Case Title: State v. Kokal

Citation: 562 So. 2d 324

Docket Number: 74439

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1990-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
562 So. 2d 324 (1990)
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Gregory Alan KOKAL, Respondent.
No. 74439.

Supreme Court of Florida.
April 19, 1990.
Rehearing Denied July 9, 1990.
*325 Ed Austin, State Atty., and Richard A. Mullaney and Joel B. Toomey, Asst. State Attys., Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, and Billy H. Nolas, Judith J. Dougherty, Josephine Holland and K. Leslie Delk, Staff Attys., Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Kokal was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Kokal v. State, 492 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1986). Thereafter, Kokal filed a motion for post-conviction relief. Pending a hearing on this motion, Kokal moved to compel disclosure of the files of the state attorney pertaining to his prosecution under chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1987). In his motion, Kokal alleged that he had formally requested access to these files prior to filing his motion for postconviction relief and that thereafter the state attorney had declined to provide his lawyer with access to these files. The court stayed the postconviction hearing and ordered the state attorney to provide access to the files. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. State v. Sireci, 502 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1987); State v. White, 470 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1985).
The state attorney now admits that Kokal is entitled to certain of his records, including arrest and booking reports, evidence technicians' reports, lab reports, depositions, correspondence by a codefendant or witness, and medical examiner's reports. However, the state attorney asserts that many of his records are not subject to the Public Records Act because of exemptions contained therein and that other documents are simply not public records and therefore not encompassed by chapter 119.
Section 119.07(3)(d), Florida Statutes, exempts from public disclosure criminal investigative information as defined in the statute so long as it is deemed to be active. Section 119.011(3)(d), explains:
In Tribune Co. v. Public Records, 493 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 503 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1987), the court had occasion to construe these provisions of the public records law when Ernest Lee Miller and William Riley Jent, together with the Tampa Tribune and others, sought to obtain the Miller and Jent case files held by the Pasco County Sheriff. After several requests for public disclosure, the sheriff, as the custodian of the records, filed an action for declaratory judgment asking whether the records were exempt from disclosure as active criminal investigative information. The trial court concluded that the records were exempt from disclosure because Miller and Jent's motions for post-conviction relief were in progress in both state and federal courts. The sheriff successfully argued that the actions for post-conviction relief were equivalent to appeals under the public records act.
In reversing this ruling, the Second District Court of Appeal held that once Miller and Jent's direct appeals became final, their criminal investigative files could no longer be considered active. The court stated in pertinent part:
493 So. 2d  at 483.
We agree with this rationale. To say that criminal investigative information continues to be active even after the conviction and sentence have become final would be to hold that such information would never become inactive because there are always some circumstances under which a defendant may file a motion for postconviction relief. Yet, the legislature obviously contemplated that inactive criminal investigative information was subject to disclosure under chapter 119. We conclude that the use of the words "pending prosecutions or appeals" in section 119.011(3)(d)(2) means ongoing prosecutions or appeals from convictions and sentences which have not become final.
The other exemption under the public records law relied upon by the state attorney is section 119.07(3)(o) which states, in part:
The rationale set forth above with respect to section 119.07(3)(d) appears equally applicable to section 119.07(3)(o). See Seminole County v. Wood, 512 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1988). Thus, we further hold that "the conclusion of litigation" with respect to a criminal conviction and sentence occurs when that conviction and sentence have become final.
We do agree with the state attorney that some of the documents in his files are not public records. In Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Associates, Inc., 379 So. 2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980), we pointed out:
Further, not all trial preparation materials are public records.[*] We agree with Orange County v. Florida Land Co., 450 So. 2d 341, 344 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 458 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1984), which described certain documents as not within the term "public records":
In summary, we hold that that portion of the state attorney's files which fall within the provisions of the Public Records Act are not exempt from disclosure because Kokal's conviction and sentence have become final. Thus, the state attorney should have provided Kokal with these records upon his request. If he had a doubt as to whether he was required to disclose a particular document, he should have furnished it in camera to the trial judge for a determination. Of course, the state attorney was not required to disclose his current file relating to the motion for postconviction relief because there is ongoing litigation with respect to those documents.
*328 We affirm the order of the trial judge requiring disclosure of the state attorney's files, subject to the caveat that only those documents defined as public records need be disclosed.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
[*]  Of course, the state attorney is obligated to disclose any document in his files which is exculpatory. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963).