Case Name: James Marion MOORMAN, as attorney for and next friend of L.A., a child, and James Calvin Ingram, Petitioners, v. Janie HATFIELD, Manager, Tenth Judicial Circuit Electronic Court Recording Office; Janice Conway, Manager, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Digital Court Recording Office; and Office of the Attorney General, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-03-07
Citations: 958 So. 2d 396
Docket Number: No. 2D06-536
Parties: James Marion MOORMAN, as attorney for and next friend of L.A., a child, and James Calvin Ingram, Petitioners, v. Janie HATFIELD, Manager, Tenth Judicial Circuit Electronic Court Recording Office; Janice Conway, Manager, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Digital Court Recording Office; and Office of the Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: FULMER, C.J., and CANADY, J., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 958
Pages: 396–402

Head Matter:
James Marion MOORMAN, as attorney for and next friend of L.A., a child, and James Calvin Ingram, Petitioners, v. Janie HATFIELD, Manager, Tenth Judicial Circuit Electronic Court Recording Office; Janice Conway, Manager, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Digital Court Recording Office; and Office of the Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 2D06-536.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 7, 2007.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert A. Young, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Petitioners.
Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tampa; and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondents Hatfield and Conway.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard M. Fishkin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent Office of the Attorney General.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Marion Moorman, as attorney for and next friend of L.A., a child, and James Calvin Ingram (petitioners), filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court seeking relief to address certain electronic court recording and transcription issues in the Tenth and Twelfth Judicial Circuits. As respondents, they named Janie Hatfield in her official capacity as manager of the Tenth Judicial Circuit Electronic Court Recording Office and Janice Conway in her similar official capacity for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. In addition, the Office of the Attorney General was permitted to respond to the petition. The problems discussed in this petition arise from two significant changes in trial court case management: (1) the shift away from using trained professional court reporters in all courtroom proceedings to the use of less costly digital recording and transcription and (2) the shift in the funding of indigent cases from local government to the state under revision 7 to article V of the Florida Constitution, see Art. V, § 14, Fla. Const. Although these matters undoubtedly warrant attention and clarification, after considerable reflection we conclude that this court cannot resolve the problems discussed in the petition through the issuance of an extraordinary writ to any of the respondents. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
I. THE ISSUES RELATING TO JAMES CALVIN INGRAM
When this petition was filed, Ingram had a pending criminal appeal in this court in which he was represented by the public defender. That appeal challenged an order from the Tenth Judicial Circuit holding Ingram in contempt for failure to honor a witness subpoena. The record included a transcript, but it contained significant errors. Among other errors, the transcript purported to include an appearance by an attorney on behalf of Ingram when no such attorney existed. The transcript was not based on the work of a court reporter, but on an electronic audio recording that had been transcribed by a "Tenth Judicial Circuit electronic court reporter" who certified that she was "authorized to transcribe the foregoing proceeding." It appears that the transcriptionist was confused and believed that Ingram was represented by counsel because there were two assistant state attorneys in attendance at the hearing.
This court reviewed the record in Ingram's pending appeal. Even though the transcript was problematic, the remaining portions of the record revealed serious due process issues surrounding Ingram's conviction for contempt. The parties obtained a corrected transcript that acknowledged that Ingram was not represented by counsel during the criminal contempt hearing. This record was sufficient to require the reversal of Ingram's conviction; indeed the State conceded that reversal was required. Accordingly, this court has already issued an opinion reversing the order on appeal. See Ingram v. State, 933 So.2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Nevertheless, the petitioners argue that we should not dismiss or deny this portion of the petition as moot. They claim that errors in transcripts under the new methods of electronic or digital recording are so pervasive that we should use our powers of mandamus to compel better transcripts. The Office of the Attorney General agrees that digital recording has resulted in a substantial decline in the quality of transcription.
Mandamus is generally available only when a petitioner has no other adequate, specific remedy. See City of Coral Gables v. State ex rel. Worley, 44 So.2d 298 (Fla.1950). In Ingram's case, because a corrected transcript was obtained and his adjudication reversed, we decline to issue a writ of mandamus.
