Campbell v. State, 91-1254

Decision Date11 February 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-1254,91-1254
PartiesMichael CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 593 So.2d 1148, 17 Fla. L. Week. D490
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Michael Campbell, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and James W. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

WOLF, Judge.

Campbell appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion to compel discovery of the file of the state attorney. Appellant asserts that since his conviction has become final he is entitled to the files pursuant to the public records law. In light of the supreme court's opinions in State v. Kokal, 562 So.2d 324 (Fla.1990), and Mendyk v. State, 592 So.2d 1076 (Fla.1992), we agree with appellant's contention to the extent that the files which are sought are subject to the public records law.

The appellant pled guilty in June of 1990 to two felonies. No appeal was filed. On or about March 4, 1991, appellant filed a "Motion to Compel Disclosure of the State's Files of the State Attorney." The style of the motion and the case numbers entered thereon linked the motion to appellant's judgments and sentences entered the previous year on June 11, 1990.

Attached to the motion as exhibit A was what was purported to be a "Request for Disclosure of the State Files Within Your Office." This request contained a statement "To the Office of James Appleman" and, again, case numbers from the convictions of June 11, 1990. The defendant asserted that he needed the records to support the potential motion for postconviction relief. No motion was pending at the time of the request.

The trial court denied the defendant's motion on the basis that defendant's attorney had received discovery before entry of the guilty plea and the defendant was not entitled to duplicate discovery. The fact that the defendant has received prior discovery does not preclude "disclosure" pursuant to the public records law.

In State v. Kokal, 562 So.2d 324 (Fla.1990), the supreme court held, after a defendant's conviction, that the state attorney's file is subject to disclosure pursuant to the public records law. The court has also held that while a motion for postconviction relief is pending, the request for public records may be made as part of the pending criminal proceeding. See Mendyk v. State, supra, and Provenzano v. Dugger, 561 So.2d 541 (Fla.1990). The court noted that allowing the request to be filed in a pending criminal proceeding would promote judicial economy and provide the defendant the opportunity to prosecute a motion for postconviction relief. Provenzano, supra at 547. While, in the instant case, no motion for postconviction relief has been filed, the request for the records is specifically related to such a motion. Utilizing the rationale of the supreme court in Mendyk and Provenzano, there is no legitimate reason for precluding the appellant from pursuing his request for the records in the instant case.

It is unclear from the supreme court's opinions, however, what remedies should be afforded a prisoner who is unrepresented and makes a public records request relating to a 3.850 motion. In Mendyk and Provenzano, the supreme court held that the appropriate remedy is disclosure; however, disclosure is not defined.

Several cases have held that a prisoner is entitled to no greater relief than other persons requesting relief pursuant to chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Wootton v. Cook, 590 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Staton v. McMillan
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 29 Abril 1992
    ...requesting a transcript for an appeal. And while chapter 119 does not provide for free copies of public records, see Campbell v. State, 593 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Yanke v. State, 588 So.2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, 595 So.2d 559 (Fla.1992), the appellant was not requesti......
  • Roesch v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 23 Diciembre 1993
    ...of the public records free of charge to indigent persons. In responding to a request similar to that of Roesch in Campbell v. State, 593 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the court Several cases have held that a prisoner is entitled to no greater relief than other persons requesting relief pu......
  • Smith v. State, s. 96-00365
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 Marzo 1997
    ...related to their convictions under chapter 119, Florida Statutes. See State v. Kokal, 562 So.2d 324 (Fla.1990); Campbell v. State, 593 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). However, indigent prisoners may not receive free copies of documents requested under the public records law. See Roesch v. S......
  • Donahue v. Vaughn, 98-1750.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 23 Octubre 1998
    ...accord Smith v. State, 696 So.2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Coates v. McWilliams, 650 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Campbell v. State, 593 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). PETITION COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT