Proposal to amend Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure (F.R.
Crim. Pro.) 3.800(c).
Proposal: The rule should be amended with language,
such as: “Upon stipulation of the state attorney and the defendant, and after a
hearing, the trial court may reduce, modify or correct a sentence at any time.”
Present situation: Under F.R. Crim. Pro. 3.800 (c), a
motion to modify sentence must be filed within 60 days of the sentence becoming
final. No rule of procedure presently allows for a motion to modify or reduce
sentence after that time has run. While an “illegal sentence” may be corrected
at any time (See F.R. Crim. Pro. 3.800(a)), there are occasions where a
legal sentence should be corrected due to oversight or error. The restrictive
nature of the present rule forces the parties and the court to develop
“workarounds” when it is necessary to reduce, modify or correct a sentence
outside the time limits.
History: This rule was adopted in 1968. The committee
notes reflect that the rule was the “same as sections 921.24 and 921.25 Florida
Statutes,” and were “similar to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.” The
relevant Florida statutes were repealed in 1969 (See 1970 supplement to
Florida Statutes). Now chapter 921 of the Florida Statutes contains the
Criminal Punishment Code.
When
considering the 60 day limitation on motions to modify, the courts have
considered this to be a jurisdictional issue. See, e.g. Abreu v. State,
660 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1995); McCormick v. State, 961 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA
2007); Schlabach v. State, 37 So.3d 230 (Fla. 2010). In response to these
cases, F.R. Crim. Pro. 3.800(c) was amended in 2011. See Amendments to
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), 76 So.3d 913 (Fla. 2011). The amendment expanded the trial court’s
jurisdiction to rule on a timely filed motion to “90 days from the date the
motion is filed or such time as agreed by the parties or as extended by the
trial court to enter an order ruling on the motion.” (emphasis added).
Thus, the rule already contemplates that the court’s jurisdiction can be
extended by stipulation.
Why should the rule be amended? The sixty-day rule is
overly restrictive and does not provide any exceptions. The court and the
parties should not have to invent workarounds to the rules of procedure. There
should be a mechanism that allows modification of a sentence when there is
agreement. A safety valve should be in place that allows the flexibility to
modify a sentence that all agree is unjust. Additionally, this rule would be
useful whenever there is an emergency or other situation where it is necessary
to take quick action.
Examples: The basis for this proposal is to give the
court system the flexibility to address certain cases where everyone agreed
that the interests of justice were at stake. An example of such a case might be
found in the story of Cynthia Powell. As described in a
story by REASON, an online publication:
“In 2002, Powell
was set up by a confidential informant and arrested after she sold 35
hydrocodone pills to an undercover police officer. Powell pleaded guilty and
tried to likewise become an informant, but after she failed to provide police
with any arrests—because she was a 40-year-old grandmother with no prior
criminal history—prosecutors withdrew her "substantial assistance"
agreement. The judge was forced to sentence her to a mandatory 25 years in
Florida state prison, where she remains today.
If Powell had been convicted after 2014, when the Florida
legislature lowered the state's mandatory minimum sentences for opioid
trafficking and raised the weight thresholds to trigger them, Powell would
already be free. As it stands today, she won't be released until 2023.”
In other words,
this first-time offender has already served seventeen years of a twenty-five
year minimum mandatory sentence, where the maximum penalty under current
Florida law is fifteen years. Under my proposal, Powell could make her case to
the Office of the State Attorney that prosecuted her, and only if that
office agreed that relief might be appropriate, ask the Court to modify her
sentence after a properly noticed hearing.
Also, this rule
would provide a mechanism to address emergencies or other situations where
immediate relief was warranted. For instance: What if an inmate was diagnosed
with an infectious disease that put all members of the facility at risk? The
proposed amendment to Rule 3.800(c) would allow the court system to rapidly
address such a situation, again, only if everyone agreed.
Safeguards: Safeguards are in place in the
contemplated amendment.
a). The state
attorney would be the gatekeeper, as the amendment would require their
stipulation to any modification. As a constitutional officer and elected
official, the state attorney is uniquely positioned to be responsive to the law
and to their community.
b). Any reduction,
modification or correction would require judicial approval. Judicial approval
would prevent stipulated modifications that do not comply with other Florida
laws.
c). The rule
contemplates a properly noticed public hearing in order to ensure transparency
and that there is a record of any modification.
d). The Florida
Constitution (Art. I, s. 18(b)) and Florida statutes (F.S. 960.001) require
notice to any victim for a hearing of this type.
Impact on Judicial Resources: Because a hearing would
be held only when the state attorney and defense stipulated to a modification
or correction, hearings would be limited to explaining the circumstances to the
court. Typically such a hearing would be very brief. The reason there should be
a hearing is to ensure transparency and compliance with Florida law, including
notice to any affected person, such as a victim.
