ELIAS ROSADO, 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.
Elias Rosado, an indigent defendant represented by court-appointed counsel, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking copies of case file documentation to prepare post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the petition, but the appellate court reversed, holding that court-appointed counsel must provide transcripts and record documents obtained at public expense to the defendant free of charge.
The trial court abused its discretion. Court-appointed counsel is obligated to provide to an indigent defendant, free of charge, transcripts and other record documents that were prepared at public expense on behalf of the defendant. However, counsel need not provide free copies of other documents in the file not obtained via public expense.
[1] A writ of mandamus is an appropriate means to compel court-appointed counsel to perform the lawful duty of providing a client with copies of documentation from their case…
[2] Transcripts and other record documents prepared at public expense on behalf of an indigent defendant must be provided to the defendant without charge for copying.
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“transcripts [or record documents] that were prepared at public expense on behalf of an indigent defendant must be provided to the defendant without charge for copying”
Establishes the core holding that public-expense materials must be provided to indigent defendants free of charge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosado, represented by court-appointed counsel, sought copies of documentation from his case file to prepare a petition for post-conviction relief. Th…
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Elias Rosado, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition, he requested the trial court order his appointed trial counsel to submit to him copies of documentation from his previous litigation for the purpose of preparing a petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was denied by the trial court. Rosado claims the trial court abused its discretion. We agree, as Rosado’s court-appointed counsel was obligated to submit to him, free of charge, documentation from his case file prepared at the public’s expense.
An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a petition for writ of mandamus under the abuse of discretion standard of review. See Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1257 (Fla.2004) (“Since the nature of an extraordinary writ is not of absolute right, the granting of such writ lies within the discretion of the court.”).1 Although “[Qiles prepared and maintained by an attorney for the purpose of representing a client are the attorney’s personal property .... transcripts [or record documents] that were prepared at public expense on behalf of an indigent defendant must be provided to the defendant without charge for copying.” Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we “reverse the trial court’s order denying the petition for writ of mandamus. On remand, the trial court shall grant the petition to the extent that the petition requests ... transcripts or other record documents obtained on [Rosa-do’s] behalf at public expense.” Id. The trial court, however, “shall deny the petition to the extent that it requests free copies of other documents contained in” the court-appointed attorney’s file not obtained via the public’s expense. Id.
Reversed and, Remanded.
GROSS, C.J., POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Brown v. State, 93 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…. 3d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d)(3). Transcripts or record documents that were prepared at public expense on behalf of an indigent defendant must be provided to the defendant without charge for copying. Rosado v. State, 1 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Because a public defender or court-appointed lawyer is an “official,” mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel such an official to provide a defendant with copies of legal documents prepared at public expense. Pearce v.…
-
Gerry Parish v. State, 59 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…determine whether the state or the clerk possesses the form. The state responds that the court correctly denied' the petition because the clerk possesses the form. We review the circuit court’s order for an abuse of discretion. See Rosado v. State, 1 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a petition for writ of mandamus under the abuse of discretion standard of review.”) (citation omitted). We find that the circuit court erred in denying the petition…
-
James v. Crews, 132 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ng seeking a writ of mandamus "shall be a complaint.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(b). . In contrast to the standard for a dismissal of the complaint, orders granting or denying the writ are subject to review only for abuse of discretion. Rosado v. State, 1 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004)
- Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)