Opinion ID: 1133642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: This Court's Current Practice as to Interlocutory Discovery Orders

Text: The current practice for this Court is to occasionally grant review of interlocutory orders in cases involving death-sentenced defendants, but we have been less than precise in defining our authority to grant such review. Our authority to review imposition of the death sentence speaks in terms of final orders and judgments: The Court [s]hall hear appeals from final judgments of trial courts imposing the death penalty. Art. V, § (3)(b)1, Fla. Const.; Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(a)(1)(A)(i) (this Court shall review final orders of courts imposing the death sentence); see Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 3.2, at 46-47 (2d ed.1997). However, this Court in fact reviews interlocutory discovery orders in capital collateral proceedings. See Sims v. State, 750 So.2d 622, 623 n. 3 (Fla.1999)(Following the signing of the warrant ... [t]he trial court denied Sims' motion to compel production of public records, which this Court affirmed by order ....), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 1233, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2000); Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, 697 So.2d at 71; see also Lewis, 656 So.2d at 1249 (under section 3(b)(1) this Court reviewed two nonfinal orders, from different trial courts, that denied the State's respective motions to quash witness subpoenas issued to trial court judges); LeCroy v. State, 641 So.2d 853, 853 (Fla. 1994)(We have before us an interlocutory appeal of a disclosure order in a postconviction capital proceeding under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.); State v. Kokal, 562 So.2d 324, 325 (Fla.1990)(this Court reviewed a discovery order under section 3(b)(1) that had been issued by a trial court hearing a postconviction claim, where the defendant had been sentenced to death). Thus, there is a history of the Supreme Court of Florida accepting jurisdiction in the instant scenario, although absent an express statement of how the Court determines whether to exercise its jurisdiction.