotarized oaths will be no longer permissible. I request the
Court reject this proposed amendment. This proposed amendment is unnecessarily
restrictive, serves no legal purpose, creates an unnecessary hardship and burden on
the pro-se inmate and will create needless untimely motions being filed.
1
Appendix E-2
This Court has already determined that the oath set forth in section
92.525(2)1 is sufficient to satisfy the oath requirement in postconviction motions.
See State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993). This Court reasoned that
this particular oath provides the same protection against perjury as a notarized
oath. At that time this Court amended the form for postconviction motions to
reflect that this unnotarized oath may be used. See id. at 1103-04 (amending
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987).
Moreover, by requiring the oath by notary only will create an unnecessary
hardship and burden on the pro-se inmate that this Court has no idea. At most
institutions the staff member that performs notary services is not readily accessible
to the inmate population. Inmates are required to submit an inmate request to be
scheduled and the wait is usually days sometimes weeks. Because the staff member
that does notary is not the Law Library Supervisor or Mailroom Employee the
document may not be stamped, "Provided to (name of institution) on (day, month
and year blank to insert date) for mailing by (officers initials)."
Also by rule, FDOC won't notarize the inmate's copy of any document.
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 33-210.102 (11)(a)2 states" Such employees
1 Section 92.525(1), Fla. Stat. (2013), provides that any document that must be verified by a person may be verified in one of two ways. Section 92.525(1)(a) allows for verification under oath or affirmation as set forth in 92.50(1 ), Fla. Stat. Section 92.525(1 )(b), Fla. Stat. (20 13 ), allows for verification by signing the following written declaration: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true.( emphasis added)
2
-------------------------------- -------
Appendix E-3
shall not accept any document for notarization until the inmate indicates that he is
ready for it to be mailed or forwarded. The employee is not required to notarize the
inmates file copy of the document." (emphasis added) This creates an additional
problem because if the inmate's document is arbitrarily misplaced or
unintentionally lost and not received by the court the inmate won't have an exact
copy of the document provided to prison officials for mailing (with notary stamp)
to provide the court.
Finally, in proposing new rule 3.9875 (Motion for Jail Credit) the committee
placed an unnotarized oath on this motion. Why would an unnotarized oath be
sufficient in 3.9875 and not in 3.987? An unnotarized oath is used in numerous
postconviction motions including motions filed under Fla.R.App.P. 9.141 (c)
(Petitions Seeking Belated Appeal or Belated Discretionary Review); Fla.R.App.P.
9.14l(d) (Petitions Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel);
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.801 (Motion for Jail Credit); and 28 USC 2254 (Federal Habeas
Corpus Petitions).
For these reasons I respectfully request this Court reject removing the
unnotarized oath from 3.987. I submit this Court utilize the unnotarized oath
proposed in new rule 3.9875 (Motion for Jail Credit) also in 3.987. Also that the
unnotarized oath be in compliance with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(n).
3
Appendix E-4
Proposed amendments to Number Six (6) of Instructions to Rule 3.987
My concern for the proposal to Number Six (6)(a)-(g) of the Instructions to
Rule 3.987 is that they are confusing and misleading. The proposed change seems
to suggest subsections (a)-(g) of Number Six (6) of the Instructions only apply to
claims of newly discovered evidence and not the entire motion. The proposed
changes (a)-(g) should apply to the motion 3.987, not only claims of newly
discovered evidence as required in Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(n).
I ask for this Court to remove subsections (a)-(g) from number six (6) of the
Instructions and create a separate section in the Instructions for subsections (a)-(g).
3.987 (Motion for Postconviction RelieD not in compliance with Fla.R.Crim.P 3.850(n)
I assert that the proposed amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal
Procedure 3.987 (Motion for Postconviction Relief) does not make the motion in
compliance with the Fla.R.Crim.P 3.850(n) which states:
(n) Certification of Defendant; Sanctions No motion may be filed pursuant to this rule unless it is filed in good faith and with a reasonable belief that it is timely, has potential merit, and does not duplicate previous motions that have been disposed of by the court.
( 1) By signing a motion pursuant to this rule, the defendant certifies that: the defendant has read the motion or that it has been read to the defendant and that the defendant understands its content; the motion is filed in good faith and with a reasonable belief that it is timely filed, has potential merit, and does not duplicate previous
4
Appendix E-5
motions that have been disposed of by the court; and, the facts contained in the motion are true and correct.
(2) The defendant shall either certify that the defendant can understand English or, if the defendant cannot understand English, that the defendant has had the motion translated completely into a language that the defendant understands. The motion shall contain the name and address of the person who translated the motion and that person shall certify that he or she provided an accurate and complete translation to the defendant. Failure to include this information and certification in a motion shall be grounds for the entry of an order dismissing the motion pursuant to subdivision (/)(1), (/)(2), or (/)(3).
When this Court amended Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 in In re Amendments to the
Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure & the Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 132
So. 3d 734, (Fla. 2013) it made the current version of the form (3.987) obsolete.
Because 3.987 (Motion for Postconviction Relief) was not amended with the rule,
pro-se inmates were without guidance or an updated form. The lower courts are
constantly dismissing the current version of the form for failure to comply with the
requirements outlined in rule 3.850(n). The current proposal will also conflict with
Rule 3.850(c) which states that motions shall be under oath, not that it must be a
notarized oath.
The proposed language of the amendments does not make the rule 3.987
(Motion for Postconviction Relief) in compliance with rule 3.850(n) and would be
subject to automatic dismissal by the trial court.
5
Appendix E-6
Therefore I propose this Court reject the proposed version of the form and
create a form in compliance with Fla.R.Crim.P 3.850. Here's a proposal for an oath
and certification.
OATH
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I declare that I have read or the foregoing
document has been read to me, I understand its content, and swear that all facts
stated in it are true and correct.
Executed this __ day of ________ _
/s/ -------------------
CERTIFICATE OF DEFENDANT
Pursuant to Rule 3.850(n), the Defendant hereby certifies that:
1. The Defendant understands English and has read the motion and understands
its content.
2. The motion is filed in good faith, and the Defendant has a reasonable belief
that it is timely, has potential merit, and does not duplicate previous motions.
Executed this __ day of ______ _
/s/ _________ _
6
Appendix E-7
Proposed amendments should include a certificate of mailing or service
I have a concern that the old form and proposed amendments do not include
a certificate of mailing or service in Rule 3.987. Because a motion filed under Rule
3.850 requires an ex-parte ruling, the defendant is not required to serve the State
Attorney so this Court never included a certificate of service in its standard form. 2
However, in Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992), this Court
recognized the "mailbox rule" in Florida. Also in Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d
324, 326 (Fla. 2000), this Court acted to remedy a further problem associated with
the "mailbox rule," holding that the presumption of timely filing by inmate existed
if the legal document contained a certificate of service showing that the pleading
was placed in the hands of prison or jail officials for mailing on a particular date
and that the presumption shifted to the state the burden to prove that the document
was not timely placed in prison officials' hands for mailing.
The problem I submit is that a certificate of mailing or service is necessary
for the court and the pro se inmate to establish the date the document was turned
over to prison or jail officials for mailing to the court. It can be assumed following
Thompson that DOC promulgated Rule 33-210.102(8)(g), Florida Administrative
Code which reads in pertinent:
2 It has always been a topic of debate among pro-se inmates if the state attorney was required service pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.030(a).
7
Appendix E-8
Inmates shall present all outgoing legal mail unsealed to the mail collection representative to determine, in the presence of the inmate, that the correspondence is legal mail, bears that inmate's return address and signature, and that it contains no unauthorized items .... [T]he mail collection representative shall stamp the document(s) to be mailed and the inmate's copy, if provided by the inmate. The date stamp shall be in the following format: "Provided to (name of institution) on (day, month and year blank to insert date) for mailing, by (officer's initials)." The mail collection representative shall then have the inmate initial the document( s) next to the stamp and have the inmate seal the envelope in the mail collection representative's presence.
I disagree that this procedure solved all problems a pro se inmate may
encounter. There may be times when an inmate has difficulties filing a motion
within the Department and cannot receive the stamp, and must rely on a certificate
of mailing or service. (i.e. in transit from one institution to another or when visiting
the outside hospital an inmate may be unable to reach the appropriate institutional
official.) Additionally, there are times when a pro se inmate will be serving a
sentence in DOC and transferred to a county jail for other charges, child custody
issues, or to render substantial assistance where this procedure is not utilized.
Simply because a pro se inmate is in a county jail the time limits for filing his
3.987 motion under Rule 3.850 does not toll and he must still timely file his
motion. Although under these circumstances a pro se inmate would most likely
eventually be allowed to file his motion outside the time window, it would require
8
Appendix E-9
lengthy litigation and a waste of judicial time and resources that would be
unnecessary if a proper certificate of mailing or service was utilized.
For these reasons I propose this Court insert a certificate of mailing or
service in the new standard 3.897 in compliance with Hagg and Thompson to
clearly establish when the document was submitted to prison officials for mailing. I
submit that the standard certificate in Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(d)(l) to be a model:
(1) By Pro Se Inmate:
I certify that I placed this document in the hands of ____ (here insert name of institution official) for mailing to (here insert name or names and addresses used for service) on (date)
(name)
(address)
(prison identification number)
Proposed amendments to the criminal procedure rules
The Florida Bar's Criminal Procedure Rules Committee alleges the majority
of the proposals are in response to a request by this Court for the Committee, with
input from the Criminal Court Steering Committee, to review the issue of
successive rule 3.800(a) motion and the post conviction procedure forms in light of
9
Appendix E-10
this Court's decision in In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure
& the Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 132 So. 3d. 734 (Fla. 2013).
My main concern is how will any of the proposed changes to Rule 3.987
streamline the post conviction process and assist the pro-se inmate in filing a
facially and legally sufficient motion. I believe the Committee has failed to adhere
to suggestions of Justice Pariente in her concurring opinion when she stated the
following:
Despite this objective reality, however, we must always remember another essential truth about our system of justice: that, among the avalanche of postconviction filings, there always exists the possibility of a defendant who in fact is entitled to relief, either from his or her conviction or from the sentence-including the possibility of actual innocence or credible newly discovered evidence that sheds doubt on the validity of the conviction. Thus, I am convinced that, on the front end, mandating and adopting standard forms for prisoners to use and exploring electronic filing of postconviction petitions would be two significant steps toward our ultimate goal of reforming an "unwieldy postconviction process" while achieving a "balance between the rights of the convicted defendants and the appropriate use of court resources." Majority op. at 3. I believe that standard forms and electronic filing would increase efficiency by enabling courts to track postconviction filings by individual prisoners, more easily ensuring that the process is not being abused and that multiple levels of courts are not reviewing the same filings, and reducing the possibility that a petition with merit is overlooked in the avalanche of pro se filings courts now receive. Because the ultimate issue is the efficient, effective, timely, and fair administration of justice, I also note that, in the 2006 Report of the Postconviction Rules Workgroup, the Committee consisting of trial and appellate court judges observed that the addition of forms for use by prisoners, as well as the ability to handle these filings electronically, would be two ways that the judicial system could
10
Appendix E-11
balance efficiency with fairness. As set forth in the report authored by Judge Altenbernd: Just as a more extensive collection of form motions and orders was required to assist pro se litigants in family law cases, the Workgroup believes that more extensive forms are needed to assist the litigants and the courts in processing postconviction proceedings.{112 So. 3d 1244} It is often cumbersome and time-consuming to amend rules of proced:ures. Forms can be more readily adjusted. The law of postconviction is frequently affected by an issue that generates many motions for a short period of time. . . . There is little question that a significant percentage of all motions filed by prisoners have little or no merit. The typical prisoner, however, is untrained in the law, given no adequate form pleadings, and is represented, at best, by other prisoners with limited paralegal training or experience. It is often difficult or impossible to distinguish between a prisoner who is ignorant of the law and one who is filing motions in bad faith. The fact that a prisoner often has limited education and may suffer from mental illness makes this process even more difficult.
In my opinion it seemed to me Justice Pariente was encouragmg the
Committees and Groups to create a standard form that could enable the Court to
stop Pro-se inmates from filing successive or frivolous motions and abusing the
system but also having a more extensive detailed form that the pro-se inmate could
submit that clearly presents his claims to the courts for relief.
Taking a close look at the current form and proposals, it does nothing to
assist a prisoner in presenting a facially and legally sufficient claim. In section 14
of the Motion (supporting facts) the inmate is instructed to "tell your story without
citing cases or law." It is clearly established that for a claim of denial of effective
assistance of counsel to be facially sufficient the two prongs of Strickland v
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) must be met
11
Appendix E-12
in the motion. A pro-se inmate just telling his story would be hard pressed to meet
those requirements. The courts are now forced to constantly enter orders pursuant
to Spera v State, 971 So. 2d 754, (Fla. 2007) ordering the pro-se inmate to make
their claims facially sufficient again wasting judicial time and resources. Had the
pro-se inmate been instructed in the form to clearly allege "Counsel's deficient
performance and how he was prejudiced by it," I am of the opinion his claim
would have been facially sufficient or prior to actually filing the motion he would
have realized the claim was not proper for post conviction relief and not filed it
with the court. Nevertheless, if after being instructed on the proper procedure in the
form on how to raise his claims it would be more clear for the courts to distinguish
between pro-se inmates who are ignorant of the law and one who is filing motions
in bad faith.
I agree with Justice Pariente that a significant amount of claims that are
raised by pro-se inmates have little or no merit, however, the Florida Innocence
Commission in its Final Report issued on June 25, 2012, to this Court identified
five causes for wrongful convictions:
Eyewitness identification, false confessions, informants and jailhouse snitches, improper/invalid scientific evidence, and professional responsibility. While studying the topic of professional responsibility, it became crystal clear to the Commission that a sixth significant cause exists that may lead to wrongful convictions: The underfunding of the criminal justice system in Florida. Because of the significance of this issue, subsection (h) has been included in the Executive Summary. Many members expressed their concerns about criminal
12
Appendix E-13
justice system funding during discussions that occurred at the June 11, 2012 meeting. The following points raised by three Commission members are the most salient and reflect the mindset of the Commission.
Judge Silverman stated that without adequate counsel, due process is not assured. If we do not provide adequate funding there is a loss of the due process of law which will lead to wrongful convictions.
Dean Acosta commented that if one is serious about doing something about wrongful convictions we must recognize that a lack of funding is the most serious threat that implicates the state attorneys, public defenders, the Attorney General, criminal conflict counsel, and the judiciary. All of the other recommendations of the Commission are secondary. More funding is fundamental to our rights and the system of law.
Mr. Coxe succinctly stated that inadequate funding leads to mistakes that are a recipe for wrongful convictions.
Although the commission has identified and studied these six causes of wrongful convictions, one should not draw the assumption that the Commission, in its two years of work, has been able to study every conceivable reason that leads to the conviction of the innocent. As Judge Silvernail succinctly stated at the final Commission meeting on June 11, 2012: Attorney misconduct, ineffective defense counsel, prosecution errors, heavy judicial caseloads, and inadequate funding all lead to wrongful convictions.
It is clear from the detailed account from the Florida Innocence Commission
in its Final Report that there is a very good possibility that wrongful convictions
exist due to the multiple reasons found by their extensive research. It also
establishes if not because of attorney misconduct, ineffective defense counsel,
prosecution errors, heavy judicial caseloads, and inadequate funding there is a
"reasonable probability" the result of the proceedings would have been different
and/or counsel's ineffectiveness affected the fairness and reliability of the
13
Appendix E-14
proceedings, thereby undermining confidence in the outcome. This brings us
squarely back to the necessity to have a form that can assist the unrepresented pro
se inmate to properly present timely, legal, and facially sufficient claims to the
court.
