RODNEY VANCE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Rodney Vance petitioned for mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to dispose of his pending petition requiring his retained counsel and two Public Defenders' offices to provide discovery materials under the Public Records Act. The court denied the mandamus petition, finding that intervention was unwarranted because the circuit court had appropriately issued an order to show cause and the delay appeared to stem from inability to locate records rather than refusal to comply.
The appellate court denied the mandamus petition, finding that intervention was unwarranted under the unusual circumstances because the circuit court properly issued an order to show cause and the delay resulted from inability to locate records rather than non-compliance. The court did direct that Vance's claim be expedited and resolved as promptly as circumstances permit.
[1] Mandamus relief is unwarranted when a circuit court has issued an order to show cause and is actively addressing a petition for writ of mandamus.
[2] A circuit court's order to show cause is not a departure from the essential requirements of statutes providing for accelerated consideration of claims seeking to enforce…
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“The circuit court itself recognized in its order to show cause that Vance is entitled to a prompt disposition of his claim. However, it appears that the cause for any delay in fulfilling Vance's request for records is not due to a refusal to comply with the Public Records Act, but rather an inability to locate the records requested.”
Establishes the distinction between non-compliance and inability to locate records, which was dispositive to the court's analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVance filed a petition in his criminal case seeking to compel his retained trial counsel, the Public Defender for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, and the…
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 Mandamus Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Rodney Vance petitions this court for mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to dispose of his pending petition for writ of mandamus. Although filed in his criminal case, that petition seeks to compel his retained trial counsel, the Public Defender for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, and the Public Defender for the Second Judicial Circuit to comply with his requests under the Public Records Act for copies of discovery materials in his criminal case.
We are advised that the circuit court has issued an order to show cause directing the Offices of the Public Defenders and retained counsel to respond to Vance’s petition below, and we conclude that under the unusual circumstances of this case, intervention by this court is unwarranted at this point. See Munn v. Florida Parole Commission, 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Lassiter v. Martin, 99 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The circuit court itself recognized in its order to show cause that Vance is entitled to a prompt disposition of his claim. However, it appears that the cause for any delay in fulfilling Vance’s request for records is not due to a refusal to comply with the Public Records Act, but rather an inability to locate the records requested. We are confident that the circuit court will promptly address the merits of Vance’s petition below once it has had the opportunity to resolve the threshold question of whether any of the parties to whom Vance’s re*111quests were directed in fact have the records he seeks.
Because of the need for the circuit court to resolve this factual issue, we find that its order to show cause is not a departure from the essential requirements of section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes (2014), which provides for accelerated consideration and case priority for claims seeking to enforce the Public Records Act, and therefore deny Vance’s alternative request that we undertake certiorari review of the order to show cause. We nonetheless direct that petitioner’s claim be expedited and resolved as promptly as circumstances permit.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.
LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Callvester Smith v. State, 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Lassiter v. Martin, 99 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)