COURTNEY JERICO PRESTON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to obtain grand jury transcripts. The court held that such discovery is only permissible when tied to a pending postconviction motion, which was not the case here.
No, a defendant does not have a right to obtain grand jury transcripts when no postconviction motion is pending. Discovery in postconviction proceedings is limited and requires a pending motion.
[1] Postconviction discovery is discretionary and available only within the context of a pending postconviction proceeding; a defendant must first file a postconviction motio…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Postconviction discovery is not “automatically allow[ed]” and instead “it is within the trial judge's inherent authority to allow limited prehearing discovery during postconviction proceedings.””
Establishes that discovery during postconviction is not automatic and is subject to the trial judge's discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Preston, convicted nearly nine years prior, sought transcripts of the grand jury proceedings that led to his indictment. He claimed the prosecutor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ineffectiveness Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
LONG, J.
Mr. Preston appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to obtain a transcript of the grand jury proceeding that resulted in an indictment against him for first-degree murder. He filed the motion in 2021, nearly nine years after his conviction and eight years after that conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2013.* In the motion, he claimed the prosecutor presented perjured testimony to the grand jury in order to obtain the indictment. The trial court denied the motion because there was no pending postconviction motion. Because the trial court was right to do so, we affirm.
* Preston v. State, 119 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (table).
Postconviction discovery is not “automatically allow[ed]” and instead “it is within the trial judge's inherent authority to allow limited prehearing discovery during postconviction proceedings.” Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1279 (Fla. 2005). That authority “should be used only upon a showing of good cause,” State v. Lewis, 656 So. 2d 1248, 1249 (Fla. 1994), and is limited to matters which are “relevant and material.” Rodriguez, 919 So. 2d at 1279. Nothing can be relevant or material when there is no postconviction proceeding. Florida courts have held the same on the similar question of a defendant’s entitlement to a pre-motion transcript of their trial. Cassoday v. State, 237 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1970); Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (“[A] prisoner seeking post-conviction relief must first prepare and file his motion before he may secure those portions of the record relevant to that motion.”). The trial court had no authority to order production of documents in postconviction without a live case or controversy. AFFIRMED. WINOKUR, J., concurs; MAKAR, J., concurs with opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2005)
- Cassoday v. State, 237 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1970)
- Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- State v. Lewis, 656 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1994)