The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 27
STATE ATTORNEYS; PUBLIC DEFENDERS; RELATED OFFICES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 27.34

27.34 Limitations on payment of salaries and other related costs of state attorneys’ offices other than by the state.—

(1) A county or municipality may contract with, or appropriate or contribute funds to the operation of, the various state attorneys as provided in this subsection. A state attorney prosecuting violations of special laws or county or municipal ordinances punishable by incarceration and not ancillary to a state charge shall contract with counties and municipalities to recover the full cost of services rendered on an hourly basis or reimburse the state for the full cost of assigning one or more full-time equivalent attorney positions to work on behalf of the county or municipality. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of a county with a population of less than 75,000, the state attorney shall contract for full reimbursement, or for reimbursement as the parties otherwise agree.

(a) A contract for reimbursement on an hourly basis shall require counties and municipalities to reimburse the state attorney for services rendered at a rate of $50 per hour. If an hourly rate is specified in the General Appropriations Act, that rate shall control.

(b) A contract for assigning one or more full-time equivalent attorney positions to perform work on behalf of a county or municipality shall assign one or more full-time equivalent positions based on estimates by the state attorney of the number of hours required to handle the projected workload. The full cost of each full-time equivalent attorney position on an annual basis shall be $50, or the amount specified in the General Appropriations Act, multiplied by the legislative budget request standard for available work hours for one full-time equivalent attorney position, or, in the absence of that standard, 1,854 hours. The contract may provide for funding full-time equivalent positions in one-quarter increments.

(c) Persons employed by the county or municipality may be provided to the state attorney to serve as special investigators pursuant to the provisions of s. 27.251. Any payments received pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited into the Grants and Donations Trust Fund within the Justice Administrative Commission for appropriation by the Legislature.

(2) A state attorney or assistant state attorney may not receive from any county or municipality any supplemental salary, except as provided in this section.

(3) Notwithstanding s. 27.25, the Chief Financial Officer may contract with the state attorney of any judicial circuit of the state for the prosecution of criminal violations of the Workers’ Compensation Law and related crimes if the Chief Financial Officer contributes funds for such purposes. Such contracts may provide for the training, salary, and expenses of one or more assistant state attorneys used in the prosecution of crimes. If the Chief Financial Officer contributes funds to the state attorney to prosecute these violations and the accused person is indigent and represented by the public defender, the Chief Financial Officer shall also contract with the public defender to provide representation to the person accused of these crimes. The contract may provide for the training, salary, and expenses of one or more assistant public defenders used in the defense of these crimes.

(4) Unless expressly authorized by law or in the General Appropriations Act, state attorneys are prohibited from spending state-appropriated funds on county funding obligations under s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution. This includes expenditures on communications services and facilities as defined in s. 29.008. This does not prohibit a state attorney from spending funds for these purposes in exceptional circumstances when necessary to maintain operational continuity in the form of a short-term advance pending reimbursement by the county. If a state attorney provides short-term advance funding for a county responsibility as authorized by this subsection, the state attorney shall request full reimbursement from the board of county commissioners prior to making the expenditure or at the next meeting of the board of county commissioners after the expenditure is made. The total of all short-term advances authorized by this subsection shall not exceed 2 percent of the state attorney’s approved operating budget in any given year. No short-term advances authorized by this subsection shall be permitted until all reimbursements arising from advance funding in the prior state fiscal year have been received by the state attorney. All reimbursement payments received by the state attorney pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited into the General Revenue Fund. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, the state attorney may expend funds for the purchase of computer systems, including associated hardware and software, and for personnel related to this function.

History.—s. 3, ch. 72-326; s. 1, ch. 72-734; s. 2, ch. 73-215; s. 1, ch. 77-164; s. 3, ch. 78-227; s. 3, ch. 79-344; s. 1, ch. 85-213; s. 2, ch. 87-139; s. 1, ch. 88-280; s. 139, ch. 92-279; s. 55, ch. 92-326; s. 105, ch. 93-415; s. 79, ch. 94-209; s. 8, ch. 96-252; s. 7, ch. 96-260; s. 25, ch. 96-388; s. 4, ch. 97-78; s. 8, ch. 97-235; s. 84, ch. 2003-261; s. 10, ch. 2003-402; s. 5, ch. 2004-265; s. 7, ch. 2004-391; s. 5, ch. 2019-3.

F.S. 27.34 on Google Scholar

F.S. 27.34 on Casetext

Amendments to 27.34

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 27.34

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 27.34.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

OLIVER v. ROQUET,, 858 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 30:4-27.34(a), (d). . . .

M. BANDA, Jr. v. S. ADAMS, M. Y. K. D, ABPP, II P. Ph. D II D. Ed. D. II L. M. Ms. III D. LPC, LCADC,, 674 F. App'x 181 (3d Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 30:4-27.34(b). . . . Ann. § 30:4-27.34(b). . . .

THOMAS v. CHRISTIE, T. M. a k a, 655 F. App'x 82 (3d Cir. 2016)

. . . Ann. 30:4-27.34, a particular executive order of Governor Whitman’s (Executive Order 118), and the ruling . . . Ann. § 30:4-27.34. .The complaint averred the following responsibilities: Gary Lanigan—determining all . . .

THOMAS, v. ADAMS, v., 55 F. Supp. 3d 552 (D.N.J. 2014)

. . . Ann., 30:4-27.34. . . . Ann., 30:4-27.34 (expressly obligating the high-ranking officials of the Department of Corrections, Department . . .

IN RE HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 27 F. Supp. 3d 26 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . That day, Har-man’s share price fell to $85.00, a drop of $27.34. See id. ¶ 7. . . .

D. MOHAMMADI, v. NWABUISI, d b a, 990 F. Supp. 2d 723 (W.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . 58 $18.60 $27.90 $832.40 $1,246.20 $413.80 Factored 4 nursing visits into RR Aug. 24-30 58 $18.23 $27.34 . . .

ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, v. ALABAMA, v., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Ala. 2013)

. . . 7 is overpopulated by just under 1 percent and has a total population that is 65.56 percent white, 27.34 . . . Under the new plan, District 7 has a total population that is 65.56 percent white and 27.34 percent black . . .

SALERNO, v. CORZINE, N. J. N. J. E. N. J. N. J. N. J. Ms. Ms. Mr. N. J. N. J. N. J. N. J. N. J. N. J. N. J. N. J. Ms. N. J. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. S. T. U. N. J. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. J. BMPT, Dr. A. TRAYLOR, v. v. D. H. S., 449 F. App'x 118 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 30:4-27.34(a) (West 2011). . . . .

ARUANNO, v. HAYMAN,, 384 F. App'x 144 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 30:4-27.34(a). . . . N.J.S.A. § 30:4-27.34(b). . . .

CORAL IMAGING SERVICES, a o a v. GEICO INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 955 So. 2d 11 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . ); § 11.066(4); § 11.70(3)(d); § 14.29(3)(b), (12); § 20.04(7)(a); § 20.19(6)(f); § 20.23(2)(a)3; § 27.34 . . .

UNITED STATES P. Jr. v. A. VAN ROSSEM,, 180 F.R.D. 245 (W.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . See, 6 james wm. moore et al„ MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE §§ 27.33-27.34 (3d ed.1997). . . .

F. MILLIGAN, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,, 704 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1998)

. . . that such statement identify total county expenditures on: (c) Each of the services outlined in ss. 27.34 . . . expenditures incurred in providing the state attorney and public defender the services outlined in ss. 27.34 . . .

BANK OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, v. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, L. R., 470 So. 2d 742 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . evidence was received regarding three different valuations: (1) $27.63 per share by Blackstock; (2) $27.34 . . .

COUNTY OF SEMINOLE, a v. A. PADILLA A. R. A., 470 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Additionally, in section 27.34(1), there is a provision parallel to section 27.54(2) for state attorneys . . .

NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. In JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 498 F. Supp. 991 (E.D. Pa. 1980)

. . . : Value Value Element Per Share Weight Value Assets $28.42 25% $7.11 Market 20.25 40% 8.10 Earnings 27.34 . . .

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BRADFORD COUNTY, v. In JUDICIAL SPACE IN BRADFORD COUNTY COURTHOUSE,, 378 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . . §§ 27.34(2) and 27.54(3), Fla.Stat. (1977). . . .

PHI DELTA THETA FRATERNITY v. J. A. BUCHROEDER COMPANY, SIGMA CHI CORPORATION v. J. A. BUCHROEDER COMPANY, J. A. BUCHROEDER COMPANY, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY COLUMBUS STATIONERY COMPANY, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY A. MURRAY B. d b a v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY F. MILLER, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY H. F. MICHAELIS, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY G. UNDERWOOD, d b a s v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY L. LESTER, Jr, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY H. E. PENNINGTON, d b a v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY H. O. FARRIS, d b a v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY, 251 F. Supp. 968 (W.D. Mo. 1966)

. . . Toulmin, in Section 27.34 of 4 Toulmin’s Anti-Trust Laws, page 795, summarized the appendix attached . . .

GAYLE v. JONES, 74 F. Supp. 262 (W.D. La. 1947)

. . . 1945, $718.60, all of which was paid to Finance companies except $98.57 paid to People’s Homestead, $27.34 . . .

DAVID M. DAVIS v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20 Ct. Cl. 157 (Ct. Cl. 1885)

. . . cubic yards grading, at 30 cents per yard. 2,598 24 7,982 cubic yards haul, 2,187 ft. over 200 ft., at 27.34 . . .