Mackenzie v. Hillsborough County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mackenzie v. Hillsborough County

280 So. 2d 694, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7883

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 1973

DocketNo. 72-958

StatusPublished

This text of 280 So. 2d 694 (Mackenzie v. Hillsborough County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mackenzie v. Hillsborough County, 280 So. 2d 694, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7883 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER TRANSFERRING CAUSE

PER CURIAM.

Mackenzie, appointed counsel, sought compensation in excess of the maximum of $750 provided by Fla.Stat. § 925.035 (1971), F.S.A. for defending Warren Carey Riley, claiming that the statutory maximum is unconstitutional. This pro-needing, which involves Hillsborough County and Mackenzie as the sole parties in interest, is taken as an appeal from a costs order, and we are asked to' rule on the threshold question whether it is reviewable by appeal or by certiorari, as was done in Lunetto v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 274 So.2d 251; Dade County v. Strauss, Fla.App.3d 1971, 246 So.2d 137; and Dade County v. Carr, Fla.App.3d 1970, 231 So.2d 844.

Our view is that the constitutional question involved is one committed by the Constitution, in Article V, Section 3, F.S.A., to the Supreme Court, and we accordingly transfer the cause there. The trial judge clearly was asked to1 rule and did rule on the question of the constitutionality of the $750 limitation in Fla.Stat. § 925.035 (1971).

The cause is transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to F.A.R. 2.1. subd. a. (5) (b), 32 F.S.A.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur. LILES, J., dissents, with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER TRANSFERRING CAUSE

PER CURIAM.

Mackenzie, appointed counsel, sought compensation in excess of the maximum of $750 provided by Fla.Stat. § 925.035 (1971), F.S.A. for defending Warren Carey Riley, claiming that the statutory maximum is unconstitutional. This pro-needing, which involves Hillsborough County and Mackenzie as the sole parties in interest, is taken as an appeal from a costs order, and we are asked to' rule on the threshold question whether it is reviewable by appeal or by certiorari, as was done in Lunetto v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 274 So.2d 251; Dade County v. Strauss, Fla.App.3d 1971, 246 So.2d 137; and Dade County v. Carr, Fla.App.3d 1970, 231 So.2d 844.

Our view is that the constitutional question involved is one committed by the Constitution, in Article V, Section 3, F.S.A., to the Supreme Court, and we accordingly transfer the cause there. The trial judge clearly was asked to1 rule and did rule on the question of the constitutionality of the $750 limitation in Fla.Stat. § 925.035 (1971).

The cause is transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to F.A.R. 2.1. subd. a. (5) (b), 32 F.S.A.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur. LILES, J., dissents, with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 So. 2d 694, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackenzie-v-hillsborough-county-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack