Opinion ID: 1909208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: adequate funding

Text: The Florida Legislature has acted to provide funds and resources to assure representation in capital collateral proceedings since 1985. [2] Importantly, in the 1998 and 1999 legislative sessions, the legislature has made significant strides in appropriating funds and implementing legislation intended to assist in alleviating the problems the CCRCs are experiencing. In fact, for the first time the legislature has enacted a scheme for the provision of counsel in capital collateral proceedings that attempts to provide some form of legal services for all death-sentenced defendants. This, of course, has been our goal for some time. [3] The legislature has enacted legislation to provide supplemental private counsel for capital collateral defendants and has specifically mandated that courts shall monitor the performance of assigned counsel to ensure that the capital defendant is receiving quality representation. The court shall also receive and evaluate allegations that are made regarding the performance of assigned counsel. See Ch. 99-221, § 5, Laws of Fla., 1999 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. (West) (adding subsection (12) to section 27.711, Florida Statutes (1998 Supp.)). The staff analyses from both the Senate and the House specifically indicate that the legislature is concerned about compliance with this Court's decision in Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1986). In Makemson, we recognized that courts have a constitutional obligation in capital cases to provide compensation for counsel in excess of statutory caps if necessary to assure adequate representation. Despite this recent legislative action, the petitioners contend that this Court must command the legislature to provide additional funding and personnel to the CCRCs. According to the supporting study commissioned by Holland and Knight and attached to the petition, the funding of the CCRCs is still woefully inadequate and it will take 137 additional attorneys and 25 million additional dollars to properly represent the approximately 208 capital defendants assigned to the CCRCs. [4] This Court has previously acknowledged its responsibility to ensure that CCRC receive adequate funding. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.851 Court Commentary (1993) (In the event the capital collateral representative is not fully funded and available to provide proper representation for all death penalty defendants, the reduction in the time period [for seeking relief under this rule] would not be justified and would necessarily have to be repealed, and this Court will forthwith entertain a petition for the repeal of the rule.). However, while I acknowledge that additional funding may still be necessary, I disagree that we must suspend all collateral proceedings and compel the legislature to apply a particular funding formula for representation in capital collateral proceedings. [5] Fortunately, the legislature has recognized the critical importance of counsel in postconviction proceedings in capital cases and has attempted to provide counsel, whether private or institutional, at an early date in the proceedings. Further, as noted above, the legislature has provided additional funding and enacted legislation to assist in providing additional representation to capital collateral defendants. Clearly, the allocation of resources to fund postconviction relief counsel to capital defendants should ordinarily be a matter of legislative choice and policy. We are obligated to give considerable deference to the legislature's response to this obligation.