WPC# # V %a 0 g45 I X UF` w@ 0 0D 0J< 0T 0^ UH8 0h 0r 0|Z 0 0\ 1uU,a 0d 0@1U,9U6eU.B) D3DC% AMh BU*V1kQCv~vW AO*"y" 0D?# D/# B#HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 X($ X^ XXX     7XXdXXd7ѝD (3|x<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular `eUӀ((3$ ! XrXXX     7XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  <09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$    <  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Courier% Line 7 d----'dxd))))7Border 1dd+C << G d<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#'           #d#  ..   YYY FILED.XSeptember16,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#'           #d#   $       Rule13(2)(B)(10)setsthehourlycompensationrateincapitalcasesat$40maximumforoutofcourtworkand$50maximumforincourtwork. L !#d#'           #d#   $       Thisfiguredoesnotincludethe$792.32expensesclaimed. a !#d#'           #d#   $       $1,495incourtservices,$40,968outofcourtservices,andexpensesof$792.32. G !#d#'           #d#   $       $4,548inoutofcourtservicesandexpensesof$15.78.  !#d#'           #d#   $       Thetitle ExecutiveSecretaryhassincebeenchangedto DirectoroftheAdministrativeOfficeoftheCourts.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &&&Xd&#&&Xd#'           #((Xd##((Xd#  ݛ  \RA'\ќ` XX\RA'\ћ   `  XINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE    ATNASHVILLE  &`  XQ%X&PETITIONOFATTORNEY   )FORPUBLICATIONISAIAHS.GANT,FORREVIEWAS  )UNDERTHECOMMONLAWWRITOF  )FILED:SEPTEMBER16,1996CERTIORARI  )       )NO.01S019511CC00219INRE:HOURLYCOMPENSATIONRATE)OFCOURTAPPOINTEDCOUNSELIN  )MONTGOMERYCOUNTYTHEDEATHPENALTYCASEOF  )STATEOFTNV.COURTNEYMATHEWS,)HON.JOHNH.ϜGASAWAY,III,MONTGOMERYCOUNTYNO.33791  )JudgeForPetitioner:   ForRespondent:WilliamP.Redick,Jr.  CharlesW.BursonWhitesCreek,TN   AttorneyGeneralandReporter      KathyMorante̜L,/+;+'h|s` - `Lߛ      DeputyAttorneyGeneral      Nashville,TN  OPINION  &` o XQ(#X&AFFIRMED       BIRCH,C.J.7XXdXXd7&` oXQ(#X&  IsaiahS.Gant,appointedcounselinacapitalcase,petitionsthisCourtforreviewoftherefusaloftheDirectoroftheAdministrativeOfficeoftheCourtstocompensatehimataratehigherthanthatestablishedinRule13,RulesoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee.BecausewefindthattheDirector,inrejectingGantsclaim,neitherexceededhisjurisdictionnoractedillegally,arbitrarily,orfraudulently,weaffirmtherulingoftheDirector. TennesseeCodeAnnotated4014207(a)(1)(Supp.1995)providesinpertinentpart: Attorneysappointedhereunder,otherthanpublicdefenders,shallbeentitledtoreasonablecompensationfortheirservices....Relyingonthisprovision,Gantfiledanexparte,incameramotioninthetrialcourtrequestinganincreaseintherateofhourlycompensationforhisworkasappointedcounselinacapitalcase.Inthemotion,GantallegedthatthehourlycompensationratessetforthinTennesseeSupremeCourtRule13(2)(B)(10)(hereinafter Rule13")are unreasonable. 0   ׀Afterhearingthematter,thetrialcourtagreed.Accordingly,thetrialcourtestablishedanhourlyrateof$100as reasonable,withoutdistinctionbetweenincourtandoutofcourtservices. Gantcalculatedhisclaimsatthishigherrateandpresentedthemtothetrialcourt.ThetrialcourtendorsedandforwardedthemtotheDirectoroftheAdministrativeOfficeoftheCourts.TheDirectorrefusedtheclaimsassubmittedandrecalculatedthemapplyingtheratesestablishedinRule13.TocontesttheDirectorsrefusaltopaytheclaimasoriginallysubmitted,Gantfiledthispetitionforreviewunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorari. BecausetherateofcompensationforattorneysappointedtorepresentindigentpersonsincriminalcaseshasbeenestablishedbySupremeCourtrule,weholdthattheDirectorproperlyrefusedtoapplyarateotherthanthatestablishedbythisCourttocalculatethecompensationduepetitioner.