Rioux v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rioux v. State

949 So. 2d 355, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2740, 2007 WL 601172

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2007

DocketNo. 4D06-3313

StatusPublished

This text of 949 So. 2d 355 (Rioux v. State) 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

Rioux v. State, 949 So. 2d 355, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2740, 2007 WL 601172 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We treat this petition for habeas corpus as a petition for mandamus, because Petitioner seeks to compel appellate counsel to turn over “all files, records, transcripts, notes, letters from appellant or anyone pertaining to instant case.” This claim is not properly brought in this court. Dumas v. Marrero, 864 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that appellate court is not the proper forum to raise a claim that counsel failed to turn over records because appellate court does not conduct evidentiary proceedings or factfind-ing). Further, as drafted, the claim is too vague to be acted upon. Id. (finding claim for “records, files, and or documents” was too vague).

Petitioner must specifically identify the records he claims were not turned over and seek relief in the trial court. See Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So.2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding, on appeal of denial of mandamus petition in the trial court, that appointed appellate counsel should not be compelled to produce “case records” without charge until petitioner specifically identifies the records and demonstrates that they are his personal property (e.g., produced at public expense) and not counsel’s work product).

. We therefore dismiss the petition without prejudice to his right to seek relief in circuit court.

GUNTHER, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We treat this petition for habeas corpus as a petition for mandamus, because Petitioner seeks to compel appellate counsel to turn over “all files, records, transcripts, notes, letters from appellant or anyone pertaining to instant case.” This claim is not properly brought in this court. Dumas v. Marrero, 864 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that appellate court is not the proper forum to raise a claim that counsel failed to turn over records because appellate court does not conduct evidentiary proceedings or factfind-ing). Further, as drafted, the claim is too vague to be acted upon. Id. (finding claim for “records, files, and or documents” was too vague).

Petitioner must specifically identify the records he claims were not turned over and seek relief in the trial court. See Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So.2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding, on appeal of denial of mandamus petition in the trial court, that appointed appellate counsel should not be compelled to produce “case records” without charge until petitioner specifically identifies the records and demonstrates that they are his personal property (e.g., produced at public expense) and not counsel’s work product).

. We therefore dismiss the petition without prejudice to his right to seek relief in circuit court.

GUNTHER, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

949 So. 2d 355, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2740, 2007 WL 601172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rioux-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack