RULE 3.150. JOINDER OF OFFENSES AND DEFENDANTS

(a) Joinder of Offenses. Two or more offenses that are
triable in the same court may be charged in the same indictment or
information in a separate count for each offense, when the offenses,
whether felonies or misdemeanors, or both, are based on the same
act or transaction or on 2 or more connected acts or transactions.

(b) Joinder of Defendants. Two or more defendants may be
charged in the same indictment or information on which they are to
be tried when:

(1) each defendant is charged with accountability for
each offense charged;

(2) each defendant is charged with conspiracy and
some of the defendants are also charged with 1 or more offenses
alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; or

(3) even if conspiracy is not charged and all defendants
are not charged in each count, it is alleged that the several offenses
charged were part of a common scheme or plan.

Such defendants may be charged in 1 or more counts together or
separately, and all of the defendants need not be charged in each
count.

(c) Joint Representation. When 2 or more defendants have
been jointly charged under rule 3.150(b) or have been joined for
trial and are represented by the same attorney or by attorneys who
are associated in the practice of law, the court shall, as soon as
practicable, inquire into such joint representation and shall
personally advise each defendant of the right to effective assistance
of counsel, including separate representation. The court shall take
such measures as are necessary to protect each defendant’s right to
counsel.

Committee Notes

1968 Adoption. (Notes are to rule 1.140(d)(4) and (5).)
(4) Joinder of Offenses. The essence of this proposal is
presently found in section 906.25, Florida Statutes, federal rule
8(a), and section 111-4(a) of the 1963 Illinois Code of Criminal
Procedure.

(5) Joinder of Defendants. This proposal is taken from
federal rule 8(b). Its substance also appears in section 111-4(b) of
the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure. While section 906.25,
Florida Statutes, does not expressly contain this provision, there is
little doubt that its broad language includes it.

1972 Amendment. Provisions of former rule 3.150 are
transferred to and incorporated in rule 3.130, Pretrial Release.

(a) Substantially the same as former rule 3.140(d)(4) except
that it omits proviso that the court have jurisdiction to try all
offenses charged. The proviso seems redundant.

(b) Substantially the same as ABA Standard 1.2 of ABA
Standards Relating to Joinder and Severance but omits sub-
paragraph (c)(2) which would permit joinder of charges “so closely
connected in respect to time, place, and occasion that it would be
difficult to separate proof of one charge from proof of the others.”
The ABA commentary on this standard concedes that in such cases
the chances are considerable that defendants would have a right to
severance. Difficulty of separating proof is a good reason for denying
a right to join charges. The committee is of the opinion that
defendants not connected in the commission of an act and not
connected by conspiracy or by common scheme or plan should not,
under any circumstances, be joined. The suggested rule omits the
provision of former rule 3.140(d)(4) permitting joinder of 2 or more
defendants in a single indictment or information, if they are alleged
to have participated in the same series of acts or transactions
constituting more than 1 offense. If all defendants participated in a
series of connected acts or transactions constituting 2 or more
offenses, the offenses can be joined under rule 3.150(a).

The last sentence of the suggested rule is the last sentence of
former rule 3.140(d)(5).
2004 Amendment. This rule is intended to provide a uniform
procedure for judges to follow when codefendants are represented
by the same attorney, by the same law firm, or by attorneys who are
associated in the practice of law. This provision is substantially
derived from Rule 44, Fed. R. Crim. P. See also Larzelere v. State,
676 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1996).

Court Commentary

2004 Amendment. Like Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
44(c), new subdivision (c) does not specify the particular measures
that the court must take to protect a defendant’s right to counsel.
Because the measures that will best protect a defendant’s right to
counsel can vary from case to case, this determination is left within
the court’s discretion. One possible course of action is to advise the
defendant of the possible conflict of interest that could arise from
dual representation and to obtain a voluntary, knowing, and
intelligent waiver of the right to obtain separate representation. See
Larzelere v. State, 676 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1996). Another option is to
require separate representation. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 44(c) advisory
committee notes 1979 amendment.