MARCUS MCMANN, PETITIONER,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, RESPONDENT
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.
A Florida appellate court granted a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a trial court's reduction of investigative fees in a capital felony case from $32,951.79 to $25,000. The court found the reduction lacked evidentiary foundation and remanded for a proper hearing on the reasonableness of the requested fee.
The trial court's reduction of the investigative fee to $25,000 lacked evidentiary foundation. The court must remand for a new evidentiary hearing where the trial court must determine whether the time spent on investigation was accurate, reasonable, and necessary, and must demonstrate consideration of reasonableness in light of evidence presented.
[1] A writ of certiorari may be granted when a trial court fails to consider the reasonableness of a requested investigative fee in making its ruling.
[2] A trial court's reduction of a requested investigative fee must have an evidentiary foundation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it does not appear from the transcript or from the final order that the trial court considered the reasonableness of the investigative fee requested in making its ruling”
Establishes the core deficiency in the trial court's decision—lack of consideration of reasonableness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA court-appointed private investigator submitted a bill for $32,951.79 in investigative services rendered in a capital felony prosecution. The trial c…
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 Evidentiary Foundation cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
This is a timely petition for writ of certiorari from a series óf Palm Beach County circuit court orders awarding compensation to a court-appointed private investigator in a capital felony prosecution. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari because it does not appear from the transcript' or from the final order that the trial court considered the reasonableness of the investigative fee requested in making its ruling.
After a hearing, the trial court determined that $25,000, rather than the $32,-951.79 requested, was an appropriate fee for the investigative services rendered. Without presenting any evidence or challenging the specific services claimed in the itemized bills as unnecessary, the assistant county attorney argued in opposition that the requested fees were “extraordinary” and exceeded the investigative fees awarded for “any other capitál case in this circuit,” including certain recent high profile eases involving John Zile and-Joseph Vannier. The assistant county attorney urged the court to exercise its “inherent'discretionary authority” and trim down the bill so that it would not be “such an unreasonable burden on the County.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge stated, “I want $25,000 total” and entered the orders on review.
In view of the record before us, we can only conclude ;tha,t the trial judge’s reduction of the requested fee to $25,000 has no evidentiary foundation. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and remand this cause to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing and submit an order on the reasonableness of the requested fee. See Carrasquillo v. State, 502 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). While no specific findings are required, the record must demonstrate that the trial court has considered the reasonableness of the amount requested in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. On remand, the trial court must determine whether the time alleged to have been spent on the investigation was accurate, reasonable and necessary.
WARNER, J., concurs.
SHAHOOD, J., dissents with opinion.
SHAHOOD, Judge,
dissenting.
I would deny the petition for writ of certiorari. While the trial court did not articulate the words “reasonable and necessary” with respect to the investigative fees, my review and analysis of the record leads me to conclude that the court did consider the same in accordance with Carrasquillo v. State, 502 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crim. Specialist Investigations, Inc. v. State, 58 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…as not “adequately explored.” See id. The finding of “reasonableness and necessity” must be made with respect to “the particular circumstances of th[e] case” for which the costs were incurred. See id. at 507; accord McMann v. Bd. of County Comm’rs., 707 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (granting a petition for writ of certiorari where the trial court cut approximately $8,000 from the bill for investigative costs based on its “inherent discretionary authority” rather than specific concerns about the [*886] items…
Authorities Cited
- Carrasquillo v. State, 502 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)