LeCroy v. State
| Decision Date | 09 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 79956.,79956. |
| Citation | 641 So.2d 853 |
| Parties | Cleo Douglas LeCROY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael J. Minerva, Capital Collateral Representative, and Judith J. Dougherty, Asst. CCR, Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
We have before us an interlocutory appeal of a disclosure order in a post-conviction capital proceeding under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
LeCroy was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed. LeCroy v. State, 533 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 3262, 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989). Prior to commencement of the evidentiary hearing on LeCroy's rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, the State filed a motion requesting "disclosure of all files and records of defense counsel at trial" to assist the State in preparing its response to LeCroy's claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel. At a hearing on the motion, the court directed collateral defense counsel to return all trial files to trial counsel so that he could peruse the files prior to the evidentiary hearing and disclose to the State any materials relevant to LeCroy's ineffectiveness claim:
THE COURT: So I think the appropriate remedy would be for the court to direct, if he doesn't have a complete copy of what was turned over to you, for you to turn back to Mr. Eisenberg the file that you received from him and I'll direct that Mr. Eisenberg go through the file and, from his own knowledge and experience in dealing with the matter, take from the file those documents that may be there, make copies of them and disclose it to the State. He will be acting in the capacity of an officer of the court in doing that, also with the thought in mind that anything in the file that isn't fairly and honestly needed to defend himself against these accusations would not be disclosed so that attorney/client privilege will be protected to the extent of turning over the entire file but only waived to the extent of relevant matters... .
Collateral defense counsel pointed out that trial counsel had already determined that the files contain no necessary materials:
MS. DAUGHERTY: I have gone ahead and given Mr. Eisenberg that opportunity to review his file and I believe he's in the courtroom and he has, in reviewing his file, not seen any documents that he feels are necessary to present to the court in this proceeding.
The following exchange then took place between the judge and collateral defense counsel:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lecroy v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections
...attorney-client privilege when he filed a motion for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. LeCroy v. State, 641 So.2d 853, 854 (Fla.1994). 12. The defendant takes the state trial court's lock-up statement out of context. The state trial court actually stated tha......
-
Arbelaez v. State
...privilege is also waived as to trial counsel's files. See Reed v. State, 640 So.2d 1094, 1097 (Fla.1994); accord LeCroy v. State, 641 So.2d 853 (Fla.1994). Further, the waiver of the attorney-client privilege occurs "when [the defendant] file[s] a motion for postconviction relief claiming i......
-
Trepal v. State, SC94505.
...trial courts, that denied the State's respective motions to quash witness subpoenas issued to trial court judges); LeCroy v. State, 641 So.2d 853, 853 (Fla. 1994)("We have before us an interlocutory appeal of a disclosure order in a postconviction capital proceeding under Florida Rule of Cr......
-
Owen v. State
...fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the sixth amendment right to legal representation."). 9. See also LeCroy v. State, 641 So.2d 853 (Fla.1994). 10. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 11. Claims (4) through (18) are procedurally barred fo......