Makemson v. Martin County
| Decision Date | 17 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 66780,66780 |
| Citation | 491 So.2d 1109,11 Fla. L. Weekly 337 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 337 Robert MAKEMSON, et al., Petitioners, v. MARTIN COUNTY, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert Makemson and Robert G. Udell, in pro. per.
Michael H. Olenick, County Atty., Stuart, for respondent.
Michael Zelman, Miami, for Florida Criminal Defense Attys. Ass'n and Nat. Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Atty., and Eric K. Gressman, Asst. County Atty., Miami, for Metropolitan Dade County, amicus curiae.
In Martin County v. Makemson, 464 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the Fourth District quashed the trial court's order declaring unconstitutional section 925.036, Florida Statutes (1981), and allowing petitioners to be compensated for their representation of an indigent criminal defendant in amounts exceeding the statutory maximum fees. The district court, while upholding the statute's validity, noted that "an absolute fee cap works an inequity in some cases," 464 So.2d at 1283, and certified to this Court four questions as being of great public importance. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and find the fee maximums unconstitutional when applied to cases involving extraordinary circumstances and unusual representation.
Prior to setting out the certified questions, we turn to the factual predicate on which they were based. Petitioner Robert Makemson, a resident of Martin County, was appointed by the court pursuant to section 925.036 to represent one of four defendants. The representation spanned a nine-month period, as each defendant had been charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping and armed robbery. Because the victim of the crime was a member of a prominent local family, the entire resources of the prosecutor were brought to bear on the case. Three prosecutors and two special investigators sat at the counsel table, and over one hundred witnesses and fifty depositions were involved in the trial.
After the four cases were severed, each defendant sought and ultimately obtained a change of venue. Petitioner therefore spent his sixty-four hours in court on the case at the Lake County courthouse, some one hundred and fifty miles from his home. Upon completion of the representation, petitioner asked for compensation for the total 248.3 hours spent on the case in an amount based upon a calculation using an hourly rate established by the chief judge of the circuit. While expert testimony established the value of his services at a minimum of $25,000, he asked for and obtained $9,500. Six thousand dollars has been placed in escrow pending disposition of this appeal, as the statute would allow only $3,500 as compensation for the representation. § 925.036(2)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985).
The trial court additionally found it necessary to accept petitioner Robert Udell's low bid of $4,500 as compensation for the representation of the defendant upon appeal although the statute would allow only $2,000. § 925.036(2)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). The court also set the funds aside prior to the representation, in spite of the statute's terms providing for payment "at the conclusion of the representation." § 925.036(1), Fla.Stat. (1985).
The trial court expressed the dilemma it faced:
[T]his court is confronted with conflicting laws, one of which requires competent counsel for a defendant who has been sentenced to death and the other stating that defense counsel can be paid only $2,000 for his services. The lowest bid for these services was $4,500, which is more than twice what the Legislature has allowed. One of these laws must yield to the other. There is no doubt in the court's mind that the Legislature, if confronted with the problem, would admit that the law requiring competent counsel was paramount and superior to the law allowing a mere $2,000 fee for the dreadful responsibility involved in trying to save a man from electrocution. Therefore this court finds that F.S. 925.036 in setting rigid maximum fees without regard to the circumstances in each case is arbitrary and capricious and violates the due process clause of the United States and Florida Constitutions. See Aldana v. Holub, 381 So.2d 231 (Fla.1980). In simpler language, the Statute is impractical and won't work.
The trial court additionally found the statute unconstitutional as an impermissible legislative intrusion upon an inherent judicial function. Art. V, § 2; art. III, § 2, Fla. Const. The statute then in force, identical to the present statute, provided as follows:
(1) An attorney appointed pursuant to s. 925.035 or s. 27.53 shall, at the conclusion of the representation, be compensated at an hourly rate fixed by the chief judge or senior judge of the circuit in an amount not to exceed the prevailing hourly rate for similar representation rendered in the circuit; however, such compensation shall not exceed the maximum fee limits established by this section. In addition, such attorney shall be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred, including the costs of transcripts authorized by the court. If the attorney is representing a defendant charged with more than one offense in the same case, the attorney shall be compensated at the rate provided for the most serious offense for which he represented the defendant. This section does not allow stacking of the fee limits established by this section.
(2) The compensation for representation shall not exceed the following:
(a) For misdemeanors and juveniles represented at the trial level: $1,000.
(b) For noncapital, nonlife felonies represented at the trial level: $2,500.
(c) For life felonies represented at the trial level: $3,000.
(d) For capital cases represented at the trial level: $3,500.
(e) For representation on appeal: $2,000.
The Fourth District quashed the trial court's declaration of unconstitutionality and certified to this Court the following four questions:
I. [Is the statute] unconstitutional on its face as an interference with the inherent authority of the court to enter such orders as are necessary to carry out its constitutional authority?
II. If the answer to the first question is negative, could the statute be held unconstitutional as applied to exceptional circumstances or does the trial court have the inherent authority, in the alternative, to award a greater fee for trial and appeal than the statutory maximum in the extraordinary case?
III. If the answer to the second question is affirmative, should the trial court have awarded an attorney's fee above the statutory maximum for proceedings at the trial level, given the facts presented to it by trial counsel by his petition and testimony?
IV. If the answer to the second question is affirmative, should the trial court have awarded an attorney's fee above the statutory maximum for proceedings at the appellate level before the services were rendered and with the facts known to it at the time of the award?
We answer the first question in the negative and the remaining questions in the affirmative. While we cannot find the statute facially unconstitutional, as it is ordinarily well within the legislature's province to appropriate funds for public purposes and resolve questions of compensation, article III, section 12, Florida Constitution; State ex rel. Caldwell v. Lee, 27 So.2d 84 (Fla.1946); State v. Ruiz, 269 Ark. 331, 602 S.W.2d 625 (1980), we find that the statutory maximum fees, as inflexibly imposed in cases involving unusual or extraordinary circumstances, interfere with the defendant's sixth amendment right "to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." The statute, as applied to many of today's cases, provides for only token compensation. The availability of effective counsel is therefore called into question in those cases when it is needed most.
Although facially valid, we find the statute unconstitutional when applied in such a manner as to curtail the court's inherent power to ensure the adequate representation of the criminally accused. At that point, the statute loses its usefulness as a guide to trial judges in calculating compensation and becomes an oppressive limitation. As so interpreted, therefore, the statute impermissibly encroaches upon a sensitive area of judicial concern, and therefore violates article V, section 1, and article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. As eloquently expressed by Indiana's Supreme Court in Carlson v. State ex rel. Stodola, 247 Ind. 631, 633-34, 220 N.E.2d 532, 533-34 (1966):
The security of human rights and the safety of free institutions require freedom of action on the part of the court ... Our sense of justice tells us that a court is not free if it is under financial pressure, whether it be from a city council or other legislative body ... One who controls the purse strings can control how tightly those purse strings are drawn, and the very existence of a dependent.
More fundamentally, however, the provision as so construed interferes with the sixth amendment right to counsel. In interpreting applicable precedent and surveying the questions raised in the case, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is the defendant's right to effective representation rather than the attorney's right to fair compensation which is our focus. We find the two inextricably interlinked.
While in our decision of Metropolitan Dade County v. Bridges, 402 So.2d 411 (Fla.1981), the majority found the statute mandatory rather than directory in its fee limits and constitutional, each member of the Court expressed the conviction that such an interpretation, as applied in certain circumstances, would intrude upon sixth amendment rights. Even the majority noted that:
Unless it is demonstrated that the maximum amounts designated for representation in criminal cases by section 925.036 are so unreasonably insufficient as to make it impossible for the courts to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Williams, No. 430 CAP.
...In support of his argument, Appellant references a line of cases arising principally out of Florida, exemplified by Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1986). Appellant also highlights trial counsel's post-conviction testimony, in which he indicated that the $500 investigative fe......
-
Jenkins v. Allen
...J., concurring specially) (endorsing the position that inadequate compensation constitutes an improper taking); Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109, 1115 (Fla. 1986) (holding $3,500 compensation limit in capital trial violates separation of powers and effective assistance of counsel m......
-
Pruett v. State
...and unusual representation." White v. Board of Commissioners, 537 So.2d 1376, 1380 (Fla.1989) (quoting Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109, 1110 (Fla.1986), cert. denied Martin County Florida v. Makemson, 479 U.S. 1043, 107 S.Ct. 908, 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987)) 5 Criminal law itself is a ......
-
State v. Bacon
..."[W]e must focus upon the criminal defendant whose rights are often forgotten in the heat of this bitter dispute." Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109, 1113 (Fla.1986). The trial court engaged in an extensive analysis of the professional and ethical obligations of lawyers to honor cou......
-
Preliminary proceedings (bail and bond; attorney for defendant)
...consideration of the state’s financial situation. The court can consider only the factors in the statute and in Makemson v. Martin Co. , 491 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1986) and later cases. Still v. JAC, 82 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) A Nelson inquiry is not required where the defendant disagre......
-
The administrative process and constitutional principles.
...against other branches). (67) The Florida Bar v. Massfeller, 170 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1964). (68) See, e.g., Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1986) (attorney fee statute for representation of indigent criminal defendants); The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1980) (le......
-
Litigating the ghost of Gideon in Florida: separation of powers as a tool to achieve indigent defense reform.
...rather than withdraw from existing cases, if the acceptance of a new case will result in her workload becoming excessive."). (127.) 491 So. 2d 1109, 1112 (Fla. 1986). The court added: "[W]e must focus upon the criminal defendant whose rights are often forgotten in the heat of this bitter di......