Opinion ID: 1870964
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A writ of mandamus was an appropriate remedy.

Text: Initially, we must address the correct standard by which a writ in this instance is to be analyzed by the court in which such relief is sought. In Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Ky.2004), this Court stated the rule, in pertinent part, to be: A writ of prohibition may be granted upon a showing that . . . the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted. (Emphasis in original). In its order, the Court of Appeals stated that it is clear Hiatt is unable to demonstrate that he satisfies the criteria for obtaining a writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals found that Hiatt was simply requesting discovery from Eardley concerning the actions Eardley had undertaken in representing Hiatt before and during the September 2001 jury trial. Although the Court of Appeals is correct that discovery is not authorized under Kentucky law in an RCr 11.42 action (or other post-conviction proceeding for that matter), we note that Appellant is not seeking discovery. Rather, Appellant is seeking to obtain that which is his in the first placehis file. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals concludes that a writ of mandamus is the incorrect vehicle for presenting these issues and that Appellant Hiatt has an adequate remedy by appeal by stating that [i]f Hiatt is ultimately unsuccessful in his post-conviction proceeding, he can appropriately present the issues contained in this petition to this Court by means of a direct appeal. We do not agree. If Appellant were forced to make these arguments in a direct appeal, he will not have the benefit of being able to present the information contained in the work product to the Court of Appeals as the trial court will be unable to preserve this in the record for appellate review. Thus, the only appropriate remedy available for Appellant in this situation is to seek a writ in order to compel the trial court to order Eardley to divulge the entire contents of Appellant's file. Appellant correctly assumes that even if a writ is inappropriate in this instance, the trial court should still be compelled to review, in camera, the substance of Appellant's file that Eardley has characterized as work product. This is the only way in which the issue may be properly preserved for appellate review. We do not think, however, that this route is necessary as we find Appellant has met the requirements necessary for the granting of the writ. In this case, Appellant has shown that the trial court is acting erroneously, though within its jurisdiction, and that a remedy by appeal is inadequate. Furthermore, without the relief requested in the form of a writ, Appellant would suffer irreparable injury in that he would be foreclosed from presenting an adequate record on direct appeal, assuming he is denied post-conviction relief, which contains the substance of his file characterized as work product. Thus a writ of mandamus is the most appropriate remedy in this situation.