Huskey v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1985 |
| Citation | 688 S.W.2d 417 |
| Parties | Robert L. HUSKEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee. 688 S.W.2d 417 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Robert L. Huskey, Manchester, pro se.
Charles L. Lewis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellee; William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Reporter, Nashville, of counsel.
This case is before the Court on the grant of Rule Nine applications of both the State and the plaintiff, Huskey.
Plaintiff, a lawyer with offices in Manchester, Coffee County, Tennessee, filed a declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court of Davidson County against the State of Tennessee alleging that as appointed counsel for an indigent defendant, the statutory maximum fee was so inadequate that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of his services without compensation under Article I, Section 21 of the Tennessee Constitution.
Huskey was appointed by the judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County to represent Alan E. Lemay, an indigent defendant charged with armed robbery and felony murder. 1 He represented Lemay at the trial in that court and upon appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals and this Court.
In due course, Huskey submitted an application for attorney's fees to the judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County who appointed him and presided over the trial. His application for a fee, submitted on the form prescribed by this Court, claimed that he had expended 102.9 hours in the trial court and 78.3 hours in out-of-court preparation. He accompanied that form application with a petition, which was apparently in letter form, to the trial judge to award him a fee in excess of the statutory maximum. That petition is not a part of the record brought to this Court. However, the trial judge responded by letter dated February 4, 1978, agreed that the five hundred dollar fee was inadequate, expressed sympathy but denied Huskey's request for lack of authority to exceed the statutory maximum.
Huskey filed this suit in Davidson County on September 28, 1982.
The trial court overruled the State's motion to dismiss and overruled plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
The Chancery Court of Davidson County has no jurisdiction to hear Huskey's claim for compensation for services rendered in a Coffee County criminal case.
The State did not raise the jurisdictional issue in the trial court, but moved to dismiss on the sole grounds of sovereign immunity. The learned chancellor overruled the motion to dismiss, but observed in his written opinion, sua sponte, as follows:
Finally, it should be noted that the Oklahoma standard contemplates that the court where the indigent's trial occurred will decide the issue. In most of the reported cases, the issue was initially decided by the court where the indigent's trial occurred. Here, the plaintiff has elected to bring a separate suit in another court in another circuit. Ultimately, he may be required to seek his relief in the Coffee County Circuit Court. That court, after all, is in the best position to determine if the plaintiff's representation involved the extraordinary circumstances which result in a constitutional deprivation.
The statutes dealing with the appointment and compensation of counsel for indigent defendants are found in title 40, chapter 14, part 2. T.C.A. Sec. 40-14-208 expressly requires that attorneys seeking compensation for services rendered indigent defendants under court appointment shall file an application with the trial court stating the nature and extent of the services rendered and the expenses incurred. There is no question but that the Legislature intended the "trial court" to be the same court that appointed counsel and wherein the services were rendered, although such designation is not explicit in the statute. In T.C.A. Sec. 40-14-206, the Legislature directed that this Court shall prescribe rules governing applications for compensation and expenses and "such other rules with regard to the accomplishment of the purposes of this part as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huskey v. State
...defendant/appellee. OPINION HARBISON, Chief Justice. This action is a sequel to the decision of this Court in the case of Huskey v. State, 688 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 936, 106 S.Ct. 299, 88 L.Ed.2d 277 It is not necessary here to repeat the history of the case as cont......
-
Allen v. McWilliams, 85-10-I
...of the claim of appellants, but we believe that this criticism is not well taken. In light of the recent opinion in Huskey v. State, 688 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn.1985), we find considerable merit in the opinion of the Court of Appeals which, reversing the Chancellor, held that claims for compensati......
-
State v. Todd, No. M2006-01940-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. 5/31/2007)
...Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. In the order denying the motion to dispose of the case via Rule 20, we mentioned that State v. Huskey, 688 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1985), may be relevant to the issues presented herein. In Huskey, the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed a situation where an aggrie......