Amended see (b)(3)(B)(i)
Fla. R. App. P. 9.141
2000 Amendment. Rule 9.141 is a new rule governing review of collateral or post-conviction criminal cases. It covers topics formerly included in rules. The committee opted to transfer these subjects to a new rule, in part because rule was becoming lengthy. In addition, review proceedings for collateral criminal cases are in some respects treated as civil appeals or as extraordinary writs, rather than criminal appeals under rule .
Subdivision (a) clarifies that this rule does not apply to death penalty cases. The Supreme Court has its own procedures for these cases, and the committee did not attempt to codify them.
Subdivision (b)(2) amends former ruleand addresses review of summary grants or denials of post-conviction motions under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure or . Amended language in subdivision (b)(2)(A) makes minor changes to the contents of the record in such cases. Subdivision (b)(2)(B) addresses a conflict between Summers v. State, 570 So.2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA ), and Fleming v. State, 709 So.2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA ), regarding indexing and pagination of records. The First District requires clerks to index and paginate the records, while the other district courts do not. The committee determined not to require indexing and pagination unless the court directs otherwise, thereby allowing individual courts to require indexing and pagination if they so desire. Subdivision (b)(2)(B) also provides that neither the state nor the defendant should get a copy of the record in these cases, because they should already have all of the relevant documents. Subdivision (b)(2)(D) reflects current case law that the court can reverse not only for an evidentiary hearing but also for other appropriate relief.
Subdivision (b)(3) addresses review of grants or denials of post-conviction motions under ruleafter an evidentiary hearing. Subdivision (b)(3)(A) provides for the preparation of a transcript if an indigent pro se litigant fails to request the court reporter to prepare it. The court cannot effectively carry out its duties without a transcript to review, and an indigent litigant will usually be entitled to preparation of the transcript and a copy of the record at no charge. See Colonel v. State, 723 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA ). The procedures in subdivisions (b)(3)(B) and (C) for preparation of the record and service of briefs are intended to be similar to those provided in rule for direct appeals from judgments and sentences.
Subdivision (c) is a slightly reorganized and clarified version of former rule. No substantive changes are intended.