Ralph Monroe vs State of Florida
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D16-4672 _____________________________ RALPH MONROE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. _____________________________ Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction. October 18, 2018 ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PER CURIAM. This case is on remand from the Florida Supreme Court which quashed our prior decision in this case and directed reconsideration of this case in view of its recent decision in Andrews v. State, 243 So. 3d 899 (Fla. 2018). In Andrews, the Florida Supreme Court held that an indigent defendant who is represented by private counsel proceeding pro bono is “entitled to file motions pertaining to the appointment and costs of experts, mitigation specialists, and investigators ex parte and under seal, with service to the Justice Administrative Commission and notice to the State Attorney’s Office, and to have any hearing on such motion ex parte, with only the defendant and the Commission present.” Id. at 902. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. This cause is remanded to the trial court with the directions that Petitioner Monroe be allowed to file motions for appointment of experts and for approval of costs ex parte and under seal with service to the Justice Administration and notice of such filings to the Office of the Attorney General and that any hearing on an ex parte motion be heard with only the Petitioner and the Commission in attendance. Petition granted, and the cause remanded with directions. LEWIS, ROBERTS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Michael Ufferman, Tallahassee, for Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Respondent. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
