Gonzalez v. State
| Decision Date | 23 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2D17–2351 |
| Parties | Alberto GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
240 So.3d 99
Alberto GONZALEZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Case No. 2D17–2351
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Opinion filed February 23, 2018.
Alberto Gonzalez, pro se.
BLACK, Judge.
Alberto Gonzalez seeks review of the summary denial of his petition for writ of mandamus filed with the circuit court. Because the circuit court failed to conduct the necessary in camera review of the discovery evidence requested by Gonzalez, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.1
Gonzalez was convicted of robbery, kidnapping, extortion, and grand theft in 2009. In 2016, Gonzalez requested copies of twenty-one CDs the State had listed as evidence in its case against Gonzalez. The State Attorney's Office responded and explained that fifteen CDs would be made available but that the remaining six CDs were exempt from public disclosure pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a)(2) and 281.301, Florida Statutes (2015). The response was not sworn. The State Attorney's Office thereafter denied the request as to the six CDs.
Gonzalez subsequently filed a motion with the circuit court, seeking to compel the State to produce all twenty-one CDs, including the six CDs which the State Attorney's Office had determined to be exempt from disclosure. Gonzalez attached to his motion a copy of the initial request to the State, as well as the responses from the State Attorney's Office. The circuit court treated the motion to compel as a petition for writ of mandamus. See Hogan v. State, 983 So.2d 656, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("[A] mandamus petition ... is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the denial of access to judicial records." (citation omitted) ). After reviewing the motion, the court summarily denied it, finding that Gonzalez had established neither a clear legal right to the requested evidence nor an indisputable legal duty of production because the six CDs at issue were subject to public records exemptions. The court did not issue an alternative writ to the State to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and it did not conduct an in camera review of the six CDs to confirm whether their contents are exempt from disclosure.
"To the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Everglades Law Ctr., Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., s. 4D18-1220
...an in camera inspection. Walton v. Dugger , 634 So. 2d 1059, 1061-62 (Fla. 1993). As stated by the Second District in Gonzalez v. State , 240 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018),In camera review affords the trial judge an opportunity to "properly determine if the document is, in fact, subject to a......
-
Smith v. State
...test recounted above. The State has an indisputable legal duty to furnish him with the documents he requested. See Gonzalez v. State , 240 So. 3d 99, 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("To the extent that records in his possession are subject to disclosure by law, the State Attorney has a ministerial ......
- Doyle v. State
-
Deeson Media, LLC v. City of Tampa, Corp.
...vehicle to challenge the denial of a public records request, even where an exemption has been asserted.1 See Gonzalez v. State, 240 So. 3d 99, 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Walton v. Dugger, 634 So. 2d 1059, 1061-62 (Fla. 1993) ); Lorei v. Smith, 464 So. 2d 1330, 1331-32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985......