WALTER GRANT KYSER, 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.
Walter Kyser appealed a circuit court order denying his motions for free copies of records held by the state attorney and court clerk following affirmance of his first-degree murder conviction. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that recent Florida Supreme Court precedent establishes that indigent inmates seeking non-trial records have no right to free copies and are subject to the same public records fees as other citizens.
The court affirmed the circuit court's denial, holding that the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Roesch v. State establishes that indigent inmates seeking public records are in the same position as any other member of the public and must pay required copying costs. The court concluded that Kyser's request for non-trial records did not implicate a defendant's right to free copies of trial records.
[1] Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, does not require indigent inmates to be furnished public records free of charge.
[2] Individuals seeking public records who cannot afford the costs are in the same position as any other member of the public.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“in the same position as anyone else seeking public records who cannot pay”
Establishes the core holding that indigent inmates have no special right to free public records under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKyser was convicted of first-degree murder, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal by this court in 1991. Following affirmance, Kyser filed motions…
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.
WENTWORTH, Senior Judge.
Upon consideration of motions for rehearing/clarification filed by the parties, the opinion previously filed herein on March 30,1994, (published 19 Fla.L.Weekly D699 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 30, 1994)) is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor:
This is an appeal of an order of the circuit court denying appellant’s motions for free copies of records in the custody of the state attorney and the clerk of court. The motions were filed following this court’s affirmance of appellant’s conviction of first degree murder. Kyser v. State, 576 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We affirm, concluding that the recent opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993) supports the trial court’s denial of the motions.
The opinion in Roesch rejects any contention that Ch. 119, F.S., requires that indigent inmates be furnished records free of charge, stating instead that they are “in the same position as anyone else seeking public records who cannot pay” the required costs. 633 So. 2d at 3. Appellant clearly presents no issue of access to the transcript of his actual trial record, seeking instead the equivalent of an original photographic exhibit in lieu of a copy, together with copies of original documents in the office of the state attorney distinct from those placed in evidence. Decisions governing a defendant’s right to copies of trial records accordingly would not apply, even assuming a movant’s right in particular circumstances to obtain free copies of such records prior to disposition of a pending post-conviction motion. See Dorch v. State, 483 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (where court, in dictum, stated that the trial record may be available at no expense only after a motion for post-conviction relief has been filed). Accord Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).1
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . In Carr, the Second District Court of Appeal cited the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Dorch, and recognized with respect to pending motions under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 and 3.987 that the defendant is required only to put forth a prima facie case, and that "the burden of combing the record ... is, of course, not on the defendant.” 495 So. 2d at 282.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vance v. State, 120 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…tatutes. The trial court interpreted the relief requested as appellant seeking to obtain free copies of his file. Because post-appeal indigent inmates have no clear legal right to free copies, the trial court denied the petition. See Kyser v. State, 647 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In denying the petition, the trial court did not determine whether the petition was facially sufficient to allege a clear legal right to the records if appellant was willing to pay for them. Given the separate requests for reli…
Authorities Cited
- Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Norvel L. Dorch v. State, 483 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Kyser v. State, 576 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)