William Foley Miller, Clermont, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Natalia Reyna-Pimiento, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Lower Tribunal No. 07-CF-020409 Bruce E. Kyle, Judge.
William Foley Miller, Clermont, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Natalia Reyna-Pimiento, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
William Foley Miller appeals the trial court's order denying his "Motion for Postconviction Relief to Enforce Provisions of Florida's Public Records Law."Miller argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion when factual disputes existed over whether the State possessed the requested records and whether the State complied with section 119.07, Florida Statutes (2021) by summarily responding to Miller that it did not possess the requested records. However, Miller's motion did not sufficiently allege the bases for his dispute with the State's assertion that no records existed. We therefore affirm the denial of the motion without prejudice to Miller filing a new motion, complaint, or petition to enforce the public records laws. Major v. Hallandale Beach Police Dep't, 219 So.3d 856, 857-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming without prejudice circuit court's order denying petition for writ of mandamus seeking public records because appellant did not comply with all requirements to obtain a writ of mandamus and "leav[ing] it to the circuit court to decide whether such new petition creates a contested issue requiring an evidentiary hearing").
This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.
District courts have treated trial court denials of motions like Miller's as appeals from the denial of petitions for writs of mandamus. See, e.g., Farmer v. State, 927 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("It appears that Farmer's motion to compel and attachments meet the requirements for a petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, the postconviction court should have treated the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus directed to the State Attorney."); King v. State, 916 So.2d 1001, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("The trial court should have treated Mr. King's motion as a petition for writ of mandamus."). We take no position as to those cases because the State did not challenge this precedent or the trial court's case jurisdiction below or on appeal.
AFFIRMED without prejudice.
TRAVER, WOZNIAK and WHITE, JJ., concur