Opinion ID: 2632550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: post-conviction legislation and mr. brass' appointment

Text: ¶18 Meanwhile, in proceedings before this court involving the district court's order awarding Menzies' investigative fees, the State had filed a motion suggesting that the issue may be moot given the recent passage of House Bill 60, enacting Part 2 of the Post-Conviction Remedies Act, Capital Sentence Cases, which governs the appointment and payment of counsel in post-conviction death penalty proceedings. Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-35a-201 to -202 (2002). We granted the State's motion on April 28, 1997, noting that the parties had agreed to voluntarily stay proceedings in the district court until after July 1, 1997, the date on which the new legislation and associated rules went into effect. [2] After the new legislation became effective, both parties sought to have the district court appoint new counsel qualified under rule 8 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, as required by the newly enacted Utah Code section 78-35a-202(2)(a). On October 1, 1997, the State notified Menzies' counsel that the Utah Division of Finance had implemented rules that might allow Menzies to receive payment from the state for attorney fees and litigation expenses. In a letter to the State dated October 13, 1997, Menzies' counsel stated that she did not feel comfortable applying for compensation under the provisions adopted by the Utah Division of Finance because Menzies' pro bono team had not been appointed by the court and did not meet the requirements of rule 8, as required by section 78-35a-202(2)(a). Menzies' counsel further represented her belief that the case could not proceed until an attorney meeting the rule 8 requirements, who was willing to represent Menzies, could be located. ¶ 19 On October 27, 1997, the State requested that the district court appoint new counsel qualified under rule 8 to represent Menzies. Menzies' counsel also filed a motion arguing that his pro bono team collectively did not met the rule 8 requirements and asking the court to appoint new counsel. The district court held a hearing on the State's motion on November 3, 1997, and determined that [n]ew counsel must be appointed. The court ordered Menzies' counsel to prepare and submit a list of attorneys qualified under the new rule 8 who would be willing to accept the appointment, along with affidavits regarding the attorneys' backgrounds and qualifications. Pursuant to this order, Menzies' counsel submitted a report to the district court on November 12, 1997, identifying thirteen attorneys whom she believed were qualified to represent Menzies. Of these thirteen, five were unable to take the case because of undisclosed conflicts. Menzies' counsel sent a letter to the remaining eight attorneys inviting them to represent Menzies, but had received no responses as of November 12. No affidavits were included with the November 12 report. ¶ 20 Kenneth R. Brown, one of the attorneys identified in the November 12 report and contacted by Menzies' counsel, filed an affidavit with the district court on December 3, 1997. In his affidavit, Brown stated that he was unwilling to represent Menzies for a host of reasons. At the time, the Utah State Department of Finance Regulations placed a $25,000 cap on compensation for attorneys representing plaintiffs in post-conviction death penalty cases which included investigation and expert witness fees. According to Brown, Menzies had uninvestigated claims of actual innocence that Brown estimated would cost $25,000 to properly investigate. In addition, Brown stated that no mitigation investigation had been conducted in the underlying trial and one would be necessary in order to properly litigate Menzies' post-conviction claims. Such an investigation would cost well in excess of $25,000. Under these circumstances, Brown believed that the funds available to any attorney undertaking Menzies' representation would be grossly inadequate because the necessary investigation alone would cost nearly three times the total amount authorized by the state. Therefore, Brown felt that any attorney representing Menzies would be placed in an immediate ethical conflict because he or she would be forced to choose between receiving compensation . . . and conducting no reasonable investigation whatsoever, or alternatively, throwing all of [the funds] into a still-inadequate investigation, and going without any compensation. [3] Accordingly, Brown declined to represent Menzies. ¶ 21 On December 16, 1997, the State filed a second motion requesting that the district court appoint rule 8 qualified counsel for Menzies. In its motion, the State indicated that the only attorney contacted by Menzies' counsel who had responded was Brown and he had declined to represent Menzies. The State argued that [i]n order to proceed with this action a Rule 8 qualified attorney must be appointed by the Court to represent the petitioner's interests. The State also stated that [f]urther delay in making the appointment of counsel is not in the best interest of the petitioner who has alleged, among other claims, his `actual innocence.' On December 23, 1997, Menzies' counsel filed a supplemental report to update the district court regarding her search for rule 8 qualified counsel. In the report, Menzies' counsel indicated that she had received replies to her letter soliciting a rule 8 qualified attorney for Menzies from four of the eight recipients. Each of these attorneys had declined to represent Menzies, most for the same reasons as Brown. Menzies' counsel further stated that the attorneys she had contacted constituted all of the potentially qualifying attorneys of whom she was aware. ¶ 22 On January 29, 1998, the district court held a second hearing regarding the appointment of rule 8 qualified counsel. The court ordered Menzies' counsel to continue trying to contact attorneys to represent Menzies and gave her until February 5 to do so. On February 4, 1998, pursuant to a request from the district court judge's clerk, Menzies' counsel submitted a letter to the district court indicating the eight attorneys who had been contacted and their responses. The letter indicated that four of the attorneys had responded in the negative and the other four had still not responded. ¶ 23 On February 3, 1998, attorney Edward K. Brass sent a letter to Menzies' counsel stating that he would be interested in representing Menzies if they were still seeking counsel. On February 13, 1998, at yet another hearing regarding the appointment of rule 8 qualified counsel, Menzies' counsel told the court about Brass' letter. The court contacted Brass, he appeared and agreed to represent Menzies, and the district court approved the appointment. It does not appear that the district court ever actually conducted an inquiry into whether Brass was qualified to represent Menzies under rule 8. On March 3, 1998, the court entered an order appointing Brass to represent Menzies in all proceedings before the court. Menzies' pro bono team subsequently withdrew their representation but remained available to consult with Brass. In the 60(b) ruling, the district court stated that Mr. Brass believed he was appointed for the sole purpose of representing Petitioner at the evidentiary hearing. While Brass' affidavit does contain a statement to this effect, nothing else in the record indicates that his representation was limited in such a manner. The letter Brass sent to Menzies' counsel simply stated that Brass was willing to take the case. At the hearing at which Brass was appointed, the district court did not set any limit on his representation. Also, the district court's order appointing Brass, which he signed, actually states that Edward K. Brass is appointed to represent Mr. Menzies in all proceedings before this court (emphasis added). Most telling, at an evidentiary hearing held on January 16, 2004, Brass himself stated that his representation of Menzies was not limited in any way. Nor would a limitation on Brass' representation have been appropriate given that the district court and counsel for both parties had just conducted a four-month search for rule 8 qualified counsel and Brass was the only attorney willing to take the case. Any limitation would also have run counter to the post-conviction regulatory framework. Under the Utah Administrative Code, [a]ll appointed counsel, by accepting the court appointment to represent an indigent client sentenced to death and by presenting a Request for Payment to the Division of Finance, agree to provide all reasonable and necessary post-conviction legal services for the client, including timely filing an action under the provisions of Title 78, Chapter 35a, Post-Conviction Remedies Act and representing the client in all legal proceedings conducted thereafter including, if requested by the client, an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. Utah Admin. Code r. 25-14-3 (emphasis added). The record indicates that Brass requested and received from the Division of Finance an initial appointment fee of $5,000 pursuant to rule 25-14-4(1) of the Utah Administrative Code.