Florida Public Defender May File Systematic Motions to Withdraw Due to Case Overload

by David Reutter

The Florida Supreme Court has held that aggregate/systematic motions to withdraw by the Public Defender’s office are appropriate in circumstances where there is an office-wide or widespread problem as to the office’s ability to provide effective representation. The Court further held that while facially constitutional, § 27.5303 (1)(d), Florida Statutes should not be applied to preclude a public defender from filing a motion to withdraw based on excessive caseload or underfunding that would result in ineffective representation.

The State Supreme Court ruled on decisions by the Third District Court of Appeals, which had certified a question of great public importance. The Third District reversed a trial court’s orders granting motions to withdraw in 21 cases and temporarily relieving the Public Defender for the Eleventh Circuit – the state’s largest circuit, located in the Miami area – from accepting third-degree felony cases.

The Public Defender’s motion certified a conflict on the basis of excessive caseloads caused by underfunding that prevented it from carrying out its legal and ethical obligations to defendants.

The number of cases assigned to the Public Defender’s office increased by 29% since 2004, but its budget was reduced by 12.6% through budget cuts and holdbacks over fiscal years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Also, in July 2004, legislative funding cut overload attorneys for Miami-Dade County 82 to 32. The non-capital felony caseload has been in the range of 400 cases per attorney for a number of years, which is 200 to 300 more than recommended by professional legal organizations. At the time the motions were filed, there were 105 attorneys to represent clients in 45,055 new or reopened cases. “Third degree felony attorneys often have as many as fifty cases set for trial in one week because of excessive caseload,” the Court wrote. “Attorneys are routinely unable to interview clients, conduct investigations, take depositions, prepare mitigation, or counsel clients about pleas offered at arraignment.” This results in “triage” with clients in custody or who face the most serious charges getting priority to the detriment of the other clients.

To address the problem “on a piecemeal case by case basis” is “tantamount to applying a band aid to an open head wound,” wrote the Court. It then found aggregate/systematic motions should be permitted in such cases.

The Court held § 27.5303(1) (d), Fla Sta., which states that “in no case shall the court approve a withdrawal by the public defender… based solely on the inadequacy of funding or excess workload,” is facially constitutional. It, however, held the statute should not be applied to preclude the Public Defender from filing a motion to withdraw on those grounds or to preclude the court from granting the motion where the Public Defender is underfunded or facing an excessive caseload. Finally, the court held the State Attorney has standing to challenge such a motion.

The Matter was remanded for the trial court to determine whether circumstances still warrant the Public Defender from declining appointments of future third-degree felony cases. See: Public Defender v. State of Florida,115 So.3d 261 (Fla. 2013).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case