__________________________________________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ___________________ Case No. SC06-835 ___________________ ROGER R. MAAS, etc. et al, Appellants/Cross Appellee, v. MARK EVAN OLIVE, Appellee/Cross Appellant. __________________________________________________ On review of Second Judicial Circuit Case 03-CA-000291 __________________________________________________ CROSS-REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT MARK EVAN OLIVE HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Stephen F. Hanlon Steven Brannock Robin L. Rosenberg Leon Fresco 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 955-3000 Attorneys for Appellee/Cross Appellant __________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................ii ARGUMENT IN REPLY ...................................................................................1 I. OLIVE HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS CASE. ....................................1 II. OLIVE'S INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 27.7002 COMPORTS WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND THE LEGISLATURE'S ACTUAL INTENT.........................................................3 III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE POSTCONVICTION COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES................................................................6 A. Like Mississippi and Alaska, Florida is Aptly Positioned to Explicitly Recognize a Constitutional right to Effective Postconviction Counsel in Capital Cases............................................................9 B. Recognizing a Florida Constitutional Right to Postconviction Counsel Need Not Result in An Endless Cycle of Successive Claims as Appellants Allege. ...............................................................................11 C. Olive Properly Relies On ABA Reports and Recommendations; This Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have Repeatedly Endorsed the Findings and Recommendations of the ABA. ..........................................12 CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………………………………15 CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND FONT COMPLIANCE………………….15 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Ackerberg v. Johnson, 892 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir.1989) ..................................................................... 13 Canaan v. McBride, 395 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 13 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) ................................................................................ 7, 8 Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) ....................................................................................9 Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) ................................................................................. 13 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) ....................................................................................7 Hedrick v. True, 443 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 13 Lundgren v. Mitchell, 440 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 13 Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) ....................................................................................7 Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989) ................................................................................ 6, 7, 8 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) ................................................................................ 6, 7 Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) ................................................................................. 13 ii SEC v. Tome, 638 F. Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).............................................................. 13 Smith v. Dretke, 422 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 13 Smith v. Mullin, 379 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2004).................................................................... 13 Summerlin v. Schriro, 427 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 13 Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) .................................................................................. 13 STATE CASES Arbelaez v. Butterworth, 738 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1999)................................................................9, 10, 11 Armstrong v. State, 862 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2005)......................................................................... 13 Clark v. Vandermeer, 740 P.2d 921 (Wyo. 1987) ......................................................................... 13 Commonwealth v. Brown, 872 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2005) .......................................................................... 13 Fla. Department of Financial Serv. v. Freeman, 921 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2006)...........................................................................5 Franks v. State, 278 Ga. 246, 599 S.E.2d 134 (Ga. 2004)..................................................... 13 Grinols v. State, 74 P.3d 889 (Alaska 2003)..................................................................... 9, 10 Jackson v. State, 732 So. 2d 187 (Miss. 1999) .................................................................. 9, 10 iii Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2006) .........................................................................4 Lambrix v. State, 698 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1997)......................................................................... 12 In re Larry Douglas Lucas, 94 P.3d 477 (Cal. 2004) ............................................................................. 13 Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1986) .........................................................................5 Olive v. Maas, 811 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2002)............................................................1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Olive v. Maas, 911 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).............................................................2 Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2004)......................................................................... 13 Rutherford v. State, 940 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2006) ....................................................................... 13 Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1992)...........................................................................8 White v. Bd of County Comm'r of Pinellas County, 537 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1989) .........................................................................5 Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2005) .........................................................................6 Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038 (Del. 2003)......................................................................... 13 iv DOCKETED CASES Barbour v. Haley, No. 06-10920-cc (11th Cir. 2006).................................................................8 Menzies v. Galetka, No. 20040289 (Utah December 15, 2006)................................................... 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES Section 27.7002, Fla. Stat.................................................................................1-5 Louis D. Brandeis, The Living Laws, 10 Ill.L.Rev. 461, 740 ............................... 14 House of Representatives Committee on Crime Prevention, Corrections and Safety, Final Analysis of HB 1091 .............................................5 v ARGUMENT IN REPLY Gallagher's argument that Olive has no standing is based on the false premise that Olive seeks to destroy the Registry Program. As shown below, however, Olive challenges only those sections that seek to prevent attorneys from seeking fees in excess of the caps. Gallagher must concede that Olive has standing to seek these rulings under the law of the case. Gallagher's remarkable argument that Section 27.7002 can fairly be read to permit payment above the caps can be reached only by ignoring the language of the statute (which Gallagher's brief proceeds to ignore) and the obvious legislative intent to overrule Olive I. This the Court may not do. Florida should join with Alaska and Mississippi in recognizing a state constitutional right to postconviction capital counsel, thereby vindicating the right of meaningful access to the courts. I. OLIVE HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS CASE. Gallagher concedes that Olive has standing to pursue this matter pursuant to the law of the case decided in Olive I. Gallagher Reply at 5; Olive v. Maas, 811 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2002). In fact, as the First District noted on intermediate appeal, Olive has an even stronger basis for standing in this case. Olive has already been appointed by a court to represent a real client in a real case and he is rendering that 1 service pro bono precisely because of the restrictions posed by Section 27.7002. Olive v. Maas, 911 So.2d 837, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Unable to attack Olive's standing on the merits, Gallagher nonetheless asserts that Olive has no standing because his "real aim" is to "obtain the complete invalidation and elimination of the Registry program." Gallagher Reply at 5. This hyperbolic assertion grossly overstates Olive's position. Olive challenges only those portions of the statute that the Legislature enacted after this Court decided Olive I. These subsections improperly penalize attorneys who seek