EUGENE DUMAS, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
THEODORE MARRERO, JR., 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.
Eugene Dumas sought a writ of mandamus to compel his court-appointed attorney Theodore Marrero to return case documents and records. The court initially denied relief, but upon learning that Marrero was a specially appointed public defender rather than private counsel, reconsidered and remanded the matter to circuit court for determination of what documents must be returned.
A specially appointed public defender, acting as an agent of the state, may be subject to mandamus to return documents prepared at public expense, but the client is not entitled to documents relating to the attorney's performance of professional services, which are the attorney's property. The case was remanded to circuit court for fact-finding on which documents fall into each category.
[1] Mandamus does not lie to compel a private citizen to perform a ministerial duty.
[2] An attorney appointed to act as a special public defender is an agent of the state and must turn over to the client depositions and other documents produced at public exp…
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“private counsel who is appointed to act as a special public defender is an agent of the state and is required to turn over to his client depositions and other documents produced at public expense”
Establishes the key distinction between private counsel and specially appointed public defenders regarding their duty to return documents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEugene Dumas, Jr. retained attorney Theodore Marrero, Jr. to represent him in a criminal case. Upon conclusion of the case, Marrero retained various r…
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 Agent Of The State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eugene Dumas, Jr., seeks a writ of mandamus to compel his appointed private attorney, Theodore Marrero, Jr., Esquire, to return various records, files and documents retained by Mr. Marrero at the conclusion of Mr. Dumas’ criminal case. We originally denied relief in this case by order because mandamus does not lie to compel a private citizen to perform a ministerial duty. See Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). See also Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied 591 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1991). Mr. Marrero, however, as we learned for the first time in the petition of Mr. Dumas for rehearing, was a specially appointed public defender for Mr. Dumas. That fact makes a big difference.
As we explained in Colon v. Irwin, 732 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), private counsel who is appointed to act as a special public defender is an agent of the state and is required to turn over to his client depositions and other documents produced at public expense. See also Ramos v. State, 757 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Thus, it appears that Mr. Dumas may be entitled to some relief.
We are unfortunately unable to tell whether Mr. Dumas should be granted relief. First, he is entitled to have disclosed by his special public defender only such documents (transcripts, for example), as were prepared at public expense. See Donahue. He is not entitled by mandamus to that part of his attorney’s file related to the performance of professional services, as those documents are the property of the attorney, not the client. See Dowda and Fields, P.A. v. Cobb, 452 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). By the present petition Mr. Dumas is seeking “records, files, and or documents” related to his case and held by Mr. Marrero. His request is too vague for us to act upon. Moreover, for the reasons explained in Donahue, he is not necessarily entitled to receive copies of any of the documents free of charge.
An appellate court is not an appropriate forum to consider the issues raised by this petition because we do not conduct evidentiary or fact-finding hearings. Accordingly, we grant the petition for rehearing and withdraw the earlier order denying relief, but transfer this case to the Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida, for consideration of the merits of the petition.
Finally, we note that Mr. Marrero failed to respond to our order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 for his failure to comply with the September 3, 2003, order of this court to file a response to the Motion For Rehearing. We, accordingly, impose a fine of $250.00, to be paid to the Clerk of this court, within 30 days from the date hereof.
SHARP, W., PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LaFLOWER v. State, 929 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…not some or all have been provided to him, we dismiss his petition for mandamus, without prejudice to file a more factually detailed petition in the circuit court. Cf. Olivera-Herrera v. Taylor, 920 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Dumas v. Marrero, 864 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). [*59] Petition for Writ of Mandamus DISMISSED. SHARP, W., GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.…
-
Abner M. Aust v. Glazer, 886 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Dumas v. Marrero, 864 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). ERVIN, BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.…
-
Olivera-Herrera v. Taylor, 920 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ince this court is not equipped to determine factual issues or disputes, this mandamus petition must be transferred to the circuit court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit [*766] in and for Orange County, Florida for consideration. See Dumas v. Marrero, 864 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). PETITION TRANSFERRED. PLEUS, C.J., and SHARP, W., J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dowda & Fields, P.A. v. Cobb, 452 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Colon v. Irwin, 732 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Efrain Ramos v. State, 757 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)