Minnesota Attorney Fee Awarded Upheld

On September 24, 2012, a district court granted a motion to suppress a gun, filed by Artiase Dvon Williams. The state appealed the order. The court of appeals reversed. Williams’ attorney filed a motion for attorney fees, requesting $120.00 per hour, seeking $3,636.00 for 30.3 hours of work on the appeal. The state did not argue the hourly rate was unreasonable. The state argued only that the court of appeals was required to apply the $50.00 per hour rate set by the chief judge of the South Judicial District, entered November 17, 2012, for the portion of work performed after the chief judge’s order. The court of appeals granted the amount Williams’ attorney requested. Subsequently, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the state’s request for further review.

On appeal there was no dispute of entitlement to attorney fees. The state argued the court of appeals erred in its grant of the entire amount requested, relying on a 2012 statutory enactment concerning attorney fees when the state appeals a pretrial order. See: Act of April 23, 2012, ch. 212, §17, 2012, Minn. Laws 367, 375-76 (codified at Minn. Stat. §611.27, subd. 16 (2012)). The statue provides for the payment of “reasonable attorney fees and costs” by the government unit responsible for the prosecution. Paragraph (b) of subdivision 16 provides a process for a chief judge to set the hourly rate for attorney fees which may not exceed $5,000.00, exclusive of reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred, unless the excess of that amount is certified by the chief judge.

The state relied on a November 17, 2012 order from the Fourth Judicial District, establishing a rate of $50.00 for fees in the state’s pretrial appeals, effective to all services performed after November 17, 2012. Williams’ attorney requested fees for 9.2 hours of work performed after November 17, 2012; the state contends that the $50.00 rate should be applied and that the court of appeals could not review the rate set by the chief judge.

Williams’ attorney argues the court should affirm the award of $120.00 per hour for the total 30.3 hours work because Minnesota statutes should not be interpreted to divest the appeal court’s authority to review orders of a chief judge.

In its February 5, 2014 order, the Supreme Court disagreed with the state’s argument that the statute divests the court of appeals of its authority to review a chief judge’s order. The Minnesota Constitution provides appellate jurisdiction in all cases except those prescribed by law. The Court ruled that for a statute to divest appeal courts of jurisdiction, the legislature would be limiting jurisdiction granted by the Constitution.

The plain language of the statute instructs a chief judge to set a fee-rate for reasonable fee awards, but says nothing about appellate review. The Supreme Court’s ruling does not presume a statute divests an appeal court of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that in order to make a meaningful appellate review, a chief judge should generate and preserve a contemporaneous record of how a judge arrived at a fee-rate. In this case, the court of appeals did not have a sufficient record that would allow meaningful review of the $50.00 set by the chief judge. The court of appeals was unable to discern who the chief judge consulted in arriving at his rate. Additionally, Williams’ counsel performed a majority of his work before the November 17, 2012 order and the $50.00 rate was established. The state did not argue the $120.00 rate for work performed prior to November 17, 2012 was unreasonable. Moreover, the state’s pretrial appeal was two months before the $50.00 fee was set which had no bearing on the state’s decision to appeal.

The court of appeals did not abuse its discretion by awarding Williams’ attorney the $120.00 per hour fee requested by him. See: State v. Artiase Dvon Williams, Case no. 12-1719 (Minn. 2014).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case