ÿWPC  ´È]DêK?D’ŒõÏ>^Åß¾¾-aóïZÝ­c˜+’}OÅ(-¼xg è$ïì¢ÛžÏçâvHYÖÎå8ê@íÁõ´}¸–Ù¹¿ð§‘Éä4Ø$«h{=9÷óŽ3pæå G^/ðò›QC>Ä;þY™^ÉÓ²°Ã®G ‹­ìè‰Ç_dlrEÆŒ1ø@ùΨØóí5"ô;m}Ó%×Ì”£¥d&ص›ÈNÈ÷†®ÊäôAB½bj¼5XrØßfUOŸgC†@ûцdFô¨Äivî=®/¤Ÿòc1[·úÁÑ /Î"ÆO}ÁüírË´—¡OÚgœý‚tæ£:nÓ9¹êÒ¥æ0J¦§¡ß;샩ŒM_ý¦ð½vÍ@Ž…V¦äo(¬J€ZìߺÒÒ°` ¼>ÒÓÍ>Óà  àNone€of€the€cases€supporting€right€to€counsel€or€right€to€expert€witnesses€and€costs€paid€byÏcounties€has€ever€said€that€an€indigent€gets€the€òòbest€possibleóó€defense.€€The€case€law€instead€says€thatÐ À Ðthe€defendant€gets€òòadequateóó€assistance€of€counsel,€not€the€best,€or€the€worst€either.Ð  ð Ðà  àòòAke€v.€Oklahomaóó,€470€U.S.€68,€105€S.Ct.€1087,€84€L.Ed.€2€(1985)€53,€held€that€indigentÐ €Ð Ðdefendants€must€have€òòmeaningfulóó€access€to€the€judicial€process€and€an€òòadequateóó€opportunity€toÐ `° Ðpresent€their€claims€fairly€within€the€adversary€system.Ìà  àòòBritt€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€404€U.S.€5226,€92€S.Ct.€431€30€L.Ed.€2d€700€(1971)€stated€that€anÐ  p Ðindigent€Defendant€is€entitled€to€the€basic€tools€of€an€adequate€defense.€€There€is€no€requirement€thatÏthere€be€a€duplication€of€the€legal€support€which€might€be€available€to€a€non„indigent.€€òòRoss€v.Ð à0 ÐMoffit,€óó417€U.S.€600,€41€L.Ed.€2d€341,€94€S.Ct.€2437€(1974).Ð À! ÐñâñœñâñÐ   #ð! ÐñÞñ›ñÞñà@FF%ìàñÞñ›ñÞñò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ ° Ðà  àó óWherefore,€Orange€county€and€F.A.C.A.€conclude€that€there€is€no€support€whatsoever€for€theÐ à Ðpayment€of€a€county€for€a€co„counsel€for€a€private€attorney€in€a€criminal€case€where€the€ñâñdefendanatñâññâñdefendantñâñÏhas€been€declared€indigent,€and€the€payment€for€a€ñâñpblicñâññâñpublicñâñ€opinion€survey€is€clearly€not€within€theÏscope€of€statutory€authority.€€Orange€County€and€F.A.C.A.€would€adopt€the€arguments€andÏconclusions€therefore€of€ñâñSeminolrñâññâñSeminoleñâñ€County€as€isñÝññÚñtñÚññÝñ€more€fully€set€forth€herein.ñÞñÌÐ  ð@  ÐñÞññßñ›Ìñßññâñ›ñâñà@»»ìàòòò òCERTIFICATE€OF€SERVICEó óóóˆÐ ° Ðà  àI€HEREBY€CERTIFY€that€a€true€and€correct€copy€of€the€foregoing€has€been€furnished€toÏSUSAN€E.€DIETRICH,€Assistant€County€Attorney,€Seminole€County€Services€Building,€1101€EastÏFirst€Street,€Sanford,€Florida€32771;€THOMAS€HASTINGS,€Assistant€State€Attorney,€100€East€FirstÏStreet,€Sanford,€Florida€32771;€and€JAMES€M.€RUSS,€ESQUIRE,€18€West€Pine€Street,€Orlando,ÏFlorida€32801,€by€interdepartmental€mail,€€this€_____€day€of€July,€1998.Ô#†X’XX X’z>#ÔÔ‡ X’XXX’ÔÐ `  ÐÓ[KÓÌÌÔ#†X’XX X’ I#ÔÓ>IÓÔ‡ X’XXX’ÔÔ‡ G£GX X’ÔÓÓÓ ÿÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________________Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGeorge€L.€DorsettÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€County€AttorneyÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFlorida€Bar€No.€375098Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àORANGE€COUNTY€ATTORNEYððS€OFFICEÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àOrange€County€Administration€Center€Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à201€S.€Rosalind€AvenueÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àOrlando,€Florida€32802Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à(407)€836„7320Ô#†G£GG G£I#ÔÔ‡ G£GGG£ÔÔ#† X’XG G£®I#ÔÔ‡ ^X X’ÔÐ ` ÐÌÌÌÌÌgld:cases\spaziano\brief2.wpdÌ(07/30/98)ÌÌñâñœñâñÔ#† X’X ^GN#ÔñàñÑ7€’XXdðXXdð7Ññàññâñ›ñâñÐ  è8 ÐñáñœñáññáñÑ7€’XXdðXXdð7Ññáñà@gg\àò òSUPREME€COURT€OF€FLORIDAˆÐ ° ÐÌó óJOSEPH€R.€SPAZIANO,Ð à ÐÌà  àPetitioner,Ìvs.ÌÌSEMINOLE€COUNTY,€FLORIDA,à h àà À àà  àà p àCASE€NOS.€€92,801,€92,846Ð @  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€and€93,447Ìà  àRespondent.Ì_______________________________à À àà  àà p àDISTRICT€COURT€OF€APPEALÐ `  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àCASE€NOS.€98„1170€andÌJOSEPH€R.€SPAZIANO,à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à€€€€€€€€€98„1115Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àPetitioner,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àCIRCUIT€COURT€CASE€NO.Ð Ð  Ðvs.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à75„430„CF„AÐ À ÐÌHARRY€K.€SINGLETARY,€JR.,€etc.,ÌÌà  àRespondent.Ì______________________________ÌÌSEMINOLE€COUNTY,ÌÌà  àà ` àPetitioner,Ìvs.ÌÌJOSEPH€R.€SPAZIANO,ÌÌà  àà ` àRespondent.Ì____________________________________/ÌÌò òà@ØØ$\àAMICUS€BRIEF€OFˆÐ °"  Ðà@à à \àFLORIDA€ASSOCIATION€OF€COUNTY€ATTORNEYSˆÌà@êê#\àAND€ORANGE€COUNTYˆÌó óÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGeorge€L.€DorsettÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€County€AttorneyÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFlorida€Bar€No.€375098Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔ#†X’XX X’N#ÔÔ‡ X’XXX’ÔÔ‡ G£GX X’ÔOrange€County€Attorneyððs€OfficeÐ @)$' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àOrange€County€Administration€Center€Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à201€S.€Rosalind€AvenueÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àOrlando,€Florida€32802Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à(407)€836„7320Ô#†G£GG G£ßV#ÔÔ‡ G£GGG£ÔÔ#† X’XG G£þV#ÔÐ à,0(+ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€for€Appellant,€Orange€CountyÐ È-), ÐÙÙØØÑ7€’XXdðXXdð7Ñà@$$#\àò òòòTABLE€OF€CONTENTSóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÓ°x°œXÓà x àòòò òPageóóó óÐ à ÐÌÓ°¤°xÓTable€of€CitationsàÓ44A¤.T T àiiˆÐ pÀ ÐÌPreliminary€StatementàÓ@@B¤.² ² à1ˆÐ P   ÐÌStatement€of€the€Case€and€FactsàÓ@@B¤.®®)à2ˆÐ 0 € ÐÌSummary€of€the€ArgumentàÓ@@B¤.  !à3ˆÐ `  ÐÌArgumentàÓ@@B¤.ÚÚà4ˆÐ ð@  ÐÌRegarding€Case€No.€92,801àÓ@@B¤.V V #à4ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ KÿÓÓ °` ¤°¤Óà  àI.à0 ` àThe€Defendant€does€not€get€his€choice€of€co„counselàÓ@@B¤.¾¾Gàñâñœñâñ4ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ°` Ý"` Ý" Ðà0  àÐ Ý"Ý" Ðà  àII.à0 ` àEven€the€appointment,€much€less€the€payment,€of€co„counselÐà` Ý"` Ý" Ðà  àà ` àunder€òòanyóó€circumstances€is€not€required.àÓ@@B¤.úú<àñâñœñâñ5ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ €Ð Ðà0  àÐ Ý"Ý" ÐÓ$ °‚X¤°` ¤$Óà  àIII.à0 ` àSection€925.035(1),€Fla.€Stat.,€does€not€grant€power€to€theÐ`°` Ý"` Ý" Ðà  àà ` àcourts€to€appoint€a€co„counsel€to€assist€a€private€attorneyàÓ@@B¤.Oàñâñœñâñ6ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ P  ÐÌRegarding€Case€No.€ñâñœñâñ92,846àÓ@@B¤.V V #àñáñ›ñáñ7ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ 0€ ÐÌà  àIV.à0 ` àCounties€are€not€statutorily€responsible€to€pay€for€a€publicÐ`` Ý"` Ý" Ðà  àà ` àopinion€surveyàÓ@@B¤.  "àñâñœñâñ7ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ P ÐÌRegarding€Both€Cases,€92,801€and€ñâñœñâñ92,846àÓ@@B¤.àà1àñáñ›ñáñ8ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ à0 ÐÌà  àV.à0 ` àIf€a€payment€is€not€provided€for€by€statute,€counties€shouldÐÀ!` Ý"` Ý" Ðà  àà ` àbe€presumed€òònotóó€responsible€to€pay€itàÓ@@B¤.  9àñâñœñâñ8ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ °"  ÐÌà  àVI.à0 ` àDefendant€should€get€an€adequate€defense,€not€the€bestÐ$à"` Ý"` Ý" Ðà  àà ` àpossible€ñâñœñâñdefenseñâñ›ñâñàÓÜÜA¤.‚‚$àñâñœñâñ10ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ €%Ð # Ðà  àà ` àÌÓ! °¤°‚X¤!ÓConclusionàÓÜÜA¤.@@àñâñœñâñ11ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ `'°"% Ðà  àÌCertificate€of€ServiceàÓÜÜA¤.Z Z àñâñœñâñ12ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ @)$' ÐÌÐ   +p&) Ðà@ƒƒ!Æàò òTABLE€OF€CITATIONSó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÓ °x°¤Óò òCITATIONSó óà x àò òPAGEÐ €Ð ÐñâñœñâñÌñáñ›ñáñòòó óÓ °ü!°pÓAke€V.€Oklahomaóó,€470€U.S.€68,€105€S.Ct.€1087,€84€L.Ed.2d€1985à“4!4!Fü!.Gà10ˆÐ ` ° ÐÌòòSeminole€County€v.€Spazianoóó,€707€So.€2d€931€(Fla.€5th€DCA€1998)à“˜!˜!Gü!.  Ià3ˆÐ @  ÐÌòòHickelberry€v.€Stateóó,€337€So.€2d€400€(Fla.€2d€DCA€1976)à“˜!˜!Gü!.‚‚Aà3ˆÐ  p  ÐÌòòMitchell€v.€Stateóó,€407€So.€2d€1005,€1006€(Fla.€5th€DCA€1981)à“!!Eü!.ôôFà3,4ˆÐ P  ÐÌòòBritt€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€404€U.S.€5226€92€S.Ct.€431,€30€L.Ed.€2d€700€(1971)à“4!4!Fü!.¤¤Uà10ˆÐ à0  ÐÌòòRose€v.€Moffitóó,€417€U.S.€600,€41€L.Ed.2d€341€94€S.Ct.€2427€(1974)à“4!4!Fü!.––Kà10ˆÐ À ÐÌòòLowe€v.€Stateóó,€650€So.€2d€969€(Fla.€1994)à“˜!˜!Gü!.ªª3à4ˆÐ  ð ÐÌòòMills€v.€Stateóó,€462€So.€2d€1075€(Fla.€1985)à“˜!˜!Gü!.øø5à7ˆÐ €Ð ÐÌòòSan€Martin€v.€Stateóó,€705€So.€2d€1337,€1346€(Fla.€1997)à“˜!˜!Gü!.ÚÚ@à7ˆÐ `° ÐÌòòGoldburg€v.€County€of€Dadeóó,€378€So.€2d€1242,€1244€(Fla.€3rd€DCA€1979)à“˜!˜!Gü!.ÐÐOà7ˆÐ @ ÐÌòòShort€v.€State,óó€479€So.€2d€163€(Fla.€2d€DCA€1991)à“4!4!Fü!.||;à10ˆÐ  p ÐÌòòBoard€of€County€Commissioners,€Pinellas€County€v.€Sawyeróó,€620€So.€2d€757Ð P Ѐ€€€(Fla.€1993)à“!!Eü!.ððà8,9ˆÐ ð@ ÐÌòòWolf€v.€Volusia€Countyóó,€22€Fla.L.€Weekly€S192€(1997)à“4!4!Fü!.ÞÞ>à10ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòOrange€County€v.€Williamssóó,€702€So.€2d€1245€(Fla.€1997)à“˜!˜!Gü!.¸¸Aà8ˆÐ °"  ÐÌòòMilligan€v.€Palm€Beach€Countyóó,€704€So.€2d€1050€(1998)à“˜!˜!Gü!.XX?à8ˆÐ $à" Ðò òÌñâñ›ñâñÌÓ! °Ü: °ü!!ÓSTATUTESÌñâñœñâñó óÌñáñ›ñáññäñÓ$ °Üü!°Ü: $Óñäñðð€925.035(1),€Fla.€Stat.àÓ˜!˜!Gü!.ê ê "à6ñâñ›ñâñˆÐ @)$' Ðñáñœñáñò òÌó óÌÓÓà Ü àÐ ,`'* ÐÔ#†X’XX X’(Y#ÔÐ  ° Ðò ò(Note€„„€this€is€text€that€GLD€deleted€but€he€still€may€use€later.)Ð ° ÐIII.à0  àIF€APPOINTMENT€OF€CO„COUNSEL€IS€DISCRETIONARY,€THEN€THE€COURTÐ à ÐMUST€USE€ITS€DISCRETION€AND€REASON,€RATHER€THAN€RULING€ON€AÏòòPER€SEóó€BASIS.ÐP  Ý"Ý" Ðó óÌà Ü àThe€Court€made€no€special€finding€of€fact€that€the€òòSpazianoóó€case€was€particularly€difficult,€andÐ `  Ðinstead€generally€stated€that€this€case€was€extraordinary€and€unusual.€€There€was€no€stating€that€itÏwas€___________€because€of€a€specific€theory,€or€unusual€because€of€a€particular€difficult€pont€ofÏlaw.€€In€doing€this,€the€court€was€not€acting€reasonably€in€the€sense€that€the€decision€wasÏð ðreasoned,ðð€but€arbitrarily,€without€considering€any€facts€or€making€a€specific€finding€related€to€doÏthis€case.€€The€òòLoweóó€case€cited€above€does€allow,€and€even€encourage,€courts€to€use€their€òòdiscretionóóÐ pÀ Ðto€appoint€ð ðdual€counsel€òòunder€the€proper€circumstancesóó.ðð€€òòLowe,€supraóó,€at€p.€70,€FN€3€(emphasisÐ P  Ðadded).€€But€the€Supreme€Courtððs€words€of€reservation€ð ðunder€the€proper€circumstances,ðð€surelyÏmust€mean€that€the€court€should€consider€the€circumstances€and€not€just€appoint€dual€counselÏautomatically€in€all€death€penalty€cases,€without€additional€specific€findings€of€fact.ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓòòIV.à0 ¸ àTHERE€IS€A€SPLIT€IN€AUTHORITY€OVER€WHETHERÐ Ð  ÐA€CO„COUNSEL€MAY€BE€PAID€BY€A€COUNTY,€EVENÏWHERE€A€CO„COUNSEL€WILL€BE€APPOINTED.Ð ¸ -¸ - ÐóóÌÒ°` fsÒÒ°` XsÒÓtsÓà Ü àThe€Court€below€has€made€it€abundantly€clear€that:Ìà Ü à1.à  àThe€Defendant€in€òòthisóó€case,€Spaziano,€should€have€a€co„counsel€in€addition€to€the€originalÐ p&À!$ Ðvolunteer€counsel;Ìà Ü à2.à  àThat€the€reason€Spaziano€should€have€such€a€co„counsel€is€because€the€Court€believed€theÐ 0*€%( Ðmatter€called€for€it.Ð ,`'* Ðà Ü à3.à  àThe€County€shall€be€required€to€pay€for€such€co„counsel;€andÐ ° Ðà Ü à4.à  àThat€Defendantððs€request€for€co„counsel€ð ðby€name,ðð€would€be€granted.Ð à Ðà Ü àThere€are€two€cases€directly€addressing€the€issue€of€whether€an€indigent€defendant€may€receiveÏthe€services€of€an€additional€counsel/co„counsel€òòat€County€expenseóó,€(in€cases€where€the€issue€ofÐ P   Ðwhether€the€co„counsel€could€legally€be€appointed€was€not€considered).€€In€òòDade€County€v.Ð 0 € ÐGoldsteinóó,€384€So.€2d€183€(3rd€DCA€1980),€the€court€ordered€separate€fees€in€the€amount€ofÐ `  Ð$8,500.00€be€paid€to€two€attorneys€each€for€representing€one€defendant.€€Among€other€decisions,Ïthe€3rd€District€Court€of€Appeals€quashed€this€order€stating:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓSection€27.53(3),€Florida€Statutes€(1979),€however,€contemplates€theÏappointment€of€òòonlyóó€òòoneóó€attorney€to€represent€òòoneóó€indigent€defendantÐ  ð Ðòòfor€which€a€fee€may€later€be€awarded€to€the€said€attorneyóó.€€As€Mr.