No. 81-287
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
vs .
DAVID ALTON BOYKEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade
Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Joe Bottomly argued, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana
Randall Snyder argued, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls,
Montana
For Amicus Curiae:
Lawrence Anderson, Great Falls, Montana
Daniel Donovan, Great Falls, Mt.
Submitted: October 19, 1981
Decided :
Clerk
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
Joe B o t t o m l y , a c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y , moved t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o w a i v e i t s l o c a l r u l e which s e t s f o r t h a maximum
a m o u n t i n a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be awarded a c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d attorney
f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g an i n d i g e n t c r i m i n a l defendant. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n and B o t t o m l y a p p e a l s . We reverse.
B o t t o m l y was a p p o i n t e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E i g h t h
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t t o r e p r e s e n t David A l t o n Boyken. Boyken had
b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h t h r e e f e l o n i e s : a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , r o b b e r y and
felony theft. A t r i a l o n t h e s e c h a r g e s b e g a n o n March 2 6 , 1 9 8 1 ,
and l a s t e d f o r f o u r d a y s . After deliberating f o r over nine
h o u r s t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d v e r d i c t s o f a c q u i t t a l o n t h e r o b b e r y and
a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t c h a r g e s b u t was u n a b l e to r e a c h a v e r d i c t o n
t h e felony t h e f t charge.
F o l l o w i n g t h e t r i a l , B o t t o m l y moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r
c o m p e n s a t i o n and s u b m i t t e d a n a f f i d a v i t i t e m i z i n g h i s work h o u r s
and e x p e n s e s . H e r e q u e s t e d a t o t a l of $3,431.98 f o r 129.5 h o u r s
of out-of-court t i m e a t $20.00 p e r h o u r , 27 h o u r s o f i n - c o u r t
t i m e a t $30.00 p e r h o u r , and $ 3 1 . 9 8 f o r e x p e n s e s . The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d e n i e d h i s r e q u e s t and l i m i t e d h i s c o m p e n s a t i o n t o $ 1 , 0 0 0
f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s p l u s $31.98 f o r e x p e n s e s .
R u l e 45 o f t h e R u l e s o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t
provides t h a t a court-appointed a t t o r n e y s h a l l be c o m p e n s a t e d a t
a r a t e o f $30.00 p e r h o u r f o r i n - c o u r t t i m e and $20.00 p e r h o u r
f o r out-of-court time. However t h e r u l e a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t s u c h
c o m p e n s a t i o n s h a l l n o t e x c e e d $ 1 , 0 0 0 i n a case i n which o n e o r
m o r e f e l o n i e s a r e c h a r g e d u n l e s s t h e case is a n e x t e n d e d o r
complex r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s case w a s n o t t h e
t y p e o f case c o n t e m p l a t e d b y Rule 45 f o r a l l o w i n g f e e s i n e x c e s s
o f t h e $ 1 , 0 0 0 maximum. In h i s o r d e r denying Bottomly's r e q u e s t
and s e t t i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s a t $1,000, t h e District Court judge
n o t e d t h a t more t h a n t h e u s u a l number o f o u t s i d e a t t o r n e y s were
b e i n g a p p o i n t e d to r e p r e s e n t i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t s charged w i t h
criminal offenses. The j u d g e a l s o n o t e d t h a t a n unknown amount
o f e x p e n s e s s t i l l had t o be p a i d o u t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s
budgeted funds.
On A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 , B o t t o m l y moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o
r e c o n s i d e r its o r d e r . A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d and B o t t o m l y s u b m i t t e d
t h e a f f i d a v i t s o f t h r e e e x p e r i e n c e d c r i m i n a l l a w y e r s which
s t a t e d i n s u b s t a n c e t h a t t h e case was complex from b o t h a l e g a l
a n d f a c t u a l s t a n d p o i n t , t h a t t h e number o f h o u r s s p e n t b y
B o t t o m l y w a s r e a s o n a b l e and t h a t a p r i v a t e a t t o r n e y h a n d l i n g a
s i m i l a r case would c h a r g e a t l e a s t $50.00 p e r h o u r . An a f f i d a v i t
f r o m B o t t o m l y ' s a c c o u n t a n t was a l s o s u b m i t t e d showing t h a t
B o t t o m l y ' s s h a r e o f h i s f i r m ' s m o n t h l y o v e r h e a d f o r t h e t i m e he
s p e n t on t h i s case was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 , 0 0 6 . 2 0 .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d i t s e a r l i e r o r d e r and
Bottomly appeals.
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w :
1. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n
t h i s case i n l i m i t i n g t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s to $ 1 , 0 0 0 .
2. W h e t h e r t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s case
c o n s t i t u t e s an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e n i a l of t h e i n d i g e n t
d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l .
3. W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s
v i o l a t e s t h e F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments to t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
C o n s t i t u t i o n and c o r r e s p o n d i n g s e c t i o n s o f t h e 1 9 7 2 Montana
C o n s t i t u t i o n by t a k i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l I s property without j u s t
c o m p e n s a t i o n o r b y d e n y i n g him e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e laws.
4. W h e t h e r a Montana D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s i n h e r e n t
a u t h o r i t y to o r d e r t h a t c o u r t a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l be c o m p e n s a t e d .
To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e -
t i o n i n l i m i t i n g B o t t o m l y ' s f e e s to $ 1 , 0 0 0 i t is n e c e s s a r y to
r e f e r to s e c t i o n 46-8-201(1) , MCA. It provides:
"Whenever i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g a n a t t o r n e y
r e p r e s e n t s or d e f e n d s a n y p e r s o n b y o r d e r of t h e
c o u r t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e p e r s o n is f i n a n -
c i a l l y unable to employ c o u n s e l , t h e a t t o r n e y
s h a l l be p a i d f o r h i s s e r v i c e s s u c h sum as a
d i s t r i c t c o u r t or j u s t i c e o f t h e s t a t e supreme
c o u r t c e r t i f i e s t o be a r e a s o n a b l e c o m p e n s a t i o n
t h e r e f o r and s h a l l be r e i m b u r s e d f o r r e a s o n a b l e
c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g .I'
T h i s s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t a " r e a s o n a b l e compensation" be paid a
court-appointed attorney.
T h i s c o u r t h a s a d o p t e d g u i d e l i n e s to be f o l l o w e d when
awarding a court-appointed a t t o r n e y reasonable compensation.
They a r e as f o l l o w s :
" ' T h e f e e need n o t be o f a n amount e q u a l t o t h a t
from a paying c l i e n t , b u t should s t r i k e a
b a l a n c e b e t w e e n con£ l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s , i n c l u d i n g
t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n of a l a w y e r to make
l e g a l c o u n s e l a v a i l a b l e and t h e i n c r e a s i n g l y
h e a v y b u r d e n on t h e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n c r e a t e d b y
expanded i n d i g e n t r i g h t s . C o u r t a p p o i n t e d coun-
s e l s h o u l d n e i t h e r be u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d n o r
u n d u l y i m p o v e r i s h e d , b u t m u s t be awarded a n
amount which w i l l a l l o w t m i n a n c i a l s u r v i v a l
o f h i s p r a c t i c e . A c o u n t y s h a l l pay a reason-
a b l e amount f o r a l l p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s which
a r e not donated.
"I Elements of c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n f i x i n g f e e s
i n c l u d e t h e amount o f t i m e and e f f o r t e x p e n d e d ,
t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f t h e s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d ,
t h e f e e s p a i d f o r similar s e r v i c e s i n o t h e r
j urisdictions , the t r a d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
o f t h e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n , t h e amount o f p u b l i c
f u n d s made a v a i l a b l e f o r s u c h p u r p o s e s , and a
j u d i c i o u s r e s p e c t f o r t h e t a x p a y i n g p u b l i c as
w e l l as t h e n e e d s o f t h e a c c u s e d . I' S t a t e v.
A l l i e s ( 1979), Mon t . , 5 9 7 P.2d 6 4 , 3 6
S t . Rep. 8 2 0 , c i t i n g S t a t e v. L e h i r o n d e l l e
( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 5 Wash.App. 5 0 2 , 5 5 0 P.2d 3 3 .
A court-appointed a t t o r n e y m u s t be awarded a n amount t h a t
w i l l allow t h e f i n a n c i a l s u r v i v a l o f h i s p r a c t i c e . W agree t h a t
e
" f e e s awarded a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l m u s t r e i m b u r s e t h e a t t o r n e y f o r
o f f i c e o v e r h e a d and e x p e n s e s and y i e l d s o m e t h i n g t o w a r d h i s own
support." People v. Johnson (1981), 93 Ill.App.3d 8 4 8 , 417
I n A l l i e s , s u p r a , t h i s Court set f o r t h a g u i d e l i n e
r e g a r d i n g t h e maximum h o u r l y r a t e to be awarded a c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d
attorney. T h i s g u i d e l i n e w a s a b o l i s h e d i n I n re P e t i t i o n to
Adopt R u l e , E t c . ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 6 3 4 P.2d 1 1 8 5 , 38 S t . R e p .
1 6 1 3 , b u t t h e o t h e r g u i d e l i n e s set f o r t h i n A l l i e s , s u p r a , r e m a i n
in effect.
I n t h i s c a s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t it
had e v e r c o n s i d e r e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n A l l i e s , s u p r a ,
when it d e t e r m i n e d t h a t B o t t o m l y s h o u l d be awarded t h e $ 1 , 0 0 0
maximum e s t a b l i s h e d b y i t s own l o c a l r u l e . The $ 1 , 0 0 0 award is
n o t r e a s o n a b l e c o m p e n s a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n l i m i t i n g Bottomly' s compensation t o
t h i s amount. B o t t o m l y s u b m i t t e d a n a f f i d a v i t from h i s a c c o u n t a n t
showing t h a t h i s overhead c o s t s a l o n e f o r t h e p e r i o d of t i m e t h a t
h e worked on t h i s c a s e e x c e e d e d t h e $ 1 , 0 0 0 a w a r d , l e a v i n g n o t h i n g
t o be a p p l i e d t o w a r d h i s own s u p p o r t . R e g a r d l e s s o f i t s own
l o c a l r u l e s , a D i s t r i c t C o u r t m u s t award a n amount which w i l l
a l l o w f o r t h e f i n a n c i a l s u r v i v a l of t h e court-appointed
a t t o r n e y ' s p r a c t i c e , and t h e e l e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n t h e A l l i e s
c a s e m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d when f i x i n g a f e e .
S i n c e w e h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s
i n t h i s case was u n r e a s o n a b l e , we need n o t a d d r e s s t h e r e m a i n i n g
i s s u e s raised i n t h i s appeal.
W r e v e r s e and remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r
e
a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n and r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e award o f a t t o r n e y
f e e s following the guidelines set f o r t h i n A l l i e s , supra, a s
m o d i f i e d b y I n r e P e t i t i o n to Adopt R u l e , E t c . , supra.
Chief J u s t i c e
W concur:
e