Snowden v. Davis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Snowden v. Davis

581 So. 2d 243, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5841, 1991 WL 99939

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 1991

DocketNo. 91-9

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 581 So. 2d 243 (Snowden v. Davis) 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

Snowden v. Davis, 581 So. 2d 243, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5841, 1991 WL 99939 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny Snowden’s petition for writ of mandamus directed to his former private counsel to obtain a copy of a transcript of criminal proceedings, which may be in the attorney’s possession. If Snowden has not been furnished a complete copy, he may well be entitled to obtain it through other means; i.e., replevin filed in the circuit court. See Dubose v. Shelnutt, 566 So.2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.16(d). Our denial in this instance is without prejudice to Snowden to pursue other remedies. However, mandamus to this court is inappropriate because Snowden’s attorney is not a “public official.” See Hatten v. State, 561 So.2d 562 (Fla.1990); Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So.2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Petition for writ of mandamus DENIED.

COBB, W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We deny Snowden’s petition for writ of mandamus directed to his former private counsel to obtain a copy of a transcript of criminal proceedings, which may be in the attorney’s possession. If Snowden has not been furnished a complete copy, he may well be entitled to obtain it through other means; i.e., replevin filed in the circuit court. See Dubose v. Shelnutt, 566 So.2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.16(d). Our denial in this instance is without prejudice to Snowden to pursue other remedies. However, mandamus to this court is inappropriate because Snowden’s attorney is not a “public official.” See Hatten v. State, 561 So.2d 562 (Fla.1990); Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So.2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Petition for writ of mandamus DENIED.

COBB, W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 So. 2d 243, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5841, 1991 WL 99939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snowden-v-davis-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack