THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE ROYCE R. LEWIS, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court held that the issue of public access to a sentencing reduction hearing is not moot, even after the hearing has occurred.
[1] A proceeding to determine whether a sentence mitigation hearing should be held in camera is not moot, even if the hearing has already occurred.
[2] The public and press are entitled to intervene in the court's determination of whether "good cause" exists for holding a sentence mitigation hearing in camera.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State filed a motion to mitigate a sentence, and a petitioner sought to intervene in the "good cause" hearing to determine if it should be held in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Camera Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a proceeding brought pursuant to Rule 9.100(d), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The State of Florida filed an unsworn Motion to Mitigate, Reduce or Alter Sentence as concerns one Brack who had been previously convicted and sentenced for trafficking in marijuana.
Petitioner sought to intervene and participate in a “good cause” hearing pursuant to Section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1982) as to whether or not the proceeding (State’s Motion) would be heard in camera.
Respondent, Circuit Judge, found:
(3) The public and press are not entitled to intervene in the court’s determination as to whether “good cause” exists for the holding of a hearing, in camera, on a motion to mitigate under Section 893.135(3)
and thereupon denied Petitioner’s Motion to Intervene and disallowed any participation by it in a “good cause” hearing or otherwise. The hearing upon the State’s Motion was then heard in camera. It appears from the appellate presentation that a tape recording of the in camera hearing upon the State’s Motion is in existence.
Regardless that the hearing in question is now history, we hold that the appellate issue here present is not moot upon authority of Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976); Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Cook, 434 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
We reverse the appealed order of December 12, 1983, and remand with instructions that a proper hearing be conducted with participation by Petitioner for the purpose of determining as a matter of law and fact, what portions, if any, of the tape recorded sentence reduction hearing in question must be withheld from the public. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., supra; Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982); Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Nourse, 413 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State ex rel. Miami Herald Pub. v. McIntosh, 340 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1977).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
DOWNEY, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1976)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. McINTOSH, 340 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1976)
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Royce R. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. The Honorable Jack H. Cook, 434 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. The Honorable Philip G. Nourse, 413 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)