amicus brief filed by florida capital resource center (terry lenamon) in fletcher v jac
TRANSCRIPT
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 1/22
1
IDENTITY AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF
AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA CAPITAL RESOURCE CENTER
Florida Capital Resource Center (“FCRC”) is a nonprofit organization
whose mission is to protect the constitutional rights of indigent capital defendants
by continuously working to improve the effectiveness of capital representation in
the State of Florida. To that end, FCRC provides free consultation, research,
advocacy, training, and other resources to capital defenders across the State.
The Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel for indigent capital
defendants is the cornerstone of FCRC’s mission, and FCRC recognizes that right
is dependent upon the reasonable and adequate compensation of court-appointed
attorneys. Though the cases at bar directly concern the compensation Petitioners
were awarded by the court below, FCRC’s interest is in preventing the far -reaching
and damaging implications an adverse decision for Petitioners will have on the
rights of other capital defendants, both within and beyond the Fourth Circuit.
FCRC supports Petitioners because the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel
must be fiercely guarded, particularly for those facing the ultimate sentence.
CONTEXT OF THE CASE
To assist the Court’s understanding and disposition of this case, Amicus
offers the following as the “context” in which the issues presented herein arose.
I. COMPENSATION FOR APPOINTED CONFLICT-COUNSEL
The right to counsel is a fundamental right provided for in both the United
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 2/22
2
States and Florida Constitutions. U.S. Const. amend.VI; Fla. Const. art. I, §16.
When a criminal defendant is found to be indigent, an attorney is appointed and
paid for by the State. Pursuant to section 27.5303, Florida Statutes (2012), when a
court determines that a conflict of interest exists such that neither the Office of the
Public Defender nor the Offices of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel
are available to represent the defendant, the court is required to appoint private
attorneys pursuant to the procedure provided in section 27.40, Florida Statutes
(2012). As with public defenders, Article V, section 14 of the Florida Constitution
provides that these private court-appointed attorneys (“conflict-counsel”) are to be
paid from State revenues. The agency charged with disbursing those payments is
the Justice Administrative Commission (“JAC”). Fla. Stat. §27.5304(1) (2012).
Section 27.5304, Florida Statutes (2012), provides the compensation scheme
for conflict-counsel, including a schedule of flat fees based on the class of offense:
1. For misdemeanors and juveniles represented at the trial level: $1,000.2. For noncapital, nonlife felonies represented at the trial level: $2,500.3. For life felonies represented at the trial level: $3,000.4. For capital cases represented at the trial level: $15,000. . . .5. For representation on appeal: $2,000.
Fla. Stat. §27.5304(5)(a). As noted in subsection (11), the Legislature intended
“that the flat fees prescribed . . . comprise the full and complete compensation for
private court-appointed counsel.” Fla. Stat. §27.5304(11). However, subsection
(12) provides the flat fees may be exceeded in cases that require “extraordinary and
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 3/22
3
unusual ef fort.” See Fla. Stat. §27.5304(12). Upon such a finding (by the circuit’s
chief judge (or designee)), the court may order compensation at a percentage above
the flat fee “to ensure the fees paid are not confiscatory under common law.” Id .
Should the chief judge determine that 200% of the flat fee would still be
confiscatory, the judge “shall order the amount of compensation using an hourly
rate not to exceed $75 per hour for a noncapital case and $100 per hour for a
capital case,” awarding only up to an amount deemed no longer confiscatory. Id .
II. THE RECENT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 27.5304
In the final days of the 2012 legislative session, the Florida Legislature
passed Senate Bill 1960. That bill, which became session law Chapter 2012-123,
amended section 27.5304(12) (2011), restructuring the funds from which
attorney’s fees beyond the flat rates are paid. Previously, conflict-counsel fees,
including those above the flat rates, were paid by the JAC from the Criminal
Conflict Appropriation Category in the General Appropriation Act, and last year
the Legislature appropriated $3 million to a special category specifically to cover
fees ordered in excess of the flat rates. See STATE OF FLA., 7120 BILL A NALYSIS
A ND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT, Senate Budget Committee, Reg. Sess., at 3
(2011). However, over the last several years, the costs of conflict-counsel have
exceeded the original appropriations and the Legislature has had to transfer funds
from other due process categories in the JAC and make supplemental
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 4/22
4
appropriations from unallocated general revenue to resolve projected deficits. Id .
The amended provisions of section 27.5304(12) (2012) are one of several
new mechanisms the legislature has devised in an attempt to reduce these costs.
Pursuant to newly amended section 27.5304(12)(f), the amount of attorney’s fees
ordered in excess of the flat rates “shall be paid by the Judicial Administrative
Commission in a special category designated for that purpose in the General
Appropriations Act.” Fla. Stat. §27.5304(12)(f)(2). Like last year, this special
category was allocated $3 million in the 2012 General Appropriations Act. Ch.
2012-118, at Line Item 828, Laws of Fla. However, and of particular import to the
controversy in this case, the newly amended section continues:
If, during the fiscal year, all funds designated for payment of the amount ordered by the court in excess of the flat fee arespent, the amount of payments in excess of the flat fee shall bemade from the due process funds, or other funds as necessary, appropriated to the state courts system in the GeneralAppropriations Act.
Fla. Stat. §27.5304(12)(f)(3) (emphasis added).
This amendment represents a significant policy shift. Whereas previously
the Legislature and the JAC bore the burden of funding all conflict-counsel
compensation, the amendment has effectively shifted some of that burden to the
judiciary. As reported in the Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement:
This change is aimed at encouraging the courts to take astronger role in governing the ordering of fees. If the courtsystem is answerable for some of the costs associated with
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 5/22
5
payments above the flat fee, judges may be less willing to order these fees.
STATE OF FLA., 1960 BILL A NALYSIS A ND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT, Senate
Budget Committee, Reg. Sess., at 3-4 (2012) (“1960 IMPACT STATEMENT”).1
Following the enactment of these amendments, the Office of the State
Courts Administrator (“OSCA”) and the Trial Court Budget Commission
(“TCBC”) projected the amount of funding needed to cover excess attorney fees
once the $3 million allocation is exhausted and devised a funding methodology
under which OSCA will administer a Statewide Conflict Counsel Payment Over
the Flat Fee Pool (“Pool”). (See App. 1, p. 4.) See also Trial Court Budget
Commission, Summary of the TCBC Decisions Made on August 11, 2012, at 12-13,
available at http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/funding/bin/tcbc/summaries/
TCBCRecommendationsFY13-14LBR.pdf. Excess fees associated with capital
and RICO cases will be paid from that Pool. While excess fees in all other cases
will also be paid from the Pool, each circuit has been given an “expenditure
allowance” for such other cases which requires a circuit to transfer funds from its
own budget into the Pool once its allowance is exceeded. (See App. 1, p. 4.) It is
unclear what would happen should a court award excess fees in a capital or RICO
case once the Pool is exhausted, though section 27.5304(12)(f) would still require
1 Amicus further notes that the $3 million appropriated to cover these fees is patently inadequate; the JAC estimated the total cost of excess fees for Fiscal Year 2011-12 to be $6,798,189. Id . at 2.
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 6/22
6
that those payments come from funds appropriated to the state courts system.
On October 12, 2012, Caroline C. Emery, Court Counsel for the Fourth
Judicial Circuit, issued a memorandum to all conflict-counsel on behalf of Chief
Judge Donald R. Moran, Jr. discussing attorney’s fees for conflict-counsel
(“Conflict-Counsel Memo,” attached as App. 1). The Conflict-Counsel Memo was
issued in response to the Criminal Conflict Attorney Payments Over the Flat Fee –
July & August 2012 Reports (“OSCA Reports”) created by the OSCA and
notifying Chief Judge Moran that two months into the fiscal year, his Circuit had
already exhausted 25% of its expenditure allowance. (See App. 1, p. 4-7.)
On October 30, 2012, Chief Judge Moran entered the two Orders on which
Petitioners now seek review. (See App. 2 (“Fletcher Order”); App. 3 (“Schlax
Order”) (together, the “Orders”).) The Conflict-Counsel Memo (with OSCA
Reports) was attached to the Orders, which significantly reduced Petitioners’
attorney’s fees, referencing the Conflict-Counsel Memo as justification.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The Petitions for Writ of Certiorari should be granted because the Orders
below constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law. Petitioners’
fee reductions are based on an unconstitutional application of statutory law that
violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
Furthermore, the resulting Orders should be quashed because they are
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 7/22
7
confiscatory of Petitioners’ “time, energy and talents,” and if allowed to stand will
have a severe “chilling effect” on competent private attorneys’ willingness to
accept capital representation of indigent defendants.
ARGUMENT
I. THE ORDERS BELOW SHOULD BE QUASHED BECAUSE THEY
RELY ON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION OF
STATUTORY LAW THAT VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
UNDER THE UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONS.
The right to the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right founded in both
the United States and Florida constitutions. U.S. Const. amend.VI; Fla. Const. art.
I, §16. It was secured for all within our justice system when the Supreme Court
held that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments obligated the states to provide
representation to indigent defendants, Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335 (1963),
and it was subsequently reinforced when the Court clarified that the Sixth
Amendment guarantee is not just to assistance of counsel, but to the effective
assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Though fundamentally important in all criminal prosecutions, courts must be
most vigilant in protecting the right to effective counsel in the capital context. The
“qualitative difference of death from all other punishments” means that capital
proceedings demand a higher degree of reliability under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 329 (1985). Unfortunately,
higher reliability carries with it a higher cost to the State.
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 8/22
8
The Legislature has tried to reduce those costs by instituting statutory fee
caps limiting attorney’s fees for conflict-counsel. In Makemson v. Martin County,
491 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (1986), the Florida Supreme Court held that while statutory
fee limitations are facially constitutional, they are “unconstitutional when applied
to cases involving extraordinary circumstances and unusual representation.” The
Court reasoned that given the time and effort required in such cases, the rigid
application of statutory fee caps would amount to mere “token compensation,”
confiscatory of the attorney’s “time, energy, and talents,” and that the “availability
of effective counsel [would] therefore [be] called into question in those cases when
it is needed most.” Id . at 1112-15. The Court held that a defendant’s right to
effective counsel and an appointed attorney’s right to reasonable compensation are
“inextricably interlinked,” and in “extraordinary and unusual cases,” an award of
fees beyond the statutory limitations is required to protect both. Id .
Moreover, the Makemson Court recognized that it is the independent
judiciary that is charged with placing a shield between a legislature that seeks to
cut costs and the individual who has a right to an effective defense. Though “it is
ordinarily well within the legislature’s province to appropriate funds for public
purposes and resolve questions of compensation,” the Court made clear that it is
within “the court’s inherent power to ensure the adequate representation of the
criminally accused” by ordering fees that exceed statutory limitations when
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 9/22
9
deemed necessary. Id . at 1112 (citations omitted).
As described in Rose v. Palm Beach County, 361 So. 2d 135, 137 (Fla. 1978)
(and subsequently cited in White v. Bd. of County Comm’ rs of Pinellas County,
537 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1989)):
The doctrine of inherent judicial power as it relates to the practice of compelling the expenditure of funds by theexecutive and legislative branches of government hasdeveloped as a way of responding to inaction or inadequateaction that amounts to a threat to the courts’ ability to make
effective their jurisdiction. The doctrine exists because it is
crucial to the survival of the judiciary as an independent,functioning and co-equal branch of government. Theinvocation of the doctrine is most compelling when the judicialfunction at issue is the safe-guarding of fundamental rights.
Therefore, a statute regulating attorney’s fees “is unconstitutional when applied in
such a manner that curtails the court’s inherent power to secure effective,
experienced counsel for the representation of indigent defendants.” White, 537 So.
2d at 1379. “At that point the statute impermissibly encroaches upon a sensitive
area of judicial concern and violates article V, section 1 [judicial power to courts],
and article II, section 3 [separation of powers] of the Florida Constitution.” Id.
The principles above have been repeatedly reaffirmed2, and in 2007, the
Legislature amended the compensation scheme for conflict-counsel, providing the
current procedure by which trial courts can award attorney fees in excess of the
2 See, e.g., Hagopian v. Justice Admin. Comm’n, 18 So. 3d 625, 638 (Fla. 2009); Florida Dept. of Fin. Servs. v. Freeman, 921 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 2006); Olive v.
Maas, 811 So.2d 644, 651-54 (Fla. 2002).
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 10/22
10
statute’s flat rates on those “rare occasions” an attorney is appointed to a case “that
requires extraordinary and unusual effort.” See Hagopian, 18 So. 3d at 628-29
(describing the amendments); see also White, 537 So. 2d at 1878 (holding all
capital cases are extraordinary and unusual). However, as outlined above,
section 27.5304(12)(f) (2011) was recently amended to include a new legislative
mechanism aimed at reducing the costs associated with conflict-counsel. See Fla.
Stat. §27.5304(12)(f) (2012). The amended statute provides that once the special
appropriation of funds for attorney fees in excess of the flat fee is exhausted, the
excess fees “shall be made from the due process funds, or other funds as necessary,
appropriated to the state courts system….” Id . (emphasis added).
This new provision violates the Sixth Amendment because it attempts, by
financial duress, to curtail “the court’s inherent power to secure effective,
experienced counsel for the representation of indigent defendants in capital cases.”
White, 537 So. 2d at 1379. As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Makemson, “In
order to safeguard the individual’s rights, it is our duty to firmly and
unhesitatingly resolve any conflicts between the treasury and fundamental
constitutional r ights in favor of the latter.” Makemson, 491 So. 2d at 1114
(emphasis added). However, newly amended section 27.5304(12)(f) creates a new
conflict between fundamental constitutional rights and the court’s capacity to
maintain its budget, and while the court’s duty remains the same, judges are all but
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 11/22
11
certain to “hesitate” before awarding attorney’s fees in excess of the statutory
limitations, as the duty to protect the individual’s rights now comes at the court’s
financial sacrifice. Indeed, that “hesitation” was precisely the intent of the
Legislature. See 1960 IMPACT STATEMENT (“If the court system is answerable for
some of the costs associated with payments above the flat fee, judges may be less
willing to order these fees.”).
Much to the detriment of the “individual’s rights,” it appears that the new
statutory provisions are achieving their legislative purpose. While finding that
Petitioners proved by competent and substantial evidence that their case required
“extraordinary and unusual efforts,” Chief Judge Moran still reduced drastically
their respective fee awards. (App. 2, pp. 2-3; App. 3, pp. 2-3.) Significantly, the
only justification for the fee reductions was a statement that the court found the
reduced awards to be “more appropriate, given the totality of the circumstances.
(See Exhibit ‘A.’).” (App. 2, p. 3; App. 3, p. 3.) Attached to each of Petitioner’s
Orders as “Exhibit A” was the Conflict-Counsel Memo. (See App. 1.)
As the Conflict-Counsel Memo indicates, in applying section 27.5304(12)(f)
in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Chief Judge Moran apparently felt compelled to
institute a policy in which “almost all” motions for excess fees will be summarily
denied, and “[i]f any motions are granted, the awards will have to be extremely
conservative.” (App. 1, p. 2) (emphasis in original). Reacting to the OSCA
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 12/22
12
Reports attached thereto (reporting that the Fourth Circuit had spent more than
25% of its expenditure allowance in the first two months of the fiscal year), the
Conflict-Counsel Memo makes clear that the Chief Judge’s primary concern is the
Circuit’s budget under newly amended section 27.5304(12)(f):
[O]nce we have spent all of the Fourth Judicial Circuit’s
expenditure allowance, the funds will be taken out of theCircuit’s budget, which will jeopardize essential programs,
services, resources, and personnel, which have alreadyexperienced severe downsizing and cuts due to the state of theeconomy. This Circuit (Duval, Nassau and Clay counties)
cannot afford any more cuts whatsoever.
(App. 1, pp. 1-2.) (emphasis in original).
Such a policy clearly violates the Sixth Amendment because it all but
guarantees that conflict-counsel will not receive reasonable compensation if
appointed to a capital (or otherwise complex) case, thereby calling into question
the availability of effective counsel. Makemson, 491 So. 2d at 1112. Moreover,
this policy is direct evidence that Chief Judge Moran’s application of section
27.5304(12)(f) unconstitutionally undermines the court’s inherent power to ensure
the effective representation of indigent capital defendants, compromising the
independence of the judiciary and violating the Sixth Amendment. See Fla. Const.
art. I, §16; art. II, §3; art. V, §1; see also Rose, 361 So. 2d at 137 (“[W]here the
fundamental rights of individuals are concerned, the judiciary may not abdicate its
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 13/22
13
responsibility and defer to legislative or administrative arrangements.”).3
As the Orders under review are a product of this policy, which itself is based
on the unconstitutional application of newly amended section 27.5304, the Orders
constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law. Further, citing
budgetary concerns to justify the reduction of fees not only means the court
considered criteria beyond the scope of the statute, see Fla. Stat. §27.5304(12), but
also violates the separation-of-powers doctrine. See Still v. Justice Admin.
