Case Name: Raleigh PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-09-25
Citations: 700 So. 2d 647
Docket Number: No. 90101
Parties: Raleigh PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, ' HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 700
Pages: 647–664

Head Matter:
Raleigh PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90101.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 25, 1997.
Martin J. McClain, Litigation Director, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Robert J. Landry, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant is under a sentence of death from the Circuit Court in Charlotte County and is presently in this Court on appeal from denial of a rule 3.850 motion. Incident to that appeal, appellant has filed a "Motion to Direct Payment of Court Reporter's Fees." We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Appellant has been invoiced by the court reporter responsible for transcribing the various court hearings that occurred in the 3.850 proceedings which are the subject of this appeal. These transcripts are to be included in the record on appeal. Appellant is represented by the Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) pursuant to sections 27.7001-27.708, Florida Statutes (1995 & Supp.1996).
The issue presented by this motion is whether the costs for the court reporter's transcription should be paid by the County or should be paid out of the budget of CCR. We have been advised by CCR and the office of the Attorney General that in postconviction capital cases, these costs historically have been paid by the counties.
However, in Hoffman v. Haddock, 695 So.2d 682 (Fla.1997), we held that we could not compel the City of Jacksonville and Du-val County to pay costs incident to postcon-vietion capital proceedings because the legislature has determined that CCR is to bear this responsibility:
In this type of case, however, chapter 27 expressly directs that CCR is to provide for the collateral representation of any person convicted and sentenced to death in this state and is to be responsible for the payment of all necessary costs and expenses.
Id. at 684. We here clarify that our decision includes court reporter fees for transcription of the proceedings to be included in the record on appeal.
We rule on this motion by this opinion to express our conclusion that payment of all postconviction costs out of CCR's budget is not only statutorily required but is necessary to carry out the legislative intent expressed in section 27.7001, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Moreover, we believe it will further the goal of accounting for and controlling costs in posteonviction proceedings and further the efficient processing of postconviction capital cases.
Because this is a change from how these costs have been paid in the past, we urge CCR and the Commission on Administration of Justice in Capital Cases to immediately assess the impact of these costs on OCR's budgets in each of the CCR offices and at an early time do what is necessary to make the legislature aware of the need to appropriate the funds to cover these costs.
The motion is denied.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, ' HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., concurs with an opinion, in which KOGAN, C.J. and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
. Section 27.7001 provides as follows:
Legislative Intent. — It is the intent of the Legislature to create part IV of this chapter, consisting of ss. 27.7001-27.708, inclusive, to provide for the collateral representation of any person convicted and sentenced to death in this state, so that collateral legal proceedings to challenge any Florida capital conviction and sentence may be commenced in a timely manner and so as to assure the people of this state that the judgments of its courts may be regarded with the finality to which they are entitled in the interests of justice. It is the further intent of the Legislature that collateral representation shall not include representation during retrials, resentencings, proceedings commenced under chapter 940, or civil litigation.