DANIEL R. MONACO AND NELSON A. FARBER, JR., PETITIONERS,
v.
THE HONORABLE HUGH D. HAYES, CIRCUIT JUDGE IN AND FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, 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.
Attorneys who withdraw from representing an indigent criminal defendant pretrial must request a portion of the statutory fee at the time of withdrawal, or risk waiving their right to it.
[1] Attorneys appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants must request a portion of the statutory fee from the trial judge at the time of withdrawal from representati…
[2] A statutory maximum fee for appointed counsel is available per defendant, regardless of the number of attorneys who represent that defendant.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners were appointed to represent three indigent criminal defendants. They withdrew from one defendant's case pretrial due to a conflict of inte…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
By petition for writ of certiorari, two attorneys who represented a criminal defendant pretrial ask this court to review an order of the respondent circuit judge denying them an award of attorneys’ fees for that representation.
The petitioners were appointed to represent three criminal defendants — Suarez, Sori and Reyes. Approximately six months later, the petitioners were permitted to withdraw from their representation of Suarez on grounds of conflict of interest. They continued to represent Sori and Reyes through trial. Another attorney was appointed to represent Suarez and did represent him through trial. That attorney was awarded the statutory fee of $3,500.
The petitioners asked the trial judge to award them fees for their six months’ representation of Suarez prior to their withdrawal. That motion was denied and this petition for writ of certiorari followed.
This court has recently ruled that the statutory maximum fee of $3,500 cannot be exceeded simply because a defendant has more than one attorney; that is, one statutory fee of $3,500 is available per defendant no matter how many attorneys represent him. Board of County Commissioners v. Hayes, 460 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). As pointed out above, the trial judge awarded Suarez’ trial attorney the statutory fee of $3,500. The order making that award is not before us for review and we cannot disturb it.
In our view, petitioners have waived any right to a portion of the statutory fee by their delay in asking the trial judge for an award of fees to them. In a case such as this, where attorneys represent an indigent criminal defendant and withdraw from that representation prior to trial, they must make it known at that time to the trial judge that they request a portion of the statutory fee. To wait until after the trial is over and the statutory fee has been awarded to the trial attorney is unfair to all concerned.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Proko v. State, 566 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…and proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a person of false imprisonment.” The Second District Court of Appeal in State v. Graham, 468 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1985), and State v. Brown, 466 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1985), held that the false imprisonment statute is a general intent statute, and, therefore, it is not necessary to allege a specific intent or purpose. Although they did not comment directly on t…
-
Nicholas G. Schommer and James v. Lobozzo, Jr., 489 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…a Supreme Court as being of great public importance. There is no evidence that the parties in Hayes ever took up the question to that court. In the case before us, we are bound by our decision in Hayes, 460 So. 2d at 1007. See also Monaco v. Hayes, 466 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Additionally, the question of whether the statutory fee limita [*42] tions are unreasonable has been addressed by other appellate districts, which have ruled that the statute does not give a trial judge the authority to award gre…
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Collier Cnty. v. The Honorable Hugh D. Hayes, 460 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)