From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Dec 22, 2010
50 So. 3d 750 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

holding that defendant was entitled to copies of the crime scene photographs from his trial free-of-charge

Summary of this case from Roland v. State

Opinion

No. 2D10-738.

December 22, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Gregory P. Holder, J.

Richard A. Morse, Jr., pro se.


Richard A. Morse, Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel his former counsel, the Public Defender for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, to provide free-of-charge copies of the crime scene photos from his trial. We hold that the circuit court erred when it denied his petition.

"A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law." Radford v. Brock, 914 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Smith v. State, 696 So.2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). Morse stated a facially sufficient claim establishing entitlement to free copies of the photos from his court-appointed counsel. See id.; Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that "transcripts that were prepared at public expense on behalf of an indigent defendant must be provided to the defendant without charge for copying").

The circuit court held that Morse was not entitled to relief because his public defender inspected and copied the photographs during the discovery process. And since his attorney allowed him to see the photos, the court reasoned that Morse was not entitled to any additional rights out-side of the discovery process. However, the fact that the State provided the photos to defense counsel, and counsel copied them, does not limit Morse's entitlement to documents in his appointed counsel's file. See Smith v. State, 889 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) ("The petitioner is entitled to receive from his former counsel, at no cost to petitioner, any and all trial and hearing transcripts, copies of motions, and any state discovery presented to defense counsel") (emphasis added).

We therefore reverse and remand for the postconviction court to grant the petition and to order Morse's counsel to provide copies of the crime scene photographs to Morse free-of-charge.

Although the public defender's office expressed concerns about the graphic nature of the photos, we agree with the postconviction court and note that it is for the Department of Corrections to determine whether Morse should be restricted from receiving the pictures because they are prohibited contraband. See Weeks v. Golden, 798 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (noting that in reversing the denial of petition for writ of mandamus seeking production of photographs of parts of the victim's body, "the Department of Corrections, in its supervisory capacity over inmates, may properly restrict appellant from receiving the photographs under the theory that they constitute prohibited contraband").

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Morse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Dec 22, 2010
50 So. 3d 750 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

holding that defendant was entitled to copies of the crime scene photographs from his trial free-of-charge

Summary of this case from Roland v. State
Case details for

Morse v. State

Case Details

Full title:Richard A. MORSE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Dec 22, 2010

Citations

50 So. 3d 750 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Roland v. State

“ ‘A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act…

Rojas v. Office of the Pub. Defender

Although, Mr. Tedder expressed concerns about the graphic nature of the photographs that Rojas seeks, it is…