Citations
- 256 So. 3d 1218
Full opinion text
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee (Committee) has filed its regular-cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rules). See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(b). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
BACKGROUND
The Committee proposes a new rule, as well as a number of amendments to existing appellate rules and forms. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar unanimously approved the proposals. The Committee published the proposed amendments in The Florida Bar News before submitting them to the Court. It received four comments; in response to these comments, the Committee revoked several of its original proposals and revised one proposal.
After the Committee's report was filed with the Court, the Court published the amendments for comment. We received comments from the chief judges of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit and the Second Judicial Circuit, and from attorney Ellie Bertwell, the rules attorney for Aderant CompuLaw. The Committee filed a response to the comments; in some instances, the response included revised rule proposals.
The Court held oral argument on the proposed amendments.
After fully considering the Committee's proposals, the comments, the Committee's response, and the issues discussed at oral argument, we adopt the majority of the Committee's proposed amendments, with some revisions, as discussed in this opinion. However, as addressed below, we decline to adopt, at this time, the Committee's proposal to amend rule 9.030(c) (Jurisdiction of Courts; Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts) to add new subdivision (c)(4) (Panels), requiring that matters within the circuit court's jurisdiction under rule 9.030 be considered by a panel of three judges, and we direct that a special workgroup be established to further study this important issue. We discuss the new rule and the more significant rule amendments below.
AMENDMENTS
First, we amend rule 9.020 (Definitions) to delete existing subdivision (h) (Applicability of Florida Rules of Judicial Administration); this provision will now be included in rule 9.010, renamed "Effective Date; Scope; Applicability of Florida Rules of Judicial Administration." Also in rule 9.020, we amend subdivision (i), re-lettered as subdivision (h), to reorganize and clarify the definition of the term "Rendition (of an Order)." As amended, subdivision (h) includes new subdivisions (h)(1) and (h)(2). Subdivision (h)(1) (Motions Tolling Rendition) lists the specific motions that, if authorized in a proceeding and if timely filed by a party, toll rendition of an order. We have revised the Committee's proposal in subdivision (h)(1)(E) so that motions for judgment in accordance with a prior motion for directed verdict and motions for arrest of judgment are listed separately in subdivisions (h)(1)(E) and (h)(1)(F). New subdivision (h)(2) (Effect of Motions Tolling Rendition) incorporates existing language describing the effect on the final order when any motion authorized in subdivision (h)(1) is filed in the lower tribunal.
The Committee proposes several amendments to rule 9.030 (Jurisdiction of Courts). The most significant of these is proposed new subdivision (c)(4) (Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts; Panels), which would require that matters within the circuit court's jurisdiction under the rule be considered by a panel of three judges, with the concurrence of two judges necessary to a decision. In proposing this change, the Committee indicates in the report that it conducted substantial research as to appellate practices in most of the circuit courts in Florida. The results of such research indicated that appeals to the circuit court are handled differently across the state-some circuits, for example the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, require that most or all appeals be heard by a panel of circuit judges, while a number of other circuits do not utilize such panels. The Committee maintains that an appellate rule requiring panels of three judges to decide appeals in the circuit court, similar to the way appeals are heard in the district courts of appeal, would serve as an important safeguard to the rights of litigants; it suggests that such review promotes better decision making, reduces mistakes, eliminates extremes and bias, and promotes stability and fairness.
The Court received comments opposed to the Committee's proposal from the chief judges of the Sixteenth and Second Circuits. The chief judges express concern that a rule requiring three-judge panels to hear all appeals in every circuit will result in an increased workload for judges, judicial assistants, and court staff, and would ultimately make the timely disposition of appeals more challenging. They also emphasize that the Committee's proposal here would be particularly burdensome on the smaller or less populous circuits with fewer judges. Significantly, we note that the comment from the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit represents that the chief judges from every circuit urge this Court to allow the circuit courts to retain discretion to determine whether or when to utilize appellate panels.
We do find merit in the Committee's argument that appeals to the circuit court should be handled in a more uniform manner across the state. Nonetheless, because we believe this important issue requires further study in order to better accommodate the smaller Florida circuits, we decline the Committee's recommendation to adopt proposed rule 9.030(c)(4) at this time. The Chief Justice shall appoint a special workgroup to study whether the circuit courts should be uniformly required to hear appeals in panels, and to propose appropriate amendments to the Rules of Judicial Administration or the Rules of Appellate Procedure if the workgroup determines that such amendments are necessary. The workgroup shall also consider whether other changes to the process for appellate review of county court decisions would improve the administration of justice and may propose any revisions in the law necessary to implement recommended changes. The workgroup should include members from each judicial conference, the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, and the Appellate Court Rules Committee.
Next, in rule 9.110 (Appeal Proceedings to Review Final Orders of Lower Tribunals and Orders Granting New Trial in Jury and Non-Jury Cases), we amend subdivision (k) (Review of Partial Final Judgments), as proposed by the Committee, to address the appropriate scope of review of a partial final judgment. Such review may include any ruling or matter that occurred before the notice of appeal was filed, so long as the ruling or matter is directly related to an aspect of the partial final judgment on review.
We amend rule 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Non-Final Orders and Specified Final Orders) to authorize two new categories of nonfinal orders that may be appealed to the district courts of appeal. New subdivision (a)(3)(C)(xii) permits appeals of nonfinal orders that determine, as a matter of law, that a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed. Additionally, new subdivision (a)(3)(E) permits appeals of nonfinal orders that grant or deny a motion to disqualify counsel.
In rule 9.140 (Appeal Proceedings in Criminal Cases), we amend several subdivisions, as proposed by the Committee, to make clear that attorneys or parties designating portions of the trial proceedings for transcription must serve those designations on the approved court reporter or transcriptionist. We also amend subdivision (f)(5) (Record; Return of Record) to provide for the return to the lower tribunal of any portions of the appellate record that were not electronically filed. And we amend subdivision (f)(6) (Record; Supplemental Record for Motion to Correct Sentencing Error Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) ), as proposed by the Committee, to incorporate motions for rehearing in the provisions addressing transmission of a supplemental record for postconviction proceedings pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). However, we decline to adopt the Committee's proposed amendments to subdivisions (c)(3) (Appeals by the State; Commencement) and (d)(1) (Withdrawal of Defense Counsel after Judgment and Sentence or after Appeal by State). The Committee indicates it proposes amendments to these subdivisions to avoid conflict with amendments to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.505 (Attorneys) proposed in a separate case, In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.010, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.440 , 225 So.3d 220 (Fla. 2017). In that case we declined to adopt amendments to various court rules that would have allowed for the designation of lead counsel, additional counsel, or limited representation counsel. Accordingly, we also decline to adopt the Committee's proposals here to amend subdivisions (c)(3) and (d)(1) of rule 9.140.
In rule 9.146 (Appeal Proceedings in Juvenile Dependency and Termination of Parental Rights Cases and Cases Involving Families and Children in Need of Services), we adopt new subdivision (c)(3) (Stay of Proceedings; Review), as proposed by the Committee, to address review of orders entered by the lower tribunal granting or denying a stay pending appellate review. We also amend subdivision (g)(3)(B) (Special Procedures and Time Limitations Applicable to Appeals of Final Orders in Dependency or Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings; Briefs; Times for Service) to add language addressing the time for serving responsive briefs when one or more initial or answer briefs are filed in a case. We have revised the Committee's proposal in this subdivision to make clear that in any appeal or cross-appeal, if more than one initial or answer brief is authorized, the responsive brief shall be served within twenty days after the last initial brief or within ten days after the last answer brief was served; if the last authorized initial or answer brief is not served, the responsive brief shall be served within twenty days after the last authorized initial brief or within ten days after the last authorized answer brief could have been timely served. Also in rule 9.146, we amend subdivision (g)(4)(B) (Special Procedures and Time Limitations Applicable to Appeals of Final Orders in Dependency or Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings; Motions; Motions to Withdraw as Counsel), as proposed by the Committee, to require attorneys, following an order granting a motion to withdraw as counsel for an indigent parent, to file a notice with the court certifying that counsel has forwarded a copy of the record and transcripts to the indigent parent or that counsel is not able to locate the parent after making a diligent effort to do so.
We next amend rule 9.210 (Briefs) to add a new subdivision (a)(6) (Generally) requiring that, when an attorney is representing more than one party in an appeal, the attorney may only file one initial or answer brief and one reply brief, if a reply brief is authorized, that includes arguments as to all of the parties the attorney represents in the appeal. A single party responding to multiple briefs, or a single party represented by multiple attorneys, is similarly limited to one initial or answer brief and one reply brief. We also amend subdivision (f) (Times for Service of Briefs), as proposed by the Committee in its response to comments, to provide that in any appeal or cross-appeal where more than one initial or answer brief is authorized, the responsive brief shall be served within twenty days after the last initial or answer brief was served; if the last authorized initial or answer brief is not served within the time allowed, the responsive brief shall be served within twenty days after the last initial or answer brief could have timely been served.
In rule 9.330 (Rehearing; Clarification; Certification), we have substantially reorganized subdivision (a) (Time for Filing; Contents; Response) in order to more clearly outline the requirements for motions for rehearing, clarification, certification, or a written opinion. The existing language in this subdivision is incorporated into three new subdivisions: subdivision (a)(1) (Time for Filing), subdivision (a)(2) (Contents), and subdivision (a)(3) (Response). New subdivision (a)(2) includes four subdivisions describing the requirements for each type of motion authorized in this rule. In subdivision (a)(2)(C) (Motion for Certification), we add new language requiring that a motion for certification set forth the cases that the filer asserts expressly and directly conflict with the court's order or decision or set forth the issue or question to be certified as one of great public importance. Additionally, in subdivision (a)(2)(D) (Motion for Written Opinion), we add language authorizing motions seeking a written opinion on the grounds that an opinion would provide either a legitimate basis for review by this Court; an explanation for an apparent deviation from precedent; or guidance to the parties or a lower tribunal when the same issue is also present in other cases pending before the court or another district court of appeal, when the issue is expected to recur in future cases, when there are conflicting decisions from lower tribunals, when the issue is one of first impression, or when the issue arises in a case where the court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction.
Also, in rule 9.330, we amend subdivision (b) (Limitation), as proposed by the Committee, to require that parties file just one document incorporating any and all motions under this rule that may be appropriate in the case, rather than separate documents for each motion. We also add a new subdivision (e) (Application). This subdivision provides that the provisions of rule 9.330 apply only to appellate orders or decisions that adjudicate, resolve, or otherwise dispose of an appeal, original proceeding, or motion for appellate attorneys' fees; the rule does not limit a court's inherent authority to reconsider nonfinal appellate orders and decisions.
In rule 9.360 (Parties), we amend subdivision (a) (Joinder) and add a corresponding committee note to recharacterize the term "joinder" as "joinder for realignment as appellant or petitioner." Subdivision (a) is now titled "Joinder for Realignment as Appellant or Petitioner." We also adopt the other amendments to rule 9.360 as proposed.
We adopt a new rule 9.380 (Notice of Related Case or Issue), which provides that a party is permitted to file a notice of related case or related issue, informing the court of a pending, related case arising out of the same proceeding in the lower tribunal or involving a similar issue of law. The notice shall include only information identifying the related case and shall not contain argument. It must be in the format prescribed in proposed new form 9.900(k) (Notice of Related Case).
In rule 9.400 (Costs and Attorneys' Fees), we amend subdivision (b) (Attorneys' Fees) to address the time for filing a motion for attorneys' fees in discretionary review proceedings in this Court. New subdivision (b)(3) provides that in discretionary review proceedings under rule 9.030(a)(2)(A) in which jurisdictional briefs are permitted, a motion for attorneys' fees shall be served not later than the time for serving the respondent's brief on jurisdiction, or if jurisdiction is accepted, the time for serving the reply brief. New subdivision (b)(4) provides that in discretionary review proceedings in which jurisdiction is invoked under rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), the motion for attorneys' fees shall be served not later than five days after the filing of the notice, or if jurisdiction is accepted, the time for serving the reply brief.
Finally, we amend rule 9.420 (Filing; Service of Copies; Computation of Time) in subdivision (c) (Method of Service) to authorize parties to serve the initial document in an appeal electronically in conformity with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b). Petitions invoking a court's original jurisdiction under rules 9.030(a)(3), (b)(3), or (c)(3) shall be served both by e-mail, pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1), and in paper format, pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(2).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The committee notes are offered for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective on January 1, 2019, at 12:01 a.m.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
LEWIS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
The report also proposed substantial amendments to rule 9.800 (Uniform Citation System). On May 31, 2017, the Court issued an order severing those proposals from the instant case; they have been considered in In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.800 , No. SC17-999, 257 So.3d 91, 2018 WL 5289343 (Fla. Oct. 25, 2018).
Rule 9.146(g) (Special Procedures and Time Limitations Applicable to Appeals of Final Orders in Dependency or Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings) outlines special time frames that apply to appeals from final orders in dependency and termination of parental rights cases. Subdivision (g)(3)(B) directs that the initial brief be served within twenty days after service of the record on appeal or the index to the record on appeal, the answer brief within twenty days of service of the initial brief, and the reply brief within ten days after service of the answer brief. The Committee's first proposal to amend subdivision (g)(3)(B) incorporated similar time frames. The Committee later submitted a revised proposal in response to comments. While we generally approve the Committee's revisions, the revised proposal would have allowed twenty days, rather than ten, to serve a reply brief. In order to maintain consistency with other provisions in rule 9.146(g)(3)(B), we have revised the Committee's proposal such that parties are allowed twenty days to respond after the last initial brief, and ten days to respond after the last answer brief.
We have revised the Committee's proposal to refer specifically to requirements for electronic service in Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b).
PARIENTE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with all the proposed amendments being adopted, but I dissent from the Court's decision to not adopt the Appellate Court Rules Committee's ("the Committee") unanimously proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.030, which would "requir[e] that matters within the circuit court's jurisdiction under rule 9.030 be considered by a panel of three judges." Per curiam op. at 1218-19.
Practitioners, judges, and this Court have known for almost two decades of the lack of uniformity across the State in how circuits handle their appellate jurisdiction. We clearly have the authority to finally address this issue, which, in my view, should be dealt with now by adopting the Committee's proposed amendment to protect litigants' best interests rather than appointing a special workgroup to again study this issue. However, because the Court does not adopt the amendment to rule 9.030, I urge the workgroup to study only the logistics of concerns raised by the smaller circuits and not the merits or wisdom of uniformly employing three-judge appellate panels in the circuit courts across the State.
Without question, requiring three-judge appellate panels at the circuit court level is essential to protecting litigants' due process rights, including the right to meaningful appellate review. This is particularly clear when considering the limited scope of the second-tier review of those decisions by the district courts of appeal. As the Committee explains, this amendment "would not only make the appellate process consistent in the circuit and district courts" but would also "alleviate concerns that a review by a single circuit judge could be perceived as simply substituting one judge's opinion for another." Regular-Cycle Report of the App. Ct. Rules Comm. (Report) at 4; see Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs , 658 So.2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995).
The concern caused by allowing appellate review by one circuit judge is clear when viewed in light of the district courts' review of circuit court appellate decisions, which is "limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and whether the circuit court applied the correct law." Heggs , 658 So.2d at 530 ; see Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. City of W. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 541 So.2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1989) ; City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant , 419 So.2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982) ; Martin Cty. v. City of Stuart , 736 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Citing the American Bar Association's Standards Relating to Court Organization (1990), the Committee explains that "[t]he value of three-judge panel review is a recognized tenet of appellate procedure," which facilitates "collective, consensus-based review of a lower-tribunal's ruling," in turn "promot[ing] better decision making, reduc[ing] mistakes, eliminat[ing] extremes and bias, and promot[ing] stability and fairness." App. Ct. Rules Comm.'s Resp. to Comments (Resp.) at 3.
The problems created by lack of uniformity across the circuits regarding their appellate jurisdiction has been clear for almost two decades. Indeed, in 2000, this Court referred the issue "to the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee of The Florida Bar for study." Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania , 761 So.2d 1089, 1094 (Fla. 2000). After studying the issue, that committee rejected the uniform adoption of three-judge panels not because it was jurisprudentially unsound but "due to fiscal concerns of smaller counties and circuits." Report at 4. Since then, the Committee has undertaken the task of studying this issue, and, consequently, its proposal in this case is based on "substantial research." Per curiam op. at 1219; accord Report at 4.
As I expressed in 2001, requiring three-judge appellate panels at the circuit court level would eliminate the lack of uniformity between the circuits, help to ensure well-reasoned opinions, and facilitate "more limited second-tier review" by the district courts of appeal "as well as this Court's review of the" district courts' decisions. Dusseau v. Metro. Dade Cty. , 794 So.2d 1270, 1277 (Fla. 2001) (Pariente, J., concurring, joined by Anstead and Lewis, JJ.). Similarly, Justice Lewis, writing for the majority in Ivey v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 774 So.2d 679 (Fla. 2000), explained how a written opinion by a three-judge appellate panel of circuit court judges aids the district courts of appeal in their more limited second-tier review mandated by our current jurisprudence:
Allstate specifically asserted to this Court that "as a practical matter, the appellate courts need to be able to review the circuit courts sitting in their appellate capacity because [the circuit courts] are not really equipped to decide appellate cases, to decide issues of law." In this case, a three-judge panel of the circuit court issued a well-reasoned, written opinion thoroughly supported by appropriate reference to Florida decisions. The circuit court performed exactly as one would expect from an appellate court.
If a problem is occurring in our current appellate system because a large number of circuit court decisions are unreported, then perhaps that issue should be addressed and resolved. The solution is not, however, a second level of appellate review when a district court simply disagrees with the decision of a circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. The concept of certiorari review should have a recognized uniformity of application. Thus, we conclude that the district court below inappropriately exercised certiorari review.
Id. at 683 (alteration in original) (emphasis added).
While disparity is of concern in all cases, it is especially prevalent in zoning and other administrative decisions. As I explained in Dusseau :
I would further point out that the circuit court sat in a three-judge panel that produced a reasoned and detailed majority and dissent. This in turn facilitated the more limited second-tier review of the Third District as well as this Court's review of the Third District's decision. We previously have noted the disparity of the practices among circuits and referred this matter to the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee for study. See Florida Power & Light , 761 So.2d at 1094. In light of the far-reaching impact of zoning decisions, we should not continue to sanction a statewide system that allows a single circuit judge to have the identical appellate reviewing authority as a three-judge panel and that also requires the district court of appeal to accord the identical deference to the circuit court's decision regardless of whether the decision was made by a one-judge or three-judge court.
Id. at 1278 (Pariente, J., concurring). Likewise, as the majority in Dusseau explained in remanding the case to the circuit court:
We reiterate that the "competent substantial evidence" standard cannot be used by a reviewing court as a mechanism for exerting covert control over the policy determinations and factual findings of the local agency. Rather, this standard requires the reviewing court to defer to the agency's superior technical expertise and special vantage point in such matters. The issue before the court is not whether the agency's decision is the "best" decision or the "right" decision or even a "wise" decision, for these are technical and policy-based determinations properly within the purview of the agency. The circuit court has no training or experience-and is inherently unsuited-to sit as a roving "super agency" with plenary oversight in such matters.
Id. at 1275-76 (majority).
While the Court today recognizes that this is an "important issue" and finds "merit in the Committee's argument that appeals to the circuit court should be handled in a more uniform manner across the state," the Court nevertheless chooses to send this amendment back for study yet again. Per curiam op. at 1220. Specifically, the Court instructs that a workgroup consider "whether the circuit courts should be uniformly required to hear appeals in panels" and "whether other changes to the process for appellate review of county court decisions would improve the administration of justice." Per curiam op. at 1220. But the Committee has already considered this issue and unanimously recommended that the Court do so.
Indeed, as the Court acknowledges, the Committee has determined that requiring three-judge panels would "serve as an important safeguard to the rights of litigants" and would "promote[ ] better decision making, reduce[ ] mistakes, eliminate[ ] extremes and bias, and promote[ ] stability and fairness." Per curiam op. at 1219. However, the Court again defers taking action by declining to adopt the Committee's unanimous recommendation "at this time." Per curiam op. at 1220.
While I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of smaller Florida circuits, I am skeptical as to whether the disparity between the circuits is caused by lack of capacity or is simply the byproduct of local tradition. For example, in the Sixteenth Circuit, any party can request a three-judge panel, which will be assigned "at the court's discretion." In the Seventh Circuit, if the litigant is from Flagler, Putnam, or St. Johns, the appeals are assigned to a single judge. But, in the same circuit, if the litigant is in Volusia County, appeals are assigned to a two-judge panel. There does not appear to be any particular reason-indeed, none was provided-for the differences presented among these two circuits.
The comments from the chief judges of the Sixteenth and Second Circuits opposing the Committee's proposal express geographical concerns as well as concerns that requiring three-judge panels would "result in an increased workload" and "would ultimately make the timely disposition of appeals more challenging." Per curiam op. at 1219. As to the geographic concerns, in this day and age with video-conferencing and other technology, I do not believe the concern is insurmountable. Further, as in the district courts, not all cases have to be heard by oral argument. While it is simpler and perhaps more efficient for one circuit judge to hear an appeal from one county court judge, due process concerns must prevail. Due process and justice demand uniformity of appellate decisions.
Notwithstanding, because the majority does not adopt this amendment today, in the interim, until this matter is studied by the special committee convened by the Court, I would urge the circuits to consider the following: (a) requiring three-judge panels when requested by a litigant; (b) requiring three-judge panels in petitions for certiorari from zoning decisions; (c) making the decision to grant or deny oral argument within the discretion of the appellate panel; and (d) requiring oral argument if requested by the parties when a single judge hears an appeal from the county court and requiring a written decision in those instances.
CONCLUSION
It is time to adopt the Committee's unanimous proposal to require "that matters within the circuit court's jurisdiction under rule 9.030 be considered by" a three-judge panel to facilitate fair and uniform appellate proceedings across the State of Florida and ensure that litigants' constitutional right to due process is protected. Per curiam op. at 1219. Employing three-judge panels at the circuit court level is critical because it would properly align the appellate process for cases that begin in the county court with the appellate process for cases that begin in the circuit court, allowing the district courts of appeal to be appropriately deferential to circuit court appellate decisions. See Heggs , 658 So.2d at 531.
Accordingly, while I concur with the Court's adoption of the other proposed rules, I dissent as to this Court's decision to again defer the adoption of three-judge panels for circuit courts sitting in their appellate capacity.
See Coastal Dev. of N. Fla., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach , 788 So.2d 204, 205 n.3 (Fla. 2001) ; Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania , 761 So.2d 1089, 1094 (Fla. 2000) ("No statewide criterion exists at this time."); see also Broward Cty. v. G.B.V. Intern., Ltd. , 787 So.2d 838, 849-53 (Fla. 2001) (Pariente, J., dissenting, joined by Anstead, J.).
LEWIS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I dissent because there is no need to amend the rule with regard to joinder on appeal. This amendment is likely to generate more confusion than clarity. I concur with the remainder of the amendments.
APPENDIX
RULE 9.010. EFFECTIVE DATE
AND
; SCOPE; APPLICABILITY OF FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
These rules, cited as "Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure," and abbreviated "Fla. R. App. P.," shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on March 1, 1978. They shall govern all proceedings commenced on or after that date in the supreme court, the district courts of appeal, and the circuit courts in the exercise of the jurisdiction described by rule 9.030(c); provided that any appellate proceeding commenced before March 1, 1978, shall continue to its conclusion in the court in which it is then pending in accordance with the Florida Appellate Rules, 1962 Amendment.
The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration are applicable in all proceedings governed by these rules, except as otherwise provided by these rules. These rules shall supersede all conflicting statutes and, as provided in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130, all conflicting rules of procedure.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
RULE 9.020. DEFINITIONS
The following terms have the meanings shown as used in these rules:
(a) Administrative Action. Administrative action shall include:
(1) [No Change]
(2)
non-final
nonfinal action by an agency or administrative law judge reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act;
(3) quasi-judicial decisions by any administrative body, agency, board, or commission not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act; and
(4) [No Change]
(b) - (g) [No Change]
(h) Applicability of Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.
The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration are applicable in all proceedings governed by these rules, except as otherwise provided in these rules. These rules shall govern where in conflict with the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.
(i)
(h) Rendition (of an Order). An order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.
However, unless another applicable rule of procedure specifically provides to the contrary, if a final order has been entered and there has been filed in the lower tribunal an authorized and timely motion for new trial, for rehearing, for certification, to alter or amend, for judgment in accordance with prior motion for directed verdict, for arrest of judgment, to challenge the verdict, to correct a sentence or order of probation pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1), to withdraw a plea after sentencing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(
l
), or to vacate an order based upon the recommendations of a hearing officer in accordance with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.491, the following exceptions apply:
(1) Motions Tolling Rendition. The following motions, if authorized and timely filed, toll rendition unless another applicable rule of procedure specifically provides to the contrary:
(A) motion for new trial;
(B) motion for rehearing;
(C) motion for certification;
(D) motion to alter or amend;
(E) motion for judgment in accordance with prior motion for directed verdict;
(F) motion for arrest of judgment;
(G) motion to challenge the verdict;
(H) motion to correct a sentence or order of probation pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1);
(I) motion to withdraw a plea after sentencing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170( l ); or
(J) motion to vacate an order based upon the recommendations of a hearing officer in accordance with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.491.
(2) Effect of Motions Tolling Rendition. If an authorized and timely motion listed in subdivision (h)(1) of this rule has been filed in the lower tribunal directed to a final order, the following apply:
(1)
(A)
If such a motion or motions have been filed, t
T he final order shall not be deemed rendered as to any existing party until the filing with the clerk of a signed, written order disposing of the last of such motions.
(2)
(B)
If such a motion or motions have been filed, a
A signed, written order granting a new trial shall be deemed rendered when filed with the clerk, notwithstanding that other such motions may remain pending at the time.
(3)
(C) If
such a motion or motions have been filed and
a notice of appeal is filed before the filing with the clerk of a signed, written order disposing of all such motions, the appeal shall be held in abeyance until the filing with the clerk of a signed, written order disposing of the last of such motion.
(j)
(i) Rendition of an Appellate Order. If any timely and authorized motion under rule 9.330 or 9.331 is filed, the order shall not be deemed rendered as to any party until all of the motions are either withdrawn or resolved by the filing of a written order.
(j) Conformed Copy. A true and accurate copy.
(k)-( l ) [No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Court Commentary
[No Change]
RULE 9.030. JURISDICTION OF COURTS
(a) Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida .
(1) Appeal Jurisdiction.
(A) The supreme court shall review, by appeal :
(i) final orders of courts imposing sentences of death;1and
(ii) [No Change]
(B) If provided by general law, the supreme court shall review:
(i) by appeal final orders entered in proceedings for the validation of bonds or certificates of indebtedness;3and
(ii) [No Change]
(2) Discretionary Jurisdiction. The discretionary jurisdiction of the supreme court may be sought to review :
(A) decisions of district courts of appeal that : 5
(i)-(iv) [No Change]
(v) pass upon a question certified to be of great public importance;or
(vi) are certified to be in direct conflict with decisions of other district courts of appeal;
(B) orders and judgments of trial courts certified by the district court of appeal in which the appeal is pending to require immediate resolution by the supreme court, and : 6
(i) to be of great public importance
,
; or
(ii) to have a great effect on the proper administration of justice;or (C) [No Change]
(3) [No Change]
(b) Jurisdiction of District Courts of Appeal.
(1) Appeal Jurisdiction. District courts of appeal shall review, by appeal :
(A) [No Change]
(B)
non-final
nonfinal orders of circuit courts as prescribed by rule 9.130;9 and
(C) [No Change]
(2) Certiorari Jurisdiction.8 The certiorari jurisdiction of district courts of appeal may be sought to review :
(A)
non-final
nonfinal orders of lower tribunals other than as prescribed by rule 9.130;or
(B) [No Change]
(3) [No Change]
(4) Discretionary Review.10 District courts of appeal, in their discretion, may review by appeal :
(A) final orders of the county court, otherwise appealable to the circuit court under these rules, that the county court has certified to be of great public importance;or
(B)
non-final
nonfinal orders, otherwise appealable to the circuit court under rule 9.140(c), that the county court has certified to be of great public importance.
(c) Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts.
(1) Appeal Jurisdiction. The circuit courts shall review, by appeal :
(A) [No Change]
(B)
non-final
nonfinal orders of lower tribunals as provided by general law;and
(C) administrative action if provided by general law.
(2) Certiorari Jurisdiction.8 The certiorari jurisdiction of circuit courts may be sought to review
non-final
nonfinal orders of lower tribunals other than as prescribed by rule 9.130.
(3) [No Change]
[No Change to Footnotes]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
RULE 9.040. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) [No Change]
(b) Forum.
(1) [No change]
(2) After a lower tribunal renders an order transferring venue, the appropriate court to review otherwise reviewable
non-final
nonfinal orders is as follows:
(A) After rendition of an order transferring venue, the appropriate court to review the
non-final
nonfinal venue order, all other reviewable
non-final
nonfinal orders rendered prior to or simultaneously with the venue order, any order staying, vacating, or modifying the transfer of venue order, or an order dismissing a cause for failure to pay venue transfer fees, is the court that would review
non-final
nonfinal orders in the cause, had venue not been transferred.
(B) After rendition of an order transferring venue, the appropriate court to review any subsequently rendered reviewable
non-final
nonfinal order, except for those orders listed in subdivision (b)(2)(A), is the court
which
that would review the order, if the cause had been filed in the lower tribunal to which venue was transferred.
(C) The clerk of the lower tribunal whose order is being reviewed shall perform the procedures required by these provisions regarding transfer of venue, including accepting and filing a notice of appeal. If necessary to facilitate
non-final
nonfinal review, after an order transferring venue has been rendered, the clerk of the lower tribunal shall copy and retain such portions of the record as are necessary for review of the
non-final
nonfinal order. If the file of the cause has been transferred to the transferee tribunal before the notice of appeal is filed in the transferring tribunal, the clerk of the transferee tribunal shall copy and transmit to the transferring tribunal such portions of the record as are necessary for review of the
non-final
nonfinal order.
(c) - (f) [No Change]
(g) Clerks' Duties. On filing of a notice prescribed by these rules, the clerk shall forthwith transmit the fee and a certified copy of the notice, showing the date of filing, to the court. If jurisdiction has been invoked under rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) or (a)(2)(A)(vi), or if a certificate has been issued by a district court of appeal under rule 9.030(a)(2)(B), the clerk of the district court of appeal shall transmit copies of the certificate and decision or order and any suggestion, replies, or appendices with the certified copy of the notice. Notices to review final orders of county and circuit courts in civil cases shall be recorded.
(h) - (i) [No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
RULE 9.100. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS
(a) Applicability. This rule applies to those proceedings that invoke the jurisdiction of the courts described in rules 9.030(a)(3), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(2), and (c)(3) for the issuance of writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of the courts' jurisdiction; and for review of
non-final
nonfinal administrative action.
(b) Commencement; Parties. The original jurisdiction of the court shall be invoked by filing a petition, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction. The parties to the proceeding shall be as follows:
(1) - (2) [No Change]
(3) The following officials shall not be named as respondents to a petition, but a copy of the petition shall be served on the official who issued the order that is the subject of the petition:
(A)
J
j udges of lower tribunals shall not be named as respondents to petitions for certiorari;
(B)
I
i ndividual members of agencies, boards, and commissions of local governments shall not be named as respondents to petitions for review of quasi-judicial action; and
(C)
O
o fficers presiding over administrative proceedings, such as hearing officers and administrative law judges, shall not be named as respondents to petitions for review of
non-final
nonfinal agency action.
(c) Petitions for Certiorari; Review of
Non-Final
Nonfinal Agency Action; Review of Prisoner Disciplinary Action. The following shall be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed:
(1)
A
a petition for certiorari
.
;
(2)
A
a petition to review quasi-judicial action of agencies, boards, and commissions of local government, which action is not directly appealable under any other provision of general law but may be subject to review by certiorari
.
;
(3)
A
a petition to review
non-final
nonfinal agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act
.
; or
(4)
A
a petition challenging an order of the Department of Corrections entered in prisoner disciplinary proceedings.
(d) - (f) [No Change]
(g) Petition. The caption shall contain the name of the court and the name and designation of all parties on each side. The petition shall not exceed 50 pages in length and shall contain :
(1)-(4) [No Change]
If the petition seeks an order directed to a lower tribunal, the petition shall be accompanied by an appendix as prescribed by rule 9.220, and the petition shall contain references to the appropriate pages of the supporting appendix.
(h) - ( l ) [No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Court Commentary
[No Change]
RULE 9.110. APPEAL PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW FINAL ORDERS OF LOWER TRIBUNALS AND ORDERS GRANTING NEW TRIAL IN JURY AND
NON-JURY
NONJURY CASES
(a) Applicability. This rule applies to those proceedings that :
(1) invoke the appeal jurisdiction of the courts described in rules 9.030(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (c)(1)(A);
(2) seek review of administrative action described in rules 9.030(b)(1)(C) and (c)(1)(C); and
(3) seek review of orders granting a new trial in jury and
non-jury
nonjury civil and criminal cases described in rules 9.130(a)(4) and 9.140(c)(1)(C).
(b) - (e) [No Change]
(f) Briefs. The
A
a ppellant's initial brief shall be served within 70 days of filing the notice. Additional briefs shall be served as prescribed by rule 9.210.
(g) [No Change]
(h) Scope of Review. Except as provided in subdivision (k).
T
t he court may review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice. Multiple final orders may be reviewed by a single notice, if the notice is timely filed as to each such order.
(i) Exception; Bond Validation Proceedings. If the appeal is from an order in a proceeding to validate bonds or certificates of indebtedness, the record shall not be transmitted unless ordered by the supreme court.The
A
a ppellant's initial brief, accompanied by an appendix as prescribed by rule 9.220, shall be served within 20 days of filing the notice. Additional briefs shall be served as prescribed by rule 9.210.
(j) Exception; Appeal Proceedings from District Courts of Appeal. If the appeal is from an order of a district court of appeal, the clerk shall electronically transmit the record to the court within 60 days of filing the notice.The
A
a ppellant's initial brief shall be served within 20 days of filing the notice. Additional briefs shall be served as prescribed by rule 9.210.
(k) Review of Partial Final Judgments. Except as otherwise provided herein, partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case. A partial final judgment, other than one that disposes of an entire case as to any party, is one that disposes of a separate and distinct cause of action that is not interdependent with other pleaded claims. If a partial final judgment totally disposes of an entire case as to any party, it must be appealed within 30 days of rendition.The scope of review of a partial final judgment may include any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice of appeal so long as such ruling or matter is directly related to an aspect of the partial final judgment under review.
( l ) Premature Appeals. Except as provided in rule 9.020(
i
h ), if a notice of appeal is filed before rendition of a final order, the appeal shall be subject to dismissal as premature. However, the lower tribunal retains jurisdiction to render a final order, and if a final order is rendered before dismissal of the premature appeal, the premature notice of appeal shall be considered effective to vest jurisdiction in the court to review the final order. Before dismissal, the court in its discretion may grant the parties additional time to obtain a final order from the lower tribunal.
(m) [No Change]
Committee Notes
1977 - 2014 Amendments. [No Change]
2018 Amendment. Subdivision (k) was amended to clarify that subdivision (h) does not expand the scope of review of partial final judgments to include rulings that are not directly related to and an aspect of the final order under review. E.g., Cygler v. Presjack, 667 So.2d 458, 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Court Commentary
[No Change]
RULE 9.120. DISCRETIONARY PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
(a) - (c) [No Change]
(d) Briefs on Jurisdiction. The
P
p etitioner's brief, limited solely to the issue of the supreme court's jurisdiction and accompanied by an appendix containing only a conformed copy of the decision of the district court of appeal, shall be served within 10 days of filing the notice.The
R
r espondent's brief on jurisdiction shall be served within 20 days after service of petitioner's brief. Formal requirements for both briefs are specified in rule 9.210. No reply brief shall be permitted. If jurisdiction is invoked under rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) (certifications of questions of great public importance by the district courts of appeal to the supreme court), no briefs on jurisdiction shall be filed.
(e) [No Change]
(f) Briefs on Merits. Within 20 days of rendition of the order accepting or postponing decision on jurisdiction, the petitioner shall serve the initial brief on the merits
, accompanied by an appendix that must include a conformed copy of the decision of the district court of appeal.
Additional briefs shall be served as prescribed by rule 9.210.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
RULE 9.125. REVIEW OF TRIAL COURT ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS CERTIFIED BY THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL AS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE RESOLUTION BY THESUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
(a) Applicability. This rule applies to any order or judgment of a trial court that has been certified by the district court of appeal to require immediate resolution by the supreme court because the issues pending in the district court of appeal are of great public importance or have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state. The district court of appeal may make such certification on its own motion or on suggestion by a party.
(b) [No Change]
(c) Suggestion. Any party may file with the district court of appeal and serve on the parties a suggestion that the order to be reviewed should be certified by the district court of appeal to the supreme court. The suggestion shall be substantially in the form prescribed by this rule and shall be filed within 10 days from the filing of the notice of appeal.
(d) [No Change]
(e) Form. The suggestion shall be limited to 5 pages and shall contain all of the following elements:
(1)
A
a statement of why the appeal requires immediate resolution by the supreme court
.
;
(2)
A
a statement of why the appeal :
(A) is of great public importance
,
; or
(B) will have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state.
(3)
A
a certificate signed by the attorney stating:
I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that this appeal requires immediate resolution by the supreme court and (a) is of great public importance, or (b) will have a great effect on the administration of justice throughout the state.; and
/s/ _____________________________
Attorney for .....(name of party).....
.....(address and phone number).....
Florida Bar No. .................
E-mail Address: .................
(4)
A
a n appendix containing a conformed copy of the order to be reviewed.
(f) Effect of Suggestion. The district court of appeal shall not be required to rule on the suggestion and neither the filing of a suggestion nor the rendition by the district court of appeal of its certificate shall alter the applicable time limitations or place of filing. If an order is rendered granting or denying certification, no rehearing shall be permitted.
(g) Procedure When the Supreme Court of Florida Accepts Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the supreme court attaches on rendition of the order accepting jurisdiction. If the supreme court accepts jurisdiction, it shall so order and advise the parties, the clerk of the district court of appeal, and the clerk of the lower tribunal. The clerk of the court in possession of the record shall electronically transmit the record in the case to the supreme court within 10 days thereafter. The supreme court shall issue a briefing schedule and all
papers
documents formerly required to be filed in the district court shall be filed in the supreme court. If the supreme court denies jurisdiction, it shall so order and advise the parties and the clerk of the district court of appeal.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
RULE 9.130. PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW
NON-FINAL
NONFINAL ORDERS AND SPECIFIED FINAL ORDERS
(a) Applicability.
(1) This rule applies to appeals to the district courts of appeal of the
non-final
nonfinal orders authorized herein and to appeals to the circuit court of
non-final
nonfinal orders when provided by general law. Review of other
non-final
nonfinal orders in such courts and
non-final
nonfinal administrative action shall be by the method prescribed by rule 9.100.
(2) Appeals of
non-final
nonfinal orders in criminal cases shall be as prescribed by rule 9.140.
(3) Appeals to the district courts of appeal of
non-final
nonfinal orders are limited to those that :
(A) - (B) [No Change]
(C) determine :
(i) [No Change]
(ii) the right to immediate possession of property, including but not limited to orders that grant, modify, dissolve , or refuse to grant, modify, or dissolve writs of replevin, garnishment, or attachment;
(iii) - (ix) [No Change]
(x) that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes;
or
(xi) that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to sovereign immunity
.
; or
(xii) that, as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed.
(D) grant or deny the appointment of a receiver,
and
or terminate or refuse to terminate a receivership
.
; or
(E) grant or deny a motion to disqualify counsel.
(4) Orders disposing of motions that suspend rendition are not reviewable separately from a review of the final order; provided that orders granting motions for new trial in jury and
non-jury
nonjury cases are reviewable by the method prescribed in rule 9.110.
(5) [No Change]
(b) [No Change]
(c) Notice. The notice, designated as a notice of appeal of
non-final
nonfinal order, shall be substantially in the form prescribed by rule 9.900(c). Except in criminal cases, a conformed copy of the order or orders designated in the notice of appeal shall be attached to the notice.
(d) [No Change]
(e) Briefs. The
A
a ppellant's initial brief, accompanied by an appendix as prescribed by rule 9.220, shall be served within 15 days of filing the notice. Additional briefs shall be served as prescribed by rule 9.210.
(f) Stay of Proceedings. In the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a
non-final
nonfinal order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing, except that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review absent leave of the court.
(g) [No Change]
(h) Review on Full Appeal. This rule shall not preclude initial review of a
non-final
nonfinal order on appeal from the final order in the cause.
(i) Scope of Review. Multiple
non-final
nonfinal orders that are listed in rule 9.130(a)(3) may be reviewed by a single notice if the notice is timely filed as to each such order.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
RULE 9.140. APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
(a) [No Change]
(b) Appeals by Defendant.
(1) Appeals Permitted. A defendant may appeal :
(A)-(C) [No Change]
(D) orders entered after final judgment or finding of guilt, including orders revoking or modifying probation or community control, or both, or orders denying relief under Florida Rule s of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), 3.801, 3.802, 3.850, 3.851, or 3.853;
(E) - (G) [No Change]
(2) Guilty or Nolo Contendere Pleas.
(A) Pleas. A defendant may not appeal from a guilty or nolo contendere plea except as follows:
(i) [No Change]
(ii) Appeals Otherwise Allowed. A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may otherwise directly appeal only :
a.-e. [No Change]
(B) Record.
(i) Except for appeals under subdivision (b)(2)(A)(i) of this rule, the record for appeals involving a plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall be limited to:
a.-d. [No Change]
e. any motion to withdraw plea and order thereon; and
f. [No Change]
(ii) [No Change]
(3)-(4) [No Change]
(c) Appeals by the State.
(1) Appeals Permitted. The state may appeal an order :
(A)-(I) [No Change]
(J) granting relief under Florida Rule s of Criminal Procedure 3.801, 3.850, 3.851, or 3.853;
(K)-(P) [No Change]
(2)
Non-Final
Nonfinal Orders. The state as provided by general law may appeal to the circuit court
non-final
nonfinal orders rendered in the county court.
(3) [No Change]
(d) Withdrawal of Defense Counsel after Judgment and Sentence or after Appeal by State.
(1) The attorney of record for a defendant
in a criminal proceeding
shall not be relieved of any professional duties, or be permitted to withdraw as defense counsel of record, except with approval of the lower tribunal on good cause shown on written motion, until either the time has expired for filing an authorized notice of appeal and no such notice has been filed by the defendant or the state, or after the following have been completed:
(A)-(C) [No Change]
(D) designations to the approved court reporter or approved transcriptionist have been filed and served by counsel for appellant for transcripts of those portions of the proceedings necessary to support the issues on appeal or, if transcripts will require the expenditure of public funds for the defendant, of those portions of the proceedings necessary to support the statement of judicial acts to be reviewed; and
(E) [No Change]
(2) [No Change]
(e) [No Change]
(f) Record.
(1) [No Change]
(2) Transcripts.
(A)-(B) [No Change]
(C) Except as permitted in subdivision (f)(2)(D) of this rule, the parties shall
designate
serve the designation on the approved court reporter or approved transcriptionist to file with the clerk of the lower tribunal the transcripts for the court and sufficient paper copies for all parties exempt from service by e-mail as set forth in the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.
(D)
Non-indigent
Nonindigent defendants represented by counsel may
designate
serve the designation on the approved court reporter or approved transcriptionist to prepare the transcripts. Counsel adopting this procedure shall, within 5 days of receipt of the transcripts from the approved court reporter or approved transcriptionist, file the transcripts. Counsel shall serve notice of the use of this procedure on the attorney general (or the state attorney in appeals to circuit court) and the clerk of the lower tribunal. Counsel shall attach a certificate to each transcript certifying that it is accurate and complete. When this procedure is used, the clerk of the lower tribunal upon conclusion of the appeal shall retain the transcript(s) for use as needed by the state in any collateral proceedings and shall not dispose of the transcripts without the consent of the
Office of the A
a ttorney
G
g eneral.
(E) In state appeals, the state shall
designate
serve a designation on the approved court reporter or approved transcriptionist to prepare and file with the clerk of the lower tribunal the transcripts and sufficient copies for all parties exempt from service by e-mail as set forth in the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. Alternatively, the state may elect to use the procedure specified in subdivision (f)(2)(D) of this rule.
(F) The lower tribunal may by administrative order in publicly-funded cases direct the clerk of the lower tribunal rather than the approved court reporter or approved transcriptionist to prepare the necessary transcripts.
(3) [No Change]
(4) Service of Copies. The clerk of the lower tribunal shall serve copies of the record to the court, attorney general (or state attorney in appeals to circuit court), and all counsel appointed to represent indigent defendants on appeal. The clerk of the lower tribunal shall simultaneously serve copies of the index to all
non-indigent
nonindigent defendants and, upon their request, copies of the record or portions thereof at the cost prescribed by law.
(5) Return of Record. Except in death penalty cases, the court shall return
the record
to the lower tribunal , after final disposition of the appeal, any portions of the appellate record that were not electronically filed
after final disposition of the appeal
.
(6) Supplemental Record for Motion to Correct Sentencing Error Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
(A) Transmission.
(i) The clerk of circuit court shall automatically supplement the appellate record with any motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.80