In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.192, 229 So. 3d 1116

The Florida Supreme Court considered an out-of-cycle report from The Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee seeking clarification of recent amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.192 (motions for rehearing).
Rule 3.192 governs state-filed motions for rehearing, timelines for response and the court’s disposition, and tolling of rendition for appellate review.
In 2015 the Court amended rule 3.192 twice: first in In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 167 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 2015) (effective June 11, 2015), and later in In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 188 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 2015) (effective Jan. 1, 2016).
The second 2015 opinion (188 So. 3d 764) inadvertently omitted language adopted in the earlier 2015 opinion (167 So. 3d 395), creating uncertainty about the rule’s operative text.
The Court clarified and promulgated the corrected, fully-engrossed text of rule 3.192 to reflect the combined amendments (reinstating omitted provisions and specifying the tolling/rendering rule and the list of excluded postconviction rules).

Issue	Committee's Argument	Opposing Argument	Held
Whether the language adopted in the first 2015 amendment but omitted in the later opinion should be restored	The earlier amendments were intended to change the rule and should be included in the final text	No substantive opposing party presented; Court must resolve inconsistency	Court restored and clarified the rule to reflect both 2015 amendments
When rendition is deemed to occur after a timely motion for rehearing: upon a signed written denial or 40 days from the order	Rendition should be deemed upon filing of a signed, written order denying the motion for rehearing (earlier amendment)	Later opinion had language suggesting rendition at 40 days; ambiguity existed	Court adopted the text deeming rendition upon filing of a signed, written order denying rehearing
Whether rule 3.192 excludes specified postconviction proceedings	Committee argued the rule should not apply to listed postconviction rules (3.800(a), 3.801, 3.850, 3.851, 3.853)	N/A (clarification needed due to omission)	Court confirms the rule does not apply to those listed postconviction proceedings
Whether filing a motion for rehearing alters the effective date of the amendments	Committee sought clarification that motions do not change effective date	N/A	Court stated explicitly that filing a motion for rehearing does not alter the effective date of the amendments

In re Amends. to Fla. R. Crim. Pro., 26 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 2009) (adoption of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.192)
In re Amends. to Fla. R. Crim. Pro., 167 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 2015) (first 2015 amendment to rule 3.192)
In re Amends. to Fla. R. Crim. Pro., 188 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 2015) (second 2015 amendment; later opinion inadvertently omitted prior amendments)