CLYDE L. HEATH, CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
WADA SUE BECKTELL, 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.
No. Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the opinion for the 8-0 majority. The Court held that since less extreme alternatives for modification of the challenged discovery orders were available, the writ of mandamus was inappropriate. A writ of mandamus should only be issued in extraordinary circumstances when there are no other adequate means to secure relief. In this case, adequate alternatives existed, such as the prison officials’ opportunity to assert a separate privilege more specifically and have their request for in camera review considered. Justice John Paul Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[1] A writ of mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to compel a clerk of court to perform an action that would violate a chief judge's administrative order.
[2] A party seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought and the absence of any other adequate legal remedy.
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 intelligenceSeven prisoners in the custody of the California Department of Corrections sued the United States District Court for the Northern District Court of Ca…
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 Discovery Depositions cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause is before us on certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, which affects a class of constitutional officers, thus vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Constitution of Florida.
On November 18, 1974, the Chief Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit entered an administrative order which provides, as follows:
“THIS MATTER having come before the undersigned Chief Judge upon the written presentation of Philip S. Shailer, State Attorney of this Circuit, advising the Court of the facts contained herein-below; and the Court finding that the Clerk of this Court (and also in his capacity as Clerk of the County Court) has been issuing subpoenas duces tecum for discovery depositions in criminal cases upon praecipe of the various assistant public defenders and other defense counsel; and the Court finding no authority in Rule 3.220(d), RCrP, for a discovery deposition subpoena to additionally compel that the witness bring with him any reports, documents, or other evidence of whatever kind or form; and the Court further finding that subsection (a)(1) of that same Rule 3.-220 provides the manner and means by which the defense may discover materials in criminal cases; and the Court further having received the response of the Public Defender in opposition to the State Attorney’s presentation in this regard and finding same to cite no legal authority to the contrary; and the Court further having been advised that the Judges of the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court are unanimously in accord with the State’s legal position and with the Administrative Order herein entered, it is thereupon accordingly
"ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
“1. That the Clerk of the Courts of this Circuit, and his Deputy Clerks, shall forthwith cease issuing, and they are hereby prohibited from issuing, subpoe-naes duces tecum for discovery depositions in criminal cases upon praecipe of defense counsel. Any subpoena for discovery deposition which additionally seeks to compel the witness to bring with him any reports, documents, or other evidence shall, upon presentation for issuance by defense counsel, be declined and returned to him or his office.
“2. Nothing herein shall preclude the issuance of such a duces tecum subpoena for discovery deposition when ordered by a Judge after Motion, Notice and Hearing thereon pursuant to subsection (a) (5) of Rule 3.220, in which event the praecipe and proposed subpoena duces tecum, when presented to the Clerk for issuance, shall have attached thereto a true copy of the Court’s Order directing the issuance of same.”
Respondent was the defendant in a criminal case in Broward County. She was acquitted of the criminal charges against her before the decision of the District Court here under review was rendered. The instant cause revolves around the following facts. After being informed against, respondent filed and served the State Attorney with notice of taking the deposition of Lt. Farinato of the Broward County’s Sheriff’s Department, and also attempted to file a praecipe for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directed to Lt. Farinato commanding him to bring with him to the deposition certain statements of the defendant. Petitioner, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Broward County, refused to accept the praecipe for filing and refused to issue a subpoena duces tecum. Respondent then filed, a petition for writ of mandamus with the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in which she requested the court to require petitioner to accept the filing of the praecipe and to issue the subpoena.
Meanwhile, pursuant to normal discovery channels of Rule 3.220(a) (1)(iii), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent was able to obtain the information which he sought.
Specifically declining to rule as to whether the legal position taken in the administrative order is correct or not, the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, granted the peremptory writ of mandamus requiring that upon proper filing of a notice to take a deposition and upon tender of a proper praecipe for issuance of witness subpoena duces tecum, Heath receive and file same and issue said subpoena.
Initially we find that the District Court erred in granting the petition for writ of mandamus. Under the circumstances of this cause, mandamus was not an appropriate remedy. Mandamus is an original proceeding to enforce a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty, and will not ordinarily issue when other legal remedies are available. Sub ju-dice respondent failed to show a clear legal right to the issuance of the writ and, further, failed to show that no other adequate remedy existed. The Clerk would have placed himself in jeopardy of contempt of court by refusing to obey the administrative order of the Chief Judge of his circuit and, accordingly, the action requested by respondent which contradicted the administrative order could not be considered a ministerial duty of petitioner so as to be subject to requirement of performance through a mandamus action. Cf. Somylo v. Scott, 45 So. 2d 502 (Fla.1950); Dickey v. Circuit Court, Gadsden County, 200 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1967). Not only was relief available to respondent through ordinary discovery methods set out in Rule 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, but also respondent could have simply made application with the trial judge for the matter requested.
Obviously, the administrative order was intended as a construction of a statewide rule and, as such, we find the construction expressed therein to be appropriate and correct.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Brown v. Firestone, 382 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1980)…to the appropriations act. Mandamus is an extremely limited basis for jurisdiction which traditionally has been, and will continue to be, employed sparingly. Shevin ex rel. State v. Public Service Comm’n, 333 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1976); Heath v. Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1976); Dickinson v. Stone, 251 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1971). Hence future attempts to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction on similar grounds will be viewed with great circumspection. To that end we outline the proper shape which similar litigation shoul…
-
Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1990)…Const. For this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, Hatten must show that he has a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty by a public officer and that he has no other legal remedies available to him. See, e.g., Heath v. Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1976). It is clear that an indigent state defendant has the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. See Hooks v. State, 253 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1044, 92 S.Ct. 1330, 31 L.Ed.2d 587 (1972);…
-
Bush Wade Holland v. L.L. Wainwright, 499 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ght to the performance of the particular duty sought and that he has no other legal method for redressing the wrong or of obtaining the relief to which he is entitled. State ex rel. Long v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199 (1935); Heath v. Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1976). The writ may be used to compel the performance of a ministerial [*22] duty imposed by law where it has not been performed as the law requires, State ex rel. Clendinen v. Dekle, 173 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1965), but discretionary authority canno…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dickey v. Cir. Court, 200 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1967)