McClain v. Atwater

110 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2013) · Supreme Court of Florida · March 21, 2013

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court held that extraordinary or unusual circumstances justified exceeding the statutory cap on investigative fees in a capital postconviction proceeding. The court concluded that the lower court improperly focused on whether the case was an ordinary capital case instead of applying an as-applied analysis addressing the defendant’s right to effective representation and whether the statutory cap would be confiscatory. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant reimbursement for the additional investigative fees.

Holdings

  1. A trial court may authorize payment of investigative fees above the statutory cap when extraordinary or unusual circumstances exist and the excess compensation is reasonable and necessary to provide effective representation.
  2. The trial court erred by summarily finding the case ordinary and failing to evaluate the particular investigative work, its necessity, and whether enforcing the statutory cap would be confiscatory.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the capital postconviction proceeding presented extraordinary or unusual circumstances permitting reimbursement of investigative fees above the statutory cap in section 27.711, Florida Statutes.
  2. Whether the trial court improperly denied excess investigative fees by characterizing the case as an ordinary capital postconviction case instead of applying an as-applied analysis focused on the defendant's right to effective representation and whether the statutory cap would be confiscatory.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (10)

  • Moore v. State, 701 So. 2d 545, 547 (Fla. 1997)(followed)
  • Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199, 202 (Fla. 2002)(followed)
  • Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So. 2d 1109, 1114-15 (Fla. 1986)(followed)
  • Olive v. Maas, 811 So. 2d 644, 653-54 (Fla. 2002)(followed)
  • Maas v. Olive, 992 So. 2d 196, 204 (Fla. 2008)(followed)
  • White v. Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, 537 So. 2d 1376, 1378, 1380 (Fla. 1989)(followed)
  • Bosem v. Musa Holdings, Inc., 46 So. 3d 42, 44 (Fla. 2010)(followed)
  • Freeman v. Florida Department of Financial Services, 921 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 2006)(followed)
  • Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Freeman, 921 So. 2d 598, 598 (Fla. 2006)(followed)
  • Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)(mentioned)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…