Rodney Vance v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodney Vance v. State of Florida

152 So. 3d 110

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 25, 2014

Docket1D14-3149

StatusPublished

This text of 152 So. 3d 110 (Rodney Vance v. State of Florida) 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

Rodney Vance v. State of Florida, 152 So. 3d 110 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Vance petitions this court for mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to dispose of his pending petition for writ of mandamus. Although filed in his criminal case, that petition seeks to compel his retained trial counsel, the Public Defender for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, and the Public Defender for the Second Judicial Circuit to comply with his requests under the Public Records Act for copies of discovery materials in his criminal case.

We are advised that the circuit court has issued an order to show cause directing the Offices of the Public Defenders and retained counsel to respond to Vance’s petition below, and we conclude that under the unusual circumstances of this case, intervention by this court is unwarranted at this point. See Munn v. Florida Parole Commission, 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Lassiter v. Martin, 99 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The circuit court itself recognized in its order to show cause that Vance is entitled to a prompt disposition of his claim. However, it appears that the cause for any delay in fulfilling Vance’s request for records is not due to a refusal to comply with the Public Records Act, but rather an inability to locate the records requested. We are confident that the circuit court will promptly address the merits of Vance’s petition below once it has had the opportunity to resolve the threshold question of whether any of the parties to whom Vance’s re *111 quests were directed in fact have the records he seeks.

Because of the need for the circuit court to resolve this factual issue, we find that its order to show cause is not a departure from the essential requirements of section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes (2014), which provides for accelerated consideration and case priority for claims seeking to enforce the Public Records Act, and therefore deny Vance’s alternative request that we undertake certiorari review of the order to show cause. We nonetheless direct that petitioner’s claim be expedited and resolved as promptly as circumstances permit.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Vance petitions this court for mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to dispose of his pending petition for writ of mandamus. Although filed in his criminal case, that petition seeks to compel his retained trial counsel, the Public Defender for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, and the Public Defender for the Second Judicial Circuit to comply with his requests under the Public Records Act for copies of discovery materials in his criminal case.

We are advised that the circuit court has issued an order to show cause directing the Offices of the Public Defenders and retained counsel to respond to Vance’s petition below, and we conclude that under the unusual circumstances of this case, intervention by this court is unwarranted at this point. See Munn v. Florida Parole Commission, 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Lassiter v. Martin, 99 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The circuit court itself recognized in its order to show cause that Vance is entitled to a prompt disposition of his claim. However, it appears that the cause for any delay in fulfilling Vance’s request for records is not due to a refusal to comply with the Public Records Act, but rather an inability to locate the records requested. We are confident that the circuit court will promptly address the merits of Vance’s petition below once it has had the opportunity to resolve the threshold question of whether any of the parties to whom Vance’s re *111 quests were directed in fact have the records he seeks.

Because of the need for the circuit court to resolve this factual issue, we find that its order to show cause is not a departure from the essential requirements of section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes (2014), which provides for accelerated consideration and case priority for claims seeking to enforce the Public Records Act, and therefore deny Vance’s alternative request that we undertake certiorari review of the order to show cause. We nonetheless direct that petitioner’s claim be expedited and resolved as promptly as circumstances permit.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 3d 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-vance-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack