Enrique Vilomar v. State of Florida

FIFTH DISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2025-2992
LT Case No. 2021-304846-CFDB
_____________________________
E NRIQUE V ILOMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF F LORIDA,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Original Proceeding for
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Enrique Vilomar, Monticello, pro se.
No Appearance for Respondent.
January 2, 2026
PER C URIAM.
Enrique Vilomar, an indigent inmate housed in the Florida
Department of Corrections, was tried and convicted in the circuit
court in 	Volusia 	County, case 	number 2021-304846-CFDB, of
various 	crimes. 	Vilomar 	appealed, 	and 	his 	convictions 	and
sentences were affirmed without opinion. Vilomar v. State, 375 So.
3d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). 	Mandate issued on December 29,
2023.
Vilomar now petitions this court for mandamus relief to
compel the State to provide him with transcripts of all hearings

2
that were held in his criminal case. 	The record from Vilomar’s
direct appeal shows that the transcript from his entire trial,
including sentencing, was prepared and filed as was the transcript
from an evidentiary hearing held shortly before trial on Vilomar’s
motion 	to 	suppress 	evidence. 	Vilomar’s 	instant 	mandamus
request apparently seeks to have transcripts prepared from any
other hearing held in the case, though he does not specifically
describe what other hearings may have been held.
Vilomar’s mandamus request comes more than twenty-two
months after his judgment and sentence became final. 	As this
court explained long ago, “[w]hile indigent convicts can get the free
copies [of the transcripts and documents] and services for plenary
appeal there is no provision in law to obtain them thereafter.”
Ridge v. Adams, 643 So. 2d 116, 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also
Pacheco v. State, 75 So. 3d 769, 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Beyond
the record provided for a direct appeal, [a prisoner] is not entitled
to 	free 	transcripts 	to 	assist 	in 	the 	preparation 	of 	either 	a
postconviction 	motion 	or 	a 	petition 	for 	extraordinary 	relief.”
(quoting Sanders v. State, 62 So. 3d 1176, 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA
2011))).
Accordingly, Vilomar’s application for writ of mandamus is
denied on the merits. Additionally, as this is now the second time
that Vilomar has unsuccessfully sought mandamus relief for these
records, we caution that any additional pro se efforts on his part
seeking free transcripts or other documents pertaining to circuit
court case number 2021-304846-CFDB may lead to disciplinary
proceedings under State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
W RIT D ENIED; P ETITIONER C AUTIONED.
J AY, C.J., and L AMBERT and H ARRIS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________