Case Name: Mark James ASAY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents; James C. AGAN, et al., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA BOARD OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, Respondent; James C. AGAN, et al., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-11-10
Citations: 649 So. 2d 859
Docket Number: Nos. 82732, 83047 and 83048
Parties: Mark James ASAY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents. James C. AGAN, et al., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA BOARD OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, Respondent. James C. AGAN, et al., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
Judges: GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 649
Pages: 859–861

Head Matter:
Mark James ASAY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents. James C. AGAN, et al., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA BOARD OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, Respondent. James C. AGAN, et al., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
Nos. 82732, 83047 and 83048.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov. 10, 1994.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1995.
Michael J. Minerva, Capital Collateral Representative, Martin J. McClain, Chief Asst. CCR, and Daren L. Shippy and Stephen M. Kissinger, Asst. CCRs, Tallahassee, for petitioners.
Mark Schlakman, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Office of the Governor, Tallahassee, on behalf of the Board of Executive Clemency, and William L. Camper, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, on behalf of Florida Parole Com’n, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have on appeal the denial of claims by numerous death-sentenced inmates seeking disclosure of records kept on behalf of the Florida Board of Executive Clemency. We have jurisdiction pursuant to our plenary and exclusive appellate authority over cases involving death sentences. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.; see Gerald Kogan & Robert Craig Waters, The Operation and Jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court, 18 Nova L.Rev. 1151, 1211-12 (1994).
The primary question we must address is whether the Clemency Board's records are of a type that can trigger the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny. Petitioners note, and we acknowledge, that the United States Supreme Court has applied Brady to state investigatory agencies not directly associated with police or prosecutors. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987).
However, petitioners have cited no federal precedent directly holding that Brady is applicable to a clemency board or its equivalent and, if so, under what circumstances. Our own research has disclosed nothing on point. This apparently is a case, of first impression. Moreover, the federal Brady issue, and it alone, is dispositive of this case because Florida constitutional law exempts clemency records from any disclosure not authorized by the Governor. Parole Commission v. Lockett, 620 So.2d 153 (Fla.1993). Absent contrary federal law applicable to Florida via the Fourteenth Amendment, petitioners clearly are entitled to no relief.
The Ritchie opinion comes closest in relevance. However, even it dealt with facts so distinct from those at issue here that we cannot say it is on point. In Ritchie, the State of Pennsylvania had established a child-protection agency separate from police and prosecutors. That agency then investigated a man accused of molesting his own daughter. In seeking release of the agency's records in the ensuing child-abuse prosecution, the man argued that the agency had in its possession a variety of material and favorable documents. These allegedly included verbatim statements by his daughter, medical reports, and an earlier child-abuse complaint. Materials of this kind obviously could contain exculpatory material, so the Court found that an in camera review was warranted. Ritchie.
We have read the cases cited by petitioners, including United States v. Brooks, 966 F.2d 1500 (D.C.Cir.1992), and Miller v. Dugger, 820 F.2d 1135 (11th Cir.1987). Like Ritchie, all focus on state-sponsored investigations that have gathered evidence within the same basic time frame as the police investigation and trial, even if only disclosed much later. Florida clemency investigations, however, by their very nature gather materials well after the trial and appeals have ended, except for those materials actually contained in the trial court and appeals records reviewable by the Clemency Board. We find this to be a critical distinction between this ease and those cited by petitioners and reason enough to deny this petition.
Moreover, Ritchie itself suggested that records afforded a high degree of confidentiality may be immune from the Brady requirements. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57-58, 107 S.Ct. at 1001-02. Under Florida law, clemency records enjoy a similarly high level of confidentiality. Lockett. The state has a strong policy to maintain that confidentiality based on the unusually sensitive nature of some clemency evidence and the exclusive authority of clemency given to the executive by the Florida Constitution. Art. IV, § 8, Fla. Const. This, too, is reason enough to deny the petition.
Furthermore, the decision in Brady has been in existence since 1963. In that time, no reported case apparently has ever suggested that clemency-related investigations occurring well after trial and appeals have ended may be the subject of a Brady claim. The lack of precedent even from lower courts is a strong indicator that Brady was never intended to apply in this context. Accordingly, we decline to extend the rule, and we hold that Brady has no application to clemency proceedings in Florida.
The petitions accordingly are denied.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.
KOGAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
. Such records actually are produced by the Florida Parole Commission, but this is done solely as an agent of the Governor and Cabinet. Thus, the records enjoy all of the executive's immunities. Parole Commission v. Lockett, 620 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1993).