Comm’n, 82 So. 3d 1168, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[M]atters of appropriation
and adequacy of state funds are legislative functions and not judicial. It would be a
violation of the separation of powers doctrine for trial courts to address whether
adequate state funding is available to discharge a statutory provision authorizing
payment of attorney’s fees, such as here.”); Art. II, §3, Fla. Const.4
II. THE ORDERS BELOW SHOULD BE QUASHED BECAUSE THEY
ARE CONFISCATORY OF PETITIONERS’ “TIME, ENERGY, AND
TALENTS,” AND ALLOWING THEM TO STAND WILL HAVE A
3 Amicus makes special note that it appreciates the difficult and unfair position inwhich the Legislature has placed Chief Judge Moran (and those of other circuits).However, Amicus also submits that the Fourth Circuit’s new policy is just as likely
to increase the Circuit’s actual defense expenditures due to the increase in valid
post-conviction claims sure to follow. “When counsel in a capital case falls below
the threshold of effectiveness . . . [a] tremendous waste result[s as] the entire judicial process must be repeated,” increasing the costs charged to the State.
Sheppard & White, P.A. v. City of Jacksonville, 827 So. 2d 925, 932 (Fla. 2002).4 See also State v. Martin, Case No. F11-003648, Order Granting In Part AndDenying In Part Defendant’s Motion To Declare Section 27.5304 Florida Statutes(2012) Unconstitutional (11th Jud. Cir. Oct. 25, 2012) (striking down statute
because courts’ re-appropriation of funds would also violate separation of powers).
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 14/22
14
SEVERE CHILLING EFFECT ON ATTORNEYS’ WILLINGNESS TO
REPRESENT INDIGENT CAPITAL DEFENDANTS.
In Makemson, the Florida Supreme Court held that in extraordinary and
unusual cases, courts have the power to deviate from statutory caps so conflict-
counsel “is not compensated in an amount which is confiscatory of his or her time,
energy, and talents.” 491 So. 2d at 1115. Just three years later, the Court expanded
that holding, ruling “all capital cases by their very nature can be considered
extraordinary and unusual.” White, 537 So. 2d at 1378 (emphasis added).
The finding in White recognizes – as courts long have – that death is
different. See, e.g., Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976); Walker v.
State, 707 So. 2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997). As mentioned above, the finality of the
punishment requires a higher degree of reliability. Caldwell , 472 U.S. at 329. But
death is different not just in punishment; it requires is a different kind of
proceeding and a different kind of representation.
A capital trial is bifurcated into two separate phases; the guilt/innocence
phase, and, if a defendant is convicted of first-degree murder, a second “penalty
phase” in which additional evidence is presented before a jury to consider the death
penalty. See Fla. Stat. §921.141 (2012). Thus, in a capital proceeding, “counsel is
actually representing the defendant in not one but two separate trials,” White, 537
So. 2d at 1380, and moreover, must provide effective representation in both.
Given their unique and complex nature, providing effective representation to
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 15/22
15
a client facing the death penalty requires an experienced attorney who possesses
“large measures of intellect, skill, character, creativity, and emotional stability.”
Sheppard & White, P.A., 827 So. 2d at 932. And given the added responsibilities
involved in a capital trial, it has become common practice for trial courts in Florida
to appoint two attorneys to represent each capital defendant. Consistent with the
elevated degree of reliability required in capital proceedings, the Florida Supreme
Court has promulgated elevated “standards – above the mere holding of a license
to practice law – which attorneys in capital cases are required to meet.” Sheppard
& White, P.A., 827 So. 2d at 932 citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.112 (requiring significant
experience and specialized knowledge of experts, forensic evidence, and capital
proceedings before an attorney is eligible for capital representation).
Courts also look to the American Bar Association (ABA) standards as
guides when determining what is reasonable or whether an attorney provided
effective assistance, including the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and
Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (2003) (“ABA Guidelines”). See,
e.g., Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 524 (2003) (citing ABA Guideline 11.4.1(C),
11.8.6 (1989)) (failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence deemed
ineffective assistance); Walker v. State, 88 So. 3d 128 (Fla. 2012) (“This Court has
also specifically noted that both Wiggins and the ABA Guidelines . . . §10.11 on
counsel’s duties mandate mitigation investigation and preparation, even if client
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 16/22
16
objects.”) (citations omitted); see also Criminal Specialists Investigation, Inc. v.
