ANTWAUN DURELL SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Antwaun Simmons appealed an order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking documents from the State, including a pre-sentence plea agreement, transcripts, and judgment/sentence documents. The court affirmed the denial but reversed in part, holding that Simmons properly could seek mandamus relief against his public defenders rather than the State, and instructing him on the correct procedure for obtaining documents in their possession.
The trial court's denial of the petition was affirmed because Simmons failed to name the proper respondents—his specially appointed public defenders (SAPD)—in his mandamus petition. However, the court held that Simmons is entitled to receive records and transcripts created at public expense when defended at public expense, and that he may file a new mandamus petition naming the SAPD as respondents if his attorneys fail to provide the documents.
[1] A defendant represented at public expense is entitled to receive records and transcripts created at public expense.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to transcripts at the State's expense.
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“The defendant is correct that when a person is defended at public expense, the defendant is entitled to receive the records and transcripts which were created at public expense.”
Establishes the substantive right of indigent defendants to obtain public records created during their representation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimmons entered a guilty plea to second-degree murder and was sentenced. He subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the State reque…
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
This is an appeal of an order denying a petition for writ of mandamus. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Antwaun Durell Simmons states that he entered a guilty plea to the offense of second-degree murder and was sentenced accordingly. Defendant-petitioner Simmons filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the State, as respondent, requesting a copy of his pre-sentence plea agreement, transcripts, and all judgment/sentence documents.
The trial court entered an order denying this relief. As to the transcripts, *875the trial court correctly stated that the defendant is not entitled to transcripts at the State’s expense. Roesch v. State, 633 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993); Clowers v. State, 960 So.2d 840, 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Attached to the defendant’s petition was a memorandum from the court clerk stating that there is no written plea agreement in the court file in this case. For the judgment and sentence the defendant would need to pay the copying cost. Roesch.
While this is a correct statement of the law, we respectfully disagree with the trial court’s interpretation of the petition. While the petition is not as clear as it could be, what the defendant actually requested was a writ of mandamus directing his specially appointed public defenders (“SAPD”) to turn over the documents he seeks. He alleges that the presentence plea agreement, transcripts, and judgment/sentence documents are in their possession.
The defendant is correct that when a person is defended at public expense, the defendant is entitled to receive the records and transcripts which were created at public expense. Office of the Pub. Defender v. Madison, 961 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Bush v. State, 947 So.2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Ramos v. State, 757 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Baptiste v. Guffanti, 943 So.2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). If the SAPD has one or more of the items sought by the defendant, then the SAPD must either provide the defendant a copy, or if the SAPD chooses, may transmit the originals to the defendant without retaining a copy.
The problem here is that the defendant failed to follow the correct procedure in filing the petition for writ of mandamus. The petition named only the State as the respondent, and accordingly, the trial court interpreted the petition as seeking relief only against the State. That being so, we affirm the denial of the petition.
Our ruling, however, is without prejudice to the defendant to request the documents from his attorneys. Naturally the attorneys may only be required to turn over documents which actually exist and are in their possession. If the attorneys fail to respond, or are in possession of responsive documents but fail to turn them over, the defendant may file a new petition for writ of mandamus, naming the SAPD or SAPDs as respondents. An SAPD representing an indigent defendant “is an agent of the State sufficient to invoke the remedy of mandamus.” Ramos, 757 So.2d at 616.
Affirmed.*
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gomez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…te, 889 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (denying a petition for a writ of mandamus where the defendant’s counsel “represent[ed] that he ha[d] no such documents.”); Johnson v. State, 304 So. 3d 1226, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Simmons v. State, 40 So. 3d 874, 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“[A]ttorneys may only be required to turn over documents which actually exist and are in their possession.”); Harrell v. State, 963 So. 2d 359, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (noting that “the majority of the documents requested…
Authorities Cited
- Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Efrain Ramos v. State, 757 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Bush v. State, 947 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Baldwin v. State, 743 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Sterling A. Clowers v. State, 960 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Johnson v. State, 961 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- McFADDEN v. State, 711 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Naylor v. U.S. Tr. Co. OF Fla., 711 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Presidion Solutions & Unisource Administrators, Inc. v. Beaver, 933 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Rillio Baptiste v. Albert W. Guffanti, P.A., 943 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)