FL. R. Crim. P. 3.133
Committee Notes.
1968 Adoption. (Notes are to former rule 1.122.).
(a) Substantially the same as section 902.01, Florida Statutes; the word “examination” is changed to “hearing” to conform to modern terminology.
(b) through (j) Substantially the same as sections 902.02 through 902.10, 902.13, and 902.14, Florida Statutes, except for exchange of “hearing” for “examination.”.
(k) Parts of section 902.11, Florida Statutes, and all of section 902.12, Florida Statutes, were omitted because of conflict with case law: Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963).
(l) Taken from Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(c). Previously Florida had no statute or rule defining what the magistrate should do at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing.
(m) Substantially the same as section 902.18, Florida Statutes, except “without delay” changed to “within 7 days.” Some specific time limit was felt necessary because of frequent delay by magistrates while defendants remain in jail.
1972 Amendment. The ABA Standards on Pre-Trial Release provide for a person arrested to be taken before a committing magistrate without unreasonable delay for immediate judicial consideration of the release decision. The committee determined that, since a determination of probable cause at this immediate hearing presents difficult logistical problems for the state and defense counsel, the question of probable cause should be decided at a later preliminary hearing. For this reason, subdivisions (c), (d), and (e) of the former rule have been deleted in favor of the hearing provision now contained in rule 3.130.
(a) A revised version of former rule 3.122(a).
(b) New. Establishes the time period in which the preliminary hearing must take place.
(c)(1) Substantially the same as former rule 3.122(b). Amended to provide for advice of counsel relative to waiver and for written waiver.
(c)(2) Amended to delete provisions relating to recording of proceedings as same are now contained in subdivision (h).
(d) Same as prior rule 3.122(g).
(e) Same as prior rule 3.122(h).
(f) Substantially the same as prior rule 3.122(i); language modernized by slight changes.
(g) Same as prior rule 3.122(j).
(h) New rule to provide for record of proceedings.
(i) Same as prior rule 3.122(l).
(j) Substantially the same as prior rule 3.122(m). Time period for transmission of papers is reduced. (2) provides for transmission of any transcript of proceedings.
1977 Amendment. The rule corrects several deficiencies in the prior rule:.
(1) In the prior rule no specific mechanism was provided to effect the release which is allowed. This revision provides such a mechanism and coordinates the mechanism with the additional procedures created by subdivision (c).
(2) Once a determination of no probable cause was made and the defendant was released, no method was provided for reversing the process in those instances in which the determination is palpably in error or in instances in which it is later possible to establish probable cause.
(3) The prior rule allowed the unconditioned release of a defendant without the possibility of recapture simply because of a technical failure to abide by the rather arbitrary time limits established for the conduct of a nonadversary probable cause determination and regardless of the ability to establish probable cause. The new rule allows a determination or redetermination of probable cause to be made in instances in which to do so is sensible. The defendant is protected by the provision allowing an adversary preliminary hearing as a check against any possible abuse.
Court Comment.
1975 Amendment. This is a complete rewrite of the preliminary hearing rule.