State, 58 So. 3d 883, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing ABA Guideline 4.1)
(recognizing mitigation specialist under Florida law as an “indispensable member
of the defense team throughout all capital proceedings”).
The above standards and cases not only demonstrate the higher level of
representation required in the capital context, but also touch on the greatly
expanded duties and responsibilities of a capital defense attorney. As noted in
Hagopian, “the typical [death penalty] case can be active for several months, if
not years, and routinely consume hundreds of hours of professional time,” 18
So. 3d at 629 (emphasis added), and it is for that reason that the White Court was
“hard pressed to find any capital case in which the circumstances would not
warrant an award of attorney’s fees in excess of the statutory fee cap.” 537 So. 2d
1397. As troubling as that reality may be for a legislature attempting to cut costs,
“[so long as] the State of Florida enforces the death penalty, its primary obligation
is to ensure that indigents are provided competent, effective counsel in capital
cases,” and that means the State must provide reasonable compensation. Id .
Though clear from the cases above that courts have generally agreed the
statutory flat fees are unreasonably low5, it should not be overlooked that courts
5 Amicus points out that with the exception of the rate for capital cases, flat fees in place today are the same as those the White Court in 1989 concluded were, “in this
day and age, unrealistic.” White, 537 So. 2d at 1379 (emphasis added).
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 17/22
17
have also taken issue with the adequacy of hourly rates. See, e.g., Sheppard &
White, P.A., 827 So. 2d at 933:
We have recently concluded that appointed counsel in capitalcases must meet high standards and it seems unrealistic toexpect that qualified counsel will be available if a reasonablefee structure having a basis in prevailing hourly rates for thecommunity is not utilized to determine a reasonable fee in suchcases.
Section 27.5304(5)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (2012) provides a flat fee of
$15,000 for private court-appointed counsel in a capital case. At the applicable
hourly rate of $100 per hour 6, Fla. Stat. §27.5304(12), that amounts to just 150
hours of attorney time in cases that typically last “several months, if not years,
and routinely consume hundreds of hours of [attorney] time .” Hagopian, 18
So. 3d at 629 (emphasis added) (noting that the $100 hourly rate for capital cases is
“substantially below market rates for similar services.”);7 Cf. Tyson v. Astrue, No.
8:11-CV-1991-T-TGW, 2012 WL 2917974, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2012)
(noting hourly rate for appointed counsel in federal capital case is $178); ABA
6 While the statute allows an hourly rate “not to exceed . . . $100 per hour for acapital case,” courts generally view that limitation as the applicable rate, accepting
that anything less is confiscatory. See Justice Admin. Comm’n v. Lenamon, 19 So.3d 1158, 1162 (2009) (“[I]n a capital case…, the applicable hourly rate payable to
ensure that the total fees paid are not confiscatory is $100.”) (emphasis added). 7 See The Florida Bar, Results of the 2010 Economic and Law Office Management
Survey, at 8 (Feb. 2011) (finding 87% of Florida Attorneys report average billingrate of $150 or higher; only 4% report a rate of $125 or less), available athttps://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/926DF1F161CEFBA08525783B006F7541/$FILE/2010%20Economics%20Survey%20-
%20Final.pdf?OpenElement.
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 18/22
18
Guideline 9.1 (specifically rejecting flat fees and caps on compensation in death
penalty cases, instead requiring counsel be fully compensated at hourly rate
commensurate with jurisdiction’s prevailing rates for similar services).
Petitioners expended “extraordinary and unusual efforts” in the zealous
defense of their client only to have their fees substantially reduced over concern for
the court’s budget. Even though the JAC apparently conceded to the
reasonableness of Petitioners’ proposed fees, ( see App. 4, p.2, ¶5; App. 5, p. 2, ¶6),
Mr. Fletcher’s fees for 627.5 hours were reduced from $62,750 to $35,000 (App. 2,
pp. 1-3), and Ms. Schlax’s fees for 236.7 hours were reduced from $23,670 to
$17,000 (App. 3, pp. 1-2), amounting to hourly rates of $55.77 and $71.82,
respectively. Though Petitioners may not be entitled to “market value”
compensation, they are entitled to “reasonable compensation.” See Makemson,
491 So. 2d at 1113 (“Token compensation is no longer to be an alternative.”).
Such a reduction in fees – below even the statutory hourly rate – in the name of
preserving the court’s resources can only be described as confiscatory of
Petitioners’ “time, energy, and talents,” and “forces [them] . . . to bear a burden
which is properly the state’s.” Id . at 1114.
