Title: LeCroy v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

641 So. 2d 853 (1994)
Cleo Douglas LeCROY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 79956.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 16, 1994.
Rehearing Denied September 9, 1994.
Michael J. Minerva, Capital Collateral Representative, and Judith J. Dougherty, Asst. CCR, Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
SHAW, Justice.
We have before us an interlocutory appeal of a disclosure order in a post-conviction capital proceeding under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
LeCroy was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed. LeCroy v. State, 533 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S. Ct. 3262, 106 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1989). Prior to commencement of the evidentiary hearing on LeCroy's rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, the State filed a motion requesting "disclosure of all files and records of defense counsel at trial" to assist the State in preparing its response to LeCroy's claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel. At a hearing on the motion, the court directed collateral defense counsel to return all trial files to trial counsel so that he could peruse the files prior to the evidentiary hearing and disclose to the State any materials relevant to LeCroy's ineffectiveness claim:
*854 Collateral defense counsel pointed out that trial counsel had already determined that the files contain no necessary materials:
The following exchange then took place between the judge and collateral defense counsel:
The court repeated its order directing collateral counsel to relinquish the files; collateral counsel declined and filed the present interlocutory appeal.
LeCroy claims that the court's order violates the attorney-client privilege by requiring trial counsel to act as a State agent in perusing the files prior to the evidentiary hearing, determining which materials are relevant, and then relinquishing those materials to the State. The State concurs and suggests that the judge, not trial counsel, review the files and make the determination of relevance.
We have addressed the issue of disclosure of trial defense files in Reed v. State, 640 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1994), wherein we stated:
Id., 640 So. 2d  at 1097 (footnote omitted).
We quash the trial court order compelling disclosure under the circumstances stated in the record and remand for proceedings consistent with Reed.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.