 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
RICKE v. CITY OF EL DORADO5/30/1997
ch the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; that mandamus may not be invoked to control discretion and neither does it lie to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute, and further, that resort to the remedy may be had only when the party invoking it is clearly entitled to the order which he seeks. (Drainage District v. Wyandotte County et al., 117 Kan. 369, 232 P. 266, Gray v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 251, 254, 326 P.2d 319.)" Lauber v. Firemen's Relief Assn. of Salina, 195 Kan. 126, 128-29, 402 P.2d 817 (1965).
"` andamus is an appropriate proceeding designed for the purpose of compelling a public officer to perform a clearly defined duty, one imposed by law and not involving the exercise of discretion . . . .'
"Determining . . . whether an attorney has reasonably spent 10 or 100 hours representing a defendant in a criminal case [is a] discretionary matter ." State ex rel. Stephan v. Smith, 242 Kan. at 348.
We do not in any manner depart from our prior cases concerning court appointments. We simply hold that a municipal court may contract for legal services for indigent defendants in a criminal case, and if it chooses that method, the market will set the price. If the market system does not produce effective counsel, then the municipality must adopt a mandatory appointment system and
compensate the attorney so appointed as set forth in State ex rel. Stephan v. Smith, 242 Kan. 336. Under the facts of this case, mandamus is not a proper remedy. Thus, the trial court did not err, and Ricke is not entitled to attorney fees for bringing this action.
Affirmed.
|