Title: Michael Coleman v. State Of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC05-2217
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 2006

Supreme Court of Florida 
THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006 
 
 
CASE NO.:  SC05-2217 
 
Lower Tribunal No.:  8901139C-CF 
 
MICHAEL COLEMAN 
 
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA 
Petitioner(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
Petitioner's counsel, Martin McClain, filed an emergency petition seeking 
review of a nonfinal order of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and 
for Escambia County that denied his motion for payment of attorney fees by the 
Florida Department of Financial Services.  The State filed a response.  Petitioner 
moved to file a reply.  We accepted the reply as timely filed, and that motion is 
therefore moot.  After considering the petition, the response, and the reply, the 
petition is denied.  The Court finds no error in the holding by the circuit court that 
attorney fees for counsel McClain are not to be paid by the Department of 
Financial Services because McClain was privately hired counsel, not counsel 
appointed by the Court. 
Also pending in this case is the respondent's "Motion to Compel Service of 
Pleadings," which this Court grants.  The Court directs that within ten (10) days of 
the date of this order, counsel for the petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition 
upon registry counsel Baya Harrison III and counsel for the State, and file a copy 
- 2 - 
of the petition in the circuit court case currently pending in the circuit court.  
Finally, petitioner Michael Coleman filed a "Motion for Stay," which the Court 
transfers to the circuit court for its determination.  The transfer of this motion 
should not be construed as an adjudication or comment on the merits of the motion.  
The transferee court shall treat the motion as if it had been originally filed in that 
court on the date it was filed in this Court. 
The Court has considered the allegations concerning registry counsel 
Harrison in note 2 on page 3 of the petition.  To monitor the performance of 
assigned counsel in accordance with section 27.711(12), Florida Statutes (2005), 
Harrison shall file in the circuit court a response to note 2 of the petition within 
thirty (30) days of the service of the petition.  This response shall also be served 
upon petitioner's counsel, counsel for the State of Florida, and the Executive 
Director of the Commission on Capital Cases.  Thereafter, the circuit court shall 
hold a hearing and consider whether any sanctions should be imposed by reason of 
the allegations, including the reimbursement to the State of attorney fees paid to 
Harrison.  Harrison, McClain, counsel for the State, and the Executive Director of 
the Commission on Capital Cases shall be served notice of the date and time of the 
hearing by the circuit court and shall appear at the hearing.  Within thirty (30) days 
of the hearing, the circuit court shall file and serve a report and recommendations 
with this Court.  This hearing and report are not to delay or affect the proceedings 
- 3 - 
of petitioner Coleman's case in respect to the issues upon which this Court has 
relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court. 
 
No motions for rehearing will be entertained. 
 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., 
concur. 
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. 
 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
jn 
Served: 
 
MARTIN J. MCLAIN 
HON. CHARLES J. CRIST, JR. 
CASSANDRA K. DOLGIN 
WILLIAM J. THURBER, IV. 
HON. NICKOLAS P. GEEKER, JUDGE 
HON. ERNIE LEE MAGAHA, CLERK 
 
 
ANSTEAD, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I concur in the majority’s decision to remand this case to the trial court so 
that the trial court can determine the merits of the allegations that prior counsel, 
Baya Harrison III, has both failed to provide representation to Coleman and has 
abused his role of registry counsel by seeking excessive and unearned fees for his 
- 4 - 
own services and for those of an investigator.  The allegations made by retained 
counsel for Coleman that the attorney fees and investigator fees may not have been 
earned and constitute an abuse of the system merit special concern because the 
Legislature has charged the courts with closely monitoring the services provided 
by registry counsel. 
 
I dissent from the majority’s order to the extent that it fails to provide for the 
appointment of counsel for Coleman in these continuing proceedings which 
include the resolution of claims of mental retardation.  While Coleman may not be 
entitled to counsel of his choice, he is obviously entitled to counsel now that 
registry counsel Harrison has withdrawn and the trial court has not appointed 
counsel in his place.  These proceedings cannot continue without the appointment 
of competent counsel to assist Coleman on his pending claims.