In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.116

Supreme Court of Florida
____________

No. SC2023-0803
____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE 3.116.

May 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee filed a

report proposing amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.116 (Use of Communication Technology).1 We decline to amend

rule 3.116 as proposed and instead amend the rule to more closely

align with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial

Administration 2.530(b) (Communication Technology; Generally).

In 2022, we revised rule 2.530 to “provide permanent and

broader authorization for the remote conduct of certain court

proceedings.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civil Proc., Fla. Rules of

Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin., Fla. Rules of Crim. Proc., Fla. Prob. Rules,

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; see
also Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(b).
Fla. Rules of Traffic Ct., Fla. Small Claims Rules, & Fla. Rules of App.

Proc., 346 So. 3d 1105, 1107 (Fla. 2022). Rule 2.530 applies to all

court proceedings unless another rule of procedure or general law

governs, and it allows a judge to authorize the use of

communication technology upon a party’s written motion or at the

discretion of the judge. Id. at 1108; Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud.

Admin. 2.530(b). A judge, however, is required to grant a motion to

use communication technology under rule 2.530(b)(1) (Non-

Evidentiary Proceedings) for non-evidentiary proceedings scheduled

for 30 minutes or less absent good cause to deny it.

When we revised rule 2.530, we exempted criminal

proceedings from the rule’s requirements by also adopting rule

3.116. Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civil Proc., 346 So. 3d at 1108; Fla.

R. Crim. P. 3.116(b) (“Use of communication technology in

proceedings subject to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure is

governed by this rule . . . .”). Similar to rule 2.530, rule 3.116(c)

(Pretrial Conferences) allows a judge to authorize the use of

communication technology for pretrial conferences in criminal cases

on a party’s written motion or at the discretion of the judge. Unlike

rule 2.530, however, a judge is not required under rule 3.116 to

-2-
grant a motion to use communication technology for non-

evidentiary proceedings scheduled for 30 minutes or less.

To align rule 3.116 with rule 2.530 on the use of

communication technology for short non-evidentiary proceedings,

the Committee proposes replacing the language in rule 3.116(c)

with the language contained in rule 2.530(b)(1). This approach,

however, would entirely delete the general authorization in rule

3.116(c) to use communication technology for pretrial conferences

in criminal cases. A judge would no longer have the authority

under the Committee’s proposal to use communication technology

to conduct pretrial non-evidentiary hearings scheduled for more

than 30 minutes, nor could it use such technology to conduct any

pretrial evidentiary hearings regardless of their length. A judge

would be strictly limited to using communication technology for

non-evidentiary hearings scheduled for 30 minutes or less.

It is clear from the report and the nearly 50 comments filed in

this case that this is not the result the Committee intended to

achieve with its proposal. The Committee intended to simply have

communication technology used more uniformly, and more

frequently, across the circuits for routine non-evidentiary matters in

-3-
criminal cases. We agree with this goal, but we believe an approach

more in line with rule 2.530(b) is needed here. We, therefore,

decline to amend rule 3.116 as proposed by the Committee and

instead amend the rule to include new subdivision (c)(1) (Non-

Evidentiary Pretrial Conferences). The new subdivision preserves

the general authorization in rule 3.116(c) to use communication

technology for pretrial conferences, while at the same time requiring

a judge to grant a motion to use such technology for non-

evidentiary pretrial matters scheduled for 30 minutes or less absent

good cause to deny it.

Accordingly, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.116 is

amended as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language

is indicated by underscoring. The amendment becomes effective on

July 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS,
FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT.

Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

-4-
Jason B. Blank, Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, Cynthia Cohen, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure
Rules Committee, West Palm Beach, Florida, Joshua E. Doyle,
Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, and
Michael A. Hodges, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee,
Florida,

for Petitioner

George Pavlidakey, Clearwater, Florida; Andrew Pouget of
Fowler Law Group, P.A., Sarasota, Florida; L. Derek Byrd of
The Byrd Law Firm, P.A., Sarasota, Florida; Robert S. Reiff of
Law Offices of Robert S. Reiff, P.A., Miami, Florida; Anthony G.
Ryan, Sarasota, Florida; Elizabeth J. Loeffler of McIntosh Law,
Sarasota, Florida; AnneMarie Rizzo of The Law Place,
Sarasota, Florida; Darren Finebloom of The Law Place, Tampa,
Florida; L. Lee Lockett, Jacksonville Beach, Florida; David
Ashley Haenel of The Law Place, Sarasota, Florida; Stephen
Higgins of The Law Place, Tampa, Florida; Jason H. Haber of
Haber Blank, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Frank Quintero, Jr. of
Quintero Broche P.A., Coral Gables, Florida; Hillary Ellis of
The Law Place, Sarasota, Florida; Ramon de la Cabada of Law
Office of Ramon de la Cabada, P.A., Miami, Florida; Sergio
Cruz, Orlando, Florida; Patrick J. Grozinger of Grozinger Law,
P.A., Orlando, Florida; Amber Kornreich, Jessica Duque, and
Liana Matthews on behalf of Miami-Dade Florida Association
for Women Lawyers, Miami, Florida; Shpresa Idrizi of Idrizi
Law Group, Clearwater, Florida; Seth Shapiro of Morris Law
Firm, St. Petersburg, Florida; Melinda Morris of Morris Law
Firm, St. Petersburg, Florida; Kali de Vlaming of deVlaming &
Rivellini, PA, Clearwater, Florida; Adam Chrzan, Vero Beach,
Florida; Clementine Luccia Conde, Palm Harbor, Florida;
Jason B. Blank of Haber Blank, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
H Scott Fingerhut, Bay Harbor Islands, Florida, Susan O.
Hugentugler, Deerfield Beach, Florida, Benedict P. Kuehne of
Kuehne Davis Law, P.A., Miami, Florida, Warren Lindsey of
Lindsey, Ferry & Parker, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, Sheryl J.
Lowenthal, Miami, Florida, Martin P. McDonnel of the Law
Offices of Martin McDonnell, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, David

-5-
B. Rothman of Rothman & Associates, P.A., Miami, Florida,
Harvey Joel Sepler, Hollywood, Florida, Joel M. Silvershein,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, George E. Tragos of the Law Offices
of Tragos Sartes & Tragos, Clearwater, Florida, Hon.
Samantha Ward, Tampa, Florida, Paul H. Zacks, Delray
Beach, Florida, and Jennifer M. Zedalis, Gainesville, Florida;
Joseph C. Bodiford of Bodiford Law, Tallahassee, Florida;
Richard F. Della Fera of Richard F. Della Fera, P.A., Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; Brett Michael Schwartz of Hager &
Schwartz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Andre Rouviere of
Law Offices of Andre A. Rouviere, Coral Gables, Florida;
Matthew P. Meyers of Young, Berman, Karpf & Karpf, Miami,
Florida; Brent Del Gaizo, Plantation, Florida; Kathleen
Hamilton of Law Office of Kathy Hamilton, Coconut Grove,
Florida; Andrew M. Coffey of Andrew M. Coffey, P.A., Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; Brian Lee Tannebaum of Brian L.
Tannebaum, P.A., Miami, Florida; Luke Newman of Luke
Newman, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Adam J. Komisar of
Komisar Spicola, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Dianne Elizabeth
Caramés on behalf of the Florida Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers - Miami Chapter, Miami, Florida; Edward S.
Schwartz of Gerson & Schwartz, P.A., on behalf of the National
Center for Victims of Crime, Miami, Florida; Alex John Saiz on
behalf of the Florida Justice Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
Sabrina Vora-Puglisi of Puglisi Caramés, Miami, Florida; Jude
M. Faccidomo of Ratzan & Faccidomo, LLC., Miami, Florida;
Robert C. Josefsberg of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, Florida;
Howard L Dimmig, II, Bartow, Florida; Maribeth Wetzel of
Goldman Wetzel, PLLC, St. Petersburg, Florida; Tad A. Yates of
Law Offices of Tad A. Yates, P.A., Orlando, Florida; Shalyn
Fluharty on behalf of Americans for Immigrant Justice, Miami,
Florida, Robert L. Johnson, Jr. on behalf of Brevard County
Legal Aid, Inc., Rockledge, Florida, Randolph McGrorty and
Gracia M. Cuzzi on behalf of Catholic Legal Services,
Archdiocese of Miami, Miami, Florida, Lisa Goldberg on behalf
of Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida, Inc., Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, Mindy Jones on behalf of Coast to Coast
Legal Aid of South Florida, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
Lesley Mendoza on behalf of Cuban American Bar Association

-6-
Pro Bono Project, Inc., Miami, Florida, Karen J. Ladis on
behalf of Dade Legal Aid, Miami, Florida, Jaffe Pickett on
behalf of Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc., Lakeland, Florida,
Theresa L. Prichard on behalf of Gulfcoast Legal Services, St.
Petersburg, Florida, James A. Kowalski, Jr. on behalf of
Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida,
Bethanie Barber on behalf of Legal Aid Society of the Orange
County Bar Association, Orlando, Florida, Robert A. Bertisch,
on behalf of Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc.,
West Palm Beach, Florida, and Leslie N. Powell on behalf of
Legal Services of North Florida, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida;
Harold F. Pryor, State Attorney, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida; David L. Redfearn of Longwell
Lawyers, and Ida V. Eskamani, Orlando, Florida; Daniel J.
Tibbitt, Miami, Florida; John S. Hager and Todd A. Onore on
behalf of the Broward Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Jason Cromey on
behalf of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
Inc., Pensacola, Florida,

Responding with comments

-7-
APPENDIX

RULE 3.116. USE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

(a)-(b) [No Change]

(c) Pretrial Conferences. A judge may, upon the court’s
own motion or upon the written request of a party, direct that
communication technology be used by one or more parties for
attendance at a pretrial conference, except that, before a judge may
direct that the defendant participate in the pretrial conference using
communication technology, the defendant or the defendant’s
counsel must waive the defendant’s physical attendance at the
pretrial conference pursuant to rules 3.180(a)(3) and 3.220(o)(1). A
judge must give notice to the parties and consider any objections
they may have to the use of communication technology before
directing that communication technology be used. The decision to
use communication technology over the objection of parties will be
in the discretion of the trial court, except as noted below.

(1) Non-Evidentiary Pretrial Conferences. A judge must
grant a request to use communication technology for a non-
evidentiary pretrial conference scheduled for 30 minutes or less
unless the judge determines that good cause exists to deny the
request.

(d)-(e) [No Change]

Workgroup on the Continuity of Court Operations and
Proceedings During and After COVID-19 Note
[No Change]

-8-