MIKAEL JOHANSON, 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.
Appellant Johanson appealed the circuit court's denial of his mandamus petition seeking public records (lab and medical reports) from the state attorney's office. The court found the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing with in-camera inspection to determine whether the state actually possessed the requested records.
The court held that the trial court erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing, including an in-camera inspection of the state attorney's file, on the contested issue of whether the state possessed the requested reports.
[1] A circuit court errs in denying a petition for writ of mandamus compelling a state attorney's office to comply with a public records request without conducting an evident…
[2] An evidentiary hearing on a public records request may include an in-camera inspection of the state attorney's file.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree with appellant that the circuit court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing, including an in-camera inspection of the state attorney's file, on the contested issue of whether the state had the requested reports in its possession.”
Establishes the core holding that an evidentiary hearing and in-camera inspection were required to resolve the factual dispute about record possession.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohanson was convicted of aggravated battery for throwing bleach in the victim's eyes. Johanson filed a public records request with the state attorney…
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 Exemption From Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion, and substitute the following.
This is an appeal from the circuit court’s denial of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus compelling the state attorney’s office to comply with appellant’s public records request.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery. The information charged that the victim had suffered “great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement” caused by appellant “throwing a cup of bleach in his eyes.”
Appellant filed a public records request with the state attorney’s office seeking lab reports and medical records regarding the victim’s injury. Appellant’s request noted that the state’s discovery response in the criminal case listed lab reports and medical records.
The state’s unsworn response to the mandamus petition conceded that its discovery submission listed Dr. Lieberman of the Coral Springs Medical Center and “lab report, medical report(s), lab report, as mentioned in the police reports.” The response indicated that the assistant state attorney who had prepared the discovery submission reviewed her office’s file and did not find any lab or medical reports. The state argued that it did not possess the requested records and that the mandamus petition should be denied. The circuit court adopted the state’s response and denied the motion.
We agree with appellant that the circuit court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing, including an in-camera inspection of the state attorney’s file, on the contested issue of whether the state had the requested reports in its possession.
At the hearing, the trial court may consider and rule on arguments that the records are covered by exemptions from disclosure.
Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clay Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Clay Cnty. Sch. Bd., 144 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…facie case for relief, and the trial court’s dismissal was improper. Because the complaint was not properly subject to dismissal, the court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact. See Jo-hanson v. State, 872 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus based on an unsworn response filed by the State that it did not possess the records requested and remanding to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing, including an in c…
-
Gerry Parish v. State, 59 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…rit by stating that it does not possess the form, then the court should conduct an evidentiary hearing, including an in-camera inspection if necessary, to resolve the issue of whether the state or the clerk possesses the form. See Johanson v. State, 872 So. 2d 387, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“We agree with appellant that the circuit court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing, including an in-camera inspection of the state attorney’s file, on the contested issue of whether the state had the requested r…
-
Ferrier v. The Pub. Def's. Off., 171 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…for writ of mandamus based on a response that the School Board had already turned over the documents, the documents did not exist in the formant requested, or the documents did not exist and remanding for an evidentiary hearing); Johanson v. State, 872 So. 2d 387, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus based on an unsworn response filed by the State that it did not possess the records requested and remanding for an evidentiary hearing, including an in camera inspecti…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence