Opinion
No. SC08-1197.
February 9, 2009.
Lower Tribunal No(s). 84-6504.
William T. Turner appeals two orders by the circuit court denying motions for admission pro hac vice filed by attorneys Anne B. Sekel and Todd C. Norbitz. The attorneys seek to appear on behalf of Turner in proceedings arising from his successive postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203. Because the orders to be reviewed are non-final orders in a postconviction proceeding where the death penalty has been imposed, we have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)( 1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.142(b); Trepal v. State, 754 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2000).
On appeal, Turner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the motions without providing a reasonable basis in the record to support the denial. In Huff v. State, 569 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1990), this Court addressed a trial court's discretion to rule on a motion for admission pro hac vice. We found:
Although the denial of such a motion is within the discretion of the trial court, the ruling should be based on matters that appear of record before the court. For example, something which casts doubt upon whether the applicant is actually a member of the bar of another jurisdiction or whether, if such a member, the applicant is a member in good standing, may support a denial of the motion. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.440(a).
Huff, 569 So. 2d at 1249-1250. We further explained:
The trial court's discretionary power is subject only to the test of reasonableness, but that test requires a determination of whether there is logic and justification for the result. The trial courts' discretionary power was never intended to be exercised in accordance with whim or caprice of the judge nor in an inconsistent manner. Id. at 1249 (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980)).
In this case, the trial court's orders do not set out any reason for denying the motions. The verified motions for admission complied with rule 2.510, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, and averred that attorneys Sekel and Norbitz are both members in good standing and eligible to practice law in the State of New York. Further, there is no indication in the record that the State filed with the trial court any objection to the motions for admission. Because the record is devoid of any reason to deny the motions, attorneys Sekel and Norbitz should be permitted to assist appointed counsel in this action on a pro bono basis. Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion. We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions that the trial court grant the motions to appear pro hac vice with the condition that the representation be on a pro bono basis.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARJA, JJ., concur