of trial responsibilities; review of first and second trial transcripts; physical evidence correlation with witnesses; list of offense elements (by counts); time chronology of crime events; order of calling witnesses; proposed trial questions; memos relating to discussions with previous prosecutors; voir dire and witness outline; proposed instructions; research topics and law updates — contained in envelope D. D. Copies of Pleadings: motion to strike, motion to suppress evidence— contained in envelope E. E. State (confession) of Defendant: Envelope F. F. F.D.L.E. Arrest Report: RAUL QUINONES — Envelope G. G. Statement of Donna Climent: Envelope H. The court finds that the following are not public records under the criteria established by [State v.] Kokal, [562 So.2d (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>)). Thus, the trial court’s order should be
holding that when competent substantial evidence supports the trial courts ruling this court will not secondguess the trial court on this matter holding our court on appeal will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if this judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence upon the record as a whole and  this rule applies whether the evidence is direct or wholly circumstantial holding that this court will not consider a theory or issue that was not pleaded or raised in the trial court holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports holding that where the record shows that competent substantial evidence supports the trial courts findings that the documents were exempt from disclosure said findings will not be second guessed