Opinion ID: 1795534
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Prehearing Discovery

Text: The first issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Kelley's request for prehearing discovery. On a motion which sets forth good reason, [a postconviction trial] 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. State v. Lewis, 656 So.2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Davis v. State, 624 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)). This standard has been applied to rule 3.853 motions for postconviction DNA testing. See Spaziano v. State, 879 So.2d 51, 54-55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Kelley claims to have good reason for postconviction discovery because the State never accounted for certain evidence relevant and material to his case. See Lewis, 656 So.2d at 1250. To determine whether these items still exist, Kelley claims it is necessary to depose prior custodians of this evidence. The trial court found that Kelley met his initial burden under rule 3.853(b) by identifying the evidence he wished to be tested and making the required allegations. However, following the evidentiary hearing, the court found that the State met its burden by presenting witnesses from all possible locations where the evidence might be stored. The trial court determined that there was no basis to conclude that the witnesses who testified could have conducted more thorough searches of the materials in the possession of their respective agencies and that Kelley's arguments were based on pure speculation and conjecture. Indeed, given the evidence presented, it is clear that Kelley's motion is no more than a fishing expedition, which is impermissible under rule 3.853. See Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla.2004); Cheshire v. State, 872 So.2d 427, 428-29 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). As previously mentioned, evidence collected in the Sweet trials was destroyed by court order in 1976. Moreover, as testified to by the nine witnesses, none of the requested items were located despite a diligent search. Given these facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kelley further prehearing discovery.