U'Dreka Andrews v. State of Florida
218 So. 3d 466
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner U’Dreka Andrews, convicted as a juvenile of first-degree felony murder, burglary, and robbery, received life without parole for the murder and is entitled to resentencing under Miller and Florida's post‑2014 statutory scheme.
- Andrews is indigent and is represented pro bono by private counsel for the Miller resentencing proceeding.
- She moved to file motions seeking appointment and payment for experts, mitigation specialists, and investigators ex parte and under seal, served only on the Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) with notice to the State Attorney, arguing disclosure to the State would reveal privileged defense strategy and work product.
- The trial court denied the motion after a hearing; Andrews sought certiorari review claiming violations of due process, equal protection, effective assistance, and attorney‑client/work‑product protections.
- The district court denied certiorari because the trial court’s order did not violate a clearly established principle of law under the limited certiorari standard, but certified a question of great public importance about whether indigent defendants represented pro bono by private counsel are entitled to such ex parte, under‑seal proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an indigent defendant represented pro bono by private counsel may file motions for appointment/costs of experts/investigators ex parte and under seal, with only JAC served and hearings ex parte | Andrews: Ex parte, under‑seal process is required to protect attorney‑client privilege, work product, due process, equal protection, and effective assistance; parity with public defender–represented indigents | State/JAC: No Florida rule, statute, or controlling precedent requires ex parte treatment here; public access rules and statutory oversight support open process | Denied certiorari relief (trial court order not shown to violate clearly established law); but question certified as one of great public importance |
| Whether Ake/Hamilton entitle Andrews to the requested ex parte procedure | Andrews: Relies on Ake (right to state‑provided expert when sanity significant) and Hamilton (ex parte appointment procedure protecting privileged basis) to support ex parte process | State: Ake does not grant ex parte process; Hamilton applied to Rule 3.216(a) (competency/insanity) and is not directly controlling here | Court: Ake inapplicable; Hamilton is limited to rule 3.216(a) context and not controlling for these facts |
| Whether denial causes irreparable harm justifying certiorari | Andrews: Disclosure of defense strategy/expert identity to prosecution creates irreparable "cat out of the bag" harm and unequal treatment | State: Hearing and oversight needs justify presence; JAC can protect financial interests without excluding State entirely | Majority: Did not find a clearly established legal violation; concurrence would have found irreparable harm and a departure from essential requirements |
| Whether certiorari is available absent controlling precedent | Andrews: Constitutional principles (due process/equal protection) suffice to show error | State: Certiorari requires departure from clearly established law; absent controlling precedent relief inappropriate | Court: Denied certiorari under narrow standard; certified the legal question for higher resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (due process requires state‑provided psychiatric assistance when sanity is a significant factor)
- State v. Hamilton, 448 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 1984) (rule requiring appointment of experts upon counsel's representation and protecting confidentiality of related matters)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; triggered resentencing framework)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (explains ‘‘clearly established principle of law’’ for certiorari review)