Jerome J. Ferrier v. The Public Defender's Office, etc. , 171 So. 3d 744 ( 2015 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
JEROME J. FERRIER, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D15-88
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, SECOND JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed July 14, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
Charles A. Francis, Judge.
Jerome J. Ferrier, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Nancy A. Daniels, Public
Defender, and Carrie McMullen, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for
Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for
writ of mandamus compelling the Public Defender’s Office to comply with
Appellant’s public records request seeking various discovery material. The Public
Defender’s Office filed an unsworn response to the mandamus petition arguing that
it did not possess some of the requested materials and that it had provided Appellant
with copies of the requested materials that were in its possession. The trial court
denied the petition, reasoning that the issuance of a writ of mandamus would be
improper where there was an unresolved factual dispute.
We agree with Appellant that the circuit court erred in not conducting an
evidentiary hearing on the contested issue of whether the Public Defender’s Officer
had the requested materials in its possession. Clay County Educ. Ass’n v. Clay
County Sch. Bd., 144 So. 3d 708, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing the dismissal
of a petition for writ of mandamus based on a response that the School Board had
already turned over the documents, the documents did not exist in the formant
requested, or the documents did not exist and remanding for an evidentiary
hearing); Johanson v. State, 872 So. 2d 387, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing the
denial of a petition for writ of mandamus based on an unsworn response filed by the
State that it did not possess the records requested and remanding for an evidentiary
hearing, including an in camera inspection of the state attorney’s file, to determine
who possessed the required records). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial
and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm all other issues raised on appeal
without further discussion.
2
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
LEWIS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
3