2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure › Article 16 - Defense of Indigents › Section 31-16-8 - Payment of costs, expenses and attorney fees.

A. Payments of costs, expenses and attorney fees under the Indigent Defense Act shall be made from:
(1) funds appropriated to the supreme court with respect to habeas corpus matters initiated in that court; and
(2) funds appropriated to the district court with respect to all stages of proceedings initiated in the district court.
B. The court assigning counsel under the Indigent Defense Act shall pay costs, including the costs of transcripts where appropriate, shall reimburse counsel for direct expenses the court determines to have been properly incurred by him and shall pay to counsel fees:
(1) for services in magistrate courts and district courts where the proceedings are terminated prior to trial in the district court, a sum fixed by the court at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than three hundred dollars ($300);
(2) for services in magistrate courts and district courts which include trial in the district court and, where appropriate, filing notice of appeal, a sum fixed by the court at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than four hundred dollars ($400);
(3) for services in postconviction remedy proceedings in the district court, a sum fixed by the court at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than one hundred fifty dollars ($150);
(4) for services in prosecuting any appeal or review in the court of appeals or the supreme court, a sum fixed by the court at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500);
(5) for services in habeas corpus proceedings in the supreme court, a sum fixed by the court at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than one hundred fifty dollars ($150); and
(6) for services in any case involving a capital offense, a sum fixed by the court.
History:
1953 Comp., § 41-22-8, enacted by Laws 1968, ch. 69, § 65.
ANNOTATIONS
The district court has no authority to order the New Mexico Public Defender Department to pay expert witness fees
on behalf of an indigent defendant who is represented by pro bono private counsel.
Subin v. Ulmer
, 2001-NMCA-105, 131 N.M. 350, 36 P.3d 441.
Statutory fee not violative of constitutional rights.
— Defendant's argument that the statutory attorney fee limitation of $400 in defense of indigent criminal cases was a denial of equal protection and due process was without merit where there was no claim that the defendant was poorly represented, nor were there any facts indicating how the statutory fee limitation so deprived the defendant.
State v. Silver
, 1971-NMCA-112, 83 N.M. 1, 487 P.2d 910.
Constitutionality of flat-fee arrangements for indigent defense contract counsel.
— Where the New Mexico legislature, in its 2015 general appropriation to the law office of the public defender (LOPD), specifically provided that the appropriations to the public defender department shall not be used to pay hourly reimbursement rates to contract attorneys, the district court erred in entering an order requiring the LOPD to pay contract counsel hourly rates and the state to provide additional funding, nullifying the legislature's prohibition of the payment of hourly rates to indigent defense contract counsel as violative of the federal and state constitutions, based on its conclusion that the flat-fee rates paid to contract counsel by the LOPD contravene the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel; an indigent criminal defendant who is represented by contract counsel who is compensated under a flat-fee arrangement does not necessarily receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
Kerr v. Parsons
, 2016-NMSC-028.
Legislature may appropriate additional funds.
— Language in Subsection A (2) providing that expenses under the Indigent Defense Act are to be paid from "funds appropriated to the district court with respect to all stages of proceedings initiated in the district court" does not prevent the legislature from appropriating additional funds for expenses in indigent cases.
State v. Duran
, 1977-NMCA-091, 91 N.M. 35, 570 P.2d 36, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 3, 569 P.2d 413, 435 U.S. 972, 98 S. Ct. 1615, 56 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1978).
Indigent Defense Act does not provide for payment of advances.
State v. Frazier
, 1973-NMCA-127, 85 N.M. 545, 514 P.2d 302.
Motion for advancement of funds for investigator properly denied.
— Defendant's motion for a prior advancement of funds for a professional investigator was properly denied as an expenditure is clearly not required in every case and need not be provided unless the necessity is shown.
State v. Frazier
, 1973-NMCA-127, 85 N.M. 545, 514 P.2d 302.
Indigent defendant represented by
pro bono
counsel
is constitutionally entitled to public funding for expert witness fees, provided that the expert witness meets all of the standards promulgated by the Public Defender Department. Constitutional right to be provided with basic tools of an adequate defense is not contingent upon the appointment of counsel by the Public Defender Department.
State v. Brown
, 2006-NMSC-023, 139 N.M. 466, 134 P.3d 753.
Attorney fees for jointly charged defendants.
— The court may pay the appointed attorney for the defense of each jointly charged defendant, jointly tried the same as though a severance had been effected and separate trials had. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-27.
Transcript for habeas corpus petitioner.
— The laws of this state and the holdings of the supreme court of the United States do not require more being furnished than is necessary to effectively pursue the remedy sought, and one copy of the transcript, furnished to either the habeas corpus petitioner or his attorney, is adequate for this purpose. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-66.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. —
Construction of state statutes providing for compensation of attorney for services under appointment by court in defending indigent accused, 18 A.L.R.3d 1074.
Right of attorney appointed by court for indigent accused to, and court's power to award, compensation by public, in absence of statute or court rule, 21 A.L.R.3d 819.
Validity and construction of state statute or court rule fixing maximum fees for attorney appointed to represent indigent, 3 A.L.R.4th 576.
Right of indigent criminal defendant to polygraph test at public expense, 11 A.L.R.4th 733.