LESLIE BRUNSKILL, 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.
Brunskill, a death row inmate convicted in 1986 of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and false imprisonment, sought a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus to compel disclosure of state attorney files and other records. The appellate court denied the petition without prejudice, finding that the trial court had not yet completed its judicial work on the underlying public records request and thus had not issued a final denial.
The appellate court will not issue a writ of mandamus because the trial court has not yet made a final ruling on the public records petition. Brunskill must either seek mandamus relief in the trial court or demonstrate exhaustion of remedies below before seeking appellate intervention.
[1] An appellate court should not intervene in a matter until the trial court has made a final ruling.
[2] A party seeking disclosure of judicial records must first exhaust remedies in the trial court before seeking appellate review.
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“the trial judge in this case did not deny Brunskill's initial petition. What documents were produced and what remains to be produced, if any, is not clear. Apparently the trial court has not completed its judicial work regarding the gathering of records pursuant to chapter 119. Thus, until it makes a final ruling, it is inappropriate for the appellate court to intervene.”
The court's primary rationale for denying the writ: the trial court has not issued a final ruling, making appellate intervention premature.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrunskill filed a petition in trial court for disclosure of state attorney files and/or a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court held a hearing, durin…
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 Florida Rule Of Judicial Administration 2.051 cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Brunskill seeks a writ of mandamus or writ of habeas corpus, to obtain records relating to his conviction for first-degree murder, kidnapping and false imprisonment in 1986. We elect to treat the petition as a request for mandamus and deny the writ without prejudice to Brunskill to seek further relief in the trial court.
Petitioner alleges he filed a petition for the disclosure of the state attorney’s files and/or for a writ of habeas corpus” in the trial court. The trial court held a hearing, during which the petitioner agreed to file a public records request on the state attorney’s office. He further alleges numerous documents have been served in this action. The trial court placed his petition in abeyance, pending further order of the court.
In his present petition, Brunskill relies on sections 119.01, 119.011, and 119.07 of the public records law. However, the trial judge in this case did not deny Brunskill’s initial petition. What documents were produced and what remains to be produced, if any, is not clear. Apparently the trial court has not completed its judicial work regarding the gathering of records pursuant to chapter 119. Thus, until it makes a final ruling, it is inappropriate for the appellate court to intervene.
Brunskill also relies on Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051. That rule provides that when a request for judicial records under the clerk’s control has been made and denied, the proper remedy is as follows:
(b) Review of Denial of Access Request. Expedited review of denials of access to judicial records or to the records of judicial agencies shall be provided through an action for mandamus in the following manner:
(1) Where a judge has denied a request for access to records in the judge’s possession or custody, the mandamus action shall be filed in the court having appellate jurisdiction to review the decisions of the judge denying access.
(2) All other mandamus actions under this rule shall be filed in the circuit court of the circuit in which such denial of access occurs.
It appears, as stated above, the trial court has not denied relief in the case on either ground. Until it does so, Brunskill’s remedy is to seek a petition for mandamus in the trial court, or demonstrate that he has exhausted his remedies below.
Petition for Wnt of Mandamus DENIED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, C. J., concurs in result only.