198 So. 3d 789
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- James David Phillips was convicted of capital sexual battery and sentenced to life in 2008.
- In August 2014 Phillips, without court permission, sent a letter to a juror seeking information about possible improper jury information; the juror reported the contact to the State.
- The State moved for a rule to show cause for indirect criminal contempt, asserting Phillips violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.575 (juror interviews).
- At a contempt/status proceeding the State withdrew its motion; the court record contains an unsigned clerk-created "snapout" dated March 13, 2015, stating the court "orders" Phillips not to contact jurors except by motion and court order.
- Phillips filed a certiorari petition challenging that document as a court order violating his First Amendment rights; the appellate court held the snapout was not a signed, rendered order and therefore not reviewable as a postconviction ruling.
- The trial court later entered a signed October 2015 order (apparently produced after this court relinquished jurisdiction) explaining the clerk had inserted the juror-contact language and reiterating that Rule 3.575 applies; the appellate court declined to treat that order as a binding ruling compelled by this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 13, 2015 clerk "snapout" is a reviewable court order barring contact with jurors | Phillips: the document is a court order restricting his First Amendment right to contact jurors | State/Court: the document was not a signed, rendered order; the State withdrew its motion | Court: The snapout was not a rendered order and is not reviewable by certiorari; petition denied |
| Whether the court may restrict postconviction contact with jurors under Rule 3.575 | Phillips: Rule 3.575 does not permissibly bar his contact; First Amendment protects him | Court/State: Rule 3.575 governs juror interviews and limits contact; minimal First Amendment burden justified by juror protection | Court: Rule 3.575 applies; defendant must follow law and may move under the rule to seek juror interviews |
| Proper procedural path to challenge juror-contact restrictions | Phillips: immediate certiorari review of the purported order | State/Court: pursue a Rule 3.575 motion to obtain a definitive ruling and then seek review if adverse | Court: Suggests Phillips file a Rule 3.575 motion and obtain a reviewable ruling before appellate challenge |
| Whether the trial court abused process by later entering an order after appellate relinquishment | Phillips: the later signed order continues to restrict him | Court/State: the later order was entered to comply with appellate instructions and mainly admonishes to follow law | Court: Declines to treat the coerced post-relief order as a binding adverse ruling for certiorari purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. State, 132 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2013) (recognizing Rule 3.575 as appropriate for postconviction juror interviews)
- Van Poyck v. State, 91 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 2012) (affirming denial of juror-misconduct claim based on affidavits obtained in circumvention of Rule 3.575)
- Zaborowski v. State, 126 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (criticizing use of clerk-created snapouts and similar informal docket notations)
- Cochrane v. State, 997 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (discussing informal docket entries and proper order rendering)
- Monroe v. State, 784 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (addressing procedural requirements for juror interview motions)