ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
F.T. RATCHFORD AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Escambia County's petition for certiorari is granted because the trial court failed to apply the chief judge's administrative order fixing hourly rates for court-appointed counsel, requiring remand to recalculate fees from $20,202.60 to $9,798.60.
A trial court must apply the hourly rates fixed by the chief judge's administrative order when awarding attorney fees to court-appointed counsel, and failure to do so constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
[1] A trial court must apply the hourly rates established by the chief judge's administrative order when calculating attorney fees for court-appointed counsel, and deviation…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEscambia County challenged a trial court order awarding $20,202.60 in costs and attorney fees to court-appointed defender Ratchford, contending the co…
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 Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on Escambia County’s petition for writ of certiorari from the trial court’s order awarding $20,202.60 in costs and attorney fees to court-appointed defender Ratchford. See Jenkins v. Escambia County, 614 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (providing that the proper vehicle for challenging an order awarding attorney fees to court-appointed counsel is a petition for certiorari).
In granting the award, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by not applying the appropriate hourly rates fixed by administrative order of the chief judge for the First Judicial Circuit. § 925.036, Fla.Stat. (1993); Leon County v. McClure, 541 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (quashing as excessive and remanding fee award to court-appointed counsel in capital case, noting that administrative orders relating to fees for appointed counsel have been deemed controlling in other cases), rev. denied sub nom. Harper v. Leon County, 551 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1989).
Accordingly, we grant Escambia County’s petition and remand with directions that the trial court apply the set hourly rates fixed by the administrative order to award Ratchford $9,798.60 in costs and attorney fees. Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County v. Lopez, 518 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (granting petition for writ of certiorari and remanding with directions that the circuit court recalculate the court-appointed attorney fee based upon the hourly rate established by the chief judge of the circuit), rev. denied, 529 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1988).
PETITION GRANTED, REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
BOOTH, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monroe Cnty. v. Garcia, 695 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…n Makemson and White. Accordingly, we grant certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing. FLETCHER, J., concurs. .Certiorari is the appropriate avenue for review of this order. See Escambia County v. Ratchford, 650 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Weinstein v. Palm Beach County, 588 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Zelman v. Metropolitan Dade County, 586 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Metropolitan Dade County v. Gold, 509 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Dade County v. Gold…
-
Sheppard & White, P.A. v. The City OF Jacksonville, 751 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ambia County, 614 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In exercising our certiorari jurisdiction, our standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Escambia County v. Ratchford, 650 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also Kelly v. Tworoger, 705 So. 2d 670, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(Klein, J., specially concurring). In the instant case, petitioner urges this court to grant review and find that the trial court failed to apply the correc…1 / 2
-
Bobbitt v. State, 726 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…e counsel is entitled to receive additional payment reflecting an award of fees in excess of the regular hourly rate. This Court concludes that they are not so entitled. The controlling authority is found in the case of Escambia County v. Ratchford, 650 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and cases cited therein, as well as § 925.036, Florida Statutes (1993), and Administrative Order No. 87-31. In Ratchford, it was held the trial court had departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to apply the ho…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Hillsborough Cnty. v. Lopez, 518 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Jenkins v. Escambia Cnty., 614 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Leon Cnty. v. The Honorable Charles D. McCLURE, 541 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)