LEONARD WILLIAM YANKE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Yanke, a convicted defendant, sought free access to state attorney files under Florida's Public Records Act, arguing that requiring him to pay copying and postage fees violated due process for an indigent person. The court held that indigent defendants have no constitutional right to free copies of criminal investigation files after conviction and post-conviction appeals have been exhausted.
An indigent defendant has no constitutional right to free copies of criminal investigation files of the state attorney under the Public Records Act after conviction and post-conviction appeals have been exhausted, even though the files are otherwise subject to disclosure.
[1] A petitioner seeking access to state attorney's files under the Public Records Act is not exempt from copying and postage fees based on indigency.
[2] Indigent defendants do not have a right to free transcripts for the preparation of post-conviction motions.
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“although an indigent defendant has a right to transcripts without payment of costs for a direct appeal, there is no right to free transcripts for use in preparation of a post-conviction motion”
Establishes the foundational principle from Carr v. State that indigent rights are limited to direct appeals, not post-conviction proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYanke was convicted and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. He filed several unsuccessful post-conviction motions and subsequent appeals. …
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 Public Records Act (Chapter 119, Florida Statutes) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and after several unsuccessful post-conviction motions and subsequent appeals, Yanke filed a petition for access to the state attorney’s files and records pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, otherwise known as the Public Records Act. The petition was accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and asked that the files be forwarded to Yanke without copying or postage charges. The petition was dismissed and a motion for rehearing was denied. Although this matter was initiated as an appeal from the trial court’s disposition, we treat it as one within our certiorari jurisdiction.
The issue here is not whether Yanke is entitled to access to the state attorney’s files pursuant to the Public Records Act. Yanke admits that the state attorney has allowed him access but argues that he has “simultaneously denied him those records by requiring the payment of copying and postage related thereto, when he is insolvent.” State v. Kokal, 562 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1990), relied on by Yanke, holds that after a conviction and sentence have become final some portions of the state attorney’s criminal investigation files are subject to the Public Records Act. Kokal did not deal with copying or postage costs. Also, there is nothing in the Public Records Act itself which exempts indigents from the fee provisions of that act in section 119.07, Florida Statutes (1989).
The question remains as to whether Yanke is entitled to the documents free of charge under applicable principles of due process relating to a criminal proceeding. In Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), we held that, although an indigent defendant has a right to transcripts without payment of costs for a direct appeal, there is no right to free transcripts for use in preparation of a post-conviction motion. The rationale of Carr would seem to apply, if anything more persuasively, where, as here, Yanke has already prosecuted his post-conviction motions and the related appeals and is not seeking the transcripts of his case but merely the files of the state attorney. We hold that there is no right to free copies of the criminal investigation files of the state attorney under these circumstances.
Therefore, the petitions for writ of certiorari are denied.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)…CA 1992), the court said: Several cases have held that a prisoner is entitled to no greater relief than other persons requesting relief pursuant to chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Wootton v. Cook, 590 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Yanke v. State, 588 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991). A prisoner, therefore, would not be entitled to copies of the records without paying reasonable copying costs (Wootton, supra; Yanke, supra), nor would the prisoner be entitled to a list of documents (Wootton, supra), nor would…1 / 2
-
Kurtis J. Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…So. 2d 324 (Fla.1990); Campbell v. State, 593 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). However, indigent prisoners may not receive free copies of documents requested under the public records law. See Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993); Yanke v. State, 588 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 595 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1992). See also Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (transcripts paid for at public expense are available to an indigent prisoner at no cost). Mandamus is a common law reme…
-
WFTV, Inc. v. Wilken, 675 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…deprived of any constitutional right to access but is simply “in the same position as anyone else seeking public records who cannot pay the copying costs and who cannot afford the trip to personally examine the records.” Id. See also Yanke v. State, 588 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, 595 So. 2d 559 (Fla.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 973, 112 S.Ct. 1592, 118 L.Ed.2d 309 (1992). Our supreme court emphasized in Ake that it had directly addressed its responsibility concerning access to court records b…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Kokal, 562 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1990)
- Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)