Sanford v. Black, 5D00-1978.
| Citation | 782 So.2d 548 |
| Decision Date | 20 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D00-1978.,5D00-1978. |
| Parties | David M. SANFORD, Appellant, v. Andrea BLACK, Esquire, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
David M. Sanford, Punta Gorda, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
David Sanford appeals the order denying his petition for writ of mandamus which he filed against his former attorney, Andrea Black, in an attempt to obtain free copies of all case-related documents in her possession. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In 1996, Ms. Black, a specially-appointed public defender, represented Mr. Sanford against a number of sexual battery charges. He eventually entered a plea of no contest to one count and was sentenced to fifteen years' incarceration. Thereafter, Mr. Sanford wrote Ms. Black several times asking for copies of documents in her possession to which he claimed a right. Ms. Black wrote Mr. Sanford that she had provided him with copies of "absolutely every pleading and every transcript of deposition that was taken." Because she had already provided him with copies, Ms. Black wrote, duplicate copies should not be necessary. Mr. Sanford petitioned the circuit court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Ms. Black to "turn over all transcripts, documents, depos, and investigative reports and state supplied discovery in her possession, as well as those given to her by previously disqualified attorney Kelly Simm...."
Although his petition does not contain the assertion that Ms. Black retook possession of the documents she originally provided him, Mr. Sanford's letters to Ms. Black, attached to his petition, contain that claim and were highlighted. In his brief, Mr. Sanford admits that he had received copies of the documents at one time, but contends that Ms. Black took them back into her possession for safekeeping.1 Ms. Black has not denied this claim; rather, she has stated only that she already provided him with copies. Neither her reply to Mr. Sanford nor her response to the show cause order issued by the circuit court answers the question of whether she retook possession of those copies as asserted by Mr. Sanford. If Mr. Sanford's claim is correct, then he would be entitled to the return of the documents.2 See Long v. Dillinger, 701 So.2d 1168, 1169 (Fla.1997)
(); Ramos v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrell v. State
...counsel cannot be required to provide without adequate compensation. See id. (citing Thompson, 577 So.2d at 686; Sanford v. Black, 782 So.2d 548, 549 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to Harrell's filing of a proper petition for writ of mandamus, specifical......
-
Potts v. State, 2D03-2536.
...that are in the case file to Potts without adequate compensation. See Thompson, 577 So.2d at 686; see also Sanford v. Black, 782 So.2d 548, 549 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (noting that the client must compensate his specially-appointed public defender for a copy of a lab report that was the at......
-
Wharen v. State, 5D14–4359.
...the defendant's attorney cannot be required to provide other documents in the case file without adequate compensation. Sanford v. Black, 782 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).Appellant's petition for writ of mandamus set forth a prima facie case for compelling Appellee to provide him with ......
-
Laflower v. State, 5D06-902.
...services, and if provided, should compensate the attorney for charges incurred in copying them. See Potts; Sanford v. Black, 782 So.2d 548, 549 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Because LaFlower's petition does not specify what kind of documents he seeks and there are fact issues as to whether or n......