Opinion ID: 2443037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: fee cap

Text: Findley's final assertion of error is that the $1,000 attorney's fee limitation, set forth in Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987), is unconstitutional. We recently ruled that the fee cap for appointed attorneys in criminal cases is, in fact, unconstitutional, in Arnold v. Kemp, 306 Ark. 294, 813 S.W.2d 770 (1991); however, Findley is precluded from raising the issue on law of the case principles. The fact that the evidence was substantially different in the second trial does not prevent us, here, from deciding the issue on the law of the case doctrine since the constitutionality of Section 16-92-108 has nothing to do with evidentiary matters. Either Findley raised this issue at his first trial, and lost on appeal when we reversed and remanded the case, or Findley did not raise the issue at his first trial. The law of the case doctrine prevents consideration of arguments that were made, or could have been made, at the first trial of the case, Willis v. Estate of Adams, 304 Ark. 35, 799 S.W.2d 800 (1990), and applies to constitutional issues. See Bedell v. State, 260 Ark. 401, 541 S.W.2d 297 (1976). Pursuant to Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 11(f), we have reviewed all other rulings adverse to Findley and find that none constitute prejudicial error. Affirmed.