Trepal v. State, SC94505.
Decision Date | 09 March 2000 |
Docket Number | No. SC94505.,SC94505. |
Citation | 754 So.2d 702 |
Parties | George James TREPAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Todd G. Scher, Litigation Director, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel-Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Carol M. Dittmar, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee.
We have for review the order of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Polk County, in the case State v. Trepal, No. CF90-1569A1-XX (Fla. 10th Cir.Ct. Oct. 28, 1998), pursuant to our jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death based on his placing poison in soda bottles and putting the bottles in his neighbor's house, the ingestion of which resulted in one death and the illness of others. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See Trepal v. State, 621 So.2d 1361, 1362 (Fla.1993)
. Appellant then filed his first motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the trial court, which denied relief. While Trepal's appeal was pending before this Court, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a report on the FBI's laboratory practices. See Office of Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of Justice, The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (1997). We relinquished jurisdiction in appellant's case so that he could conduct discovery and file a new rule 3.850 motion based on newly discovered evidence arising out of the report, if necessary.
In 1998, appellant filed an amended rule 3.850 motion claiming that evidence recently obtained from the United States Department of Justice established that at trial the State submitted misleading, inaccurate, and perjured testimony concerning unreliable and inadmissible scientific evidence. Appellant also alleged that a State witness misled defense counsel regarding the results of scientific tests in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Appellant further claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to discover the newly discovered evidence. In response thereto, the State filed a discovery motion stating in pertinent part:
Appellant filed a responsive motion arguing that the State's motion should be denied because (1) the discovery request was premature since the need for an evidentiary hearing based on appellant's 1998 rule 3.850 motion had not yet been determined; (2) the State waived the right to seek such discovery by failing to earlier seek discovery of the Georgia Tech tests; and (3) the State was not entitled to the information since appellant did not list an expert from Georgia Tech as a witness at trial and therefore the information remained privileged. The trial court granted the State's discovery request and appellant filed an appeal with this Court.
Appellant responded that this Court has jurisdiction to review the instant nonfinal order under article V, section 3(b)(1) since the death penalty has been imposed. Appellant also argued that the State conceded that this issue should be reviewed; thus, this Court should hear the appeal.
This Court filed an order that granted a temporary stay as to the trial court's discovery order and directed both parties to file memoranda explaining the jurisdictional basis for this appeal. Pursuant to the order, the State argued that "[s]ince this Court has independent jurisdiction of this matter under Article V, Section 3(b)(1), the `all writs' provision [under section 3(b)(7)] authorizes review of the instant proceeding as an extraordinary writ." The State added that this "case presents this Court with the opportunity to clarify and reconcile the inconsistent dispositions of capital collateral interlocutory appeals." Appellant asserted that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal under section 3(b)(1), State v. Lewis, 656 So.2d 1248 (Fla.1994), and State v. Kokal, 562 So.2d 324 (Fla.1990), and expressly stated that he is not claiming any other form of jurisdiction. Appellant quoted this Court's statement that "[a]s a practical matter, we routinely entertain appeals from final orders in death penalty collateral proceedings, see Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.851, and on occasion review interlocutory orders in such proceedings." State v. Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, 697 So.2d 70, 71 (Fla. 1997). This Court denied the State's motion to dismiss and stayed the proceedings below pending review.
Under the current rules of procedure there is no established method for death-sentenced defendants to challenge interlocutory discovery orders issued during rule 3.850 proceedings. We are nevertheless convinced that an expedited appeal with necessary record attachments to challenge interlocutory discovery orders issued during rule 3.850 hearings is necessary to prevent the disclosure of information that would irreparably harm a defendant and render appellate review inadequate. A pleading that falls within this Court's existing jurisdiction is therefore needed to address this inequity in capital collateral litigation.
697 So.2d at 71; see also Lewis, 656 So.2d at 1249 ( ); LeCroy v. State, 641 So.2d 853, 853 (Fla. 1994)() ; State v. Kokal, 562 So.2d 324, 325 (Fla.1990)(this Court reviewed a discovery order under section 3(b)(1) that had been issued by a trial court hearing a postconviction claim,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hannon v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
...C2). On April 17, 2002, the Florida Supreme Court dismissed this appeal. Hannon v. State, 817 So.2d 847 (Fla.2002) (citing Trepal v. State, 754 So.2d 702 (Fla.2000)). On March 17, 1997, Hannon filed a motion for postconviction relief in the trial court, raising 34 grounds for relief. Hannon......
-
Rhodes v. State, SC04-31.
...to review all types of collateral proceedings in death penalty cases." (emphasis added; citations omitted)); cf. Trepal v. State, 754 So.2d 702, 707 (Fla.2000) (discussing requirements for a defendant in a capital case to obtain relief through an interlocutory appeal of a postconviction dis......
-
Schmidt v. Crusoe
...conflict in statutory construction among the district courts. This Court does not have common law certiorari jurisdiction. Trepal v. State, 754 So.2d 702 (Fla.2000). QUINCE, J., 1. Mandamus may be used by a superior tribunal to compel a lower tribunal to perform a clear legal duty. See Hatt......
-
Trepal v. State, No. SC89710
...for nitrates. 9. The hearing was held in February and July 1999, having been stayed during an interlocutory appeal. See Trepal v. State, 754 So.2d 702 (Fla.2000). 10. In his present rule 3.850 appeal, Trepal raises the following claims: (1) "no guilt phase adversarial testing"; (2) "law enf......
-
Which writ is which? A trial attorney's guide to Florida's extraordinary writs.
...So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2004). (3) See FLA. CONST. art. V, [section] 3(b). See also FLA. R. APP. P. 9.030(a)(3); Trepal v. State, 754 So. 2d 702, 706 (Fla. (4) See G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838; Pharmcore, Inc. v. City Of Hallandale Beach, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2671 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.,......