Opinion ID: 1703032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of Adequate Funding

Text: Maharaj claims he was denied a full and fair postconviction hearing because he did not have adequate funding to investigate and depose witnesses. This claim is without merit for several reasons. See Remeta v. State, 710 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1998). Maharaj filed a motion to incur costs with the trial court. The trial court and the defense determined that pursuant to Hoffman v. Haddock, 695 So.2d 682 (Fla. 1997), the county was not responsible for such costs. Therefore, the trial court denied the request to assess costs to the county but referred the matter to Judge Schaeffer, as chair of the Justice Administrative Commission, for consideration. Judge Schaeffer reviewed the request for funds and questioned some of the items, including out-of-state experts. Later it was determined that Maharaj was not eligible for funds from this source because those funds were reserved for cases where the Office of the Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) had a conflict. Maharaj was never represented by CCR; Maharaj's postconviction attorneys were privately retained. Once that source was determined to be unavailable to Maharaj, the trial court informed Maharaj that he should apply to CCR for funding. CCR told him there were no funds available until October. The judge offered to stay the proceedings until October, but Maharaj insisted on going forward with the hearing. Maharaj claims he was never guaranteed funding in October and that he felt certain he would have been denied funding at that time. Therefore, he argues he did not waive his right to adequate funding by not having the hearing continued. We disagree. While the trial court expressed uncertainty on the future availability of funding, this was basically the situation with all capital postconviction defendants during this period. The CCR offices were undergoing substantial changes, [5] including funding problems. Had Maharaj's attorneys chosen to continue his hearing until October and funds had not been forthcoming, he would have a better argument before this Court on this issue. As matters now stand, postconviction counsel, for strategic or other reasons, chose to proceed without the funds being available. Thus, Maharaj was not denied adequate funding; he made a decision to proceed before the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC) offices were organized and could deal with funding requests. Additionally, in Remeta, this Court held that claims of insufficient postconviction funding require the defendant to demonstrate the evidence could not have been obtained through due diligence at the time of trial. See 710 So.2d at 546. Here, Maharaj has failed to show why the witnesses he wished to present at the hearing were not presented. Maharaj was not declared indigent during his trial; therefore, insufficient funding did not prevent these witnesses from being called at that time.