Therefore, I submit this Court reject the proposals and current version of
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.987 (Motion for Postconviction Relief). I
submit that Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure 3.987 (Motion for Postconviction
Relief) be amended to clearly explain to pro-se inmates what may be brought under
this rule in the framework of Rule 3.850 proceedings while also curtailing the
filing of successive and frivolous motions. Also most importantly, rules and forms
that provide adequate instructions to the pro-se inmates of what must be included
in each argument to make it legally and facially sufficient.
CONCLUSION
I thank this Court for the opportunity to provide my comments to these
proposals because as an inmate law clerk and pro-se inmate I believe it's essential
we have the opportunity to present our claims to the courts in the most efficient,
effective, and timely manner available. I also understand the necessity to create
procedures and forms to limit the filing of successive motions and motions filed in
bad faith. I request that this Court keep the goal of providing access to the courts
14
Appendix E-15
for pro- se inmates at the forefront of amending Florida Rules of Criminal
Procedure 3.987 (Motion for Postconviction Relief).
Respectfully Submitted,
0'8.#!1~ Daryl Guildford DC# 139818
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I placed this document in the hands of Mr. Mcrae,
Classification Officer at Blackwater River Correctional Facility for mailing to The
Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee,
Fl. 32399-1927; Committee Chair Judge Samantha L. Ward, George Edgecomb
Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 421, Tampa 33602-3549, The Bar Staff
Liaison to the Committee, Heather S. Telfer, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee,
Fl. 32399-2300 on day of October 2014.
15
Do/!f/f~ Daryl Guildford DC# 139818 Blackwater River Corr. Facility 5914 Jeff Ates Road Milton, Florida 32583
Appendix E-16
Filing # 19107114 Electronically Filed 10/07/2014 03:27:40 PM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THEFLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE CASE NO.: SC14-1530 _________________________________/
CRIMINAL COURT STEERING COMMITTEE’S FINAL COMMENT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES COMMITTEE’S OUT-OF-CYCLE
REPORT
The Criminal Court Steering Committee (“Steering Committee”), by and through its chair, files this comment to the proposals in the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee’s (“CPRC”) out-of-cycle report, published in The Florida Bar News on September 15, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, the Steering Committee sent suggestions to the CPRC, which are in Appendix F in the CPRC’s original filing. It appears from the CPRC’s August 1, 2014 pleading that some of the Steering Committee’s proposals were considered and rejected by the CPRC and some of the Steering Committee’s proposals were not considered by the full CPRC, perhaps due to time constraints. Based upon the latest request for comments, in the abundance of caution, the Steering Committee files this final comment.
Steering Committee Comment #1 Proposed Rule 3.800(a)(2)
For a new rule 3.800(a)(2), the CPRC proposed:
(2) Successive Motions. A court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits. When a motion is dismissed under this subdivision, a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support the court’s ruling must accompany the order dismissing the motion.
However, the Steering Committee recommends the following:
(2) Successive Motions. A court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are
Appendix E-17
alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the defendant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure or there was no good cause for the failure of the defendant or defendant’s counsel to have asserted those grounds in a prior motion. When a motion is dismissed under this subdivision, a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support the court’s ruling must accompany the order dismissing the motion.
The Steering Committee concurs with the CPRC’s assessment that the Steering Committee’s suggested changes would be contrary to current case law construing rule 3.800(a). See, State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003). Arguably, the CPRC suggestion also would change current case law, because the CPRC proposal does not require a finding negating a “manifest injustice” as directed by State v. McBride. Even so, the Steering Committee endorses the concept of limiting successive rule 3.800(a) motion as proposed by the CPRC. The CPRC’s report indicates that, “proposed subdivision (a)(2), Successive Motions, is modeled on the successive motions provision in Rule 3.850(h)(2), Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence.” The Steering Committee agrees with this statement. Consistency in the rules is of great help in formation of an understandable and uniform body of law. That is the precise reason for the Steering Committee’s proposal. With some proviso language deleted, the Steering Committee’s proposal is identical with rule 3.850(h)(2). The Steering Committee proposal would extend the bar to motions that abuse process or where there was “no good cause” for the failure to have asserted this ground before.
In its report, the CPRC cited Mims v. State, 994 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Mims is a good example of the abuse of the process as set out by Judge Salter in dissent. By the time the matter came before the Third District Court of Appeal, Mims had filed seven postconviction motions, four of them under rule 3.800(a). In one of his rule 3.850 motions, Mims asserted that his attorney was ineffective for not telling him that he could receive a consecutive sentence. The trial court found that to be untrue and that finding was affirmed on appeal. Mims’ rule 3.800(a) motions were filed over a time span from March 9, 2004, to April 3, 2007. Mims’ first motion complained of a scoresheet error. Motion two asserted a defect in his habitual offender status. Motion three argued that a successor judge improperly sentenced him. Motion four went back to the same consecutive sentence claim that had been found to be untrue in the rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing. The Steering Committee is of the view that such activity is an abuse of the process and puts an unreasonable burden on the scarce resources of the judicial system. There is simply no good reason why litigants cannot be required to bring
2
Appendix E-18
claims of this type all in one proceeding. Thus the Steering Committee continues to believe that a more comprehensive successive motions rule is needed.
Steering Committee Comment #2Proposed Rule 3.800(a)(4)
For a new rule 3.800(a)(4), the CPRC is proposing:
(4) Appeals. All orders denying or dismissing motions under this subdivision (a) shallmust include a statement that the movant has the right to appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order.
The Steering Committee proposal, which has been revised from the proposal previously sent to the CPRC, for a new Appeals section is as follows:
(4) Appeals. An appeal may be taken to the appropriate appellate court only from the final order disposing of the motion. All final orders denying or dismissing defense motions under this subdivision (a) shallmust include a statement that the movantdefendant has the right to appeal within 30 days of the rendition of the order. All nonfinal, nonappealable orders entered pursuant to subdivision (a) should include a statement that there is no right to appeal the order until rendition of the final order.
The Steering Committee recognizes that in large part the CPRC proposal tracks the language of the current rule. However, the Steering Committee believes that the current term movant may cause confusion. Although most appeals from rulings on rule 3.800(a) motions are filed by the defendant, the State of Florida does have a limited right to appeal these rulings. As set out in rule 9.140(c)(1)(m), the State has the right to appeal from a ruling that creates an illegal sentence. For instance, if the trial court ruling negated a mandatory minimum sentence, the State would have a right to appeal. However, pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(3), the State only has 15 days to file an appeal, even though rule 3.800(a) states: “All orders denying motions under this subdivision shall include a statement that the movant has the right to appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order.” Under these circumstances, the current and proposed language is affirmatively misleading.
With these considerations in mind, the Steering Committee asks the CPRC and the Court to review whether the word “movant” should be utilized in a new Appeals section in rule 3.800. The Steering Committee does not believe that it is necessary to advise the State of its appeal rights, because the state is always
3
Appendix E-19
represented by an attorney who presumably knows the correct notice of appeal deadline. However, the rule should not be affirmatively misleading.
As a separate matter, the Steering Committee simply disagrees with the CPRC that there are no non-final orders rendered under rule 3.800(a). It is not uncommon for a trial court to rule that a rule 3.800(a) motion is legally insufficient. If that happens, appellate courts should not be burdened with an appeal from a non-final order. The language used is almost identical to the language of rule 3.850(k).
Steering Committee Comment #3 Proposed Rule 3.987(6) and (7)
The CPRC proposal for rule 3.987(6) and (7) is as follows:
(6) Claims of newly discovered evidence must be supported by affidavits attached to your motion. If your newly discovered evidence claim is based on recanted trial testimony or a newly discovered witness, the attached affidavit must be from that witness. For all other newly discovered evidence claims, the attached affidavit must be from any person whose testimony is necessary to factually support your claim for relief. If the required affidavit is not attached to your motion, you must provide an explanation why the required affidavit could not be obtained. Your motion must also be submitted under oath and state as follows:
(a) that you are the defendant in the cause,
(b) that you understand English or, if you cannot understand English, that you have had the motion translated completely into a language that you understand, along with the name and address of the person who translated the motion and a certification from that person that he or she provided you with an accurate and complete translation,
(c) that you have either read your motion or had it read to you,
(d) that you understand all of its contents,
(e) and that your motion is filed in good faith, with a reasonable belief that it is timely filed, has potential merit, and does not duplicate previous motions that have been disposed of by the court,
(f) that all of the facts stated in your motion are true and correct, and
4
Appendix E-20
(g) that you are subject to sanctions, whether imposed by the court or administratively by the Department of Corrections, including but not limited to forfeiture of gain time, if your motion is found to be frivolous, malicious, or otherwise made in bad faith or with reckless disregard for the truth.
(7) When the motion is fully completed, the original must be mailed to the clerk of the court whose address is (county where sentence was imposed) County Courthouse, (address of clerk), Florida.
In its initial pleading, the CPRC had no opinion on the Steering Committee suggestion for this section, but the “no opinion” was perhaps due to time pressures. The Steering Committee continues to believe the form would be more easily understood and followed by separating the instructions regarding newly-discovered evidence from the instructions regarding the general pleading requirements applicable to all rule 3.850 motions. By separating the instructions, the existing CPRC proposal for subsection (7) would need to be renumbered as subsection (8).
The Steering Committee asks the Court and CPRC to consider the following for rule 3.987(6), (7), and (8):
(6) Claims of newly discovered evidence must be supported by affidavits attached to your motion. If your newly discovered evidence claim is based on recanted trial testimony or a newly discovered witness, the attached affidavit must be from that witness. For all other newly discovered evidence claims, the attached affidavit must be from any person whose testimony is necessary to factually support your claim for relief. If the required affidavit is not attached to your motion, you must provide an explanation why the required affidavit could not be obtained.
(7) Your motion must be submitted under oath and state as follows:
(a) that you are the defendant in the cause,
(b) that you understand English or, if you cannot understand English, that you have had the motion translated completely into a language that you understand, along with the name and address of the person who translated the motion and a certification from that person that he or she provided you with an accurate and complete translation,
(c) that you have either read your motion or had it read to you,
(d) that you understand all of its contents,
5
Appendix E-21
(e) and that your motion is filed in good faith, with a reasonable belief that it is timely filed, has potential merit, and does not duplicate previous motions that have been disposed of by the court,
(f) that all of the facts stated in your motion are true and correct, and
(g) that you are subject to sanctions, whether imposed by the court or administratively by the Department of Corrections, including but not limited to forfeiture of gain time, if your motion is found to be frivolous, malicious, or otherwise made in bad faith or with reckless disregard for the truth.
(8) When the motion is fully completed, the original must be mailed to the clerk of the court whose address is (county where sentence was imposed) County Courthouse, (address of clerk), Florida.
Steering Committee Comment #4 Proposed Rule 3.987
The CPRC’s proposed form does not provide for the certifications that are described in rule 3.850(n)(1), rule 3.850(n)(2), and that are mentioned in the proposed instructions in rule 3.987. The Steering Committee made this suggestion in its letter to the CPRC, but the CPRC did not address this suggestion in its initial pleading. Accordingly, the Steering Committee requests the full CPRC and the Court consider adding the following to rule 3.987:
I hereby certify that the motion is filed in good faith and with a reasonable belief that it is timely filed, has potential merit, and does not duplicate previous motions that have been disposed of by the court. I understand that I am subject to sanctions, whether imposed by a court or by the Department of Corrections, including forfeiture of gain time, if the motion is found to be frivolous, malicious, or otherwise made in bad faith or with reckless disregard for the truth.
_________________(Defendant signature)
I hereby certify that I have provided (name of defendant) an accurate and complete translation of this motion.
6
Appendix E-22
________________________(Name and address of person who translated motion for defendant)
Steering Committee Comment #5 Proposed Rule 3.987 (oath section)
Finally and perhaps most importantly, the Steering Committee disagrees with the CPRC’s proposal to delete the “unnotarized oath” section of rule 3.987. Most 3.850 motions are filed by pro se prisoners who are unlikely to have ready access to a notary. Further, while it is true that rule 3.850(c) states that the motion must be under oath, the declaration in rule 3.987 (which the CPRC is asking the Court to delete) is considered to be an “oath” under Florida law. See Shearer v. State, 617 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); aff’d 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993).
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of October, 2014.
s/ Jay CohenThe Honorable Jay P. CohenFlorida Bar No.: 271160Chair, Criminal Court Steering CommitteeFifth District Court of Appeal300 S. Beach StreetDaytona Beach, Florida 32114(407) [email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that these Comments have been prepared using Times New Roman 14 point font in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(2) and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent by e-mail to Judge Samantha Ward, Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, at [email protected]; to John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, at [email protected]; to Paul Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, at [email protected]; to Heather Telfer, Staff Liaison to the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, at [email protected]; and to Judge Kevin Emas, former chair of the Criminal Court Steering Committee, at [email protected]; this 7th day of October, 2014.
7
Appendix E-23
s/ Bart SchneiderBart Schneider, Staff Liaison to Criminal Court Steering Committee Florida Bar Number: 0936065500 S. Duval StreetTallahassee, Florida 32399(850) [email protected]
8
Appendix E-24
Filing # 19374858 Electronically Filed 10/14/2014 04:24:45 PM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDARULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Case No. SC14-1530
___________________________________/
COMMENTS OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.987 AND 3.9875
Pursuant to this Court’s invitation for comments on the proposed
amendments to Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.987 (Motion for Postconviction
Relief) and 3.9875 (Motion for Jail Credit), the Honorable J. Thomas McGrady,
Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”), files these comments on
the proposed amendments. As proposed, amended Rule 3.987 revises the model
form motion for postconviction relief and Rule 3.9875 adopts a model form motion
for correction of jail credit. The Sixth Circuit generally supports these
amendments, but submits the following comments and suggested revisions to the
proposed Rules:
I. Proposed Amendments to Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987
A. Instruction (6)
The oath requirements of proposed instruction (6) are misleading. Rule
3.850(c) requires that all motions for postconviction relief be under oath and
motions based on newly discovered evidence be accompanied by an affidavit.
Appendix E-25
Proposed instruction (6) likewise indicates that claims of newly discovered
evidence must be supported by an affidavit attached to the motion, the motion must
be submitted under oath, and the defendant must attest that the contents of the
motion are true and correct.
However, the organization of proposed instruction (6) will likely mislead
pro se defendants on the oath requirement of Rule 3.850(c). Because the
instruction addresses newly discovered evidence claims before explaining the oath
requirements at the bottom of the paragraph, a pro se defendant may mistakenly
believe that his or her motion only needs to be under oath if it addresses newly
discovered evidence. This is contrary to the explicit oath requirement of Rule
3.850(c). As pro se defendants often rely exclusively on model forms rather than
the rules the forms are based on, it is likely that motions for postconviction relief
will be filed without the required oath. These facially insufficient motions will
waste limited judicial resources on preparing orders striking each motion with 60
days to amend. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2).
To clarify that all motions for postconviction relief must be filed with an
oath in accordance with Rule 3.850(c), the oath requirements could be removed
from instruction (6) and relocated to a new instruction exclusively on that topic.
B. Oath
Currently, the model form advises a defendant to complete either a notarized
2
Appendix E-26
oath or unnotarized oath. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.897. The proposed amendment to
Rule 3.987 appears to eliminate the option to sign an unnotarized oath by deleting
the unnotarized oath statement and signature line.
To the extent that the proposed amendments to Rule 3.987 will require
postconviction motions to contain a notarized oath, the proposed Rule is
inconsistent with this Court’s case law and will prevent many pro se defendants
from filing timely motions for postconviction relief. This Court has explicitly held
that a written declaration in accordance with Section 92.525, Florida Statutes, is an
acceptable oath for motions for postconviction relief. See State v. Shearer, 628 So.
2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993) (finding an unnotarized oath sufficient because it
tracked the language of Section 92.525(2) and therefore a “postconviction movant
who falsely signs this oath could be convicted of perjury just as one who falsely
signs the oath currently set out in rule 3.987.”). The unnotarized oath of Rule
3.987 was specifically adopted to effectuate the Court’s ruling. See id. at 1103-04.
The overwhelming majority of pro se motions filed under Rule 3.850 in the Sixth
Circuit utilize the declaration in Section 92.525. This is likely due to the fact that
incarcerated defendants do not have easy access, and in some cases any access, to a
notary public or other person authorized to administer an oath. Thus, eliminating
the unnotarized oath will inhibit pro se defendants seeking relief under Rule 3.850.
To the extent that the proposed oath can be used as both a notarized oath
3
Appendix E-27
and an unnotarized oath, the proposed oath is insufficient. “The purpose of the
oath is to subject the petitioner to the penalties of perjury should he knowingly
misstate the facts.” Piper v. State, 21 So. 3d 902, 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). This
Court found that a signed declaration in accordance with Section 92.525(2),
Florida Statutes, is sufficient for purposes of a postconviction motion because it
provides that “[u]nder penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing
[document] and that the facts stated in it are true.” Shearer, supra at 1102. The
proposed oath requires the defendant to attest that the facts stated in the motion are
true and correct, but does not contain the words “under penalties of perjury.”
Thus, the proposed oath is insufficient and a defendant’s motion will not be
properly filed pursuant to Rule 3.850(c) unless it is notarized.
For the foregoing reasons, the Sixth Circuit respectively requests that Rule
3.987 retain an unnotarized oath in the format suggested in II. B. below.
II. Proposed Amendments to Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.9875
A. Instructions 1 and 2
Proposed Rule 3.9875 is a model form motion intended for defendants
seeking correction of jail credit pursuant to Rule 3.801. Instructions 1 and 2 of the
form are misleading as to the types of claims that may be raised pursuant to the
Rule. Instruction 1 states that “[t]he attached motion is to be used when your
sentence has omitted the proper amount of jail credit.” Instruction 2 states that
4
Appendix E-28
“[t]he attached motion is the only type of motion you are permitted to file to obtain
jail credit omitted from your sentence.” However, case law indicates that a claim
for out-of-state jail credit cannot be raised in a Rule 3.801 motion for correction of
jail credit. See State v. Gisi, 135 So. 3d 493, 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that
though the court commentary to Rule 3.801 states that it is the exclusive rule for
jail credit motions, it does not apply to out-of-state jail credit claims); see also
Garnett v. State, 957 So. 2d 32, 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“If a defendant is seeking
out-of-state jail credit in a postconviction proceeding, it would appear that the
proper method to seek such relief would normally require a timely allegation of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Rule 3.850.”). As written, instructions
1 and 2 will likely lead defendants to use the model form to file non-cognizable
motions for out-of-state credit and judicial time and labor will be spent preparing
and filing orders striking improperly filed motions.
The proposed instructions should be condensed and revised to clarify that
the model motion for jail credit does not apply to requests for out-of-state jail
credit. Instruction 2 might be eliminated and instruction 1 could read:
1. The attached motion is the only type of motion you are permitted
to file to obtain in-state jail credit omitted from your sentence. It
may not be used to obtain out-of-state jail credit.
This would help clarify that motions for out-of-state jail credit cannot be raised in a
5
Appendix E-29
Rule 3.801 motion, thus decreasing the likelihood of improperly filed motions.
B. Oath
The oath contained in section 6 of the proposed model motion for correction
of jail credit appears insufficient. Rule 3.801(c) requires that such motions be
made under oath. As previously stated above in Section I.B., the oath requirement
ensures that the movant is subject to prosecution for perjury if he or she knowingly
misstates the facts. See Piper v. State, 21 So. 3d 902, 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
The content of the proposed oath largely conforms to Section 92.525(2), Florida
Statutes. See State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993). However, the
proposed oath is written in the form of a question and allows the person making the
declaration to merely answer “Yes,” which is contrary to the requirement of
Section 92.525(2) that a written declaration be followed by the declarant’s
signature. Additionally, the proposed oath is not at the end of the model motion, as
required by Section 92.525(2). The oath does not serve its primary purpose of
subjecting the declarant to prosecution for perjury because it does not comply with
the statute and is therefore insufficient.
The model motion for jail credit should be edited to conform to Section
92.525(2). First, the oath should be phrased as a declaration rather than a question
and the movant should be required to sign the oath. Second, the oath should clarify
that that motion is submitted under penalty of perjury and administrative sanctions.
6
Appendix E-30
Third, the oath should be relocated to the end of the motion for jail credit, but
above the certificate of service. Thus, the oath would read:
Under penalties of perjury, and administrative sanctions from the
Department of Corrections including forfeiture of gain time if this
motion is found to be frivolous or made in bad faith, I declare that I
have read the foregoing motion for relief, or had the foregoing motion
for relief read to me, that I understand its contents, and that all facts
contained in the motion are true and correct.
