IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JEFFREY MORENCY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D16-3280
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed July 14, 2017
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Heather L. Higbee, Judge.
Jeffrey Morency, Lake City, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock
McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General,
Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Morency (“Defendant”) appeals the denial of his motion for access to any
audio or videorecording of his trial. Defendant was convicted of robbery with a firearm
and sentenced to thirty years’ incarceration. He subsequently filed the instant motion,
which was summarily denied by the trial court. In its order, the trial court held that any
audiorecording created by digital electronic court reporting systems would not be a court
record subject to public disclosure. For the following reasons, we reverse the order and
remand the case to the trial court.
Public access to judicial records is governed by Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.420. This rule provides that “[t]he public shall have access to all records
of the judicial branch of government” other than those covered by certain exceptions. Fla.
R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). It defines “[r]ecords of the judicial branch” as, in pertinent part,
all records, including court records, regardless of physical form, made in connection with
the transaction of official business by any judicial branch entity. Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
2.420(b)(1). Court records include “electronic records, videotapes, or stenographic tapes
of depositions or other proceedings filed with the clerk, and electronic records,
videotapes, or stenographic tapes of court proceedings.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
2.420(b)(1)(A).
The trial court based its decision upon the holding in Media General Operations,
Inc. v. State, wherein the Second District Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus
directed to the Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit to order him to release the
audiorecording of a sentencing hearing. 12 So. 3d 239, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The
court concluded that “the audio recording created by digital electronic court reporting
systems is not, in and of itself, an ‘electronic record’ of the proceedings” subject to public
records disclosure. Id.
The State concedes that, in response to the Media General decision, the Florida
Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.535 to clarify that an
“‘[e]lectronic record’ means the audio, analog, digital, or video record of a court
proceeding.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.535(a)(5). It further noted that it declined to adopt
2
several proposed amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.420 and
2.535 “that would delete ‘electronic records, videotapes, or stenographic tapes of court
proceedings’ from the definition of ‘court records’ and would restrict disclosure of
electronic records except as permitted under certain circumstances in the discretion of
the court or the chief judge.” In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin. & the
Fla. Rules of App. P.-Implementation of Comm’n on Trial Court Performance &
Accountability Recommendations, 13 So. 3d 1044, 1047 (Fla. 2009). The trial court
therefore erred in relying upon Media General in its conclusion that an audiorecording of
Defendant’s trial would not qualify as a court record subject to disclosure. The State also
concedes that remand would be appropriate.
We note that the trial court suggested in its order that, because a court reporter
was present during Defendant’s trial, there may have been no audio or videorecording
made. We therefore reverse the order under review and remand for the trial court to
determine whether such a recording exists and for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, PALMER, and BERGER, JJ., concur.
3