QUESTION PRESENTED WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT DEPARTED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN REFUSING TO AWARD REASONABLE

ATTORNEYS FEES IN A CASE INVOLVING EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRINCIPLES ARTICULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN MAKEMSON V. MARTIN COUNTY.

LIST OF PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case on the title page.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

QUESTION PRESENTED .........................................................................................i LIST OF PARTIES ................................................................................................... ii ORDER BELOW ....................................................................................................... 2 JURISDICTION......................................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS MATERIAL TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED ...... 3 ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING THE WRIT ..................................... 4 WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT DEPARTED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN REFUSING TO AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES IN A CASE INVOLVING EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRINCIPLES ARTICULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN MAKEMSON V. MARTIN COUNTY. . 4 MERITS ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 4 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4 THE CIRCUIT COURT DEPARTED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN REFUSING TO AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES IN A CASE INVOLVING EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRINCIPLES ARTICULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN MAKEMSON V. MARTIN COUNTY .................................. 4 CERTIORARI STANDARD SATISFIED ................................................................ 7 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 8
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995) .................................. 7 Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 1986)............................4, 5, 6, 7 State of Florida v. Billy Sheppard, Case No. 16-2008-CF-11059-B .................1, 2, 3 Still v. Justice Admin. Commn, 82 So.3d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) .................. 5, 6 White v. Bd. of County Commrs, 537 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1989) ................................. 6 STATUTES Florida Statutes 27.5304 ..................................................................................... 2, 4 RULES Rule 9.030(b)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure ........................................... 2 OTHER AUTHORITIES
Article V, 4(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution .......................................................... 2

iv

In The

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

____________ DAVID A. TAYLOR, ESQ. Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ____________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida ____________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Petitioner, DAVID A. TAYLOR, ESQ., respectfully plays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the Order Granting Motion for Payment of Attorneys Fees In Excess of the Statutory Cap (hereinafter Order) of the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, entered in State of Florida v. Billy Sheppard, Case No. 16-2008-CF-11059-B, filed October 31, 2012. A true and correct copy of the Order is included in Appendix A, infra.

ORDER BELOW The Order of the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida in State of Florida v. Billy Sheppard, Case No. 16-2008-CF-11059-B, was filed October 31, 2012. The Circuit Court consisted of the Honorable Donald R. Moran, Jr., Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit. The Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing on October 12, 2012 to hear Petitioners Motion for Payment of Attorneys Fees In Excess of the Statutory Cap (hereinafter Motion), seeking attorneys fees in excess of the statutory maximum set forth in 27.5304, Florida Statutes. In the Order, Judge Moran found that Petitioner expended extraordinary and unusual efforts as required by Florida Statute 27.5304(12)(b) justifying an award up to 200% of the $15,000 statutory flat fee, but awarded Petitioner only $18,000.00, due to local budgetary restraints JURISDICTION This Petition seeks review of the Order entered by the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida hearing Petitioners Motion seeking attorneys fees in excess of the statutory maximum set forth in 27.5304, Florida Statutes. The jurisdiction of this Court to review the Order is invoked under Article V, 4(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution, and Rule 9.030(b)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

STATEMENT OF FACTS MATERIAL TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED The facts that gave rise to State of Florida v. Billy Sheppard comprise a senseless spree of violence that spanned multiple crime scenes, leading to an unusually complex investigation and prosecution that involved extraordinary and unusual efforts by the Petitioner. As Judge Moran described in his Order: the State alleged two separate homicides which occurred over a four hour period; the Defendant and his co-Defendant stole a car at gunpoint, and again, within a few hours, drove up to a 16-year-old on a bicycle and shot him multiple times; the State of Florida filed a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty as to each Count of First Degree Murder; [Petitioner] represented the Defendant for two years and two months before he withdrew, and during such time, the case was set for trial seven (7) separate times; [Petitioner] prepared numerous Motions, attended Pretrial Conferences and met with the Assistant State Attorney; [Petitioner] met with the Defendant and investigator; [Petitioner] also reviewed transcripts in preparation of the trial; [Petitioner] submitted a bill that is fifteen (15) pages long.

