COUNTY OF SEMINOLE, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE TOM WADDELL, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE IN AND FOR THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, MARK P. RABINOWITZ AND W. J. HEFFERNAN, JR., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Seminole County challenged a trial court's award of $17,500 in attorney fees to public defenders representing a capital murder defendant, arguing that Florida Statute Section 925.036(4) mandatorily limited fees to $2,500 per capital case. The appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the fee award, holding that the statute imposed a mandatory cap with no exceptions for extraordinary cases or multiple representation.
The court held that Section 925.036(4) imposes a mandatory limitation of $2,500 per capital case per defendant, with no exceptions for extraordinary cases or multiple representation. The statute is clear and unequivocal, and the respondents' constitutional challenges do not present substantial grounds for review.
[1] A county has standing to seek certiorari review of a trial court's order awarding attorney fees.
[2] A statute setting a maximum fee for capital cases represented at the trial level is a mandatory limitation.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The compensation for representation shall not exceed the following per case per defendant: . . (4) For capital cases represented at the trial level: $2,500.”
Establishes the statutory cap on attorney fees at issue in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 2, 1978, the trial court appointed Rabinowitz and Heffernan to represent Terry Melvin Sims on a charge of first degree murder. At the concl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
On October 2, 1978, the trial court appointed the Respondents Rabinowitz and Heffernan to represent one Terry Melvin Sims on a charge of first degree murder. At the conclusion of their representation, the trial court awarded them a joint fee of $17,500.00, which Seminole County now challenges via certiorari review. The petitioner has standing to do so. MacKenzie v. Hillsborough County, 288 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1973); Dade County v. Strauss, 246 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
The petitioner contends that Section 925.-036(4), Florida Statutes, limits the maximum fee to respondents to $2,500.00. That statute provides: “The compensation for representation shall not exceed the following per case per defendant: . . (4) For capital cases represented at the trial level: $2,500.” This enactment became effective on October 1, 1978.
The respondents argue that the statute is directory and not mandatory; that the limitation does not apply to “extraordinary cases;” that the statute is an unconstitutional infringement on a court prerogative and the separate power of the judiciary, citing Rose v. Palm Beach County, 361 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1978); that the statute constitutes a deprivation of due process and is arbitrary and unreasonable; and that the statute violates Article X, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution.
In view of the action of the Florida Supreme Court in upholding the constitutionality of a $750.00 fee limit for capital cases in 1973 1, we view the respondents’ constitutional attack on Section 925.036 as merely colorable, rather than substantial, and therefore retain jurisdiction. See State v. Opitz, 357 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Simmons v. State, 354 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1978). Moreover, the trial judge in this case did not directly pass on the validity of the statute or construe the state or federal constitution in regard to this issue. See Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
The respondents argue, not without considerable persuasiveness, that the Rose case cannot be reconciled harmoniously with MacKenzie. Be that as it may, MacK-enzie dealt directly and explicitly with the issue which confronts us in the instant case, and it has not been overruled by the Florida Supreme Court. It is the province of that court, not ours, to recede from their 1973 opinion. We are not persuaded by the argument of respondents that Section 925.036 is directory only. Whatever its faults, the statute is clear and unequivocal. It is a mandatory limitation of $2,500.00 for representation per capital case per defendant, and it provides no exceptions for “extraordinary” cases or multiple representation.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order being reviewed is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to award respondents a joint fee that does not exceed $2,500.00 exclusive of costs.
UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . MacKenzie v. Hillsborough County, 288 So. 2d200 (Fla. 1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. Goldstein, 384 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…in this cause, it had neither the statutory authority, nor the inherent authority apart from any statute, to provide compensation for Mr. Sherman in the cause. MacKenzie v. Hillsborough County, 288 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1973); Seminole County v. Waddell, 382 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We fully recognize that Mr. Sherman as co-counsel herein may have expended a great deal of effort and time in the defense of a truly exhausting cause for which he is to be greatly commended. His services were rendered in the hi…1 / 2
-
Martin Cnty. v. Makemson, 464 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…of Florida. Metropolitan Dade County v. Bridges, 402 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1981). This court, applying the MacKenzie precedent, has upheld the constitutionality of the specific statutory limitation challenged by this appeal. County of Seminole v. Waddell, 382 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In Waddell the trial court had not directly passed upon the validity of the statutory limitation, but had held it to be directory rather than mandatory. We reversed on authority of MacKenzie and the clear wording of the statute…
-
Marion Cnty. v. DeBOISBLANC, 410 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…of Florida. Metropolitan Dade County v. Bridges, 402 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1981). This court, applying the MacKenzie precedent, has upheld the constitutionality of the specific statutory limitation challenged by this appeal. County of Seminole v. Waddell, 382 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In Waddell the trial court had not directly passed upon the validity of the statutory limitation, but had held it to be directory rather than mandatory. We reversed on authority of MacKenzie and the clear wording of the statute…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rose v. Palm Beach Cnty., 361 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1978)
- Bogle v. State, 246 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- MacKenzie v. Hillsborough Cnty., 288 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Opitz, 357 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. Dotson, 354 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1978)
- Simmons v. State, 354 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1978)