MARK LAWSON, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of Lawson's request for additional documents from the state attorney's file, holding that the documents were either not in the State's possession, already provided, or not properly requested.
A defendant's request for documents from the state attorney's file may be denied when the documents were not sought in the original request, are not in the State's possession, or have already been provided.
[1] A defendant may obtain copies of public records from the state attorney's investigation file once conviction and sentence become final, but must pay for the copies and pr…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Lawson, after conviction and sentencing, requested documents from the state attorney's file. The State provided some documents but denied others,…
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 Time Limitations For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Mark Lawson filed a motion requesting documents contained in the state attorney’s file in his case. See § 119.11, Fla. Stat. (2009); Roesch v. State, 633 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1993) (stating that certain portions of the state attorney’s investigation file are public records once a defendant’s conviction and sentence becomes final; a defendant may obtain copies of these records but must pay for the copies). The State provided copies of certain documents, but Lawson contended he had requested others that were not produced. The State replied that the missing documents had not been sought in Lawson’s original request and that one of the documents, described by Lawson as “chain of custody,” did not exist. The court denied Lawson’s request for the additional records, finding that the documents either were not in the State’s possession, had already been provided, or were not requested.
We affirm the circuit court’s decision without prejudice to Lawson’s filing another request for production of records if he wishes to do so. He states he needs these documents to prepare a postconviction motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We remind him that his judgment and sentences became final on the date this court’s mandate issued in his direct appeal. See Anton v. State, 976 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 988 So.2d 621 (Fla.2008). A rule 3.850 motion filed more than two years after that date cannot be considered. Fla. R.App. P. 3.850(b).
Affirmed.
DAVIS and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trueblood v. Dixon (N.D. Fla. 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Anton v. State, 976 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)