STATE v BOYKEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: Decided : Clerk October 19, 1981 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 The D i s t r i c t 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. 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 . attorney 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 . of out-of-court 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 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 couns 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 reasona 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 . Chief J u s t i c e W concur: e , supra.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.