United States v. Joachin, CASE NO. 10-60097-CR-UNGARO/TORRES
| Decision Date | 28 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 10-60097-CR-UNGARO/TORRES |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v . ANSON JOACHIN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
On or about March 29, 2011, court-appointed defense counsel Terence Lenamon ("Counsel") submitted a voucher application numbered FLS 10 3338 requesting $87,562.50 as final payment for attorney's fees pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act ("CJA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. [D.E. 49].1 Counsel also provided a letter entitled "Overview of Complex Case" ("Letter Overview") in which he outlined the nature of the case and his representation of Defendant Anson Joachin ("Defendant") to support his claim for compensation in excess of the CJA statutory maximum. In addition, Counsel filed a Supplemental Information Statement and time sheets to document the work performed in the case. [D.E. 206-1 ("Supplement")].
On September 1, 2011, we held a hearing on the voucher application. Counsel described the work performed in the case and provided additional documentation to support his voucher application. Based on our review of the voucher application, the supplemental materials, Counsel's explanations, and our review of the case as a whole, we hereby recommend that Counsel be awarded a total amount of $67,306.50 as fair compensation for representing Defendant in this case.
The CJA authorizes the appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants charged with federal offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. At the conclusion of a CJA representation, the court shall compensate the appointed attorney for "time expended in court," "time reasonably expended out of court," and "expenses reasonably incurred." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1). The district court, as the body empowered to "fix" CJA-appointed counsel's compensation, has the statutory authority and discretion to determine what is a reasonable expense or a reasonable use of billable time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(5); United States v. Rodriguez, 833 F.2d 1536, 1537-38 (11th Cir. 1987). Compensation is capped at $9,700.00, see Guidelines § 230.23.20(a), but a court may award a fee in excess of that amount by certifying that the case involved "extended or complex representation" and that the excess amount is "necessary toprovide fair compensation" to appointed counsel. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3006A(d)(2) & (3); Guidelines §§ 230.23.40(b) & (c).
A case may be considered "complex" if the legal or factual issues in a case are unusual, thus requiring the expenditure of more time, skill and effort by the lawyer than would normally be required in an average case. See Guidelines § 230.23.40(b). A case may be considered "extended" if more time is reasonably required for total processing than the average case, including pre-trial and post-trial hearings. Id.
In order to approve compensation in excess of the case compensation maximum, we first must find that the representation was either complex or extended. We find this case was complex for the reasons set forth below.
First, the very nature and number of charges involved in this case required Counsel to expend more time, skill, and effort than normally required in an average case.
The case commenced on March 25, 2010 when the grand jury returned a ten-count Indictment against Defendant and three other individuals for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and false statements. [D.E. 3]. Defendant, the lead defendant in the case, was charged with nine counts including conspiracy. Thereafter the Indictment was superceded twice, on April 22, 2010 [D.E. 10] and again on July 29, 2010 [D.E. 65]. The Second Superceding Indictment included one additional defendant and added three charges against Defendant.
The government alleged that the co-defendants in this case were involved in a mortgage fraud conspiracy scheme to unlawfully enrich themselves by (a) recruiting straw buyers to purchase residential properties throughout the State of Florida and (b) submitting false and fraudulent mortgage loan applications and related documents to lending institutions, thereby inducing the lending institutions to make mortgage loans to the straw buyers for the purchase of the residential properties. According to the government, Defendant identified residential properties in the state for purchase; recruited straw buyers who lent their identities and credit histories for money to further the fraudulent purchase of the identified properties; used the names of the straw buyers on fraudulent mortgage applications even though Defendant knew the alleged borrowers had no financial interest or intent to be the true borrowers/owners or occupants of the properties; and submitted the false and fraudulent mortgage applications to various mortgage lenders in order to fraudulently procure mortgage financing for the straw buyers. The aggregate amount of the loans procured fraudulently by the co-defendants and others from the mortgage lenders was alleged to have exceeded $5,000,000.00.
Defendant individually was charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, five counts of mail fraud, and five counts of wire fraud. He faced a maximum sentence of twenty (20) years' imprisonment on each count. According to Counsel, the government considered Defendant the mastermind of the mortgage fraud conspiracy scheme.
Counsel was appointed to represent Defendant on May 26, 2010. [D.E. 16-17]. Regarding the complex nature of the case, Counsel opined that "this was not thenormal mortgage fraud case" in that there was no hard evidence of mortgage fraud by his client, i.e., it was a "paper crime, but without the defendant on any of the papers[.]" See Letter Overview. Several months before the scheduled trial date, the other four defendants in the case pled guilty. [D.E. 124]. Counsel explained that the government intended to prove its case against his client by "introduc[ing] a series of cooperating witnesses, all of whom had confessed to committing the fraud in question, who would point their fingers at [Defendant] as the mastermind behind all the fraud." See Letter Overview.
Counsel received 11 boxes of discovery containing over 35,000 documents. Id. He also obtained additional substantial documents and investigative reports on the cooperating witnesses. Id. The documents were dense, e.g., complex mortgages, titles, deeds, trusts, real estate documents, and bank records. See Supplement at 1. The documents were organized by property, so case preparation required tedious cross-referencing among the five co-conspirators and the properties involved in the fraud. Id. The co-conspirators used aliases and were listed under multiple business names, adding to the complexity of tracing the money and sales transactions. Id. Close scrutiny of the documents was necessary to determine signature similarities, initials, and email addresses. Id. Defendant's name did not appear on many if any of the documents, and each page had to be scanned closely as well as cross-referenced. Id.
Counsel stated it took months to read and understand the mortgage documents in question and the relevant law. See Letter Overview. The court even authorized Counsel to engage an expert in mortgage and real estate lending to assess theevidence, given the sophistication of the mortgage fraud conspiracy alleged. [D.E. 123, 126]. Literally days before the specially-set trial was to begin, the government "significantly sweetened the plea offer" by offering to recommend a sentence of 41 months' imprisonment if Defendant pled guilty to Counts I (conspiracy) and II (mail fraud). Subsequent negotiations led to a last-minute change of plea by Defendant on Friday, December 3, 2010 [D.E. 165] and averted trial that was scheduled to begin the following Monday, December 6, 2010. Id.
Second, this case was very document-intensive, and the documents themselves were quite complex. Counsel reviewed over 35,000 pages of discovery that consisted largely of mortgage papers and bank records that were sufficiently complex to warrant the hiring of a CJA-funded expert. The volume and complexity of the documents that Counsel had to review to effectively represent Defendant rendered this case more complex than the average case.
Although the case did not proceed to trial, it very nearly did. Counsel was prepared to defend against all eleven counts in the Superceding Indictment, each count carrying a penalty of up to twenty years in prison. Each of the co-defendants pled guilty based on plea agreements with the government, and the government intended to use these witnesses to finger Defendant as the mastermind of the scheme. Counsel even hired (at his own expense) a jury consultant to help prepare for what he believed was an imminent trial.
However, a few days before the scheduled trial date, a plea deal was struck. The government agreed to drop most of the charges and recommend a reduced prison sentence in exchange for Defendant's plea of guilty to one count each of conspiracy and mail fraud. After several hours of negotiating, Defendant accepted the offer and pled guilty on a Friday, three days before the Monday that trial was to begin.
It is clear from the record that the legal and factual issues in this case were unusual. Consequently, we conclude that this matter required the expenditure of more time, skill, and effort by Counsel than would normally be required in the average case.
Having concluded that the representation provided by Counsel was complex, we next determine what amount of fees in excess of the case compensation maximum will provide "fair compensation" to Counsel. See Guidelines § 230.23.40(c). We may consider criteria such as: the responsibilities involved...
To continue reading
Request your trial