KEITH ALAN DAY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court is reconsidering its prior order allowing public defender withdrawal due to legislative funding changes.
The court previously allowed public defenders to withdraw from cases due to underfunding. The legislature has since appropriated funds to address this…
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.
PER CURIAM.
On June 5, 1990, we published our order which granted permission for the Public Defender for the Second Judicial Circuit to withdraw in this and 99 other cases, and which stated the court will entertain similar motions in up to 200 additional cases. This relief was found justified by the backlog of appellate cases in the public defender’s office created by failure of the legislature to allocate sufficient funds in the past to permit the hiring of the staff necessary to process the number of appeals assigned to the office. Now, however, it has come to our attention that the 1990 Florida Legislature has appropriated $1,500,000 to remedy these problems. These funds:
are provided for public defender workload for non-capital appeals. Funds are provided for 20 attorneys and 14 clerical support staff and shall be distributed to the 2nd, 7th, 10th, and 11th appellate circuits after consultation with the legislative appropriations committees.
Amendment to House Bill 3701, Specific Appropriation 1290A. In view of the foregoing, we find the relief we granted in our prior order may be unnecessary, in whole or in part. Accordingly, we sua sponte order movant to show cause why this court’s order of June 5, 1990, should not be modified or withdrawn. The response shall be filed with the clerk of this court by Friday, June 15.
Action on the pending motions to withdraw shall be held in abeyance until receipt and consideration of the response.
SHIVERS, C.J., and ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DAY v. State, 570 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…e had appropriated certain monies for the appellate public defenders to employ additional staff. We then ordered the public defender' to show cause why our prior order should not be modified or withdrawn in light of that appropriation. Day v. State, 564 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). When we considered her response, we found that withdrawal in the original 100 cases was justified but we deferred disposition on the additional 200 cases until further information was available on the number of new attorneys to…1 / 2
-
Young v. State, 580 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…State, 570 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Terry v. State, 547 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Grube v. State, 529 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Despite additional monies budgeted by the 1990 legislature to address the problem, see Day v. State, 564 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the Public Defender has demonstrated to this court that she is unable to hire enough attorneys to brief assigned cases in a timely manner. We are not unaware of nor unsympathetic to the financial burdens these withdrawals place…
-
DAY v. State, 564 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…r earlier order should not be withdrawn or modified in light of a legislative appropriation which provides funds to four of the five appellate public defenders in this state for hiring of additional staff to handle non-capital appeals. Day v. State, 564 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1st DCA 1990). We are now in receipt of the public defender’s response and, upon consideration thereof, modify our earlier order as follows. Movant first asserts that the appropriation will not result in the immediate hiring of attorneys. The…