This case is remanded to the trial court to conduct an in-camera hearing at which the court shall weigh the interests of the State in protecting against the disclosure of the CI's information and Sullivan's need for the requested information as being relevant and helpful to her defense of entrapment. This in-camera hearing should include taking the testimony of the CI. Cf.Joshua v. State , 205 So. 3d 851, 859–60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing and remanding the order disclosing the CI with instructions that the trial court conduct an in camera hearing that includes taking the testimony of the CI). As the CI's identity here is known, the State will have the burden of showing the need to maintain the nondisclosure of the requested information.

The salient facts of this case are set forth in detail in our prior opinion affirming in part and reversing in part following Joshua's trial, conviction and sentence on the charges of trafficking in methamphetamine (crystal meth) and trafficking in methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy). SeeJoshua v. State , 205 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Nevertheless, we reproduce some of the background facts to place into proper context Joshua's postconviction claims and our analysis of those claims:

On direct appeal, this Court reversed the conviction and sentence on Count I and remanded for further proceedings. Joshua v. State , 205 So.3d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). In addition, this Court stated that the transcripts from two in camera hearings relating to the identity of an alleged confidential informant shall be unsealed and available to the parties.