Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Final Expense Direct v. Python Leads, LLC
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Mr. Levin cannot be denied access to documents transmitted during Attorney Burack’s joint representation of Ms. Levin and Mr. Levin. “[A] defendant is entitled to the return of personal property that he or she provided to counsel.” Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that an attorney must return a client’s personal property, including case records).
cited Cited as authority (rule) MERLIN HOWARD v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So. 2d 333, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Callejas v. Ocejo
S.D. Fla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Under Florida law, “mandamus [is] an appropriate remedy to compel the timely production of public records requests under Chapter 119” because “[t]he production of public records requests is ministerial[.]” Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Mandamus is the appropriate remedy since it is used to compel an official to perform lawful duties.
cited Cited as authority (rule) JAMES LEE ANTHONY, JR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Smith v. State, 889 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citing Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223, 1224-25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernal v. Weinstock
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
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).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wharen v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
By contrast, “[fjiles prepared and maintained by an attorney for the purpose of representing a client are the attorney’s personal property.” Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223,1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morse v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
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”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vann v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Although the public defender cannot be required to provide copies of the files prepared and maintained by counsel without adequate compensation, “transcripts that were prepared at public expense on behalf of an indigent defendant must be provided to the defendant without charge for copying.” Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So.2d 684, 685-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosado v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So.2d 333, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zito v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Although Mr. Zito may be entitled to limited records from counsel appointed to represent him before the circuit court without having to pay for the costs of providing those records, see, e.g., Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1224-25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), he must first request those limited documents from appointed counsel and then seek mandamus with the circuit court if the records are not properly provided.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Harrell v. State (3×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
A court-appointed lawyer is an `official.'" See Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So.2d 333, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)).
discussed Cited "see" Degregorio v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Mandamus is the appropriate remedy since it is used to compel an official to perform lawful duties.
discussed Cited "see" Rojas v. Office of Public Defender
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See LaFlower v. State, 929 So.2d 58, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Ramos v. State, 757 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Colon v. Irwin, 732 So.2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)); see also 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.”).
discussed Cited "see" Radford v. Brock
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223, 1224-25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (stating that attorney files prepared for the purpose of representing a client are the attorney's personal property, but that a defendant is entitled to the return of personal property that he provided to counsel and transcripts prepared on his behalf at public expense).
cited Cited "see" LaFlower v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Ramos v. State, 757 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Colon v. Irwin, 732 So.2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Potts v. State, 869 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (noting that indigent defendants are entitled, at no cost, to copies of any documents produced at public expense).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ALBERTO ROMERO GONZALEZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
"To the extent that records in his possession are subject to disclosure by law, the State Attorney has a ministerial duty to make them available in response to a -2- proper request, and mandamus is an appropriate means of compelling compliance." Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)); see also Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("Mandamus is the appropriate remedy since it is used to compel an official to perform lawful duties.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank T. POTTS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
2D03-2536.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Mar 26, 2004.
869 So. 2d 1223
Silberman.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published

[*1224] Frank T. Potts, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Frank Potts, pro se, appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. The State concedes that the trial court erred, and we reverse and remand for the trial court to grant the petition, in part. We reject, without comment, Potts' claim for accumulated court costs and attorney's fees.

Potts filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court seeking to compel his appointed counsel, Byron Hileman, to turn over original documents contained in Hileman's case file at no cost to Potts. Hileman had been appointed to represent Potts in a post-conviction proceeding. Attached to the petition was a copy of a letter from Potts to Hileman listing some of the documents that Potts had requested. The trial court denied the petition on the basis that Potts was not entitled to his attorney's original trial records.

In a motion for rehearing, Potts clarified that he was seeking the case file pertaining to a post-conviction evidentiary hearing held on August 30, 2002, not his original trial records. Potts stated that he specifically requested lab test results, personal paperwork collected by Hileman's investigator, other communications made on Potts' behalf from an individual to Hileman, a transcript of the hearing of August 30, 2002, and other documents in the file concerning the evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied the motion for rehearing, stating that Potts was seeking Hileman's notes from the case file and that the notes were work product and not subject to release to Potts.

On appeal, the State concedes that this court should direct the trial court to grant the petition for writ of mandamus to the extent that Potts seeks documents[*1225] belonging to him or obtained at public expense. The State contends that the petition should be denied to the extent that it requests free copies of other documents in Hileman's file. We agree.

Files prepared and maintained by an attorney for the purpose of representing a client are the attorney's personal property. See Long v. Dillinger, 701 So.2d 1168, 1169 (Fla.1997). However, transcripts that were prepared at public expense on behalf of an indigent defendant must be provided to the defendant without charge for copying. Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So.2d 684, 685-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Colon v. Irwin, 732 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Similarly, a defendant is entitled to the return of personal property that he or she provided to counsel. See Thompson, 577 So.2d at 686. "Mandamus is the appropriate remedy since it is used to compel an official to perform lawful duties. A court-appointed lawyer is an `official.'" Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So.2d 333, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Thus, Potts is entitled to relief regarding his personal property and transcripts prepared on his behalf at public expense. Apart from such items, Hileman cannot be required to provide other documents that are in the case file to Potts without adequate compensation. See Thompson, 577 So.2d at 686; see also Sanford v. Black, 782 So.2d 548, 549 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (noting that the client must compensate his specially-appointed public defender for a copy of a lab report that was the attorney's work product).

We also find no merit in Potts' argument that the Public Records Act, chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2002), entitles him to free copies of all records generated in his case. In Woodson v. Durocher, 588 So.2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the Fifth District recognized that mandamus is not the appropriate remedy when the public defender does not have a mandatory duty to provide free copies of the attorney's file to the client under the Public Records Act. Even though Potts is entitled to certain items, as discussed above, the Public Records Act does not give him an unfettered right to all records relating to his case, free of charge. In fact, the Public Records Act provides for a fee to obtain copies of documents. Woodson, 588 So.2d at 644; see also § 119.07(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002); Smith v. State, 696 So.2d 814, 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (recognizing that applicable defenses, such as nonpayment, may be raised when prisoners seek mandamus relief to compel disclosure of public records under chapter 119).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying the petition for writ of mandamus. On remand, the trial court shall grant the petition to the extent that the petition requests documents belonging to Potts or transcripts or other record documents obtained on Potts' behalf at public expense. The trial court shall deny the petition to the extent that it requests free copies of other documents contained in attorney Hileman's file that constitute Hileman's property or work product.

Reversed and remanded.

DAVIS, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.