Monroe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Monroe v. State

225 So. 3d 329, 2017 WL 4270753

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 24, 2017·No. CASE NO. 1D16-4672·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As the issue raised in the instant petition has been considered and rejected by this Court in Andrews v. State, 218 So.3d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), we deny the petition. However, as we did in Andrews, we certify the following question as one of great importance:

WHETHER AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT WHO IS REPRESENTED BY PRIVATE COUNSEL PRO BONO IS ENTITLED TO FILE MOTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPOINTMENT AND COSTS OF EXPERTS, MITIGATION ' SPECIALISTS, AND INVESTIGATORS EX PARTE AND UNDER SEAL, WITH SERVICE TO THE JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION AND NOTICE TO THE STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND TO HAVE ANY HEARING ON SUCH MOTIONS EX PARTE, WITH ONLY THE DEFENDANT AND THE COMMISSION PRESENT.

PETITION DENIED.

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

As the issue raised in the instant petition has been considered and rejected by this Court in Andrews v. State, 218 So.3d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), we deny the petition. However, as we did in Andrews, we certify the following question as one of great importance:

WHETHER AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT WHO IS REPRESENTED BY PRIVATE COUNSEL PRO BONO IS ENTITLED TO FILE MOTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPOINTMENT AND COSTS OF EXPERTS, MITIGATION ' SPECIALISTS, AND INVESTIGATORS EX PARTE AND UNDER SEAL, WITH SERVICE TO THE JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION AND NOTICE TO THE STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND TO HAVE ANY HEARING ON SUCH MOTIONS EX PARTE, WITH ONLY THE DEFENDANT AND THE COMMISSION PRESENT.

PETITION DENIED.

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

Monroe v. State, 225 So. 3d 329, 2017 WL 4270753 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

225 So. 3d 329 (Monroe v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related