MRS. STANLEY (JOYCE) GOLDBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTY OF DADE, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Mrs. Goldberg appealed a trial court's denial of attorneys' fees and expert witness fees for a forensic psychologist following her acquittal on criminal charges. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida law does not authorize recovery of private attorneys' fees in criminal cases and that expert jury selection fees are not taxable costs under the statute.
Private attorneys' fees cannot be awarded in criminal cases because Florida law provides no statutory or contractual authority for such awards. Expert fees for jury selection assistance are also not recoverable because they do not constitute taxable costs within the scope of statutory authority.
[1] Attorneys' fees are not recoverable by an acquitted or discharged defendant in a criminal case absent specific statutory or contractual authority.
[2] The recovery of attorneys' fees in criminal cases is not authorized by Florida Statute 939.06 (1977), which specifies recovery for court or ministerial office costs and f…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Though a private attorney is an officer of the court, it cannot be said that his fees are those of the court or that he maintains a ministerial office.”
Establishes the critical distinction preventing recovery of private attorneys' fees under the statute's language requiring 'costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office.'
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Goldberg was prosecuted on multiple indictments, ultimately resulting in dismissal of one charge and jury verdicts of not guilty on remaining cha…
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 Statutory Authority For Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Mrs. Stanley (Joyce) Goldberg, was one of several defendants prosecuted on a series of indictments which ultimately led to a dismissal of one charge and a jury verdict of “not guilty” as to the remaining charges. Pursuant to Florida Statute 939.-06 (1977), she filed for a certificate of payment of taxable costs and successfully obtained such a certificate for costs amounting to $4,213.17. Mrs. Goldberg brought this appeal challenging the trial court’s disallowance of attorneys’ fees as well as an expert fee for a forensic psychologist who assisted in the selection of the jury.
Mrs. Goldberg does not contend that attorneys’ fees should be ordered to an acquitted or discharged defendant in every criminal case, but she argues that the unusual circumstances in her case mandate the award of such fees because of her enduring the proceedings through three separate indictments, being removed from public office, and as a result of this prosecution, being unable to stand for reelection. She urges the court to use its inherent power, in the absence of statutory authority, to order expenditures deemed essential to the fair administration of justice. While we accept this as a sincere argument, we have no doubt that almost every acquitted or discharged defendant could appropriately identify his case as one of unusual circumstances by his personal analysis.
Without retracing the specific provisions of Article XVI, Section 9, Florida Constitution of 1885, as amended, and made statutory law by Article XII, Section 10 of the Constitution as revised in 1968, we simply state that the surviving provisions are now contained in Florida Statute 939.06 (1977), and a comparison of the language therein should be helpful. The Constitution of 1885 referred to defendants who were “insolvent or discharged” while the current statute refers to those “acquitted or discharged”. The Constitution referred to “legal costs and expenses” while the statute now specifies “costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office”. Though a private attorney is an officer of the court, it cannot be said that his fees are those of the court or that he maintains a ministerial office.
Consequently, and in accordance with prior decisions that the right to recover attorneys’ fees must be provided for by statute or contract, Dade County v. Strauss, 246 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Warren v. Capuano, 269 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), we find no authority for an award of private attorneys’ fees in a criminal case.
As to recovery of the expert fee for the forensic psychologist who assisted in the selection of the jury, we note that Florida Statute 939.06 (1977) refers to “taxablé costs” which have been defined as only those items reasonably within the scope of statutory authority. Holton v. State, 311 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Considering this definition in conjunction with Florida Statute 939.15 (1977) which provides that the county shall pay those costs allowed by law, we find no authority to tax such costs.
We find thát the trial court correctly denied attorneys’ fees and costs of a forensic psychologist who assisted in selection of the jury, and the order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Martinez, 483 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…uld only be awarded pursuant to section 939.06, which deals with the county’s responsibility for costs of an acquitted or discharged defendant. In that regard, we agree with the Third District Court of Appeal’s holding in Goldberg v. County of Dade, 378 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 389 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1980), that section 939.06 does not provide for an award of private attorney’s fees in a criminal case. We, accordingly, reverse. REVERSED. DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur. . In view of…
-
Short v. State of Fla. & Pasco Cnty., 579 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ins that the court did not abuse its discretion. Assuming that this issue is properly before this court, we find no abuse of discretion concerning any of these decisions. See Doran v. State, 296 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Goldberg v. Dade County, 378 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Holton v. State, 311 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). On November 21, 1990, this court announced decisions in Sawyer v. State, 570 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and Clark v. State, 570 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In those case…
-
Osceola Cnty. v. Otte, 530 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…pproved. The courts have limited the items which qualify as taxable costs under this statute. See, e.g., Hillsborough County v. Martinez, 483 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Hayes v. State, 387 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Goldberg v. Dade County, 378 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Doran v. State, 296 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Investigative fees and expenses are not taxable costs. See Benitez v. State, 350 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The trial court’s post-acquittal determination of indi-gency and o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bogle v. State, 246 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- George v. Warren, 269 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Holton v. State, 311 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)