Case Title: STATE v BOYKEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-287

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-287 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs . DAVID ALTON BOYKEN, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Joe Bottomly argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana Randall Snyder argued, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Lawrence Anderson, Great Falls, Montana Daniel Donovan, Great Falls, Mt. Submitted: October 19, 1981 Decided : Clerk M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Joe Bottomly, a court-appointed a t t o r n e y , moved t h e District Court t o waive its local r u l e which sets f o r t h a maximum amount i n a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be awarded a court-appointed a t t o r n e y f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g an i n d i g e n t c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t . The District C o u r t denied t h e motion and Bottomly a p p e a l s . W e r e v e r s e . Bottomly was appointed by t h e District Court of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l District to r e p r e s e n t David A l t o n Boyken. Boyken had been charged with t h r e e f e l o n i e s : a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , r o b b e r y and f e l o n y t h e f t . A t r i a l on t h e s e c h a r g e s began on March 26, 1981, and l a s t e d f o r f o u r d a y s . A f t e r d e l i b e r a t i n g f o r o v e r n i n e h o u r s t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d v e r d i c t s of a c q u i t t a l on t h e r o b b e r y and a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t c h a r g e s b u t was unable to reach a v e r d i c t on t h e f e l o n y t h e f t charge. Following t h e t r i a l , Bottomly moved t h e District Court f o r compensation and submitted an a f f i d a v i t i t e m i z i n g h i s work hours and expenses. H e r e q u e s t e d a total of $3,431.98 f o r 129.5 h o u r s o f out-of-court t i m e a t $20.00 p e r h o u r , 27 h o u r s of i n - c o u r t t i m e a t $30.00 p e r h o u r , and $31.98 for expenses. The District C o u r t denied h i s r e q u e s t and l i m i t e d h i s compensation to $1,000 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s p l u s $31.98 f o r expenses. Rule 45 o f t h e Rules of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l District Court p r o v i d e s t h a t a court-appointed a t t o r n e y s h a l l be compensated a t a rate of $30.00 p e r hour f o r i n - c o u r t t i m e and $20.00 p e r hour f o r out-of-court t i m e . However t h e r u l e also p r o v i d e s t h a t such compensation s h a l l n o t exceed $1,000 i n a case i n which one o r more f e l o n i e s are charged u n l e s s t h e case is an extended o r complex r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The District Court concluded t h a t t h i s case w a s n o t t h e t y p e of case contemplated by Rule 45 f o r a l l o w i n g f e e s i n e x c e s s o f t h e $1,000 maximum. I n h i s o r d e r denying B o t t o m l y ' s r e q u e s t and s e t t i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s a t $1,000, t h e District Court judge noted t h a t more t h a n t h e u s u a l number of o u t s i d e a t t o r n e y s were b e i n g a p p o i n t e d to r e p r e s e n t i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t s charged w i t h c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s . The judge also noted t h a t an unknown amount o f expenses still had t o be paid o u t of t h e District C o u r t ' s budgeted f u n d s . On A p r i l 1 7 , 1981, Bottomly moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court to r e c o n s i d e r its o r d e r . A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d and Bottomly s u b m i t t e d t h e a f f i d a v i t s of t h r e e e x p e r i e n c e d c r i m i n a l lawyers which s t a t e d i n s u b s t a n c e t h a t t h e case was complex from b o t h a l e g a l and f a c t u a l s t a n d p o i n t , t h a t t h e number of hours s p e n t by Bottomly w a s r e a s o n a b l e and t h a t a p r i v a t e a t t o r n e y h a n d l i n g a similar case would c h a r g e a t least $50.00 p e r hour. An a f f i d a v i t from B o t t o m l y ' s a c c o u n t a n t was also submitted showing t h a t B o t t o m l y ' s s h a r e of h i s f i r m ' s monthly overhead f o r t h e t i m e he s p e n t on t h i s case was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,006.20. The District Court r e a f f i r m e d its earlier o r d e r and Bottomly a p p e a l s . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are p r e s e n t e d f o r review: 1. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s case i n l i m i t i n g t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s to $1,000. 2. Whether t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s case c o n s t i t u t e s an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e n i a l of t h e i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . 3 . Whether t h e District C o u r t ' s award of a t t o r n e y f e e s v i o l a t e s t h e F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments to t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and c o r r e s p o n d i n g s e c t i o n s of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n by t a k i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l I s p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t j u s t compensation o r by denying him e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e laws. 4. Whether a Montana District Court h a s i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y to o r d e r t h a t c o u r t a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l be compensated. To d e t e r m i n e whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e - t i o n i n l i m i t i n g B o t t o m l y ' s f e e s to $1,000 it is n e c e s s a r y to r e f e r to s e c t i o n 46-8-201(1) , MCA. It p r o v i d e s : "Whenever i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding an a t t o r n e y r e p r e s e n t s or d e f e n d s any person by o r d e r of t h e c o u r t on t h e ground t h a t t h e p e r s o n is finan- c i a l l y unable to employ c o u n s e l , t h e a t t o r n e y s h a l l be paid f o r h i s s e r v i c e s such sum as a d i s t r i c t c o u r t or j u s t i c e of t h e state supreme c o u r t c e r t i f i e s t o be a r e a s o n a b l e compensation t h e r e f o r and s h a l l be reimbursed f o r r e a s o n a b l e c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n t h e c r i m i n a l proceeding .I' T h i s s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t a " r e a s o n a b l e compensation" be paid a c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y . T h i s c o u r t h a s adopted g u i d e l i n e s to be followed when awarding a c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y r e a s o n a b l e compensation. They are as f o l l o w s : "'The f e e need n o t be of an amount e q u a l t o t h a t from a paying c l i e n t , b u t should s t r i k e a b a l a n c e between con£ l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n of a lawyer to make l e g a l c o u n s e l a v a i l a b l e and t h e i n c r e a s i n g l y heavy burden on t h e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n c r e a t e d by expanded i n d i g e n t r i g h t s . Court appointed coun- s e l should n e i t h e r be u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d n o r unduly impoverished, b u t must be awarded an amount which w i l l allow t m i n a n c i a l s u r v i v a l o f h i s p r a c t i c e . A c o u n t y s h a l l pay a reason- a b l e amount f o r a l l p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s which a r e n o t donated. "I Elements of c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n f i x i n g f e e s i n c l u d e t h e amount of t i m e and e f f o r t expended, t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t of t h e s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d , t h e f e e s p a i d f o r similar s e r v i c e s i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n , t h e amount of p u b l i c f u n d s made a v a i l a b l e f o r such p u r p o s e s , and a j u d i c i o u s r e s p e c t f o r t h e t a x paying p u b l i c as w e l l as t h e needs of t h e accused. I' S t a t e v. A l l i e s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . , 597 P.2d 64, 36 S t . Rep. 820, c i t i n g S t a t e v. L e h i r o n d e l l e ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 5 Wash.App. 502, 550 P.2d 33. A c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y must be awarded an amount t h a t w i l l allow t h e f i n a n c i a l s u r v i v a l of h i s p r a c t i c e . W e a g r e e t h a t " f e e s awarded appointed c o u n s e l must reimburse t h e a t t o r n e y f o r o f f i c e overhead and expenses and y i e l d something toward h i s own s u p p o r t . " People v. Johnson ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 93 Ill.App.3d 848, 417 I n A l l i e s , s u p r a , t h i s Court set f o r t h a g u i d e l i n e r e g a r d i n g t h e maximum h o u r l y rate to be awarded a court-appointed a t t o r n e y . T h i s g u i d e l i n e w a s a b o l i s h e d i n I n re P e t i t i o n to Adopt Rule, Etc. ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 634 P.2d 1185, 38 St.Rep. 1613, b u t t h e o t h e r g u i d e l i n e s set f o r t h i n A l l i e s , s u p r a , remain i n e f f e c t . I n t h i s c a s e t h e District Court d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t it had e v e r considered t h e g u i d e l i n e s set f o r t h i n A l l i e s , s u p r a , when it determined t h a t Bottomly should be awarded t h e $1,000 maximum e s t a b l i s h e d by its own l o c a l r u l e . The $1,000 award is n o t r e a s o n a b l e compensation i n t h i s c a s e and t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n l i m i t i n g Bottomly' s compensation t o t h i s amount. Bottomly submitted an a f f i d a v i t from h i s a c c o u n t a n t showing t h a t h i s overhead c o s t s a l o n e f o r t h e period of t i m e t h a t h e worked on t h i s c a s e exceeded t h e $1,000 award, l e a v i n g nothing t o be a p p l i e d toward h i s own s u p p o r t . R e g a r d l e s s of its own local r u l e s , a District Court must award an amount which w i l l a l l o w f o r t h e f i n a n c i a l s u r v i v a l of t h e court-appointed a t t o r n e y ' s p r a c t i c e , and t h e elements set f o r t h i n t h e A l l i e s c a s e must be considered when f i x i n g a f e e . S i n c e we have determined t h a t t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s case was u n r e a s o n a b l e , we need n o t a d d r e s s t h e remaining i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h i s a p p e a l . W e r e v e r s e and remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e District Court f o r a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n and r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s following t h e g u i d e l i n e s set f o r t h i n A l l i e s , s u p r a , a s modified by I n r e P e t i t i o n to Adopt Rule, E t c . , s u p r a . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: