In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
Docket: No. SC04-2489
Court: Supreme Court of Florida; April 7, 2005; Florida; State Supreme Court
The Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has submitted an out-of-cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure to align with 2004 legislation. Key proposed changes include updates to rule 3.111 (Providing Counsel to Indigents), rule 3.220 (Discovery), and rule 3.670 (Rendition of Judgment), alongside the introduction of a new rule 3.984 (Affidavit of Indigent Status). These amendments respond to modifications in section 27.52 of the Florida Statutes, requiring circuit court clerks to utilize a form developed by the Supreme Court to assess indigency.
The proposed amendments were unanimously approved by the Committee and received backing from The Florida Bar Board of Governors. Due to the urgency of the amendments coinciding with the legislation's effective date of July 1, 2004, there was no prior publication for public comment.
Specifically, rule 3.111(b)(5)(C) is amended to mandate the use of the affidavit of insolvency as per the updated section 27.52. The new rule 3.984 adopts an indigent status affidavit form previously approved for clerks. Additionally, rule 3.220(o) is modified to allow costs incurred after a defendant is deemed insolvent to be taxed against the state.
Amendments to rule 3.670 are necessary to comply with section 775.08435, which restricts the withholding of adjudication in felony cases. The revised rule now stipulates that a judgment of guilty must be rendered in court and documented unless the judge opts to withhold adjudication during probation, where permissible by law.
The Rules of Criminal Procedure have been amended, with new language underscored in the appendix, while deletions are shown in struck-through type. Rule 3.984 contains entirely new language. Committee notes are provided for explanatory purposes only and are not part of the official rules. These amendments take effect immediately upon the release of this opinion, but interested parties have sixty days to submit comments since prior publication for comment did not occur.
Rule 3.111 outlines the provision of counsel to indigents, specifying that counsel must be appointed when a person is formally charged or as soon as feasible after custodial restraint. Indigent persons are entitled to counsel in prosecutions for offenses punishable by incarceration, including appeals, although counsel may not be required for misdemeanor cases if a judge files a written order of no incarceration at least 15 days before trial, which can be waived by the defendant or counsel. If such an order is issued post-appointment, the court may discharge counsel unless it determines that the defendant would be substantially disadvantaged.
Counsel may also be provided in various proceedings related to criminal actions, including post-conviction and mental competency proceedings, regardless of how these are classified. Partially indigent individuals may request counsel, provided they can contribute to the costs without significant hardship. The definitions of 'indigent' and 'partially indigent' are clarified, focusing on the inability to pay for legal services without causing substantial hardship.
Before appointing a public defender, the court must take several steps:
1. Inform the accused that a lien for public defender services may be imposed under section 27.56 of the Florida Statutes.
2. Investigate the financial status of the accused in accordance with section 27.52 of the Florida Statutes, requiring the accused to respond under oath.
3. Require the accused to complete an affidavit of insolvency as specified in section 27.52.
The duties of the booking officer include:
1. Advising the defendant of their right to counsel and that an attorney will be provided at no charge if they cannot afford one.
2. Facilitating immediate communication between the defendant and the public defender if the defendant requests counsel or indicates an inability to pay for one.
3. Ensuring communication with the defendant’s attorney or local bar association’s Lawyer Referral Service if the defendant has legal representation or can afford one.
4. Allowing the public defender to interview a potentially indigent defendant, providing advice, seeking reasonable bail, and representing the defendant pending a formal indigency determination if in custody. If not in custody, the public defender will gather relevant information for an indigency determination.
Regarding waiver of counsel:
1. A defendant's failure to request counsel or intention to plead guilty does not constitute a waiver of counsel.
2. A waiver is not valid until the court has fully explored the defendant’s understanding and ability to make a knowing waiver, including advising them of the risks of self-representation.
3. The court cannot deny an unequivocal request for self-representation if it determines the waiver is knowing and intelligent, regardless of the defendant's legal skills or case complexity.
4. Waivers made in court must be recorded, while out-of-court waivers require a written document with two witnesses attesting to the voluntary execution.
5. If a waiver is accepted, the court must renew the offer of counsel at each subsequent stage of the proceedings when the defendant appears without counsel.
Withdrawal of defense counsel in criminal proceedings is strictly regulated. An attorney of record cannot withdraw or be relieved of their duties without the lower tribunal's approval, based on good cause shown through a written motion, until specific conditions are met:
1. Filing of a notice of appeal, a statement of judicial acts to be reviewed (if a transcript requires public funds), necessary directions to the clerk, and a designation of relevant portions of the transcript supporting the statement.
2. Obtaining or appointing substitute counsel, or filing a statement with the appellate court asserting the right to self-representation.
3. Expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal without a notice being filed.
In cases funded by the public, the local public defender is initially appointed until the record is sent to the appellate court. Withdrawal orders are conditional, and counsel remains of record to address any sentencing errors permitted during the direct appeal process.
The document also references the ABA Standards related to the provision of defense services, emphasizing the importance of counsel in serious cases where liberty is at stake. The Florida committee adopted certain standards while noting that Florida's existing defender system does not require consideration of alternative systems like the assigned counsel approach. Amendments made in 1980 aimed at improving uniformity in appointing counsel for indigent defendants, including provisions for financial disclosure from defendants regarding public defender services.
The 1992 Amendment recommends modifying rule 3.111(e) to specify defense counsel's responsibilities for perfecting an appeal before withdrawal, following the precedent set in State v. District Court of Appeal of Florida. The 1998 Amendment updates rules (d)(2, 3) based on State v. Bowen, which implicitly overruled Cappetta v. State, and references factors for consideration from Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright. It notes that a defendant's right to self-representation is restricted if they cannot adhere to procedural rules. The 2000 Amendment clarifies that the rule pertains solely to judicial proceedings, excluding investigative matters. The 2002 Amendment affirms that indigent defendants have a right to counsel if they are in custody or face possible incarceration, citing Alabama v. Shelton, and emphasizes that an uncounseled plea cannot lead to jail time for probation violations (Harris v. State). It also addresses the potential adverse effects of discharging a public defender after significant preparatory work, highlighting factors the court should consider regarding due process rights. The right to counsel extends to all other proceedings related to a criminal case, with the court favoring counsel appointment when in doubt. The 2005 Amendment references the Affidavit of Indigent Status. Under RULE 3.220, after a charging document is filed, a defendant may initiate discovery by serving a Notice of Discovery on the prosecution, thereby binding both parties to the discovery rules.
Participation by a defendant in the discovery process, such as taking depositions or filing public records requests related to their prosecution, constitutes an election to participate in discovery and imposes a reciprocal discovery obligation. If a defendant shares discovery obtained from a codefendant, they are also deemed to have elected to participate.
The prosecutor has a duty to provide discovery within 15 days of the Notice of Discovery. This includes a written Discovery Exhibit that allows the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph materials in the state's possession. Specifically, the prosecutor must disclose:
1. **Witness List**:
- **Category A**: Includes eyewitnesses, alibi witnesses, investigating officers, and experts without written reports, among others.
- **Category B**: Witnesses not listed in Categories A or C.
- **Category C**: Witnesses performing ministerial functions or not intended to be called at trial.
2. **Statements**:
- Written and recorded statements from all listed witnesses, including police and investigative reports (excluding notes).
3. **Defendant's Statements**:
- Any written or recorded statements made by the defendant and details of witnesses to those statements.
4. **Codefendant's Statements**:
- Any statements made by a codefendant if the trial is joint.
5. **Grand Jury Testimony**:
- Portions of grand jury minutes containing the defendant's testimony.
6. **Tangible Evidence**:
- Papers or objects obtained from the defendant.
7. **Confidential Informants**:
- Material or information obtained from confidential informants.
8. **Electronic Surveillance**:
- Any electronic surveillance of the defendant's premises or conversations, along with relevant documents.
This outlines the obligations for both the defendant's participation in discovery and the prosecutor's duty to disclose relevant information.
Key points include the following procedural requirements related to discovery in legal proceedings:
1. **Disclosure by Prosecutor**: The prosecutor must disclose any search or seizure records, expert reports (including results of examinations and tests), and tangible evidence intended for use in trial that was not obtained from the defendant.
2. **Court's Discretion on Evidence**: The court can review police or investigative reports in camera to determine if they contain irrelevant or sensitive information that could jeopardize law enforcement efforts. If so, the court may restrict disclosure of such reports.
3. **Exclusion of Undisclosed Evidence**: The court has the authority to prohibit the introduction of any undisclosed evidence to ensure fairness in the judicial process.
4. **Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence**: The prosecutor is required to disclose any material that may negate the defendant’s guilt as soon as practicable after filing charges, regardless of reciprocal discovery obligations.
5. **Defendant's Obligations for Discovery**: After charges are filed, the court may require the defendant to participate in identification procedures (e.g., lineups, fingerprinting) and to provide physical samples (e.g., blood, hair) with prior notice.
6. **Timelines for Defendant’s Disclosure**: If the defendant participates in discovery, they must provide a list of anticipated witnesses within 15 days after receiving the prosecutor's discovery materials, and also disclose relevant statements, expert reports, and tangible evidence they intend to use in the case.
7. **Subpoena Compliance**: When the prosecutor subpoenas a witness from the defendant's list, the rules for depositions apply, but this does not extend to trial subpoenas.
This summary captures the essential procedural elements and obligations outlined in the excerpt regarding discovery processes in criminal proceedings.
The prosecutor and defendant must fulfill their obligations under this rule either mutually or as directed by the court. If the prosecutor files a motion for a protective order, the timelines specified in this subdivision are automatically stayed. If granted, the defendant can withdraw their notice of discovery within two days or before the prosecutor provides the requested information, thereby avoiding the need for reciprocal discovery. The court may restrict disclosures if there is a significant risk of physical harm, intimidation, or undue embarrassment that outweighs the disclosure's usefulness. Additionally, the court can mandate further discovery if materiality is demonstrated. Certain matters are exempt from disclosure, including work product—such as legal research and attorney opinions—and the identity of confidential informants, unless their disclosure is necessary to uphold the defendant's constitutional rights.
Depositions can be taken by any party after the charging document is filed, with reasonable written notice to other parties. The notice must include the deposition details and evidence of good faith coordination efforts. The court may adjust deposition timing and location for good cause. Depositions can be used for impeachment purposes, and subpoenas can be issued for witnesses. Witnesses may only be deposed once unless agreed upon by parties or permitted by the court. A witness who fails to comply with a subpoena may be held in contempt. The defendant can take depositions of any prosecutor's Category A witnesses or any unlisted witnesses relevant to the case without court permission. Likewise, the prosecutor can depose any witness listed by the defendant.
No party may take the deposition of a Category B witness listed by the prosecutor without court approval, requiring good cause to be shown. The court will assess the impact on the defendant, the complexity of the issues and witness testimony, and other discovery options available to the defendant before granting permission. Category C witnesses cannot be deposed unless reclassified by the court. In cases involving only misdemeanors or criminal traffic offenses, depositions are prohibited unless good cause is demonstrated, although this restriction does not apply if the state takes a statement from a defense witness after discovery is provided.
Transcripts of depositions cannot be ordered unless there is a mutual agreement between the state and the defendant or a court order based on the materiality of the witness or other good cause. This rule does not affect reimbursement applications under Florida law.
Depositions for witnesses residing in the trial county must occur in the trial venue or an agreed location, while those outside the county should take place in a court reporter’s office or another agreed location. Depositions for children under 16 must be videotaped unless otherwise directed by the court, which may also require depositions for emotionally fragile witnesses to be conducted in the presence of the trial judge or a special magistrate.
Law enforcement officers must attend depositions without a subpoena if given five days' written notice at their agency's address. Failure to appear may result in contempt proceedings. If a witness coordinating office is established, all witness depositions should be scheduled through that office, aiming for convenient times and locations for all parties involved.
Defendants are generally prohibited from being physically present at depositions unless agreed upon by both parties or ordered by the court for good cause. Factors the court may consider include the necessity of the defendant's presence for effective discovery, any potential intimidation of witnesses, costs or inconveniences, and available electronic alternatives.
Telephonic statements from law enforcement officers can be taken with party stipulation and witness consent, without the officer being under oath; these statements can be recorded for use as inconsistent statements during trial under the Florida Evidence Code.
Counsel must not impede investigations by advising individuals with relevant information to avoid discussing the case with opposing counsel. Additionally, parties have a continuous duty to disclose any newly discovered witnesses or materials promptly.
The court has the authority to alter compliance timelines for discovery upon showing good cause. Protective orders can be issued to restrict or defer disclosures, limit deposition inquiries, or protect witnesses from harassment or privacy invasions, while ensuring timely access to entitled material.
During depositions, if conducted in bad faith or causing unreasonable annoyance, a party or deponent can move to terminate or limit the examination, with the court having the power to impose sanctions or resume the deposition only upon its order.
Any party may request an order to regulate the disclosure of sensitive matters, which the court may consider in camera.
A defendant may request the court to conduct an ex parte showing of good cause for taking a deposition from a Category B witness, with a record of these proceedings being created. If the court grants relief after an in camera inspection, the entire record will be sealed and made available for appellate review.
In terms of sanctions, if a party fails to comply with discovery rules or court orders, the court can compel compliance, grant continuances, dismiss witnesses or evidence not disclosed, or impose other appropriate measures. Willful violations by counsel or unrepresented parties may lead to sanctions, including contempt proceedings and cost assessments against the offending party.
All discovery requests or responses must be signed by an attorney of record or the unrepresented party, certifying compliance with rules and asserting that the request is not for improper purposes such as harassment or unnecessary delay. Unsigned documents will be stricken unless promptly corrected. Violations of this certification rule may result in sanctions, including payment of reasonable expenses incurred due to the violation.
For defendants deemed insolvent, the reasonable costs of operating these rules will be taxed against the county. Additionally, the trial court may hold pretrial conferences with trial counsel to facilitate a fair and efficient trial process, with the defendant required to be present unless they provide a written waiver.
The court is mandated to establish a discovery schedule, including a cut-off date, during the pretrial conference upon request from any party. This process is largely consistent with section 925.05 of the Florida Statutes, with the addition of new rights for defendants. The changes include a clearer codification of existing statutes and an expansion of discovery rights for the state, which now requires a defendant to provide information to the state when seeking discovery.
Specific provisions include:
- A restatement of section 925.04, changing "may" to "shall," thereby strengthening the obligation for discovery.
- New provisions allowing the trial judge discretion in granting the state access to discovery, contingent upon the defendant's disclosure of information.
- The defendant is granted optional procedures, including codifying existing statutes and allowing the defendant to obtain a list of all state witnesses, provided the defendant reciprocates with a list of defense witnesses.
- Confidential informants must be disclosed as witnesses, although this does not override current case law regarding their disclosure.
- A compromise rule allows limited discovery depositions to protect defendants from uncooperative witnesses, emphasizing the need for written statements to facilitate impeachment of witnesses.
Two alternative proposals suggest broader discovery rights, including the ability to depose any individual post-indictment and compel witness attendance through subpoenas. These proposals reflect differing views on the balance between defendant rights and state interests in the discovery process.
A defendant who waives the privilege against self-incrimination and submits to interrogation under oath by the prosecution is entitled to compel witness testimony for pre-trial discovery. There is concern about the state's unilateral right to take depositions as outlined in Florida Statutes sections 27.04 and 32.20, which allows prosecutors to subpoena witnesses without defense notice. The subcommittee believes this practice should be re-evaluated but did not propose changes, opting instead to inform the Supreme Court of the imbalance. New provisions are introduced to provide relief for both parties, particularly in scenarios where witness intimidation or prosecution delays occur. The phrase "sufficient showing" grants trial judges discretion in issuing protective orders, acknowledging potential for abuse but trusting appellate courts for correction. Additionally, while recognizing the increased costs for counties, the subcommittee emphasizes the need for a statute to address due process concerns and ensure equal protection under the law, fearing that procedural rules alone may not suffice. Lastly, the subcommittee notes the absence of dedicated prosecuting attorneys in certain courts, which complicates adherence to these rules.
This subdivision aims to enhance uniformity across Florida's courts handling criminal cases, reflecting insights from the 1972 amendment and the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice related to discovery and pretrial procedures. The committee analyzed the ABA Standards, incorporating some aspects while rejecting others.
Key components include:
1. **Policy and Philosophy (Part I)**: The committee supports the principles but decided against proposing specific rules.
2. **Automatic Disclosures (Part II)**: While the committee largely adopted this section, it proposed that disclosures from prosecutors to the defense should occur upon request rather than automatically, excluding work product and confidential informant identities.
3. **Reciprocity of Discovery**: Although the ABA Standards do not advocate for reciprocity, the committee recommended a significant degree of mutual discovery obligations.
4. **Defense Disclosure (Part III)**: The committee accepted and expanded upon the recommendations for the defense to disclose certain information to the state.
5. **Court Regulation of Discovery (Part IV)**: The committee maintained that discovery should not be automatic without court intervention, as per the ABA Standards.
6. **Omnibus Hearings and Pretrial Conferences (Part V)**: The committee rejected parts of the ABA's omnibus hearing guidelines as unnecessary under Florida law, allowing trial courts discretion in scheduling related hearings. A modified pretrial conference approach was included in the proposals.
7. **Witness Lists and Discovery (Proposals 3.220(a)(3) and 3.220(e))**: These proposals represent minimal changes to existing procedures regarding witness lists, with some definitions aligned with federal standards.
8. **Sensitive Information**: The committee emphasized the importance of protecting irrelevant or sensitive information in disclosures to uphold justice and privacy, especially regarding computerized records.
Overall, the committee's recommendations aim to streamline and clarify discovery processes in Florida's criminal justice system while balancing transparency and privacy rights.
Key points from the legal document's excerpt include:
1. A new requirement in Florida mandates that prosecutor-disclosed statements of the accused include the names and addresses of each witness to the statement.
2. Clarifications were made to avoid implying that recording grand jury testimony is mandatory, although such discovery was previously allowed under rule 3.220(a)(3).
3. The terminology in discovery requests was streamlined from "words, books, papers, documents, photographs" to "papers or objects," maintaining the original meaning.
4. The addition of "confidential" in certain provisions clarifies the nature of the information, marking a new introduction in this context.
5. Certain disclosures previously ordered by motion are now formalized under the new standards, including the requirement for producing related documents such as search warrants and affidavits.
6. The defendant is required to reciprocate discovery as outlined in the proposed rule 3.220(b)(4), which is a continuation of prior reciprocity rules.
7. The proposal modifies the process for obtaining discovery, requiring the defendant to demand information rather than the prosecutor providing it voluntarily.
8. Certain new provisions not previously covered include reciprocal witness lists and the exchange of statements from witnesses other than the defendants.
9. Some amendments aim to streamline procedures regarding depositions and police report disclosures, ensuring that the accused receives pertinent statements.
10. Overall, the document reflects a shift towards structured reciprocity in discovery, with an emphasis on clarity and compliance with previous standards and rules.
A defendant can bypass reciprocal discovery by utilizing depositions to identify witnesses, who can then be deposed without a formal discovery demand. If a defendant employs any discovery method, they must produce all items required under the discovery rule, regardless of specific requests. The prosecutor must provide a witness list only if the defendant files a "Notice of Discovery." Limitations are placed on the defense's ability to depose certain witnesses deemed tangential by the prosecutor, although defense attorneys and investigators can still interview any witness regarding their knowledge of the case. This adjustment addresses concerns from law enforcement about unnecessary depositions of uninformed individuals listed as witnesses, such as transport officers or evidence technicians. To evaluate potential testimony, the prosecutor must provide full documentation, typically police reports.
The amendments mandate the full production of all discoverable police incident and investigative reports unless restricted for valid reasons. The term "statement" encompasses both summaries from investigating officers and statements made or adopted by witnesses. Protections against disclosing sensitive information are retained but reclassified, while sanctions for non-compliance are also restructured. The term "shall" has been replaced with "may" to align with sanction procedures outlined in case law. The requirement to produce constitutionally mandated Brady material remains intact, irrespective of the defendant's participation in discovery. The terminology has shifted from "Demand for Discovery" to "Notice of Discovery," with obligations incurred by the defendant or their attorney depending on representation status. The rights of the defendant to be present and examine witnesses are maintained, with specific provisions for physical presence during depositions detailed in the new subdivision.
Renumbered subdivision (d)(2) outlines a new notice of discovery procedure, mandating that defendants participating in discovery provide full reciprocal disclosure. Subdivision (e), previously (a)(4), now allows either the prosecution or defense to seek remedies. Subdivision (f), formerly (a)(5), enables both prosecutors and defense attorneys to request additional discovery. Former subdivisions (c) and (d) are relettered as (g) and (h), respectively.
Amended subdivision (h)(1) restricts depositions of prosecution-designated witnesses to cases where the defendant shows good cause, particularly concerning witnesses performing only ministerial duties or those not expected to testify at trial. It also imposes stringent sanctions for attorney abuses of these provisions. New subdivision (h)(1)(iii) prohibits depositions in misdemeanor cases unless good cause is demonstrated.
Renumbered subdivision (h)(3) allows both the administrative and chief judges, alongside the trial judge, to designate deposition locations. Subdivision (h)(4) addresses the vulnerability of children and certain adults to intimidation tactics, advocating for videotaped depositions to help control such tactics. It also emphasizes the need for protections for emotionally fragile witnesses.
Subdivision (h)(5) calls for establishing effective witness coordinating offices in each jurisdiction, authorized by section 43.35, Florida Statutes, to facilitate depositions with minimal disruption to law enforcement. Subdivision (h)(6) highlights that the presence of a defendant can often intimidate witnesses, especially in cases involving child protection or sexual violence. While the defendant has no inherent right to be present at depositions, exceptions may exist in complex cases requiring the defendant's explanation of technical matters. However, such instances are rare.
Defendants are generally restricted from attending depositions unless there is mutual agreement or a court order. Courts must consider specific factors when evaluating motions for a defendant's presence. A new provision allows informal telephone depositions of law enforcement officers to facilitate fact-gathering while reducing costs. Previous subdivisions have been renumbered and modified, particularly emphasizing protective orders to guard witnesses from harassment and limiting deposition scopes on certain topics. Sanctions for willful discovery abuse are now mandatory, although their amount remains discretionary. New certification requirements align with federal procedures, increasing counsel’s awareness of the implications of their actions.
Recent amendments have replaced references to "indictment or information" with "charging document" to ensure equal discovery rights regardless of the document type. The 1996 amendment significantly restructured rules regarding depositions and pretrial case management in response to discovery abuse concerns, requiring prosecutors to categorize witnesses into three groups: Category A witnesses can be deposed, Category B witnesses require court approval for deposition, and Category C witnesses are not subject to deposition. Trial courts are tasked with managing discovery more effectively through pretrial conferences and determining the necessity of deposing Category B witnesses. The revisions aim to promote early resolution of cases, recognizing that many can be resolved before arraignment through open file discovery, while ensuring that depositions of essential witnesses (Category A) are prioritized for unresolved cases.
A method for determining deposition regulations is outlined, allowing trial judges flexibility to ensure case resolution while protecting witnesses from undue hardship. The rule establishes a discovery schedule, including a cut-off date typical in civil cases, and allows for requests for protective orders. Notably, subpoenas are no longer necessary for the deposition of law enforcement officers, and the serving time for discovery-related papers is standardized to fifteen days. Discovery procedures for misdemeanor cases remain unchanged. An investigating officer is defined as one involved in evidence collection or witness interviews. Prosecutors and defense counsel are encouraged to attend essential witness depositions, which aims to reduce witness abuse, facilitate timely legal remedies, ensure efficient case resolution, and lower transcript costs. The 1998 amendment restricts the rule to deposition locations, while out-of-state witness procedures are governed by separate statutes. The 1996 amendment clarifies that witness designation for similar fact evidence depends on the witness's relation to the similar act, not the current charge. The 1999/2000 amendment specifies that requests for nonexempt law enforcement records remain unaffected, except where co-defendant participation alters their exempt status. Rule 3.670 mandates that judgments be rendered in open court and in writing, with specific procedures for communicating verdicts and sentences to the defendant and their counsel, along with appeal rights. If judgments are hand-delivered, this must be noted in the court file, and no further service is required.
The 1968 adoption of the rule aligns with section 921.02 of the Florida Statutes, with the addition of the requirement for the judge's written and signed notice. The last sentence enables the judge to operate under section 948.01(3) of the Florida Statutes. This proposal is grounded in the Florida Constitution, specifically articles V, sections 4 and 5, regarding the right to appeal from a conviction, as well as various Florida Statutes (sections 924.06 and 924.09) and Criminal Appellate Rule 6.2, which detail the conditions and timelines for criminal appeals. The primary objective is to ensure that defendants, whether represented by counsel or not, receive timely and clear notification of their right to appeal. The 1972 amendment maintained the essence of the prior rule while updating some terminology. The 2005 amendment was made to ensure conformity with section 775.08435 of the Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2004.
