ISAAC LEE GREEN

v.

STEVEN GARRETT FRISCO, P.A.

ROWE, J.

Isaac Lee Green appeals the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. Green sought to compel his privately retained appellate counsel, Steven Garrett Frisco, to provide him with the trial transcripts obtained by Frisco in connection with Green’s direct appeal. Green alleged he needed the transcripts to file a postconviction motion. The circuit court denied Green’s petition. Green raises two issues on appeal. We address only his argument that his petition should have been granted.

In his petition for writ of mandamus, Green alleged that he retained Frisco to represent him in the direct appeal of his criminal judgment and sentence. And he asserted that Frisco’s fee included payment for Green’s trial transcripts. The trial court denied the petition, explaining that mandamus does not lie to compel action by a private citizen—including a privately retained attorney. Green appealed to this Court.

At common law, a writ of mandamus was “used to coerce the performance of any and all official duties where the official charged by law with the performance of such duty refused or failed to perform the same.” State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 150 So. 508, 511 (Fla. 1933). When the Constitution granted writ authority to Florida courts, “it vested therein full and complete authority to issue such writs to coerce and enforce the full and complete duty devolved by law upon any official to perform.” Id.

The writ of mandamus may be issued “to enforce a ministerial act” when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of that act. See Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Gould, 344 So. 3d 496, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (quoting City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Epicure, Inc., 4 So. 2d 116, 117 (Fla. 1941)). A ministerial act is one that is clearly prescribed by law, and one that can be performed without the exercise of discretion. Id.

Green alleged that he had a right to the trial transcripts obtained during his direct appeal and that Frisco had a duty to provide the transcripts to Green. If Green did in fact pay Frisco to obtain the trial transcripts, Frisco may be obligated to return the trial transcripts to Green.* But mandamus is not the proper means of obtaining the transcripts.

* Green could have pursued an action for replevin for the recovery of his personal property. “Any person whose personal property is wrongfully detained by any other person or officer may have a writ of replevin to recover said personal property and any damages sustained by reason of the wrongful taking or detention as herein provided.” § 78.01, Fla. Stat.; see also Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (affirming order denying indigent defendant’s petition for writ of mandamus to compel his private attorney to provide transcripts paid for by the defendant).

Files prepared and maintained by an attorney on his clients’ cases are the personal property of the attorney. Long v. Dillinger, 701 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 1997). But sometimes, an attorney has an obligation to provide records to a client. For example, counsel appointed to represent an indigent defendant must provide transcripts prepared at public expense to the defendant “without charge for copying.” Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). This is because a public defender or court-appointed counsel are considered quasi-public officials and a defendant may properly seek mandamus relief to obtain transcripts provided at public expense. See id. (recognizing court-appointed attorneys as officials for the purpose of mandamus); Hollis v. Massa, 211 So. 3d 266, 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Because a public defender or court-appointed lawyer is an ‘official,’ mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel such an official to provide a defendant with copies of legal documents prepared at public expense.” (quoting Brown v. State, 93 So. 3d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012))).

Even so, it has long been settled that the writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a private person to perform an act. State v. Graddick, 89 So. 361, 362 (Fla. 1921). Mandamus applies only to public or quasi-public officials, not private citizens. Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Frisco was not appointed to represent Green, rather he was Green’s privately retained counsel. Thus, Frisco was not a public official or a quasi-public official. See Snowden v. Davis, 581 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (denying a petition for writ of mandamus seeking a copy of criminal transcripts because private counsel was not a public official); Hall v. Liebling, 890 So. 2d 475, 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“The trial court’s mandamus authority will not lie to compel a private citizen to return documents to [Appellant].”). For these reasons, the trial court did not err in denying the petition to compel Frisco by writ of mandamus to provide Green with the trial transcripts.

AFFIRMED.

RAY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________