Download this newsletter as a PDF
View News & Notes Archive
News & Notes
Regional Conflict Counsels Upheld by Supreme Court
In the 2007 session, the Legislature enacted changes to section 29.008, F.S. for the purpose of attempting to require counties to fund the newly created offices of regional conflict counsel by defining those persons to be a part of the office of the public defender. Under Article V, section 14, Florida Constitution and Chapter 29, Florida Statutes, the counties are obligated to fund certain enumerated pieces of the state court system, including the “overhead” (e.g., facilities, utilities, technology, phones) expenses of the public defender. So, by defining the regional conflict counsel to be a part of the public defender office, the Legislature requires the counties to fund the new office’s overhead as well. The 2007 legislation was challenged by the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“FACDL”), arguing that the regional conflict counsel were “de facto” public defenders but that the qualifications for the regional conflict counsel violated the qualifications for the public defenders set out in Article V, section 18, Florida Constitution. The FACDL did not raise the argument that the counties are not constitutionally obligated to fund conflict counsel under Article V, sec. 14. The FACDL prevailed at the trial court level and the court entered an order declaring the legislation to be unconstitutional. The state appealed.
The Florida Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in the Crist v. Fla. Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Case No. SC08-02 on March 13, 2008. The Court reversed the trial court conclusion that the creation of the offices of regional conflict counsel violated Art. V, sec. 18 of the Florida Constitution (provisions that set forth the qualification for the public defender). The Court did not directly address any issues related to the funding of the conflict counsel. The Court did comment, with respect to the Legislature’s defining of these offices as part of the office of the public defender for purposes of requiring counties to fund them, as follows:
In the context of our constitutional inquiry in this case, we agree with the Governor that the legal character of the OCCCRC should depend on what they do, not on how they might be characterized for purposes of funding. Accordingly, we reject the assertion that the OCCCRC are public defenders simply because they are defined as such for the sole purposes of funding.
See Op. at 18. Finally on county-specific issues, the Court noted that SB 1088 (from the 2007 legislative session, creating the offices of regional conflict counsel) was “in part motivated by Revision 7 to Article V, which shifted the majority of the burden of funding the court system from the counties to the State, and also to respond to the chronic problem of conflict representation in indigent defense cases.” See op. at 4 (citing to the Senate Staff Analysis for SB 1088). No further reference to Revision 7 was made.
Because the Supreme Court opinion did not impact the constitutional arguments that the counties have for not being legally obligated to fund the overhead expenses of the regional conflict counsel, FAC’s position that the counties are not obligated to fund these expenses has not been changed by last week’s ruling. (Delegal: gdelegal@fl-counties.com)