II. THE ISSUES RELATING TO L.A.
The issues presented by L.A. are more complex. L.A. is an indigent minor child who was adjudicated delinquent in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. L.A. filed an appeal of the adjudication and disposition on August 8, 2005. That appeal is currently pending in this court as case number 2D05-3966. Supplemental designations to the court reporter were filed in December 2005, requesting transcription of both the adjudicatory hearing and the disposition hearing. Nevertheless, no transcript has been filed, and no motion to compel has been filed in that proceeding to date. Accordingly, the appellate proceeding is not perfected, no briefs have been filed, and this court is currently unable to review the appeal.
The petition for mandamus and the appendix provided with it explain that this delinquency proceeding was not recorded by a court reporter; it was electronically recorded. When the public defender filed the standard request for a transcript from a court reporter, the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Digital Recording Office provided a compact disk (CD) to the public defender containing a digital audio recording from microphones inside the courtroom where L.A. was tried but did not provide a typed transcript. Ms. Conway, in a letter to an assistant public defender in James Marion Moorman's office, describes this CD as a "CD transcript." Pursuant to a local administrative order, Ms. Conway takes the position that the public defender is responsible for "retain[ing] a transcriptionist who should promptly file the transcript with the Clerk of Court. The transcriptionist invoice should be submitted by the Twelfth Circuit PD to the Justice Administrative Commission for payment." The public defender has declined to follow Ms. Conway's suggestions and has filed this petition instead, asking this court, among other things, to compel Ms. Conway "to provide the transcription that she has been funded to provide." Thus, the parties to this proceeding disagree on whose duty it is to both provide and pay for the transcript that is necessary to perfect the underlying appeal.
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that can be used to compel public officials to perform nondiscretionary, ministerial duties to which the petitioner has a clear legal right. See, e.g., City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel's, Inc., 351 So.2d 719 (Fla.1977); Jackson v. State, 802 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see generally Angela C. Flowers, "Mandamus," in Florida Appellate Practice, § 10-C.2 (6th ed. Fla. Bar 2006). Because we are unable to conclude that the public defender has demonstrated that Ms. Conway has an indisputable legal duty to provide and pay for the transcript requested by the public defender, we must deny the petition.
However, we hasten to add that we are also unable to conclude that the duty lies with the public defender as Ms. Conway argues. The genesis of the dispute underlying this writ proceeding is the implementation of revision 7 of article V of the Florida Constitution. In their arguments, the parties raise a myriad of real problems and unanswered questions resulting from the interplay of various court rules, statutory provisions, and reports of committees and commissions involved in the implementation of revision 7 as it pertains to the funding of Florida's court system. Before the constitution was amended by revision 7, the cost of court reporters was generally borne by the counties. Since the amendment, these costs, often described as a portion of the costs of "due-process services," are now covered by the state budget. Unfortunately, a review of the rules and statutes cited by the parties that relate to these due-process services reveals that it is not entirely clear who within state government must bear the responsibility for obtaining and paying for the transcript at issue in the underlying appeal. As such, petitioners have not demonstrated a clear legal right to compel any of the respondents to provide the transcription service in this case.
Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
FULMER, C.J., and CANADY, J., Concur.
ALTENBERND, J., Concurs with opinion.
. The petitioners note that this transcript was produced without requiring payment from the due-process services account of the local public defender. See § 29.018, Fla. Stat. (2005).
. Under the authority granted to the chief judge in rules 2.215 and 2.535, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration (renumbered from rules 2.050 and 2.070, respectively, on September 21, 2006, see In re Amend, to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., 939 So.2d 966 (Fla.2006)), this administrative order provides a court reporting plan for the use of stenographic court reporting and electronic or digital court recording of all proceedings required to be reported or recorded at public expense. The administrative order may be viewed at http://12circuit.state.fl.us/Admin% 200rders/Section2/06-06-02.pdf.