_________________________
your signature
This language should replace the oath in proposed Rule 3.9875 and should also be
adopted as an amended unnotarized oath in proposed Rule 3.987.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Sixth Circuit respectfully requests that the
edits suggested in these comments to Rule 3.987 and Rule 3.9875 be adopted by
the Court.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of October, 2014.
/s/J. Thomas McGradyJ. Thomas McGrady, Chief JudgeSixth Judicial Circuit 14250 49th Street NorthClearwater, FL 33762-2800Telephone: (727) 464-7457E-Mail: [email protected] Bar No.: 182579
7
Appendix E-31
/s/B. Elaine NewB. Elaine New, Court CounselSixth Judicial Circuit501 1st Avenue North, Suite 1000St. Petersburg, FL 33701Telephone: (727) 582-7424E-Mail: [email protected] Bar No.: 354651
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMMENTS OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.987 AND 3.9875 has been furnished by electronic mail to The Honorable Samantha L. Ward, Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee at [email protected], George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs St., Ste. 421, Tampa, FL 33602; and Heather S. Telfer, Staff Liaison to the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee at [email protected], 651 E. Jefferson St., Tallahassee, FL 32399, this 14th day of October, 2014.
/s/ B. Elaine NewB. Elaine New, Court CounselSixth Judicial Circuit501 1st Avenue North, Suite 1000St. Petersburg, FL 33701Telephone: (727) 582-7424E-Mail: [email protected] Bar No.: 354651
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that these Comments was prepared using Times New Roman 14-point font in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(2).
/s/ B. Elaine NewB. Elaine New
8
Appendix E-32
Filing # 19443441 Electronically Filed 10/15/2014 08:29:38 PM
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CASE NO. SC14-1530 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 15,
2014
COMMENTS OF THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS
The Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“FACDL”) submits
the following comments relating to the proposed revision to Rule 3.800(a), Florida
Rules of Criminal Procedure, by the Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules
Committee (“the Committee”). FACDL opposes the proposed revision based on
the following
Rule 3.800. Correction, Reduction, and Modification of Sentences
The Committee proposes the addition of subsection (2) to Rule 3.800(a) that
provides the following:
(2) Successive Motions. A court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the
court finds that the motion fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the
prior determination was on the merits. When a motion is dismissed under this
subdivision, a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support the
court’s ruling must accompany the order dismissing the motion.
The Committee’s proposal regarding successive motions is contrary to this
Appendix E-33
2
Court’s decision in State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla. 2003), and should not be
adopted. In McBride, this Court specifically addressed the issue of successive
motions filed under Rule 3.800, and whether the doctrines of law of the case, res
judicata, or collateral estoppel should bar defendants from filing such motions.
Initially, this Court concluded that “rule 3.800(a) ‘is intended to balance the need
for finality for convictions and sentences with the goal of ensuring that criminal
defendants do not serve sentences imposed contrary to the requirements of the
law.’” Id. at 289 (citing Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1176 (Fla. 2001)).
This Court held that the law of the case doctrine does not bar successive
motions unless the previous denial of the defendant’s motion was both denied by
the trial court and that decision was affirmed on appeal. Id. at 289-90. The
Committee’s proposed revision does not encompass this important principle.
Next, this Court specifically held that the language of Rule 3.800(a)
indicates that the common law doctrine of res judicata does not bar defendants
from filing successive motions. The Court reasoned that Rule 3.800(a) “allows a
court to correct an illegal sentence ‘at any time.’ Florida courts have held, and we
agree, that the phrase ‘at any time’ allows defendants to file successive motions.
Thus, rule 3.800 expressly rejects application of res judicata principles to such
motions.” Id. at 290.
Finally, this Court concluded that, although the doctrine of collateral
Appendix E-34
3
estoppels may apply to preclude the filing of successive motions, it specifically
recognized an exception for cases where a manifest injustice would result if the
defendant’s illegal sentence was not corrected. Id. at 291-92. The Committee’s
proposed revision includes no reference to this important exception for cases
involving “manifest injustice” and seems to permit a trial court to dismiss
successive motions as a matter of course.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Committee’s proposed revision is
contrary to this Court’s decision in McBride and should not be adopted by this
Court. FACDL believes that, as a matter of due process and equal protection of the
law, as guaranteed by the Florida and United States Constitutions, and to promote
the integrity of the judicial system, it is never appropriate for a defendant to serve
an illegal sentence. See McBride, 848 So.2d at 294 (Pariente, J., concurring) (“the
entire justice system certainly has an interest in ensuring that the defendant is not
incarcerated longer than is authorized by law, or under illegal terms. The courts
have an obligation to correct any such error whenever it is brought to their
attention.”). Since the proposed revision appears contrary to those principles,
FACDL respectfully requests that this Court decline to adopt it.
Appendix E-35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has
been furnished by email delivery to Committee Chair, Judge Samantha L. Ward,
George Edgecombe Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 421, Tampa, Florida
33602-3549, [email protected], and Bar Staff Liaison to the Committee, Heather
S. Telfer, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300,
[email protected], on this 15th day of October, 2014.
4
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/William R. Ponall
Snure & Ponall P.A.
Fla. Bar No. 421634
425 W. New England Avenue, Ste 200
Winter Park, Florida 32789
ph: (407) 469-6200
/s/Luke Newman
Luke Newman, PA
Fla. Bar No. 0859281
908 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
ph: (850) 224-4444
Attorneys for the Florida Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers
Appendix E-36