Opinion ID: 1695263
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Frank Lee Smith

Text: Smith was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by Judge Robert W. Tyson of the Broward County Circuit Court. The conviction and sentence were affirmed in Smith v. State, 515 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 971, 108 S.Ct. 1249, 99 L.Ed.2d 447 (1988). After the Governor signed his death warrant, Smith filed a motion for post-conviction relief and a request for a stay of execution. We reversed the trial court's denial of Smith's motion for post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Smith v. State, 565 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 1990). After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court again denied Smith's motion for post-conviction relief. Smith appealed, alleging that Judge Tyson engaged in ex parte communications with the prosecutor when preparing the order that denied Smith's motion. We temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for the purpose of getting the facts relevant to the alleged ex parte communications. Smith subpoenaed Judge Tyson for the purpose of taking his deposition. The State filed a motion to quash and a motion for a protective order asserting that Smith failed to follow the procedures established in Davis v. State, 624 So.2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The trial court denied the motion to quash, but granted a protective order limiting Smith's inquiry to the facts surrounding the order's preparation. The State filed an emergency motion seeking review in this Court and we granted a stay of the circuit court proceedings pending our disposition of the review proceedings in Lewis and Davis. On February 4, 1994, we consolidated Lewis and Smith. These two cases present the following issues: (1) can parties engage in pre-hearing discovery when pursuing post-conviction claims pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850; and (2) if such discovery is permitted, may the parties depose the trial judge? We answer both issues in the affirmative, and find that it is within the trial judge's inherent authority, rather than any express authority found in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, to allow limited discovery. In this vein, we find the procedures established in Davis persuasive and adopt the following paragraph as our own: In most cases any grounds for post-conviction relief will appear on the face of the record. On a motion which sets forth good reason, however, the court may allow limited discovery into matters which are relevant and material, and where the discovery is permitted the court may place limitations on the sources and scope. On review of an order denying or limiting discovery it will be the [moving party's] burden to show that the discretion has been abused. 624 So.2d at 284. The trial judge, in deciding whether to allow this limited form of discovery, shall consider the issues presented, the elapsed time between the conviction and the post-conviction hearing, any burdens placed on the opposing party and witnesses, alternative means of securing the evidence, and any other relevant facts. See People ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill.2d 175, 121 Ill.Dec. 937, 941, 526 N.E.2d 131, 135 (1988). This opinion shall not be interpreted as automatically allowing discovery under rule 3.850, nor is it an expansion of the discovery procedures established in rule 3.220. We conclude that this inherent authority should be used only upon a showing of good cause. We also find that a party may be allowed to take post-conviction depositions of the judge who presided over the trial only when the testimony of the presiding judge is absolutely necessary to establish factual circumstances not in the record, provided the requirements set forth above are fulfilled and the judge's thought process is not violated. See United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422, 61 S.Ct. 999, 1004, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1941) (a judge's thought process relevant to judicial decisions is not within the purview of an examination). The judge may refuse to answer any question which the judge deems intrusive. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 607.1, at 366 & n. 1 (1994) (Generally judges cannot be compelled to testify as to matters concerning their judicial duties.). [3] We deny the State's request that we quash the orders of the trial courts; we instead remand Lewis and Smith to their respective trial courts so that the presiding judges may determine whether post-conviction pre-hearing discovery should be allowed. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.