State ex rel. Martin v. Corrigan, 85-1615
| Decision Date | 09 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1615,85-1615 |
| Citation | 494 N.E.2d 1128,25 OBR 24,25 Ohio St.3d 29 |
| Parties | , 25 O.B.R. 24 The STATE, ex rel. MARTIN, Appellant, v. CORRIGAN, Judge, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
John H. Carson, Jr., Cleveland, for appellant.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Michael Pokorny, Cleveland, for appellees John E. Corrigan, Timothy McCormack and Francis G. Gaul.
The sole question before this court is whether an attorney appointed by the court to represent an indigent defendant, who performs legal services for that defendant but is later removed by the court from the case, has a clear legal right to attorney fees. For the following reasons we find that appellant has effectively demonstrated his right to a writ of mandamus compelling payment of attorney fees in this case.
R.C. 2941.51 which governs payment of assigned counsel stated in pertinent part:
Part II(B) of Loc.R. 33 of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, General Division, is consistent with this statute and provides: (Emphasis added.)
In the recent case of State ex rel. Wood v. Christiansen (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 27, 470 N.E.2d 895, this court held a local rule establishing a thirty-day time limitation for filing attorney fee applications unreasonable in light of the "statutory right (R.C. 2941.51) of assigned counsel to be paid." The Wood court stated at 28, 470 N.E.2d 895 that:
"While R.C. 2941.51 requires payment for services to assigned counsel, division (A) thereof affords discretion to the trial court by limiting such payment to 'such compensation and expenses as the trial court may approve.' "
The facts in Wood are distinguishable from the facts in the instant case as the assigned counsel in Wood was not removed by the trial court before completion of the trial. However, the above-quoted language suggests that counsel assigned to a case has a right to be paid for his work, and that the trial judge's discretion is limited to determining the amount of such payment.
In the instant case appellant has attached to his brief a transcript of the in-chambers meeting that led to his dismissal. While it is perhaps debatable whether appellant's behavior warranted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Luff
...The determination of appropriate attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court. State ex rel. Martin v. Corrigan (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 29, 30, 25 OBR 24, 494 N.E.2d 1128, 1129. In their first assignment of error, counsel contends that the court abused its discretion in its award......
-
State ex rel. Mackey v. Blackwell, 2004 Ohio 7004 (OH 12/22/2004)
...how discretion is exercised." State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 591 N.E.2d 1186, citing State ex rel. Martin v. Corrigan (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 29, 494 N.E.2d 1128. Nevertheless, discretionary actions of a board of elections or of the Secretary of State are subject to jud......
-
State ex rel. Botkins v. Laws, 92-2144
...legal duty to do so. State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 591 N.E.2d 1186, 1189; State ex rel. Martin v. Corrigan (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 29, 25 OBR 24, 494 N.E.2d 1128. Respondents refused relator's and Evans' requests for additional compensation because it felt that it h......
-
State, ex rel. Hodges, v. Taft
...but it can be issued to compel him to exercise it when he has a clear legal duty to do so. See State, ex rel. Martin, v. Corrigan (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 29, 25 OBR 24, 494 N.E.2d 1128. Where a petition filed in this court or in the court of appeals is in the form of a proceeding in mandamus ......