JAMES DAVID PHILLIPS, 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.
James David Phillips, a death-sentenced inmate, petitioned for certiorari review of what he believed was a court order prohibiting him from contacting jurors. The appellate court denied the petition because the initial document was not a properly signed judicial order, and the subsequently-entered signed order merely instructed Phillips to obey the law rather than constituting a reviewable order on the merits of his First Amendment challenge.
The court denied Phillips' petition for certiorari because the initial unsigned 'snapout' document was not a valid judicial order subject to appellate review, and the subsequent signed order was not a binding ruling on the merits but merely a statement that Phillips must obey the law. The court declined to treat the coerced post-conviction order as reviewable and suggested Phillips pursue other procedures if he wishes to challenge the rule.
[1] A document lacking a judge's signature is not a valid court order for the purpose of appellate review.
[2] A party seeking certiorari review must demonstrate that a judicial order has been entered from which relief can be granted.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 minimal restrictions on a defendant's First Amendment rights are far outweighed by the need for jurors to remain involved in the process. Repeated contact by the very defendants who are incarcerated or on probation for the cases in which the juror fulfilled their civic duties could place jurors in fear to even appear for jury duty and undermine the system that the Constitution promises.”
The court's rationale for upholding Rule 3.575's restrictions on juror contact as a reasonable limitation on First Amendment rights based on juror protection and jury system integrity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillips was convicted by jury and sentenced to life imprisonment for capital sexual battery in 2008. In August 2014, without court approval, Phillips…
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 Indirect Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
James David Phillips filed a petition seeking certiorari review of what he thought.was a judicial order entered on March. 13, 2015, Although his confusion is understandable, we conclude that the post-conviction court has taken no action from which Mr. Phillips is currently entitled to certiorari relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
Mr. Phillips-was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment for capital sexual battery in' 2008. In August 2014, without prior court approval, Mr. Phillips sent a letter to one of the jurors in his case. The letter generally discussed the case and sought information from the juror about, possible improper information received by the jury during a lunchtime break. When the juror received the letter, the juror contacted the state attorney. The State then.filed a motion for rule to show cause why Mr. Phillips should not be held' in indirect criminal contempt for failure to abide by the procedures in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.575.1
Our record does not contain a transcript of the hearing, but it is undisputed that the trial court provided Mr. Phillips with counsel for a contempt hearing. A document was created as a result of that hearing on a “memo of sentence/order of the court” or “snapout,” the use of which this court has discouraged for more than twenty years.2 Handwritten notations indicate that a status hearing was held, that the State moved to withdraw its motion for rule to show cause, and that the postconviction court granted that motion. At that point, despite the absence of a pending motion, the snapout reflects that “RC is discharged at this time.” Language above this “discharge,” starting with an asterisk and ending with an arrow to place the language below the discharge, states: “ * court orders deft (not) to have' any contact w/ Jurors or Alt.'Juror*
*791
.” Below the arrow, this “order” continues with the language “except by motn and order of the court according to the rules and law.” This snapout is dated March 13, 2015, and is signed by a deputy clerk. The signature line for a circuit judge is blank.
Mr. Phillips interprets this document to be a circuit court order barring him. from contacting jurors. He believes the order is a violation of his First Amendment rights. He timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the order.
Because the document was not a signed and rendered order, this court relinquished jurisdiction to the extent necessary for the circuit court to file a signed, written order. The circuit court entered a signed, written order in October 2015.
The order confirms that the State withdrew its motion because it could not prove that the defendant knew he had an obligation to obtain prior approval for such contact with a juror when he sent his letter. The order explains that despite the fact that the motion had been withdrawn, Mr. Phillips pressed the court for a ruling on whether he was being ordered not to contact jurors. The court then orally instructed Mr. Phillips to follow the law if he wanted to contact jurors. The court concluded at the time of the hearing that it should not enter a written order given the fact that the State had withdrawn its motion. The order further explains: “Unbeknownst to the Court, the clerk inserted the statement ‘Court orders defendant not to have any contact w/jurors except by motn (sic) and order of the court according to the rules and law.’ ” The written order then concludes:
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Law and Rules of Court apply to this Defendant and must be followed. The Defendant was specifically made aware of the existence of Rule 3.575 regarding juror interviews. The Court is of the 'opinion that an interrogatory interview in the form of a letter is subject to the rule, and that the word “may” in the first sentence of the rule is not intended to .be permissive, rather is intended to be restrictive and provide an avenue under which parties shall proceed if they wish to interview jurors. The purpose for the rule is well founded and deeply-rooted in the longstanding need to protect jurors privacy and safety. The minimal restrictions on a defendant’s First Amendment rights are far outweighed by the need for jurors to remain involved in the process. Repeated contact by the very defendants who are incarcerated or on probation for the cases in which the juror fulfilled their civic duties could place jurors in fear to even appear for jury duty and undermine the system that the Constitution promises.
We are thus at the odd procedural posture of reviewing an initial “order” that was not actually an order, followed by an actual order that the postconviction court created only to comply with this court’s order and in which the postconviction court explains that its true intent was not to enter any rendered order whatsoever. We are inclined to agree with the postcon-viction court that rule 3.575 was written to regulate the conduct of both attorneys and parties when they wish- to contact jurors for a “challenge” to a verdict even at the postconviction stage or for a petition for *792writ of habeas corpus.3 There does not, however, appear to be any well-considered decision on the First Amendment issue that Mr. Phillips raised.
Accordingly, we decline to treat the postconviction order coerced by this court as a binding ruling from that court. As a practical matter, it does little more than tell Mr. Phillips to obey the law. The actual document challenged by the petition was not an order of a court that this court can review.
There may be more than one procedure that Mr. Phillips could elect to use at this point. If he wishes to pursue this matter, it may be prudent for him to file a motion to interview jurors under rule 3.575 claiming a First Amendment right to contact jurors at this time without regulation by the court or without establishing the grounds necessary in the days following a verdict and before a direct appeal. He can then obtain a ruling that, if adverse to him, he can seek to review in this court by petition for writ of certiorari.
Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R v. Asset Acquisitions & Holdings Tr., 202 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…nd our review of the record. While we [*942] recognize and are sympathetic to the docket management pressures our colleagues on the circuit and county courts face, such a practice—although expedient—remains highly discouraged. Cf. Phillips v. State, 198 So. 3d 789, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reproducing handwritten arrow from a “snapout” memo of sentence/order of the court and observing that the Second District Court of Appeal has discouraged the use of such memos "for more than twenty years”); Woods v. Woods, 6…
-
Hendrix v. State, 224 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…ec: Deft Comp to proceed,” does not satisfy the requirement of a written competency order. See Shakes v. State, 185 So. 3d 679, 682 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Carroll v. State, 157 So. 3d 385, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)); see also Phillips v. State, 198 So. 3d 789, 790 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (collecting cases in which this court has repeatedly discouraged use of “memo of sentence/order of the court”). Accordingly, we affirm Hendrix’s judgment and sentence but remand for the entry of a nunc pro tunc written…
-
Dagan v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that a snapout cannot serve as a written competency order); Gray v. State, 198 So. 3d 780, 782–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that a snapout cannot serve as a written judgment or sentence); Phillips v. State, 198 So. 3d 789, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), Zaborowski v. State, 126 So. 3d 405, 407 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), Thar v. State, 8 So. 3d 1204, 1205 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and Cochrane v. State, 997 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Altenbernd, J., concurring) (eac…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Foster v. State, 132 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2013)
- Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Zackery Holiday v. State, 730 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Akridge v. Crow, 903 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Heath v. State, 840 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Sutton v. State, 838 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Thar v. State, 8 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Zaborowski v. State, 126 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Cochrane v. State, 997 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)