Bernal v. Weinstock

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bernal v. Weinstock

204 So. 3d 112, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16917

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 14, 2016

DocketNo. 1D16-890

StatusPublished

This text of 204 So. 3d 112 (Bernal v. Weinstock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernal v. Weinstock, 204 So. 3d 112, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16917 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Bernal filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court seeking to compel his court-appointed trial attorney to provide him with “all documents produced on his behalf and at public expense” related to his criminal case. The judge dismissed Mr. Bernal’s petition as being “too broad” because he did not identify [113]*113with specificity which documents—prepared at public expense—he sought to obtain from counsel. Based on the vagueness of the word “produced” in the context of Mr. Bernal’s request, we affirm the judge’s order denying the petition for writ of mandamus but do so without prejudice to Mr. Bernal’s filing of a new request for counsel “to provide him with copies of specifically identified items that he is legally entitled to receive without charge.” Vann v. State, 8 So.3d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also LaFlower v. State, 929 So.2d 58, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

AFFIRMED without prejudice.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Bernal filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court seeking to compel his court-appointed trial attorney to provide him with “all documents produced on his behalf and at public expense” related to his criminal case. The judge dismissed Mr. Bernal’s petition as being “too broad” because he did not identify [113]*113with specificity which documents—prepared at public expense—he sought to obtain from counsel. Based on the vagueness of the word “produced” in the context of Mr. Bernal’s request, we affirm the judge’s order denying the petition for writ of mandamus but do so without prejudice to Mr. Bernal’s filing of a new request for counsel “to provide him with copies of specifically identified items that he is legally entitled to receive without charge.” Vann v. State, 8 So.3d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also LaFlower v. State, 929 So.2d 58, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

AFFIRMED without prejudice.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 3d 112, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernal-v-weinstock-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack