My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/26/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
3/26/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:49 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:24:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/26/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FF""_ <br />b00N 9.7 PAGE 695 <br />Fourth District Court of Appeal, which held that Circuit Court <br />Judges could not appoint County Judges on .a long-term basis as <br />acting Circuit Judges. <br />Since the Attorney General's Office was involved in the appeal of <br />the criminal matter itself that office declined to provide <br />representation to Judge Vocelle for him to appeal the adverse <br />ruling. Our office felt that either the Fourth District Court of <br />Appeal was correct or that there was no precedent for County <br />representation of a Judge in criminal court appeals, and Buck <br />Vocelle, therefore, represented Judge Vocelle in an emergency <br />appeal to the Supreme Court. <br />Early this year the Supreme Court by a 4 to 3 vote ruled in favor <br />of Judge Vocelle's position, leaving Buck Vocelle to ask that a <br />small portion of his expenses be reimbursed by the County. The <br />bill is attached in the amount of $2,739.50. S-ince*Buck Vocelle's <br />appearance before the Board 18 months ago, our office has developed <br />a policy for representation of the Chiaf Judge la i:iie future if <br />that is ever necessary. The policy is as follows: <br />1. The Chief Judge of the Circuit would notify the Board of <br />County Commissioners that representation is necessary. <br />2. The County Attorney would review the case and determine if the <br />County Attorney's Office should represent the Judge or whether <br />outside counsel should be hired. <br />3. If outside counsel is to be hired, the Chief Judge would be <br />asked if he has any preference for counsel. <br />4. The County would negotiate with the Chief Judge's preferred <br />counsel to see if a reasonable contract for attorney services <br />could be agreed to. <br />5. If an attorney is not hired, Steps 3 and 4 shall be repeated <br />until an attorney is hired. <br />Based on the recommended procedure in the foregoing paragraph, it <br />is our office's recommendation that Indian River County reimburse <br />the law firm as requested, and we further recommend that the <br />procedure suggested be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners <br />'in the unlikely event that this set of circumstances ever recurs. <br />Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the law firm of Clem, <br />Polackwich & Vocelle be reimbursed in the amount of $2,739.50, and <br />that the policy developed by the County Attorney's Office and the <br />Chief Judge's Office be adopted by the Board for future use. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by' <br />Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved <br />reimbursement to Clem, Polackwich & Vocelle in the <br />amount of $2,739.50, and the policy developed by the <br />County Attorney's Office and the Chief Judge's <br />Office, as set out in the above memo. <br />18 <br />MARCH 26, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.