@ I Gantwasappointedtorepresentadefendantindicteduponseveralcountsoffirstdegreemurder.TheStatethenfilednoticeofitsintenttoseekthedeathpenalty. OnFebruary8,1995,priortotrial,Gantfileda motionexparte,incamera,forcompensationofcounselthatisreasonableinacapitalcase.Thetrialcourtconductedanexpartehearingonthemotion.Duringthehearing,Ganttestifiedabouttheresponsibilitiesofcapitalcounselandhisqualificationstorepresentcapitaldefendants.Otherevidenceintroducedatthishearingissummarizedasfollows:8 8 1.0 Representationofacapitaldefendantisanextremelycomplexanddemandingjob;8 8 2.0 Arelationshipexistsbetweentherateofcompensationpaidtoattorneysrepresentingindigentpersonsincapitalcasesandthequalityofrepresentationthosepersonsreceive;and8 8 3.0 Thecurrentcompensationrateof$40/$50perhourisinadequatebecauseitfailstocovertheattorneysoverheadanddoesnotreasonablycompensatetheattorneyforservicesrendered. Followingthehearing,thetrialjudgefoundthat areasonablehourlycompensationratefor[Gant]...isherebysetat$100.00perhour,withoutdistinctionforincourtandoutofcourtservices. PursuanttoRule13,Gantsubmittedtwodiscreteclaimsforcompensation.Thefirstclaim,approvedbythetrialcourtonSeptember11,1995,wasfor29.90hoursforincourtservices;1,024.20hoursforoutofcourtservices;and$792.32forincidentalexpenses.Applyingthe$100perhourrateforincourtaswellasoutofcourtservices,theclaimtotaled$105,410. 1   ׀OnOctober2,1995,thetrialcourtapprovedthesecondclaim.Thisclaimwasfor113.70outofcourthoursand$15.78inexpenses.Calculatedusingthehourlyrateof$100and,excludingexpenses,thesecondclaimtotaled$11,370.Followingtrialcourtapproval,GantsubmittedtheclaimstotheDirectoroftheAdministrativeOfficeoftheCourtsasrequiredbyRule13. TheDirectorreviewedtheclaimsandcalculatedeachbasedontheestablished$40/$50hourlyrate.Thus,theDirectorcalculatedthefirstclaimtototal$43,255.32; 2   ׀andthesecondclaim,$4,563.78. 3   ׀BymemorandumtotheCourt,theDirectorrecommendedpaymentofthefeesonOctober2and4,1995,respectively.̛̛̜@ II PursuanttoRule13(2)(D)(1),GantthenfiledinthisCourtapetitionforreviewunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorari,andtheDirectorresponded.  Rule13(2)(D)(1)providesforan appealfromanactiontakenbytheDirectoronaclaimforcompensation:8 8 AnypersonaggrievedbyanyactionoftheExecutiveSecretary 4   ׀maypetitionthisCourtforareviewthereofasunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorari.Onthegrantofthewrit,theExecutiveSecretaryshallcertifyandforwardtotheCourtacompleterecordoftheproceedingsbeforetheexecutivesecretarysofficeinthematter.Anysuchpetitionmustbefiledwithin60daysaftertheactioncomplainedof. InMcCallenv.CityofMemphis,786S.W.2d633,638(Tenn.1990),thisCourt,quotingTenn.CodeAnn.278101,notedthescopeofreviewinacommonlawwritofcertiorariproceeding:8 8 Thewritofcertiorarimaybegrantedwheneverauthorizedbylaw,andalsoinallcaseswhereaninferiortribunal,board,orofficerexercisingjudicialfunctionshasexceededthejurisdictionconferred,orisactingillegally,when,inthejudgmentofthecourt,thereisnootherplain,speedyoradequateremedy.Thus, [r]eviewunderthecommonlawwritislimitedtowhethertheinferiorboardortribunal(1)hasexceededitsjurisdiction,or(2)hasactedillegally,arbitrarily,orfraudulently.Id.(citingHooverMotorExp.Co.v.Railroad&Pub.Util.Commn.,195Tenn.593,604,261S.W.2d233,238(1953)). Indeterminingthat$100perhourwasareasonablerateofcompensationforattorneyservicesinthiscause,thetrialcourtnotedaconflictbetween4014207(a)(1)andRule13.Thus,toresolvethisissue,welooktothelanguageofthestatutesgoverningcompensationforappointedcounselandtoRule13. Itisawellestablishedruleofstatutoryconstructionthatstatutes inparimateriathoserelatingtothesamesubjectorhavingacommonpurposearetobeconstruedtogether.Owensv.State,908S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995);Rosemanv.Roseman,890S.W.2d27,29(Tenn.1994);BelleAireVillage,Inc.v.Ghorley,574S.W.2d723,726(Tenn.1978).Moreover,theconstructionofonesuchstatute,ifdoubtful,maybeaidedbyconsideringthewordsandlegislativeintentindicatedbythelanguageofanotherstatute.Roseman,890S.W.2dat29.Followingtheseguidelines,wedonotfindaconflictbetween4014207(a)(1)andRule13. WhilethetrialcourtcorrectlynotedthatGantwasentitledtoreasonablecompensationforhisservicesunderTenn.CodeAnn.4014207(a)(1),thecourtfailedtoconsiderTenn.CodeAnn.4014206.ThelatterprovisiongrantsthisCourttheauthoritytopromulgaterulesprescribing compensationforappointedcounsel,nototherwisecompensated,inallcaseswhereappointmentofcounselisrequiredbylaw.WehaveexercisedthisauthoritythroughRule13.Hence,whatisreasonableunderTenn.CodeAnn.4014207(a)(1)hasnecessarilybeendeterminedbythisCourtpursuanttoitsauthorityunderTenn.CodeAnn.4014206. Rule13statesunequivocally: Incapitalcases,themaximumhourlyrateforanattorneyshallnotexceed$40.00perhourfortimereasonablyspentintrialpreparation.Themaximumratefortimeexpendedincourtshallnotexceed$50.00perhour. Intheinstantcase,thepetitionerhasneitherdemonstratednorattemptedtodemonstratethattheDirector,inprocessinghisclaim,exceededhisjurisdictionoracted illegally,arbitrarily,orfraudulently.McCallen,786S.W.2dat638.Infact,theoppositeistruetheDirectoractedwithinhisjurisdictionandfollowedthedictatesofRule13precisely.Infact,iftheDirectorhadpaidtheclaimsattheratesubmittedbythepetitionerandapprovedbythetrialcourt,hewouldhaveexceededhisauthorityandwouldhave,indeed,actedillegally.ByusingtherateestablishedinRule13,theDirectoractedproperly.Reviewedundertheprinciplesapplicabletopetitionsforthecommonlawwritofcertiorari,thepetitionmustfail.@ III Wearereluctanttoendthisdiscussionwithoutaddressingtwoimportantproceduralissues,andthefirstrelatestotheexpartenatureofthetrialcourtproceedings. Asstatedpreviously,themotionthatledtothispetitionwasheardexparteandincamera.Ostensibly,itwasfiledundertheauthorityofRule13andTenn.CodeAnn.4014207(b).Thepetitionerandthetrialcourtapparentlybelievedthattheseprovisionseitherrequiredorsupportedanexparte,incamerahearing.However,theprovisionsapplyonlytomotionsforadvanceapprovalofexpertservicesorotherexpensesincapitalcases.Iftheseprovisionsapplyatalltoattorneysfees,theyoperatetoexpeditetheresolutionofdisputesregardingtheservicesrenderedorthenumberofcompensablehours.Nothing,however,inRule13or4014207(b)providesthetrialcourtwiththeauthoritytoreplacetheestablishedratewithitsown. TheexparteprocedureemployedhereeffectivelyconvertedthemotionintoarequestforadeclaratoryjudgmentinvalidatingthehourlyratesetinRule13.Inthisregard,theexparteprocedureforeclosedthecrossexaminationofGantsexpertwitnesses.Simultaneously,iteffectivelyprecludedtheintroductionofanyrebuttalorcontradictingevidence.Thus,undertheprocedureemployed,thetrialcourthadlittlechoicebuttofindtheestablishedratesunreasonable. Thesecond,andperhapsthemoreimportantproceduralissue,concernstheauthorityofthetrialcourttoentertainthematteratall.NecessarilyincludedinthisCourtspromulgationofthe$40/$50ratesistheprerequisitefindingthattheratessetarereasonable.WhilethetrialcourtdidnotexplicitlyinvalidateRule13,itsrulingthat$100wasareasonablehourlyrateproducedthesameresult.Trialcourtsdonothavetheauthority,expressorimplied,toinvalidateaSupremeCourtRule.InRe:PetitionofTennesseeBarAssn,539S.W.2d805(Tenn.1976).Rather,theSupremeCourt,asthepromulgateroftherule,istherulesprimaryarbiter.SeeAllenv.McWilliams,715S.W.2d28(Tenn.1986). OnmanyoccasionstheCourthasreceiveddirectpetitionstomodifyitsrules.PursuanttoSupremeCourtRule11,manyoftheCourtsownboardsandcommissions,theTennesseeBarAssociation,theNashvilleBarAssociation,andothershavesubmittedsuchpetitions.Thefactualrecordinthiscasewasdevelopedinanimproperexparteproceeding.ArecordgeneratedundersuchcircumstancesisnotappropriatetouseasabasisforRule11applicationorreview. Inconclusion,weholdthatthepetitionerhasfailedtodemonstratethattheDirectoroftheAdministrativeOfficeoftheCourts,inrejectingthecompensationclaimassubmitted,exceededhisjurisdictionoractedillegally,arbitrarily,orfraudulently.Additionally,weholdthatthetrialcourterredinconsideringthereasonablenessofanyaspectofRule13.TrialcourtshavenojurisdictiontodeterminethevalidityorreasonablenessofarulepromulgatedbythisCourt.      ___________________________________      ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,ChiefJusticeCONCUR:Drowota,Anderson,Reid,White,JJ.