STATE OF FLORIDA v. STANLEY RAPHAEL JEAN , 270 So. 3d 526 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
    MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    OF FLORIDA
    SECOND DISTRICT
    STATE OF FLORIDA,                              )
    )
    Appellant,                       )
    )
    v.                                             )           Case No. 2D18-2281
    )
    STANLEY RAPHAEL JEAN,                          )
    )
    Appellee.                        )
    )
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee
    County; Edward Nicholas, Judge.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
    Tallahassee, and Katie Salemi Ashby,
    Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for
    Appellant.
    Peter Lombardo of Law Office of Peter
    Lombardo, Bradenton, for Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    We treat this State appeal from an order to disclose the identity of a
    confidential informant as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant it. See, e.g., State v.
    Borrego, 
    970 So. 2d 465
    , 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order requiring
    disclosure of a confidential informant was reviewable by way of certiorari where there
    was no adequate remedy on appeal); State v. Devoid, 
    706 So. 2d 924
    , 925 (Fla. 2d
    DCA 1998) (same). The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by
    ordering the disclosure without first conducting the in-camera hearing the law
    requires. See State v. Roberts, 
    686 So. 2d 722
    , 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("Once a
    defendant carries an initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific
    defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether
    the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense."); see also Bailey v. State,
    
    994 So. 2d 1256
    , 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("When a defendant files a sworn motion or
    affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support
    the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-camera
    hearing to consider the necessity of the informant's testimony and the State's interest in
    nondisclosure."). We accordingly quash the order to disclose the identity of the
    confidential informant.
    Petition granted; order quashed.
    SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2281

Citation Numbers: 270 So. 3d 526

Filed Date: 5/3/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/3/2019