When an attorney is called upon by the state to represent anindigent defendant in a criminal case, not only is the attorneyexpected to provide legal services as part of his or her
professional ethical obligation, but the state, as part of its
constitutional obligation, must reasonably compensate the
attorney for those services.
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 19/22
19
Id . at 1112 (emphasis added).
The Fourth Circuit’s new policy, evidenced by the Conflict-Counsel Memo
and resulting Orders now under review, is the antithesis of this obligation.
Allowing these Orders to stand will significantly threaten the ability of attorneys to
render effective representation in capital proceedings by creating a real uncertainty
as to whether they will be reasonably compensated. As explained in Olive v.
Maas, 811 So. 2d 644, 653 (2002) (citing White, 537 So. 2d at 1380):
The relationship between an attorney’s compensation and the
quality of his or her representation cannot be ignored. It may be difficult for an attorney to disregard that he or she may not be reasonably compensated for the legal services provided . . . .As a result, there is a risk that the attorney may spend fewer hours than required representing the defendant or may
prematurely accept a negotiated plea that is not in the bestinterests of the defendant. A spectre is then raised that thedefendant received less than the adequate, effectiverepresentation to which he or she is entitled, the very injusticeappointed counsel was intended to remedy.
Moreover, that same uncertainty is likely to have a severe “chilling effect”
on attorneys’ willingness to undertake capital representation because “(1) It creates
an economic disincentive for appointed counsel to spend more than a minimum
amount of time on a case; and (2) It discourages competent attorneys from
agreeing to a court appointment, thereby diminishing the pool of experienced talent
available to the trial court.” Id. Thus, allowing the Orders to stand would have a
much greater impact than just that on Petitioners; other talented attorneys will
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 20/22
20
become reluctant to register for court-appointment, and those who do will be
representing capital defendants under a cloud of uncertainty regarding
compensation, compromising their ability to provide the high standard of effective
counsel required in capital proceedings. See Freeman, 921 So. 2d at 604 (Pariente,
C.J., specially concurring) (“[T]he credibility of our death penalty system depends
in large part on the quality of the attorneys who undertake the representation.”).
CONCLUSION
Because the Orders below are based on an unconstitutional application of
law that violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel, are confiscatory
of Petitioners’ time, energy, and talents, and will have a severe chilling effect on
competent attorneys’ willingness to accept capital representation of indigent
defendants, this Court should grant the Petitions for Writ of Certiorari.
Respectfully Submitted,
BY: /s/ Stuart L. Hartstone
STUART L. HARTSTONE, ESQ. TERENCE M. LENAMON, ESQ.Assistant Executive Director Chairman, Board of DirectorsFla. Bar No. 87934 Fla. Bar No. 970476100 N. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3070 100 N. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3070Miami, FL 33132 Miami, Florida 33132
(305)373-9911 (305) 373-9911Stuart.Hartstone@ [email protected]
floridacapitalresourcecenter.org
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Florida Capital Resource Center
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 21/22
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. mail to the Honorable Donald Moran, Jr., Chief Judge, 4thJudicial Circuit, 501West Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, and viacertified email to the following counsel this 17th Day of December, 2012:
Ana Cristina Martinez, Esq.General CounselJustice Administrative CommissionP.O. Box 1654
Tallahassee, Florida 32302 [email protected] for Respondent
Christian Lake, Esq.Assistant General CounselJustice Administrative CommissionP.O. Box 1654Tallahassee, Florida [email protected] for Respondent
Rick A. Sichta, Esq.Arnold & Sichta6279 Dupont Station CourtJacksonville, Florida [email protected] for Petitioners
s/Stuart L. Hartstone, Esq.Fla. Bar No. 87934
7/28/2019 Amicus Brief filed by Florida Capital Resource Center (Terry Lenamon) in Fletcher v JAC
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amicus-brief-filed-by-florida-capital-resource-center-terry-lenamon-in-fletcher 22/22
22
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I HEREBY CERTIFY, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.210(a)(2), that this Brief complies with the Rule’s type-font requirements, in that
it was prepared in Times New Roman, 14-point font.
s/ Stuart L. Hartstone, Esq.Fla. Bar No. 87934