The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 29
COURT SYSTEM FUNDING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 29.015

29.015 Contingency fund; limitation of authority to transfer funds in contracted due process services appropriation categories.—

(1) An appropriation may be provided in the General Appropriations Act in the Justice Administrative Commission to serve as a contingency fund for the purpose of alleviating deficits in contracted due process services appropriation categories, including private court-appointed counsel appropriation categories, that may occur from time to time due to extraordinary cases that lead to unexpected expenditures.

(2) In the event that a state attorney, public defender, or criminal conflict and civil regional counsel incurs a deficit in a contracted due process services appropriation category or conflict counsel category, the following steps shall be taken in order:

(a) The state attorney, public defender, or regional counsel shall first attempt to identify surplus funds from other appropriation categories within his or her office and submit a budget amendment pursuant to chapter 216 to transfer funds from within the office.

(b) In the event that the state attorney, public defender, or regional counsel is unable to identify surplus funds from within his or her office, he or she shall certify this to the Justice Administrative Commission along with a complete explanation of the circumstances which led to the deficit and steps the office has taken to reduce or alleviate the deficit. The Justice Administrative Commission shall inquire as to whether any other office has surplus funds in its contracted due process services appropriation categories which can be transferred to the office that is experiencing the deficit. If other offices indicate that surplus funds are available within the same budget entity, the Justice Administrative Commission shall transfer the amount needed to fund the deficit and notify the Governor and the chair and vice chair of the Legislative Budget Commission 14 days prior to a transfer pursuant to the notice, review, and objection provisions of s. 216.177. If funds appropriated for this purpose are available in a different budget entity, the Justice Administrative Commission shall request a budget amendment pursuant to chapter 216.

(c) If no office indicates that surplus funds are available to alleviate the deficit, the Justice Administrative Commission may request a budget amendment to transfer funds from the contingency fund. Such transfers shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of chapter 216 and shall be subject to review and approval by the Legislative Budget Commission. The Justice Administrative Commission shall submit the documentation provided by the office explaining the circumstances that led to the deficit and the steps taken by the office and the Justice Administrative Commission to identify surplus funds to the Legislative Budget Commission.

(3) In the event that there is a deficit in a statewide contracted due process services appropriation category provided for private court-appointed counsel necessary due to withdrawal of the public defender and criminal conflict and civil regional counsel due to an ethical conflict, the following steps shall be taken in order:

(a) The Justice Administrative Commission shall first attempt to identify surplus funds from other contracted due process services appropriation categories within the Justice Administrative Commission and submit a budget amendment pursuant to chapter 216 to transfer funds from within the commission.

(b) In the event that the Justice Administrative Commission is unable to identify surplus funds from within the commission, the commission shall inquire of each of the public defenders and regional counsel as to whether any office has surplus funds in its contracted due process services appropriations categories which can be transferred. If any public defender or regional counsel office or offices indicate that surplus funds are available, the Justice Administrative Commission shall request a budget amendment to transfer funds from the office or offices to alleviate the deficit upon agreement of the contributing office or offices.

(c) If no public defender or regional counsel office has surplus funds available to alleviate the deficit, the Justice Administrative Commission may request a budget amendment to transfer funds from the contingency fund. Such transfers shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of chapter 216 and shall be subject to review and approval by the Legislative Budget Commission. The Justice Administrative Commission shall submit the documentation provided by the office explaining the circumstances that led to the deficit and the steps taken by the Justice Administrative Commission to identify surplus funds to the Legislative Budget Commission.

(4) In the event that there is a deficit in a statewide appropriation category provided for private court-appointed counsel other than for conflict counsel as described in subsection (3), the following steps shall be taken in order:

(b) In the event that the Justice Administrative Commission is unable to identify surplus funds from within the commission, the commission may submit a budget amendment to transfer funds from the contingency fund. Such transfers shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of chapter 216 and shall be subject to review and approval by the Legislative Budget Commission. The Justice Administrative Commission shall submit documentation explaining the circumstances that led to the deficit and the steps taken to identify surplus funds to the Legislative Budget Commission.

(5) Notwithstanding any provisions in chapter 216 to the contrary, no office shall transfer funds from a contracted due process services appropriation category or from a contingency fund category authorized in this section except as specifically authorized in this section. In addition, funds shall not be transferred from a state attorney office to alleviate a deficit in a public defender office or an office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and funds shall not be transferred from a public defender office or regional counsel office to alleviate a deficit in a state attorney office.

History.—s. 49, ch. 2003-402; s. 19, ch. 2005-236; s. 20, ch. 2007-62.

F.S. 29.015 on Google Scholar

F.S. 29.015 on Casetext

Amendments to 29.015

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 29.015

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 29.015.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

RIVERA, v. W. MOORE,, 825 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . R. 33-29.015(3). . . . have issued a writ of mandamus directing appellee to ensure that the Department complies with rule 33-29.015 . . . as Secretary of the Department of Corrections, to ensure that the Department complies with rule 33-29.015 . . .

NEWELL, v. MOORE,, 767 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . DOC also cites Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-29.015(8) (currently Rule 33-103.015(8)) (prohibiting . . . But Rule 33-29.015(8), too, is addressed to prison staff and not in terms to inmates. . . . Nor is Rule 33-29.015(8) an order. . . .

CARTER, v. THOMPSON M., 808 F. Supp. 1548 (M.D. Fla. 1992)

. . . any request for Administrative Remedy while he was in disciplinary confinement, contrary to Rule 33-29.015 . . . Further, he claims that it was Defendant Youngblood’s policy, practice and custom to violate Chapter 33-29.015 . . .

BALLEW v. GEORGIA, 435 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1978)

. . . . § 29.015 (1971); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 218, § 27A (West Supp. 1977). . . .

COOLEY, v. STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 459 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1972)

. . . . § 29.015 (1955); Md. . . .

MELANCON v. J. McKEITHEN, HILL v. J. McKEITHEN, A. JONES, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY LONG v. J. McKEITHEN, A. MAYES G. v. S. ELLIS H. MOTICHEK v. J. McKEITHEN, DAVIS, v. J. McKEITHEN R. LEWIS, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 345 F. Supp. 1025 (E.D. La. 1972)

. . . . § 29.015 (1963) ; Ohio Const, art. 1 § 5, Implemented by Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1901.24 (Baldwin 1964 . . . Stat.Ann. § 29.015 (1955) ; Md.Rules of Proc. 544; Mich. . . .

WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970)

. . . . §§25.010, 25.014, 26.400, 29.015 (1963). . . .

M. ALLISON, v. GRAY,, 256 F.2d 763 (6th Cir. 1958)

. . . only 10 members instead of 12 returned a verdict of guilty and fixed his punishment contrary to KRS 29.015 . . .