Case Name: Guillermo ARBELAEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. Robert A. BUTTERWORTH, etc., Respondent; Capital Collateral Representative-Northern Region, et al., Petitioners, v. Harry K. Singletary, Jr., etc., Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-06-17
Citations: 738 So. 2d 326
Docket Number: Nos. 92288, 92595
Parties: Guillermo ARBELAEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. Robert A. BUTTERWORTH, etc., Respondent. Capital Collateral Representative-Northern Region, et al., Petitioners, v. Harry K. Singletary, Jr., etc., Respondent.
Judges: HARDING, C.J., SHAW, WELLS and PARIENTE, JJ., and OVERTON, Senior Justice, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 738
Pages: 326–332

Head Matter:
Guillermo ARBELAEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. Robert A. BUTTERWORTH, etc., Respondent. Capital Collateral Representative-Northern Region, et al., Petitioners, v. Harry K. Singletary, Jr., etc., Respondent.
Nos. 92288, 92595.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 17, 1999.

Opinion:
ORDER
In February 1998, the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel for the Southern Region of Florida (CCRC-South) asked this Court to exercise its all writs jurisdiction to stay all applicable time limits, court proceedings, and executions until adequate funding was provided to CCRC or until July 1, 1998, the start of the next fiscal year. See Arbelaez v. Butterworth, No. 92,288 (Fla. petition filed Feb. 3, 1998). In its response, the State challenged the contention that there were not adequate funds, asserting that part of the funding crisis was being caused by the unauthorized use of part of those funds in civil litigation. The unauthorized civil litigation issue was resolved by this Court's opinion in State ex rel. Butterworth v. Kenny, 714 So.2d 404 (Fla.1998).
The Capital Collateral Regional Counsel for the Northern Region of Florida (CCRC-North) as well as CCRC-South each filed separate all writs petitions asking this Court to "impose a general moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty until the CCRCs are adequately funded pursuant to a caseload methodology." See Capital Collateral Representative-Northern Region v. Singletary, No. 92,595 (Fla. petition filed Mar. 18, 1998). We consolidated these cases and held oral argument on May 4, 1998.
Since these actions have been filed, the structure of the CCRC offices has been substantially modified, and the funding has significantly changed and increased through two legislative sessions. We acknowledge we have a constitutional responsibility to ensure the death penalty is administered in a fair, consistent and reliable manner, as well as having an administrative responsibility to work to minimize the delays inherent in the postconvic tion process. We find, however, that the facts and the circumstances that brought forth these actions have substantially changed. Accordingly, there is no present case in controversy, and these petitions are hereby denied.
We commend the law firm of Holland and Knight for its valuable and conscientious pro bono representation in this case.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., SHAW, WELLS and PARIENTE, JJ., and OVERTON, Senior Justice, concur.
ANSTEAD, J., specially concurs with an opinion, in which KOGAN, Senior Justice, concurs.