IN RE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.133(B)(6) (ADVERSARY PRELIMINARY HEARINGS)
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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition to revoke Rule 3.133(b)(6) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure because the rule protects against indefinite detention without charge justification, though the Court invites the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to recommend alternatives.
[1] A newly adopted rule of criminal procedure protecting against indefinite detention without charge should not be repealed without alternative protective provisions in plac…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the Court is unwilling to repeal the new amendment without some provision in the rules to protect against the possibility of prisoners remaining in custody indefinitely without being charged in cases in which no justification exists for the delay”
The majority's rationale for denying the petition to revoke the rule
In 1988, the Court announced its intention to add subsection (6) to Rule 3.133(b) and adopted it effective January 1, 1989, as part of the four-year a…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rulemaking Process cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard on the petition of the State Attorneys of Florida to revoke rule 3.133(b)(6) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and it appearing to the Court as follows:
1. In 1988, this Court publicly announced its intention to add subsection (6) to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and requested the advice of all interested persons with respect to the proposal.
2. Having received no objections or suggestions concerning the proposed amendment, it was adopted effective January 1, 1989, at the same time as other amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure were being adopted under the four-year cycle.
3. At this juncture, the Court is unwilling to repeal the new amendment without some provision in the rules to protect against the possibility of prisoners remaining in custody indefinitely without being charged in cases in which no justification exists for the delay. Thereupon, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition to revoke rule 3.133(b)(6) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure is hereby denied. In view of the fact that the Florida Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has already undertaken consideration of this subject, the Court is willing to entertain any recommendations for rules changes that committee might wish to make on the subject as an exception to the prohibition against the submission of proposed amendments outside of the four-year cycle.
MCDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which EHRLICH, C.J., concurs.
OVERTON, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. We adopted this rule without any input from interested parties and now we are taking a close-minded approach to the problem when the people most knowledgeable about the criminal rules conclude it will have an adverse effect on our criminal justice system.
We initiated this rule and included it with the other proposed rule changes in the four-year cycle. No one apparently noticed this additional rule. Now the criminal rules committee, composed of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, by a 24-to — 1 vote, and all of the state attorneys request that we vacate the rule. Given the lack of original input and the nearly unanimous position of those most knowledgeable of the rule’s practical effect, I find that we should grant the state attorneys’ petition, set aside the rule, request that the criminal rules committee reconsider the problem which precipitated the adoption of the rule, and set the matter on our oral argument calendar no later than September, 1989.
EHRLICH, C.J., concurs.