McClain v. Atwater, 110 So. 3d 892

The case concerns reimbursement of investigative fees in a capital postconviction proceeding, where fees exceeded the statutory cap by $1,844.1 and DFS denied payment solely on the excess.
DFS and the State did not object to payment itself, only to paying above the cap without court authorization; no claim that expenses were unnecessary or unreasonable.
The trial court denied reimbursement, holding the case was ordinary and lacking extraordinary or unusual circumstances justifying excess fees.
The Florida Supreme Court held the focus should be on the defendant’s right to effective representation and perform an as-applied analysis to determine if the cap would be confiscatory under the circumstances.
The court found the investigator’s work reasonable and necessary to uncover potentially exculpatory testimony, concluding extraordinary circumstances justified exceeding the cap and remanding to grant reimbursement under the opinion's framework.
Statutory framework (section 27.711) caps investigative fees at $15,000; Olive v. Maas permits excess where extraordinary circumstances exist; Makemson requires an as-applied analysis to prevent confiscation of counsel’s time and resources.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether extraordinary circumstances justify paying above the cap.	McClain argues extraordinary circumstances exist.	State argues no extraordinary circumstances; case is ordinary.	Yes; extraordinary circumstances exist justifying excess.
Whether the trial court erred by treating the case as ordinary rather than as-applied.	McClain contends court failed to analyze rights to effective representation.	State asserts standard review appropriate.	De novo review; proper to reverse.
Whether the statutory framework permits as-applied excess to avoid confiscation of counsel’s time.	McClain relies on Olive/Makemson to permit excess when necessary.	State argues caps are controlling absent explicit authorization.	Yes; as-applied analysis allowed excess in this case.

Makemson v. Martin Cnty., 491 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 1986) (establishes as-applied review for fee excess to prevent confiscation)
Olive v. Maas, 811 So.2d 644 (Fla. 2002) (trial courts may award beyond cap for extraordinary circumstances)
Maas v. Olive, 992 So.2d 196 (Fla. 2008) (confirms as-applied analysis and unusual circumstances justify excess)
White v. Bd. of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, 537 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1989) (warns against treating case complexity as prerequisite to fee excess)
Freeman, 921 So.2d 598 (Fla. 2006) (funding concerns and discretionary excess in capital postconviction)