Petitioners detailed bill indicated that he performed 328.50 hours at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per hour, totaling $32,850.00. Petitioner made no claim for costs. In a Letter of Objection dated February 7, 2012, the Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) reduced the amount of billing (i.e. the $32, 850.00 requested) by $19,160.00, but failed to mention the reduced amount at the hearing. Judge Moran found that Petitioner expended extraordinary and unusual efforts as required by Florida Statues 27.5304(12)(b) justifying an award up to 200% of the $15,000 statutory flat fee, but awarded Petitioner only $18,000.00, due to local budgetary restraints. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING THE WRIT THE CIRCUIT COURT DEPARTED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN REFUSING TO AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES IN A CASE INVOLVING EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRINCIPLES ARTICULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN MAKEMSON V. MARTIN COUNTY. MERITS ARGUMENT ARGUMENT 1. THE CIRCUIT COURT DEPARTED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN REFUSING TO AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES IN A CASE INVOLVING EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRINCIPLES ARTICULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN MAKEMSON V. MARTIN COUNTY.

In Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 1986), the Supreme Court of Florida established that statutory maximun fees for representation of indigent defendants should not apply in cases involving unusual or extraordinary circumstances: [T]he statutory maximum fees, as inflexibly imposed in cases involving unusual or extraordinary circumstances, interfere with the defendants sixth amendment right [to counsel] [t]he statute provides for only token compensation. The availability of effective counsel is therefore called into question in thise cases where it is needed most. Id. at 1112. Makemson makes clear that when budgetary restraints conflict with a defendants right to effective counsel, as in the case of Petitioners representation of the Defendant in the lower tribunal, it is our duty to firmly and unhesitatingly resolve any conflicts between the treasury and fundamental constitutional rights in favor of the latter. Id. at 1113. That principle was echoed in Still v. Justice Admin. Commn, 82 So.3d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), which noted: While the trial courts concerns as to the States financial condition were obviously well intended, it must be recognized that matters of appropriation and adequacy of state funds are legislative functions and

not judicial. It would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for trial courts to address whether adequate state funding is available to discharge a statutory provision authorizing payment of attorneys fees, such as here. Id. at 1170. In White v. Bd. of County Commrs, 537 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1989), the Supreme Court of Florida emphasized that the principles of Makemson transcend the financial burdens of local governments, especially in death penalty cases: We find that all capital cases by their very nature can be considered extraordinary and unusual and arguably justify an award of attorneys fees in excess of the current statutory maximum fee cap We are mindful of the potential burden placed on county treasuries as a result of departure from the statutory maximum fee cap. However, since the State of Florida enforces the death penalty, its primary obligation is to ensure that indigents are provided competent, effective counsel in capital cases. Id. at 1378. As Petitioner clearly faced extraordinary and unusual circumstances in his representation of the defendant in the lower tribunal s case, he should be awarded the full amount of $32,850.00 submitted in his bill, despite the objections of the JAC, which were not voiced at the evidentiary hearing.

CERTIORARI STANDARD SATISFIED As the Supreme Court of Florida explained, certiorari review is appellate in character in the sense that it involves a limited review of the proceedings of an inferior jurisdiction. Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 525 (Fla. 1995). It is limited to those situations in which the lower court did not afford procedural due process, or departed from the essential requirements of law. Id. at 526. Based on the legal authority presented, it is clear that the Circuit Court departed from the essential requirement of law in failing to award Petitioner reasonable attorneys fees. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, DAVID A. TAYLOR, ESQ., respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant this Petition For Writ of Certiorari, quash the fee award, and remand the case for reconsideration of the award in light of the principles announced in Makemson and its progeny.

Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. TAYLOR, P.A.

_________________________ DAVID A. TAYLOR Florida Bar No.: 0127000 233 East Bay Street, Suite 1020 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904) 356-8684 Telephone (904) 598-0905 Fax davidtaylor@1stcounsel.com Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished to the Office of the Attorney General, The Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050; the Justice Administrative Commission, 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 2100, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301; and to the Honorable Donald R. Moran, Jr., Duval County Courthouse, 501 West Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32202, by U. S. Mail, this 31st day of November, 2012.

___________________________________ David A. Taylor