Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.
696 So. 2d 1103 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The right to a direct appeal is protected by the Florida Constitution, but the legislature may place reasonable, substantive conditions on it, such as requiring that an error be preserved in the trial court, so long as those conditions do not thwart the litigant's appellate rights.
Facts:
- The Florida legislature enacted the 'Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996' (the Act).
- Section 924.051(3) of the Act provided that an appeal may not be taken unless a prejudicial error is alleged and properly preserved at the trial court level, or constitutes fundamental error.
- Section 924.051(4) of the Act stated that a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere without expressly reserving a legally dispositive issue may not appeal the judgment or sentence.
- These statutory provisions appeared to conflict with the Florida Supreme Court's existing Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- The Florida Bar Appellate Rules Committee, public defenders, and others argued that the Act's provisions were procedural and thus an unconstitutional infringement on the court's authority.
- The Florida Attorney General contended that the provisions were substantive in nature and therefore controlling law.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Bar Appellate Rules Committee filed its quadrennial report proposing rule changes with the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Florida Supreme Court, on its own motion, initiated proposed amendments to simplify and limit criminal appeals from guilty pleas and sentencing errors.
- The Supreme Court consolidated the Committee's report with its own proposed rule amendments.
- While the proposals were under consideration, the Florida legislature enacted the 'Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996,' creating a potential conflict between the new statute and the court's rules.
- The Florida Supreme Court requested and received comments from interested parties concerning the effect of the Act upon the rules of appellate procedure.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Florida legislature have the constitutional authority to enact statutes that condition the right to a direct appeal in criminal cases on the preservation of a prejudicial error in the trial court?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the legislature has the authority to place reasonable, substantive conditions on the right to appeal. The court recedes from its prior decision in State v. Creighton and now holds that article V, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution provides a constitutional protection for the right to a direct appeal. However, the legislature may implement this right and place reasonable conditions upon it, provided they do not thwart legitimate appellate rights. The court found that conditioning the right to appeal on the preservation of a prejudicial error is a reasonable, substantive condition that the legislature could impose. Regarding guilty pleas, the court held that the Act could not eliminate the right to appeal a limited class of issues established in Robinson v. State, such as subject matter jurisdiction or the illegality of a sentence. Furthermore, the court construed the statute to permit an appeal of a sentencing error after a plea, as it would be unreasonable to require a defendant to reserve an issue that has not yet occurred. The court then amended its procedural rules to harmonize with the Act, creating mechanisms for defendants to preserve sentencing errors.
Concurring - Anstead, J.
This opinion concurs specially to strongly support the majority's decision to recede from the dicta in State v. Creighton. Justice Anstead argues that Creighton was wrongly decided and that an analysis of the legislative history and intent behind the 1972 revision of article V of the Florida Constitution reveals no intention to eliminate a citizen's constitutional right to appeal. The concurring opinion provides a detailed constitutional analysis to demonstrate that the right to appeal from final judgments has long been, and was intended to remain, a protected constitutional right for the citizens of Florida.
Concurring - Overton, J.
Concurs in result only.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the separation of powers between the Florida legislature and the Florida Supreme Court regarding the right to appeal. By establishing that error preservation is a substantive condition, the court affirmed the legislature's power to enact laws that promote judicial efficiency and finality. Crucially, the court reversed its own precedent to declare that the right to appeal is constitutionally protected in Florida, strengthening citizens' rights. The decision also exemplifies the court's practice of harmonizing its procedural rules with legislative enactments, using its rulemaking power to create procedures that allow litigants to meet new substantive legal requirements.
Unlock the full brief for Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.