Wakulla County v. Davis

• Decision Date: 05 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 58421,58421
• Parties: WAKULLA COUNTY, Appellant, v. Clifford L. DAVIS, and Philip J. Padovano, Appellees.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 540

395 So.2d 540

WAKULLA COUNTY, Appellant, v. Clifford L. DAVIS, and Philip J. Padovano, Appellees.

No. 58421.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 5, 1981.

Ronald L. Baker, County Atty. and Joseph S. Geller, Crawfordville, for appellant.

Clifford Davis and Philip J. Padovano, in pro. per.

Michael Egan of Roberts & Egan, for State Ass'n of County Com'rs of Florida, Inc., Tallahassee, amicus curiae.

Steven L. Seliger of Gen. Counsel, Quincy, for Florida Clearinghouse on Criminal Justice, Inc., amicus curiae.

Howard B. Eisenberg, Richard J. Wilson, Malcolm Young and Jack J. Schmerling, Washington, D. C., Nat. Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n, amicus curiae.

H. Clyde Hobby of McClain & Hobby, for Pasco County Bar Ass'n, Dade City, amicus curiae.

ADKINS, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order entered by the Circuit Court of Wakulla County specifically passing upon the constitutionality of section 925.036, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.

Appellees Clifford Davis and Philip Padovano were appointed Special Assistant Public Defenders to represent Johnny Copeland and Frank Smith, respectively. Both defendants were charged with first-degree murder, robbery with a firearm, kidnapping and involuntary sexual battery. Following the convictions of Copeland and Smith, each appellee filed a motion for costs and attorneys fees; Davis requesting $5,891.84, and Padovano requesting $7,372.00. Fees were computed by applying court-adopted hourly compensation rates to the time spent on the cases. Appellant Wakulla County opposed the award of fees computed in this manner to the extent that the fees exceeded the $2,500 cap allegedly imposed by section 925.036, Florida Statutes, for capital cases represented at the trial level. Appellee Padovano asserted that the maximum fees payable to appointed counsel under section 925.036 can be "stacked" in cases involving multiple counts; yielding an $8,500 maximum in his case (three life felonies at $2,000 each plus one capital case at $2,500). Appellee Davis adopted this "stacking" theory and alternatively asserted that section 925.036 is unconstitutional as applied in his situation and on its face. In its order of compensation the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Wakulla County awarded the appellees the requested compensation and construed section 925.036 to allow "stacking" of the statutory fee maximums. Additionally, the court found the statute unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the appellees.

In interpreting section 925.036, Florida Statutes, to allow stacking, the trial court stated:

It is expressly interpreted by this Court that when the State elects to file more than one count in an indictment or information the Statute provides for a cumulative maximum fee comprised of the sum of the maximum fees for each count. To interpret otherwise could lead to an unfair result of an attorney having to represent a client on numerous cases within one proceeding and only be entitled to a maximum mandated by the most serious crime charged.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm those parts of the trial court's decision holding that the fee limits of section 925.036, Florida Statutes, may be stacked and awarding the appellees the requested compensation.

Section 925.036, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

Appointed counsel; compensation. 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. Such attorney shall be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred, including the costs of transcripts authorized by the court. The compensation for representation shall not exceed the following per case per defendant:

(1) For misdemeanors and juveniles represented at the trial level: $500.

(2) For noncapital, nonlife felonies represented at the trial level: $1,500.

(3) For life felonies represented at the trial level: $2,000.

(4) For capital cases represented at the trial level: $2,500.

(5) For representation on appeal: $1,000.

The statute itself does not indicate whether stacking is to be allowed. It simply provides that compensation for representation in various types of cases is not to exceed the limits established "per case per defendant." The wording of the statute leaves it open to either of two interpretations; that "per case" allows the attorney compensation for each charged offense on which he represented the defendant, or, that "per case" limits the attorney to the maximum fee allowed for the most serious charge on which he defended his client, regardless of the number of offenses joined for trial. Because of this ambiguity, we must apply the rules of statutory construction to determine whether fees may be stacked. "In statutory construction legislative intent is the pole star by which we must be guided, and this intent must be given effect even though it may appear to contradict the strict letter of the statute and well-settled canons of construction." State v. Sullivan, 95 Fla. 191, 207, 116 So. 255, 261 (1928). In determining our pole star, legislative intent, we are not to analyze the statute in question by itself, as if in a vacuum; we must also account for other variables. Thus, it is an accepted maxim of statutory construction that a law should be construed together and in harmony with any other statute relating to the same purpose, even though the statutes were not enacted at the same time. Garner v. Ward, 251 So.2d 252 (Fla.1971). We have in this case, another section within the same statute which must be harmonized with section 925.036, Florida Statutes.

Section 925.035, Florida Statutes (1977), provides:

If the court determines that the defendant in a capital case is insolvent and desires counsel, it shall appoint an attorney to represent the defendant. If the court appoints an attorney other than the public defender, the attorney shall be allowed reasonable compensation for representing the defendant, as determined by the court.

(Emphasis supplied.) The potential for conflict between the two sections is evident. One sets limits on the fees which may be awarded, while the other requires reasonable compensation. In establishing limits on the fees which can be paid court-appointed attorneys per case per defendant, the legislature clearly intended to limit the burden which such representation places on public treasuries and to provide guidelines for courts to follow. Conceivably, in the absence of any kind of limitation on fees, a small county with limited resources could be placed in serious financial difficulties. Section 925.036, Florida Statutes, was intended to decrease the likelihood of such an occurrence.

Section 925.035, Florida Statutes, on the other hand, seeks to insure that counsel is made available to those charged with a capital offense who otherwise could not afford to hire an attorney and that the attorney appointed is reasonably compensated for his services. The conflict between sections 925.035 and 925.036 arises when "reasonable compensation" exceeds the limits imposed by section 925.036.

If chapter 925, Florida Statutes, is construed to prohibit stacking of fees and the appellees here are limited to a fee not to exceed $2,500, neither will receive the "reasonable compensation" required by section 925.035, Florida Statutes, for their services as court-appointed counsel. Thus, such an interpretation conflicts with the provisions of section 925.035. Alternatively, section 925.036 may be interpreted to allow stacking. If it is so construed, the appellees can be awarded the amount established by the trial court as reasonable compensation for their services, and yet still be within the limits of section 925.036. There would be no conflict with the provisions of any section of the statute.

Clearly, given the choice, the proper interpretation of this statute is the one permitting stacking. "(C)ourts, in construing a statute, must, if possible, avoid such construction as will place a particular statute in conflict with other apparently effective statutes covering the same general field." Howarth v. City of DeLand, 117 Fla. 692, 701, 158 So. 294, 298 (1934). "(W)here two statutes operate on the same subject without positive inconsistency or repugnancy, courts must construe them so as to preserve the force of both without destroying their evident intent, if possible." Mann v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 300 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1974). By construing chapter 925 to allow stacking, a potential conflict between two sections thereof will be avoided and any inconsistency will be resolved. Any...