Florida Supreme Court Delays Mandatory E-Filing, And Courts Issuing Numerous Opinions in Aftermath of Shelton and Adkins
Mandatory e-filing in Florida’s courts is being delayed. Surprising, I know. Check out the order here. Too bad the State of Florida can’t just buy the CM/ECF system that the Federal courts use. Then again, that would just be too easy.
As I reviewed the websites for Florida’s District Courts of Appeal this week, I noticed that a good number of opinions are being issued in the wake of State v. Adkins, 37 Fla. L. Weekly S449 (Fla. July 12, 2012). For example, the Fourth DCA issued a slew of opinions denying Rule 3.850 motions for post-conviction relief, while the First and Second DCA reversed several cases which had been dismissed based on Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2011). Note: in Shelton v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, No. 11-13515, 2012 WL 3641008 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of federal habeas relief. You can read my previous post on the Eleventh Circuit opinion here.
For those criminal defense and criminal appeals attorneys who are monitoring the Padilla retroactivity issue, in Litchmore v. State, No. 2D12-800, the Second DCA certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court as to the retroactivity of Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), in post-conviction proceedings. The issue remains pending in the Florida Supreme Court. You can search the docket for State v. Hernandez, No. SC11-1357, by clicking here.