MICHAEL COLEMAN, PETITIONER(S)
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT(S)

Fla. | 2006-05-04
No. SC05-2217
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur., ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
930 So. 2d 580 Florida Supreme Court (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court denied Michael Coleman's emergency petition challenging a circuit court's decision denying payment of attorney fees to privately hired counsel Martin McClain by the Florida Department of Financial Services. The Court found no error in the lower court's determination that private counsel are not entitled to fee payments from the state agency.


Holding

The Court found no error in the circuit court's holding that attorney fees for privately hired counsel are not to be paid by the Department of Financial Services. The Court also ordered registry counsel Harrison to respond to allegations concerning his performance within thirty days, with the circuit court to hold a hearing and consider potential sanctions.


Headnotes

[1] Attorney fees are not payable by the Department of Financial Services when counsel is privately hired rather than appointed by the court.

[2] A motion to compel service of pleadings will be granted, directing counsel to serve pleadings on specified parties and file them in the circuit court.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“The Court finds no error in the holding by the circuit court that attorney fees for counsel McClain are not to be paid by the Department of Financial Services because McClain was privately hired counsel, not counsel appointed by the Court.”

Establishes the core holding that private counsel cannot claim fees from the state agency, distinguishing them from court-appointed counsel.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Michael Coleman, through counsel Martin McClain, sought payment of attorney fees from the Florida Department of Financial Services. The circuit court …

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.


Opinion of the Court

Petitioner’s counsel,. Martin McClain, filed an emergency petition seeking review of a nonfinal order of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Es-cambia County that denied his motion for payment of attorney fees by the Florida Department of Financial Services. The State filed a response. Petitioner moved to file a reply. We accepted the reply as timely filed, and that motion is therefore moot. After considering the petition, the response, and the reply, the petition is denied. The Court finds no error in the holding by the circuit court that attorney fees for counsel McClain are not to be paid by the Department of Financial Services because McClain was privately hired counsel, not counsel appointed by the Court.

Also pending in this case is the respondent’s “Motion to Compel Service of Pleadings,” which this Court grants. The Court directs that, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, counsel for the petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition upon registry counsel Baya Harrison III and counsel for the State, and file a copy of the petition in the circuit court case currently pending in the circuit court. Finally, petitioner Michael Coleman filed a “Motion for Stay,” which the Court transfers to the circuit court for its determination. The transfer of this motion should not be construed as an adjudication or comment on the merits of the motion. The transferee court shall treat the motion as if it had been originally filed in that court on the date it was filed in this Court.

The Court has considered the allegations concerning registry counsel Harrison in note 2 on page 3 of the petition. To monitor the performance of assigned counsel in accordance with section 27.711(12), Florida Statutes (2005), Harrison shall file in the circuit court a response to note 2 of the petition within thirty (30) days of the service of the petition. This response shall also be served upon petitioner’s counsel, counsel for the State of Florida, and the Executive Director of the Commission on Capital Cases. Thereafter, the circuit court shall hold a hearing and consider whether any sanctions should be imposed by reason of the allegations, including the reimbursement to the State of attorney fees paid to Harrison. Harrison, McClain, counsel for the State, and the Executive Director of the Commission on Capital Cases shall be served notice of the date and time of the hearing by the circuit court and shall appear at the hearing. Within thirty (30) days of the hearing, the circuit court shall file and serve a report and recommendations with this Court. This hearing and report are not to delay or affect the proceedings of petitioner Coleman’s case in respect to the issues upon which this Court has relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court.

No motions for rehearing will be entertained.

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

Other
ANSTEAD, J.,

ANSTEAD, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority’s decision to remand this case to the trial court so that the trial court can determine the merits of the allegations that prior counsel, Baya Harrison III, has both failed to provide representation to Coleman and has abused his role of registry counsel by seeking excessive and unearned fees for his own services and for those of an investigator. The allegations made by retained counsel for Coleman that the attorney fees and investigator fees may not have been earned and constitute an abuse of the system merit special concern because the Legislature has charged the courts with closely monitoring the services provided by registry counsel.

I dissent from the majority’s order to the extent that it fails to provide for the appointment of counsel for Coleman in these continuing proceedings which include the resolution of claims of mental retardation. While Coleman may not be entitled to counsel of his choice, he is obviously entitled to counsel now that registry counsel Harrison has withdrawn and the trial court has not appointed counsel in his place. These proceedings cannot continue without the appointment of competent counsel to assist Coleman on his pending claims.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Ventura v. State, 2 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 2009)
    …d 70, 71 (Fla.1997) (“[W]e now hold that in addition to our appellate jurisdiction over sentences of death, we have exclusive jurisdiction to review all types of collateral proceedings in death penalty cases." (emphasis supplied)); Coleman v. State, 930 So. 2d 580, 580-81 (Fla.2006) (considering allegations with regard to the performance of assigned postcon-viction counsel under section 27.711(12), Florida Statutes (2005), and remanding to the circuit court with instructions for the assigned attorney to respo…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw