27.7002
Limitation on collateral representation; lawyer disqualification; use of state funds for excess fees not authorized.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
27.7002 Limitation on collateral representation; lawyer disqualification; use of state funds for excess fees not authorized.—
(1) This chapter does not create any right on behalf of any person, provided counsel pursuant to any provision of this chapter, to challenge in any form or manner the adequacy of the collateral representation provided.
(2) With respect to counsel appointed to represent defendants in collateral proceedings pursuant to ss. 27.710 and 27.711, the sole method of assuring adequacy of representation provided shall be in accordance with the provisions of s. 27.711(12).
(3) No provision of this chapter shall be construed to generate any right on behalf of any attorney appointed pursuant to s. 27.710, or seeking appointment pursuant to s. 27.710, to be compensated above the amounts provided in s. 27.711.
(4) No attorney may be appointed, at state expense, to represent any defendant in collateral legal proceedings except as expressly authorized in this chapter.
(5) The use of state funds for compensation of counsel appointed pursuant to s. 27.710 above the amounts set forth in s. 27.711 is not authorized.
(6) The executive director of the Justice Administrative Commission is authorized to permanently remove from the registry of attorneys provided in ss. 27.710 and 27.711 any attorney who seeks compensation for services above the amounts provided in s. 27.711.
(7) Any attorney who notifies any court, judge, state attorney, the Attorney General, or the executive director of the Justice Administrative Commission, that he or she cannot provide adequate or proper representation under the terms and conditions set forth in s. 27.711 shall be permanently disqualified from any attorney registry created under this chapter unless good cause arises after a change in circumstances.
History.—s. 2, ch. 2002-31; s. 2, ch. 2011-131.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Maas v. Olive
Maas v. Olive (2008)
“For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's order declaring that in appropriate capital collateral cases involving extraordinary circumstances, registry attorneys may request and, upon judicial approval, receive compensation in excess of the statutory fee…”
State v. Kilgore (2007)
“§ 27.7002(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). Chapter 27 simply does not expressly authorize CCRC to challenge a noncapital conviction and sentence.”
Melton v. State (2011)
“” § 27.7002(4), Fla. Stat. (2009). The statute does not say — and Kilgore did not decide — that section 27.”
Olive v. Maas (2005)
“FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case, while generally involving the same Registry Act at issue in Olive I, centers around section 27.7002, Florida Statutes, which was not a part of the Registry Act when the supreme court decided Olive I.”
Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida v. State (2013)
“Only weeks after we issued our decision in Olive I, the Legislature added section 27.7002 to the Florida statutes, providing that compensation above the statutory schedule was not authorized and requiring any attorney who sought fees in excess of the cap to be permanently…”
Darryl Brian Barwick v. State of Florida (2023)
“§§ 27.7002(1), (2), Fla. Stat. (2022). The fact that these provisions of chapter 27 expressly prohibit capital defendants from raising claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel or otherwise challenging the adequacy of their postconviction representation…”
Darryl Brian Barwick v. State of Florida (2023)
“§§ 27.7002(1), (2), Fla. Stat. (2022). The fact that these provisions of chapter 27 expressly prohibit capital defendants from raising claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel or otherwise challenging the adequacy of their postconviction representation…”
Glen Edward Rogers v. State of Florida (2025)
“- 12 - § 27.7002(1), Fla. Stat. (“This chapter does not create any right on behalf of any person, provided counsel pursuant to any provision of this chapter, to challenge in any form or manner the adequacy of the collateral representation provided.”
Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida & Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida & Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. S (2025)
“Section 27.7002, Florida Statutes, explicitly provides that it “does not create any right on behalf of any person, provided counsel pursuant to any provision of this chapter, to challenge in any form or manner the adequacy of the collateral representation provided.”
Sweet v. Canady (2023)
“7002(1), Florida Statues, provides that Chapter 27 of the Florida Statutes “does not create any right on behalf of any person, provided counsel pursuant to any provision of this chapter, to challenge in any form or manner the adequacy of the collateral representation provided.”
— 27.7002(1) — 5 cases
Darryl Brian Barwick v. State of Florida (2023)
“§§ 27.7002(1), (2), Fla. Stat. (2022). The fact that these provisions of chapter 27 expressly prohibit capital defendants from raising claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel or otherwise challenging the adequacy of their postconviction representation…”
Darryl Brian Barwick v. State of Florida (2023)
“§§ 27.7002(1), (2), Fla. Stat. (2022). The fact that these provisions of chapter 27 expressly prohibit capital defendants from raising claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel or otherwise challenging the adequacy of their postconviction representation…”
Glen Edward Rogers v. State of Florida (2025)
“- 12 - § 27.7002(1), Fla. Stat. (“This chapter does not create any right on behalf of any person, provided counsel pursuant to any provision of this chapter, to challenge in any form or manner the adequacy of the collateral representation provided.”
Sweet v. Canady (2023)
“7002(1), Florida Statues, provides that Chapter 27 of the Florida Statutes “does not create any right on behalf of any person, provided counsel pursuant to any provision of this chapter, to challenge in any form or manner the adequacy of the collateral representation provided.”
Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida & Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida & Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. S (2025)
“Section 27.7002, Florida Statutes, explicitly provides that it “does not create any right on behalf of any person, provided counsel pursuant to any provision of this chapter, to challenge in any form or manner the adequacy of the collateral representation provided.”
— 27.7002(4) — 2 cases
State v. Kilgore (2007)
“§ 27.7002(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). Chapter 27 simply does not expressly authorize CCRC to challenge a noncapital conviction and sentence.”
Melton v. State (2011)
“” § 27.7002(4), Fla. Stat. (2009). The statute does not say — and Kilgore did not decide — that section 27.”
— 27.7002(5) — 1 case
Maas v. Olive (2008)
“For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's order declaring that in appropriate capital collateral cases involving extraordinary circumstances, registry attorneys may request and, upon judicial approval, receive compensation in excess of the statutory fee…”
— 27.7002(6) — 1 case
Maas v. Olive (2008)
“For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's order declaring that in appropriate capital collateral cases involving extraordinary circumstances, registry attorneys may request and, upon judicial approval, receive compensation in excess of the statutory fee…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.