Martin County, Florida v. Makemson Et Al.; And Okeechobee County, Florida v. Dennis Et Al.

1987-01-12

Headline: Denial leaves Florida ruling intact that limits rigid fee caps, allowing higher pay for court-appointed capital defense attorneys in certain unusual cases.

Holding: The Court refused to review Florida’s decision finding the statutory fee cap unconstitutional as applied, leaving in place the state court’s ruling that rigid maximum fees can impede effective counsel in capital cases.

Real World Impact:

Leaves Florida court’s ruling allowing higher fees in certain capital cases in place.
May let appointed capital defense attorneys seek fees above statutory caps in unusual cases.
Counties may face increased payment obligations for appointed capital counsel in such cases.

Topics: court-appointed lawyer pay, right to counsel, capital defense fees, state court fee limits

Summary

Background

Two Florida counties asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review separate state-court rulings about how much public money must be paid to lawyers appointed to defend people accused of serious crimes. In the Martin County case, a lawyer who represented a capital defendant for nine months sought $9,500 in fees. Florida law set a $3,500 maximum for trial counsel in capital cases. A trial court awarded the higher fee, the state appeals court questioned that award, and the Florida Supreme Court held the fee cap unconstitutional as applied in this unusual case because it could deny defendants effective representation.

Reasoning

The central question was whether an inflexible statutory cap on pay for court-appointed lawyers can interfere with a defendant’s constitutional right to effective counsel (the Sixth Amendment). The Florida Supreme Court concluded that, when the cap is applied rigidly in extraordinary cases, it can amount to only token compensation and thus risk the availability of effective counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that state ruling, so it did not decide the constitutional issue itself in these cases.

Real world impact

Because the U.S. Supreme Court denied review, the Florida decision remains in effect for these cases. That means in Florida some appointed lawyers in especially demanding capital cases may obtain fees above the statutory cap when courts find the cap would prevent effective representation. The denial is not a national ruling and could be revisited in other cases or by this Court in the future.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the denial. He argued the Constitution does not require states to pay appointed lawyers reasonable fees and urged review because lower courts disagree about whether states can force unpaid or low-paid representation.