CARL E. ROLAND, 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.
Carl Roland appealed the dismissal of his petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel his former attorney to provide free copies of discovery materials. The court reversed, holding that a defendant is entitled to receive discovery materials presented to defense counsel at no cost, and the petition stated a facially sufficient claim for relief.
Roland stated a facially sufficient claim establishing a prima facie case of entitlement to free copies of the discovery evidence from regional counsel. Because his request was for specific discovery materials rather than all items in counsel's possession, he was not required to pay for originals or copies thereof.
[1] A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at l…
[2] A defendant is entitled to receive copies of discovery materials from former counsel at no cost.
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“A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.”
Establishes the three-part test for obtaining a writ of mandamus
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoland petitioned the circuit court to compel the Office of the Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel to provide him with copies of discovery m…
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
Carl E. Roland appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of mandamus. Mr. Roland petitioned the circuit court, asking it to compel his former attorney, the Office of the Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, to provide him with copies of discovery materials received from the State.1 The circuit court dismissed the *104petition, finding it facially insufficient for failure to include an acknowledgement of a legal obligation to pay regional counsel’s office for the costs associated with providing the requested items. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
“ ‘A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.’ ” Morse v. State, 50 So.3d 750, 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Radford v. Brock, 914 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). Mr. Roland stated a facially sufficient claim that established a prima facie case of entitlement to free copies of the discovery evidence from regional counsel. Because his request was not for all items in counsel’s possession, but was for specific discovery materials, Mr. Roland was not required to pay for originals or copies thereof. See Morse, 50 So.3d at 751 (holding that defendant was entitled to copies of the crime scene photographs from his trial free-of-charge); Smith v. State, 889 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“The petitioner is entitled to receive from his former counsel, at no cost to petitioner, any and all trial and hearing transcripts, copies of motions, and any state discover presented to defense counsel”) (emphasis added); cf. LaFlower v. State, 929 So.2d 58, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“However, [defendant] is not entitled to items related to the performance of professional services, and if provided, should compensate the attorney for charges incurred in copying them.”). Therefore, the circuit court erred in dismissing Mr. Roland’s petition — which demonstrated a prima facie case for relief— and in not issuing an alternative writ ordering regional counsel to show cause why the writ should not issue and the requested relief be granted. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d)(3); Gilliam v. State, 996 So.2d 956, 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Farmer v. State, 927 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CASANUEVA and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anthony v. State, 277 So. 3d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…rits of mandamus reveals no requirement that the petitioner affirmatively acknowledge an obligation to pay for copying costs in order to state a valid claim for mandamus relief. In fact, our court has - 5 - held otherwise. See Roland v. State, 120 So. 3d 103, 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding the circuit court erred in dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus as facially insufficient for failing to acknowledge the legal obligation to pay for costs associated with providing the documents); Smith v. St…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mahlard K. Boyd, 846 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2003)
- Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Farmer v. State, 927 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Manning v. State, 28 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Eyleen Caraballo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 28 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Mills v. State, 889 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- LaFLOWER v. State, 929 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Bonifay v. State, 996 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Morse v. State, 50 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Beloni Petit-Frere v. State, 108 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)