WILLIAM FOLEY MILLER
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 enforce public records laws. The court found that the appellant failed to sufficiently allege factual disputes regarding the existence of requested records or the state's compliance with public records statutes.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Miller's motion did not sufficiently allege the bases for his dispute with the State's assertion that no records existed.
[1] A motion to enforce public records laws must sufficiently allege the bases for a dispute with the State's assertion that no records exist.
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion to enforce public records laws may be affirmed without prejudice, allowing the movant to file a new motion, complaint, or petition.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“However, Miller’s motion did not sufficiently allege the bases for his dispute with the State’s assertion that no records existed.”
This quote explains the primary reason for the court's decision to affirm the denial of the motion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Foley Miller filed a motion seeking to enforce Florida's Public Records Law, arguing that the State possessed requested records and failed to …
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Foley Miller appeals the trial court’s order denying his “Motion for Postconviction Relief to Enforce Provisions of Florida’s Public Records Law.”1 Miller argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion when factual
disputes existed over whether the State possessed the requested records and whether the State complied with section 119.07, Florida Statutes (2021) by summarily responding to Miller that it did not possess the requested records. However, Miller’s motion did not sufficiently allege the bases for his dispute with the State’s assertion that no records existed. We therefore affirm the denial of the motion without prejudice to Miller filing a new motion,2 complaint, or petition to enforce the public records laws. Major v. Hallandale Beach Police Dep’t, 219 So. 3d 856, 857-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming without prejudice circuit court’s order denying petition for writ of mandamus seeking public records because appellant did not comply with all requirements to obtain a writ of mandamus and “leav[ing] it to the circuit court to decide whether such new petition creates a contested issue requiring an evidentiary hearing”). AFFIRMED without prejudice.
TRAVER, WOZNIAK and WHITE, JJ., concur. 2 District courts have treated trial court denials of motions like Miller’s as appeals from the denial of petitions for writs of mandamus. See, e.g., Farmer v. State, 927 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“It appears that Farmer’s motion to compel and attachments meet the requirements for a petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, the postconviction court should have treated the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus directed to the State Attorney.”); King v. State, 916 So. 2d 1001, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“The trial court should have treated Mr. King’s motion as a petition for writ of mandamus.”). We take no position as to those cases because the State did not challenge this precedent or the trial court’s case jurisdiction below or on appeal.
William Foley Miller, Clermont, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Natalia Reyna-Pimiento, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Farmer v. State, 927 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Rayfield Major v. Hallandale Beach Police Dep't, 219 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)