Ð à ÐGoldstein€was€the€lead€counsel€in€the€instant€case,€òòonly€he€may€beÐ €Ð Ðcompensated€by€the€trial€court.óó€€Although€the€trial€court€clearly€òòhadÐ pÀ Ðthe€inherent€authority€to€appoint€Mr.€Sherman€as€co„counselóó€for€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€in€this€cause,€òòit€had€neither€the€statutory€authority,€nor€theÐ P  Ðinherent€authority€apart€from€any€statute,€to€provide€compensationÏfor€Mr.€Sherman€in€the€cause.óó€€(Emphasis€added,€citations€omitted.)Ð 0€ ÐÌÒ°` jyÒÒ°` \yÒÓxyÓà Ü àAs€shown,€òòGoldsteinóó€is€a€Third€District€Case.€€The€split€in€authority€comes€from€the€FifthÐ ` ÐDistrict€which€ruled€in€òòOrange€County€v.€Corchadoóó€as€follows::Ð ð@ ÐÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒIn€the€present€case,€Orange€County€makes€a€distinction€between€theÏappointment€of€counsel€and€the€requirement€that€Orange€CountyÏcompensate€the€attorney€appointed.€€It€suggests€that,€althoughÏadditional€private€counsel€may€be€appointed€when€the€circumstancesÏso€warrant,€the€law€does€not€authorize€the€court€to€require€FloridaÏcounties€to€pay€that€attorney.€€To€support€its€argument,€OrangeÏCounty€cites€òòDade€County€v.€Goldsteinóó,€384€So.€2d€183€(Fla.€3dÐ p&À!$ ÐDCA€1980).€€In€òòGoldsteinóó,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€firstÐ `'°"% Ðdegree€murder,€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€sexual€battery,Ïburglary.€€The€trial€court€appointed€Stanley€Goldstein€(ð ðGoldsteinðð)Ïto€represent€the€defendant€following€the€public€defenderððs€motionÏpursuant€to€subsection€27.53(3),€Florida€Statutes€91979).€€Thereafter,Ïpursuant€to€Goldsteinððs€request,€the€trial€court€appointed€ThomasÐ ,`'* ÐSherman€(ð ðShermanðð)€to€act€as€co„counsel€for€the€defendant€becauseÏof€the€complexity€of€the€case.€€After€a€jury€found€the€defendantÏguilty,€Goldstein€and€Sherman€filed€motions€for€counsel€fees,€alongÏwith€affidavits€enumerating€their€hours€spent€on€the€case.€€The€trialÏcourt€awarded€each€attorney€$8,500€to€be€paid€by€Dade€County.€€òòIdóó.Ð pÀ Ðat€187.€€The€Third€District€reversed€an€appeal,€stating:ÌÌÒ°` Ñ}ÒÒ¸ °ÒÒ°` ß}ÒÒ¸ °Ò[Subs]ection€27.53(3),€Florida€Statutes€(1979)€.€.€.Ïcontemplates€the€appointment€of€only€one€attorney€toÏrepresent€one€indigent€defendant€for€which€a€fee€mayÏlater€be€awarded€to€the€said€attorney.€€As€Mr.ÏGoldstein€was€the€lead€counsel€in€the€instant€case,Ïonly€he€may€be€compensated€by€the€trial€court.€ÏAlthough€the€trial€court€clearly€had€the€inherentÏauthority€to€appoint€Mr.€Sherman€as€co„counsel€forÏthe€defendant€in€this€cause,€it€had€neither€theÏstatutory€authority,€nor€the€inherent€authority€apartÏfrom€any€statute,€to€provide€compensation€of€Mr.ÏSherman€in€the€cause.Ìà ä àòòId.óó€at€189€(citations€omitted.)Ð €Ð ÐÒ°¸ pƒÒÒ°¸ PƒÒÒ` “°ÒÒ` {°ÒÌOrange€County€contends€that€òòGoldsteinóó€precluded€the€trial€court€inÐ `° Ðthe€present€case€from€ordering€it€to€compensate€ñâñœñâññãñœñãñDeen.€€We€disagreeÏwith€òòGoldsteinóó€on€the€basis€that€its€holding€is€not€only€inherentlyÐ @ Ðunfair€to€those€practitioners€who€are€appointed,€but€it€deniesÏeffective€representation€to€indigent€defendants.€€As€the€òòMakemsonóóÐ  p Ðcourt€noted,€the€ð ðlink€between€compensation€and€the€quality€ofÏrepresentation€remains€too€clear.ðð€€òòMakemson,óó€491€So.€2d€at€1114.€Ð P ÐIt€further€recognized:ÌÌÒ°` ,†ÒÒ°` >†ÒÒ¸ °ÒÒ¸ °ÒNo€citizen€can€be€expected€to€perform€civilianÏservices€for€the€government€when€to€do€so€is€clearlyÏconfiscatory€of€his€time,€energy€and€skills,€his€publicÏservice€is€inadequately€compensated,€and€hisÏindustry€is€unrewarded€.€.€.€[G]ood€public€conscienceÏ[does€not€approve]€such€shoddy,€tawdry€treatment€ofÏan€attorney€called€upon€by€the€court€to€represent€anÏindigent€defendant€in€a€capital€case.ÌÌÒ°¸ ÞˆÒÒ°¸ ìˆÒÒ` )$°ÒÒ` ;$°ÒòòId.óó€(citing€òòMacKenzi€v.€Hillsborough€Countyóó,€288€So.€2d€200,€202Ð @)$' Ð(Fla.€1973)€(Ervin,€J.,€dissenting)).€€The€supreme€court€reiterated€thisÏpoint€more€recently€in€òòRemeta€v.€Stateóó,€559€So.€2d€1132€(Fla.€1990):Ð  +p&) ÐÐ ,`'* ÐÒ°` ¿ŠÒÒ¸ °ÒÒ°` ­ŠÒÒ¸ °ÒTrial€courts€must€have€the€authority€to€fairlyÏcompensate€court„appointed€counsel.€€It€is€the€onlyÏway€to€ensure€effective€representation€and€give€effectÏto€the€right€to€counsel€in€.€.€.€death€penalty€clemencyÏproceedings.ÌÌÒ°¸ !ŒÒÒ°¸ ŒÒÒ` û(°ÒÒ` )°ÒòòId.€óóat€1135.€€òòSee€also€Schommer€v.€Bentleyóó,€500€So.€2d€118,€120€(Fla.Ð P   Ð1986)€(citing€that€ð ð[i]f€a€trial€court€finds€multiple€attorneys€areÏnecessary€in€a€particular€case€for€effective€representation€under€theÏparameters€of€òòMakemsonóó,€.€.€.€the€attorneys€should€be€appropriatelyÐ  p  Ðcompensated.ðð)€€If€this€court€were€to€accept€Orange€CountyððsÏargument,€the€rule€announced€in€òòMakemsonóó€would€collapse€becauseÐ P  Ðmany€attorneys€would€be€unable€or€unwilling€to€work€on€a€òòproóó€òòbonoóóÐ ð@  Ðbasis.€€In€essence,€the€purpose€behind€relaxing€section€925.035Ïwould€be€defeated,€and€the€supreme€courtððs€efforts€to€better€ensureÏeffective€representation€in€complex€death€penalty€cases€would€beÏlost.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that,€under€the€appropriate€circumstances,Ïtrial€courts€are€permitted€to€appoint€an€additional€attorney€in€capitalÏcases€and€counties€are€required€to€compensate€those€attorneys€forÏtheir€services.ÌÌIn€summary,€it€was€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€appoint€twoÏattorneys€to€represent€Spaziano€if€the€circumstances€warranted€theÏadditional€appointment.€€òòSee€Makemson,€supra.óó€€Furthermore€theÐ @ ÐòòSchommeróó€case,€which€was€decided€after€òòGoldstein,óó€indicates€thatÐ 0€ ÐOrange€County€would€be€required€to€compensate€the€additionalÏattorney.€€òòSee€Schommeróó,€500€So.€2d€at€120.€€As€such,€it€appears€thatÐ ` Ðthe€Florida€Supreme€Court€has€impliedly€overruled€òòGoldsteinóó.€€Ð P ÐÌA€defendant€as€his€co„counsel,€we€do€not€have€to€be€affected€by€theÏunderlying€unfairness€of€not€compensating€a€person€who€has€alreadyÏdone€the€work.ÌÌÌÒ°` 3ÒÒ°` EÒÓ¿}Óà Ü àBut€both€the€5th€District€and€the€Third€District€were€contemplating€work€already€done.Ìà Ü àAppellee€has€cited€below€òòSchommer€v.€Bentlyóó,€500€So.€2d€118€(Fla.€1986)€in€support€of€theÐ p&À!$ Ðtheory€that€the€courts€can€appoint€more€than€one€lawyer€as€co„counsel€òòandóó€pay€that€second€attorneyÐ P( #& Ðfrom€County€Funds.€€Because€it€has€an€(entirely)€superficial€resemblance€to€the€Spaziano€case,€itÏcauses€the€County€considerable€concern€that€this€Court€will€be€misled€byòòSchommeróó.€€òòSchommeróóÐ ,`'* Ðdid€òònotóó€involve€the€appointment€of€an€additional€attorney€as€in€this€case,€one€as€the€original€retainedÐ ° Ðand/or€volunteer€counsel,€and€an€order€appointing€an€independent€individual€selected€as€a€co„¼counsel.€€Instead€òòSchommer€óóinvolved€òòoneóó€appointment€of€Nicholas€Schommer€as€follows:Ð pÀ ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓIn€September,€1984,€òòNicholas€Schommer€was€appointed€as€a€specialÐ P   Ðpublic€defender€to€represent€a€defendant€charged€with€murder.€€TheÏCourt€authorized€Schommer€to€use€other€members€of€his€firm€asÏneeded€in€representing€the€defendant.óó€€Schommerððs€partner,€JamesÐ  p  ÐLobozzo,€aided€Schommer€in€the€preparation€and€ensuing€five€dayÏtrial€of€the€defendant.€€After€the€trial,€Schommer€and€Lobozzo€filedÏmotions€for€attorneyððs€fees€in€excess€of€those€allowed€under€SectionÏ925.036,€Florida€Statutes€(1983).€€The€trial€judge€acknowledged€thatÏthe€fees€requested€were€reasonable€under€the€circumstances,€butÏbelieved€he€could€not€award€more€than€the€maximum€allowed€byÏsection€925.036.€€The€Second€District€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€finalÏorder€on€attorneyððs€fees,€but€certified€the€following€questions.ÌÌI.à0 Œ àWHERE€A€COURT€ISSUES€òòONEóó€ORDER€UNDER€SECTIONÐ €Ð Ð925.036,€FLORIDA€STATUTES€(1983)€òòWHICHÐ pÀ ÐAUTHORIZES€MULTIPLE€ATTORNEYSóó€TO€REPRESENTÐ `° ÐONE€DEFENDANT€ON€A€SINGLE€CHARGE,€MAY€EACHÏATTORNEY€BE€AWARDED€THE€MAXIMUMÏCOMPENSATION€UNDER€SECTION€925.036?Ð Œ -Œ - ÐÌII.à0 Œ àWHETHER€SECTION€925.036,€FLORIDA€STATUTES€ISÐ ` ÐUNCONSTITUTIONAL€ON€ITS€FACE€BECAUSE€ITÏINTERFERES€WITH€THE€INHERENT€AUTHORITY€OF€THEÏCOURT€TO€ENTER€SUCH€ORDERS€WHICH€AREÏNECESSARY€TO€CARRY€OUT€ITS€CONSTITUTIONALÏAUTHORITY?Ð Œ -Œ - ÐÌIII.à0 Œ àIF€SECTION€925.036€IS€CONSTITUTIONAL€MAY€THEÐ  #ð! ÐSTATUTE€BE€HELD€UNCONSTITUTIONAL€AS€APPLIEDÏTO€EXCEPTIONAL€CIRCUMSTANCES;€OR,€IN€THEÏALTERNATIVE,€DOES€A€TRIAL€COURT€HAVE€THEÏINHERENT€AUTHORITY€TO€AWARD€A€GREATER€FEEÏFOR€TRIAL€AND€APPEAL€THAN€THE€STATUTORYÏMAXIMUM€IN€AN€EXTRAORDINARY€CASE?Ð Œ -Œ - ÐÌIV.à0 ¸ àIF€THE€TRIAL€COURT€DOES€HAVE€THE€AUTHORITYÐ  +p&) ÐTO€AWARD€A€GREATER€FEE€THAN€THEÐ ,`'* ÐSTATUTORY€MAXIMUM€IN€EXCEPTIONALÏCIRCUMSTANCES,€SHOULD€THE€TRIAL€COURTÏHAVE€AWARDED€THE€REQUESTED€AMOUNT€INÏTHIS€CASE?Ð ¸ -¸ - ÐÌà Œ àòòSchommer€v.€Bentlyóó,€500€So.€2d€118;€119€(Fla.€1986).Ð ` ° Ðà Œ à(Emphasis€supplied).ÌÌÒ°` ˜ÒÒ°` ô—ÒÓ˜Óà Ü àThere€were€a€number€of€other€differences€also,€in€fact,€between€òòSchommeróó€and€the€instant€case.Ð 0 € Ðà Ü à1.à  àAs€stated€above,€the€Court€appointed€òòoneóó€attorney,€but€allowed€him€to€use€ð ðmembers,ðð€notÐ `  Ðby€name,€of€his€firm€to€assist€him.Ìà Ü à2.à  àòòOneóó€order€was€issued€by€the€Court,€appointing€òòSchommeróó€and€his€firm.€€There€was€not€thenÐ Ð  Ða€later€motion€for€a€co„counsel,€then€an€order€specifically€appointing€a€co„counsel€òòby€nameóó.Ð ° Ðà Ü à3.à  àThere€was€never€any€issue€òòcontestedóó€in€òòSchommeróó€as€to€òòwhetheróó€a€member€of€SchommerððsÐ à Ðfirm€could€be€allowed€to€assist€him.€€The€trial€court,€and€the€county€attorneys€in€that€case€apparentlyÏeither€did€not€contest€or€(perhaps)€were€not€even€noticed€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€court€couldÏòòappointóó€Schommer€and€allow€any€and€all€attorneys€of€his€firm€to€directly€assist€him€and€be€paid€forÐ 0€ Ðit€by€the€County.Ìà Ü à4.à  àThe€Second€District€and€the€Supreme€Court€of€Florida€both€accepted€the€issue€of€whetherÐ ð@ Ðthe€trial€court€could€òòappointóó€the€ð ðmultipleðð€attorneys€as€a€given,€because€the€County€never€contestedÐ Ð  Ðit.€€Instead€the€Court€went€right€past€that€issue€and€asked€the€question€ð ðWhere€a€court€issues€oneÏorder€.€.€.€€may€each€attorney€be€awarded€the€maximum€compensation€.€.€.ðð€€òòSchommeróó,€Supra€atÐ $à" Ð119,€emphasis€added)€without€asking€ð ðwhether€more€than€one€attorney€should€be€appointed€forÏcompensation€purposes,ðð€in€the€first€place.Ìà Ü à5.à  àThe€Supreme€Court€would€never,€as€the€òòSchommeróó€case€clearly€shows,€have€been€requestedÐ 0*€%( Ðto€hear€the€òòSchommer€óócase€at€all,€if€the€total€amount€of€compensation€for€both€attorneys€had€notÐ ,`'* Ðexceeded€$3500.€€It€is€clear€that€the€fee€cap€was€on€the€minds€of€everyone€concerned,€not€theÏnumber€of€attorneys,€which€was€not€contested€in€the€first€place.Ìà Ü à6.à  àThe€case€of€òòMakemson€v.€Martin€Countyóó,€491€So.€2d€1109€(Fla.€1986)€had€not€been€decidedÐ pÀ Ðat€the€time€òòSchommeróó€was€certified€by€the€second€district€to€the€Florida€Supreme€Court.€€TheÐ P   ÐFlorida€Supreme€Court€decided€òòSchommer€óócompletely€on€the€issue€of€the€fee€cap.€€They€said:Ð 0 € ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà Œ àIn€light€of€our€decision€in€òòMakemsonóó,€which€we€find€applicableÐ `  Ðto€the€multiple€lawyer€issue€presented€here,€òòwe€can€only€respond€toÐ P  Ðthe€first€question€posed€by€the€district€court€in€a€qualified€way.€€If€aÏtrial€court€finds€that€multiple€attorneys€are€necessary€in€a€particularÏcase€for€effective€representation€under€the€parameters€of€òòMakemsonóó,Ð Ð  Ðthe€answer€to€the€question€is€in€the€affirmative€and€the€attorneysÏshould€be€appropriately€compensated.€€Absent€the€criteriaÏestablished€in€òòMakemsonóó,€the€answer€to€the€question€is€in€theÐ  ð Ðnegative.óóÐ à ÐòòShommeróó,€supra,€at€120,€emphasis€added.Ð €Ð ÐÌÒ°` åªÒÒ°` תÒÓóªÓà Ü à7.à  àIn€our€case,€there€is€no€right€to€have€a€second€attorney€appointed€in€the€first€place.€€ThisÐ `° ÐCourt€does€not€even€have€to€address€the€issue€of€compensation.