STONIE SHANE NORRIS, 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.
An indigent defendant appealing his conviction seeks deposition transcripts prepared at public expense to support post-conviction relief efforts. The court found the mandamus petition facially sufficient and remanded for the trial court to either grant the petition or provide written explanation for denial.
The mandamus petition is facially sufficient and the trial court must either grant it or issue a written order explaining why the petition is denied. If the deposition transcripts exist and were prepared at public expense on behalf of the indigent defendant, they should be provided without charge.
[1] Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel a court-appointed attorney to provide a defendant with copies of legal documents prepared at public expense.
[2] Indigent defendants proceeding pro se are entitled to receive, without charge, deposition transcripts that were prepared at public 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“If the deposition transcripts exist and were prepared at public expense on behalf of indigent Appellant, they should be provided to him without charge.”
Establishes the substantive right to obtain transcripts paid for with public funds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Norris was indigent and represented by appointed counsel at trial. Counsel was permitted to withdraw after trial and appeal, leaving Appella…
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 Indigent Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals the lower court’s denial of his motion requesting an order for trial counsel to provide him deposition transcripts. We treat Appellant’s motion as a petition for mandamus requesting the trial court to order his counsel to turn over deposition transcripts that appear to have been paid for by public funds. We remand for further proceedings as the petition appears to be facially sufficient and we can*1285not determine from the court’s order why the petition was denied.
In his petition, Appellant notes that because he was indigent, counsel was appointed to represent him at trial. Appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw following trial and appeal, and Appellant now proceeds pro se, Appellant’s petition asserts that for the purpose of preparing a rule 3.850 post-conviction motion or petition for habeas corpus, he needs the deposition transcripts of nine named deponents.1 If. the deposition transcripts exist and were prepared at public expense on behalf of indigent Appellant, they should be provided to him without charge. Brown v. State, 93 So.3d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Rosado v. State, 1 So.3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)).2 “Because a public defender or court-appointed lawyer is an ‘official,’ mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel such an official to provide a defendant with copies of legal documents , prepared at public; expense.” Id. (citing Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So.2d 333, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)).
We find, and the State concedes, that Appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus is facially sufficient. Because the trial court’s order is a concise denial without explanation, we cannot determine whether denial of Appellant’s petition was appropriate. Therefore, we remand the matter for further proceedings with instructions to the trial court to grant the petition if appropriate or to issue a written order explaining why Appellant’s petition is denied, and to conduct such hearings, if any, as. may be necessary.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
COHEN, C.J., and TORPY and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Rosado v. State, 1 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Brown v. State, 93 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Marcelo A. Gamarra v. State, 93 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)