BARRY HOFFMAN, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's summary denial of Barry Hoffman's Rule 3.850 postconviction relief petition and remanded with instructions that the trial court must hold a hearing on his public records requests. The court clarified that prosecutors must disclose relevant public records in their possession and established procedures for obtaining records from outside agencies.
The trial court was in clear error for ignoring the supreme court's prior mandate with specific instructions to hold a Rule 3.850 hearing. All public records in the hands of the prosecuting state attorney are subject to disclosure by motion under Rule 3.850, even if they include records of outside agencies. For public records held by agencies outside the judicial circuit or unconnected to the state attorney, requests should be pursued directly under Florida Statutes chapter 119, but prosecutors may be requested to assist.
[1] A lower court must follow specific instructions in a mandate from a higher court and has no discretion to ignore them.
[2] Requests for public records from agencies outside the judicial circuit and unrelated to the state attorney's office should be pursued directly with those agencies under c…
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“When a lower court receives the mandate of this Court with specific instructions, the lower court is without discretion to ignore that mandate or disregard the instructions.”
Establishes that trial courts must strictly comply with supreme court mandates and cannot deviate from them
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarry Hoffman, an inmate under sentence of death, sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, including requests for …
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 Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
[*406] PER CURIAM.
We have on appeal a summary denial of relief requested under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 by Barry Hoffman, an inmate under sentence of death. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.
The facts and procedural history of the case are stated in the prior opinions in this matter. Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla.1990); Hoffman v. State, 474 So. 2d 1178 (Fla.1985). In the last matter before this Court in 1990, we remanded to the trial court with instructions to hold a hearing under Rule 3.850. This, the trial court did not do; and the assistant attorney general could provide us with no good reason for this lapse. When a lower court receives the mandate of this Court with specific instructions, the lower court is without discretion to ignore that mandate or disregard the instructions. It was clear error to do otherwise here.
The State complains that some of Hoffman’s public record requests seek records from agencies that have had nothing to do with the judgment and sentence and over whom the state attorney has no control.
We agree that with respect to agencies outside the judicial circuit in which the case was tried and those within the circuit which have no connection with the state attorney, requests for public records should be pursued under the procedure outlined in chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Because those requests will be made directly to such agencies, they will be in a position to raise any defenses to the disclosure which they may deem applicable. We recede from Mendyk v. State, 592 So. 2d 1076 (Fla.1992), to the extent that it suggested a different procedure. At the same time, we encourage state attorneys to assist in helping defendants obtain relevant public records from such outside agencies so as to facilitate the speedy disposition of postcon-viction claims.
We emphasize, however, that all public records in the hands of the prosecuting state attorney are subject to disclosure by way of motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 even if they include the records of outside agencies. Likewise, the public records of the local sheriff and any police department within the circuit that was involved in the investigation of the case may also be obtained in the manner outlined in Provenzano v. Dugger, 561 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1990).
Accordingly, we remand this cause once again. We emphasize that the trial court must honor and cannot deviate from the instructions appearing below. On remand the trial court shall promptly hold a hearing on those of Hoffman’s requests for public records which may properly be obtained in these proceedings. Hoffman may seek the relevant public records of any outside agencies as discussed herein and within a reasonable time shall be permitted to amend his petition under rule 3.850, raising any new ground brought to light by the disclosure of the public records. Thereafter, a proper hearing shall be held in full compliance with the mandate of this Court.
We find that it would be premature to address the other issues raised by Hoffman. We do not reach these issues, but our determination in this regard is without prejudice for Hoffman to raise them anew below and in any subsequent appeal.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2000)…endants could compel the production of public records from the prosecuting State Attorney’s Offices and the local law enforcement agencies that had investigated the crime. See, e.g., Reed v. State, 640 So. 2d 1094, 1098 (Fla.1994); Hoffman v. State, 613 So. 2d 405, 406 (Fla.1992). However, “with respect to agencies outside the judicial circuit in which the case was tried and those within the circuit which have no connection with the state attorney, requests for public records should be pursued under the proce…
-
Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)…1076, 1080 (Fla.1992) ("When jury instructions are proper, the failure to object does not constitute a serious and substantial deficiency that is measurably below the standard of competent counsel.”), receded from on other grounds, Hoffman v. State, 613 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1992). . In issue (11), Gaskin attempts to raise a claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Such claims should be raised in a habeas corpus petition and, therefore, are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 postconviction proceeding. Se…
-
Teffeteller v. Dugger, 734 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1999)…ic facts which are not conclusively rebutted by the record and which demonstrate a deficiency in performance that prejudiced the defendant. See Mendyk v. State, 592 So. 2d 1076, 1079 (Fla.1992), receded from on different grounds by Hoffman v. State, 613 So. 2d 405, 406 (Fla.1992); Roberts, 568 So. 2d at 1259. While the judge did not conduct an evi-dentiary hearing in the instant case, he did conduct a lengthy hearing at which both sides were allowed to present argument as to the twenty-nine issues raised in…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Provenzano v. Dugger, 561 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1990)
- Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1990)
- Hoffman v. State, 474 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Cerrito, 592 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1991)