JAMES ALLEN ROESCH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Roesch appeals the denial of his motion to compel the state attorney to disclose his case file under Florida's Public Records Act. The court held that after conviction, a defendant is entitled to access public records from the state attorney's file, even before filing a motion for postconviction relief, and that a motion to compel is an appropriate vehicle for such requests.
A defendant is entitled to access portions of the state attorney's criminal investigation file subject to the Public Records Act after conviction becomes final. When a motion to compel is related to a postconviction relief motion, a motion to compel is an appropriate vehicle for the defendant to request such disclosure, even if the postconviction motion has not yet been filed.
[1] After a conviction and sentence become final, a defendant is entitled to portions of the state attorney's criminal investigation file that are subject to the Public Recor…
[2] A defendant is entitled to access public records related to a potential motion for postconviction relief, even if such a motion has not yet been filed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“After a conviction and sentence become final, the defendant is entitled to the portions of the state attorney's criminal investigation file that are subject to the Public Records Act.”
Establishes the core holding that post-conviction defendants have a right to access public records in the state attorney's file
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoesch's direct appeal from conviction and sentence had become final when he filed a motion to compel the state attorney to turn over his case file. H…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1215] PER CURIAM.
James Allen Roesch appeals the denial of his motion to compel the state attorney to “turn over” the contents of the file in his case pursuant to Chapter 119, the Public Records Act. We treat this matter as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Yanke v. State, 588 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
The direct appeal from the appellant’s conviction and sentence was final at the time he filed the motion to compel. In his motion to compel, the appellant alleges that the state attorney has refused access to his file. Although the appellant has not yet filed a motion for postconviction relief, he alleges that the file will reveal that the state attorney had possession of evidence favorable to the appellant which it failed to disclose. The trial court denied the motion to compel, finding it was not the appropriate vehicle to accomplish the appellant’s objectives. We disagree.
After a conviction and sentence become final, the defendant is entitled to the portions of the state attorney’s criminal investigation file that are subject to the Public Records Act. State v. Kokal, 562 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1990). While a motion for postconviction relief is pending, the defendant may request public records as part of that criminal proceeding. Mendyk v. State, 592 So. 2d 1076 (Fla.1992); Provenzano v. Dugger, 561 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1990). When a motion for postconviction relief has not yet been filed, but the request for public records is related to such a motion, the defendant is entitled to access to the public records. Campbell v. State, 593 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). A defendant is not entitled to receive copies of the documents without paying for them in either of these circumstances. See Campbell; Yanke.
Because the motion to compel in this case is related to a motion for postconviction relief, we find that the trial court should have considered the merits of the request for disclosure of the state attorney’s file. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel, but certify, as was certified in Campbell v. State, the following question as one of great public importance:
WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE METHOD OF DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC RECORDS HELD BY THE STATE ATTORNEY OR CLERK OF THE COURT WHERE THE RECORDS ARE REQUESTED BY AN UNREPRESENTED PRISONER WHO SEEKS THE RECORDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF?
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)…GRIMES, Justice. We review Roesch v. State, 596 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), in which the court certified the following question as one of great public importance: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE METHOD OF DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC RECORDS HELD BY THE STATE ATTORNEY OR CLERK OF THE COURT WHERE THE RECORDS ARE REQUEST…
-
Hyder v. State, 630 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Hyder appeals from an order granting in part and denying in part his motion to compel the State Attorney’s Office to provide access to public records. We treat Hyder’s appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Roesch v. State, 596 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review granted, 617 So. 2d 320 (Fla.1993). We deny the petition because Hyder is not entitled to a copy of the State Attorney’s files free of charge. See Roesch. However, as in Roesch, we certify the following question: WHAT…
Authorities Cited
- Provenzano v. Dugger, 561 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Kokal, 562 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Cerrito, 592 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1991)
- Yanke v. State, 588 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Campbell v. State, 593 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)