Opinion

McMann v. Board of County Commissioners

  • 707 So. 2d 871
  • 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2154
  • 1998 WL 88368
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Mar 4, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Stevenson
On the bench
Shahood, Stevenson, Warner
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 49.4%

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 listed in the bills

How later courts described this case

  • 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 listed in the bills

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

STEVENSON, Judge.

This is a timely petition for writ of certio-rari 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 *872 of the requested fee to $25,000 has no eviden-tiary foundation. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and remand this cause to the trial court to hold an eviden-tiary 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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.