REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

http://www.angel-diaz.us/lethal/replyclarification.htm

http://www.angel-diaz.us/lethal/Filed_08-22-2007_StateReply.pdf


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA

Petitioner(s), Case No. SC07-1499

v.

IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE

Respondent(s)

/

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

COMES NOW the State of Florida, and replies as follows to
Lightbourne’s “response to motion for clarification.”

1. Lightbourne continues to ignore that the Office of the
Attorney General is counsel for the State in these proceedings.
In paragraph 9 of the response, Lightbourne indicates that he
intends to continue to deal directly with the Department of
Corrections (and its counsel). That is inappropriate because,
insofar as the legal challenges now pending are concerned, the
Attorney General’s Office represents the State, and all contact
should be with that office, not with the client (the Department
of Corrections).

2. This Court’s order required judicial determination of
various issues before any viewing or walk-through took place.
The State is entitled to have this Court’s order carried out,
and insists on the judicial intervention this Court directed.

3. The judicial intervention ordered by this Court remains
an issue in these proceedings, and is not rendered “moot” by the

fact that the Circuit Judge assigned to this case is unavailable
to carry out this Court’s order until August 28, 2007.

4. The issues and concerns raised by the State in the
Motion for Clarification remain the same -- this Court’s order
contemplated that the viewing and walk-through would be carried
out with proper protections in place for the State’s interests.
The clarification requested is not rendered moot by any event
that has taken place. To the contrary, Lightbourne’s continual
direct contact with the Department of Corrections, when he has
been explicitly informed that the Office of the Attorney General
is lead counsel for the State when it comes to legal challenges
(such as this one) pending before the Courts, demonstrates the
need for clarification of this Court’s order.

WHEREFORE, the State moves this Court to clarify its August
20, 2007, order in the manner discussed in the Motion for
Clarification. That motion is not “moot,” and should be
addressed before the factual determinations ordered by this
Court in advance of any viewing or walk-through are conducted.

Respectfully submitted,

BILL McCOLLUM

ATTORNEY GENERAL

_______________________________

KENNETH S. NUNNELLEY

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Florida Bar #998818

444 Seabreeze Blvd., 5th Floor

Daytona Beach, FL 32118

(386) 238-4990

FAX (386) 226-0457

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above
has been furnished by FAX and U.S. Mail to: Suzanne Myers
Keefer, Assistant CCRC-South, 101 NE Third Ave., Suite 400, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida 33301, and Rock E. Hooker, Office of the
State Attorney, 19 N.W. Pine Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475, and Judge
Carven D. Angel, Circuit Court Judge, Marion County Justice
Center, 110 N.W. First Ave., Room 3A, Ocala, Florida 34475 on
this day of August, 2007.

_______________________________

Of Counsel