In a 5-2 decision, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that public defender's offices can seek permission from trial courts to stop taking on new cases, if they can demonstrate that their offices are overloaded with clients and cannot provide effective representation to new ones.
Justice Peggy Quince wrote the opinion on behalf of herself and Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, Jorge Labarga, and James E.C. Perry. Chief Justice Ricky Polston wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Charles T. Canady.
The case before the court had been in litigation since 2008, when the public defender's office for Florida's 11th Judicial Circuit which covers Miami-Dade County petitioned the trial court for permission to stop taking new third-degree felony cases (e.g., drug possession, grand theft auto, and battery). State prosecutors and the attorney general's office argued that the court had no authority to grant such a blanket permission.
Last year, the Supreme Court heard evidence that Miami-Dade's assistant public defenders who represent poor clients who cannot afford to hire their own attorneys were each representing almost 500 felony cases a year, and sometimes litigating as many as 50 trials a week.
"Attorneys are routinely unable to interview clients, conduct investigations, take depositions, prepare mitigation, or counsel clients about pleas offered at arraignment, Quince wrote, calling this state of affairs a damning indictment of the poor quality of trial representation that is being afforded indigent defendants.
The state argued that a Florida law forbids public defenders from withdrawing from cases simply because their caseload is too heavy. Quince insisted that prohibition simply means that public defenders have to prove, not just that their workload is too great, but that the taking on of so many clients is depriving, or would deprive, future clients of their constitutional right to effective representation.
In his dissent, Polston argued that trial courts have no authority to give blanket permission for public defenders not to receive certain cases. Instead, he said, the trial court needs to decide on a case-by-case basis whether that office is unable to provide effective representation to individual clients.
He said the Miami-Dade public defender failed to prov[e] actual (or the likelihood of imminent) violations of individual defendants constitutional right to effective representation.
Asked to comment on the ruling, Julianne Holt, president of the Florida Public Defender Association, referred Sunshine State News to a lengthy statement issued by Carlos Martinez, Miami-Dade's elected public defender, which praised the court's decision.
We are elated with todays ruling by the Supreme Court of Florida, Martinez writes. This decision lifts the spirits of attorneys everywhere who, due to crippling caseloads, have been confronted with the difficult decision of picking and choosing which client gets legally competent and diligent representation and which do not.
The court left no doubt that it is the judiciary's role to safeguard individual liberty and equal justice under law, and to ensure that our courtrooms do not become factories of injustice and inequity.
The Supreme Court's ruling returns the case back to the trial court to determine whether the Miami-Dade public defender can withdraw from future representation of third-degree felony cases. If the office is allowed to withdraw, those clients would still have legal representation: they would beassigned an attorney from the appropriate Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel.
Reach Eric Giunta at egiunta@sunshinestatenews.com or at (954) 235-9116.
