Kevin Watkins v. State of Florida
159 So. 3d 323
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Kevin Watkins was convicted of two counts of sexual battery by a person with familial authority (victim 12–17); he was declared partially indigent for costs.
- On direct appeal the court affirmed one conviction and reversed the other for insufficient evidence; a later 3.850 denial was affirmed.
- Watkins’s former counsel sought trial-court permission to relinquish the record on appeal to Watkins because the clerk had marked the records “Not for Public Disclosure” under child-sex-offense confidentiality rules.
- The trial court denied counsel’s request without explanation; Watkins sought certiorari review in the district court.
- Watkins argued an indigent defendant is entitled to transcripts and records prepared at public expense and that confidential victim-identifying information may be disclosed to a defendant to prepare a defense under section 92.56(2), Fla. Stat.
- The district court concluded counsel had not preserved the legal arguments or cited authority below and therefore denied certiorari without prejudice, allowing pursuit of relief in the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Watkins' Argument | State/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an indigent defendant is entitled to receive the record on appeal (including confidential materials) prepared at public expense after counsel’s representation ends | Watkins: Indigent defendants are entitled to transcripts/records prepared at public expense; confidential victim ID may be disclosed to defendant to prepare defense | Trial court: Denied request; did not articulate legal basis in order | Denied certiorari without prejudice because the request below failed to present the legal arguments/authority—preservation required |
| Whether statutory confidentiality (child-victim ID) prevents disclosure to defendant | Watkins: § 92.56(2) expressly allows disclosure to defendant or counsel for defense preparation | Position below: clerk marked record confidential; court denied relinquishment | Court: Noting statute permits disclosure to defendant and that confidential info used to prepare defense should be provided, but refused certiorari due to lack of preserved argument below |
| Whether counsel’s bare request without cited authority suffices for interlocutory review | Watkins: (argues entitlement) | Counsel below did not cite authority or develop arguments | Court: A petitioner generally cannot raise grounds on certiorari that were not raised below; denial without prejudice to pursue appropriate relief below |
| Whether any types of materials remain non-disclosable despite entitlement to record | Watkins: sought full record on appeal | State: confidentiality and other protections (e.g., child pornography concerns) | Court: Recognized some materials (e.g., child pornography) may not be duplicated and may be restricted under § 92.561(2), but did not order relief here |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. State, 142 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA) (indigent defendant entitled to record prepared at public expense)
- Netting v. State, 143 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA) (appellant entitled to postconviction transcripts)
- Office of Pub. Defender v. Madison, 961 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA) (public defender must surrender transcripts to defendant when representation ends)
- Davis v. State, 861 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA) (indigent defendant entitled to trial transcripts prepared at public expense)
- Watkins v. State, 48 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA) (prior appeal affirming one conviction and reversing the other)
- Watkins v. State, 130 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA) (affirming denial of 3.850 postconviction relief)
- First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Servs., Inc., 127 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA) (generally cannot raise grounds on certiorari not raised below)
- Fla. Highway Patrol v. Bejarano, 137 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA) (preservation required for certiorari review)
- Smith v. David, 962 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA) (certiorari denied where issue not preserved below)