PRESTON v. STATE (2022)

Mr. Preston appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to obtain a transcript of the grand jury proceeding that resulted in an indictment against him for first-degree murder. He filed the motion in 2021, nearly nine years after his conviction and eight years after that conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2013.^* In the motion, he claimed the prosecutor presented perjured testimony to the grand jury in order to obtain the indictment. The trial court denied the motion because there was no pending postconviction motion. Because the trial court was right to do so, we affirm.

Postconviction discovery is not “automatically allow[ed]” and instead “it is within the trial judge's inherent authority to allow limited prehearing discovery during postconviction proceedings.” Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1279 (Fla. 2005). That authority “should be used only upon a showing of good cause,” State v. Lewis, 656 So. 2d 1248, 1249 (Fla. 1994), and is limited to matters which are “relevant and material.” Rodriguez, 919 So. 2d at 1279. Nothing can be relevant or material when there is no postconviction proceeding. Florida courts have held the same on the similar question of a defendant's entitlement to a pre-motion transcript of their trial. Cassoday v. State, 237 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1970); Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (“[A] prisoner seeking post-conviction relief must first prepare and file his motion before he may secure those portions of the record relevant to that motion.”). The trial court had no authority to order production of documents in postconviction without a live case or controversy.

Affirmed.

I concur because Preston's motion, untethered to a viable postconviction legal claim, is insufficient to obtain the material he seeks. Upon filing a proper 3.850 motion based upon ineffectiveness of counsel, Preston may be entitled to access the relevant grand jury materials in support of his claims, provided he demonstrates an exception under section 905.27(1), Florida Statutes (2022).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Preston v. State, 119 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (table).

Long, J.

WINOKUR, J., concurs; Makar, J., concurs with opinion.