Haggins v. State, 85-272

Decision Date16 June 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-272,85-272
Citation11 Fla. L. Weekly 1405,498 So.2d 953
Parties11 Fla. L. Weekly 1405 Jerome HAGGINS, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Paul C. Helm, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for appellants.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

En Banc.

PER CURIAM.

The Public Defender of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, who prosecutes appeals in this court for public defenders throughout the district, has filed identical motions to withdraw as counsel in 247 pending criminal appeals. We consolidate these appeals only for the purpose of ruling on the motions.

The public defender alleges a current caseload of 963 noncapital appeals and says that he is being appointed to an average of 84 new appeals each month. However, he asserts that his present appellate staff can effectively brief an average of only 50 cases per month according to statewide standards established by the Florida Public Defenders Association and the Governor's Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. He contends that he does not have sufficient funding to employ additional persons to assist in alleviating his caseload. He suggests that his inability to expeditiously process all of the appeals may place him in the position of affording ineffective counsel to his clients. See Kiernan v. State, 485 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA March 11, 1986).

As a result of these motions, we invited responses from the chairmen of the county commissions and the county attorneys of all counties within our district, the chief judges of all circuits within the district, all public defenders and state attorneys in the district, and the attorney general's office. The common denominator of all of the responses is that they oppose the granting of the motions to withdraw. Many of the respondents point to section 27.51(4), Florida Statutes (1985), which sets forth the responsibility of the Public Defender of the Tenth Judicial Circuit to handle appeals for the other public defenders with funds appropriated under the authority of section 27.51(6), Florida Statutes (1985). The respondent counties also assert that they do not have sufficient financial resources from which they could pay substitute counsel should the motions to withdraw be granted.

Upon en banc consideration, we conclude that the motion to withdraw should be denied. While the 247 cases from which the public defender seeks to withdraw are among those which have been pending the longest in this court, we do not conclude that these appeals have been delayed so long that it can be said that the respective defendants are being deprived of their constitutional rights. It is significant that the trial record in each of these cases has already been filed in this court,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Order on Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by Tenth Judicial Circuit Public Defender, In re
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1990
    ...the most recent in a series of efforts by the Second District Court to deal with this increasing problem. See, e.g., Haggins v. State, 498 So.2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); In re Order on Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by the Tenth Circuit Public Defender, 523 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Al......
  • Public Defender's Certification of Conflict, In re
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 8 Abril 1998
    ...In Re Order on Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by the Tenth Circuit Public Defender, 523 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Haggins v. State, 498 So.2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Moorman v. Threadgill, 462 So.2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Escambia County v. Behr, 384 So.2d 147 (Fla.1980); In Re Direc......
  • State v. Pub. Defender, Eleventh Jud. Cir.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 13 Mayo 2009
    ...Such motions will be considered on a case-by-case basis...." Crow v. State, 500 So.2d 171, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Haggins v. State, 498 So.2d 953, 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ("The circuit courts can better determine on a case-by-case basis the possible prejudice to the defendants resulting fr......
  • Teal v. State, 86-3031
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 4 Marzo 1987
    ...aware of the caseload problems, and resulting delays in the prosecution of appeals, faced by the public defender. Haggins v. State, 498 So.2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we would resort to dismissal of indigents' criminal appeals only in the rare exceptional case. On the other hand......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT