
    Frederick L. TERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 89-896.*
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Aug. 11, 1989.
    Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, for appellant.
    
      Robert Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Richard E. Doran, Director of Criminal Appeals, for appellee.
    
      
       Together with: Main (Rachael) v. State (No. 88-2146); Wynn (Anthony Jr.) v. State (No. 89-853); Jones (James Arthur) v. State (No. 89-895); Andrews (Edward J.) v. State (No. 88-2873); Johnson (Alfred) v. State (No. 89-704); Williams (Johnny) v. State (No. 89-722); Phillips (Donald D.) v. State (No. 89-991); Davis (Darren Keith) v. State (No. 89-1053); May (Uwadee) v. State (No. 88-3110); Woods (Milton Leroy) v. State (No. 89-1230); Ross (Lionel) v. State (No. 88-3009); Copeland (Clarence) v. State (No. 89-106); Jackson (Leon Jr.) v. State (No. 89-420); Baker (Edward Charles) v. State (No. 89-325); Buckholtz (Gregory Lee) v. State (No. 89-25); Jones (Manuel Paul) v. State (No. 89-1047); Jenkins (Nathaniel L.) v. State (No. 89-744); Baldwin (Miller) v. State (No. 89-431); Henry (Selvyn) v. State (No. 88-2243); Bell (Frankie Lee) v. State (No. 89-385); Goss (Charles Wayne) v. State (No. 89-1046); Pough (Anthony) v. State (No. 89-570); Lyles (Randy) v. State (No. 89-1003); Birdsong (Troy Gene) v. State (No. 89-775); Hodge (Chris Allen) v. State (No. 89-1054); Hawkins (Diane) v. State (No. 89-776); Smith (Jerry) v. State (No. 89-1406); Jenkins (John Kennedy) v. State (No. 89-949); Bradford (Charles Wesley) v. State (No. 89-1155); Copeland (Robert) v. State (No. 89-758); Bolden (Archie) v. State (No. 89-757); Moore (James) v. State (No. 89-799); Melvin (Albert) v. State (No. 89-818); Nichols (Mark) v. State (No. 89-595); Kirk (Timothy) v. State (No. 89-1120); Kohn (Marvin) v. State (No. 89-340); Hill (Jessie) v. State (No. 88-3190); Seigle (Thomas) v. State (No. 89-208); Johnson (Craigus) v. State (No. 89-309); Hutchinson (Arthur) v. State (No. 89-525); McElveen (Charles) v. State (No. 89-105); Betsey (George) v. State (No. 89-683); Gordon (Gregory) v. State (No. 89-753); Whitehead (Garry) v. State (No. 89-914); Jackson (Randolph) v. State (No. 89-297); Messina (Joseph) v. State (No. 89-992); Vandenburgh (Charles) v. State (No. 88-2113); Unruh (Kenneth) v. State (No. 89-898); Unruh (Kenneth) v. State (No. 89-780); Gahley (Michael) v. State (No. 89-980); Skipper (Mark) v. State (No. 89-620); Peterson (William) v. State (No. 89-142); Batten (Dewey) v. State (No. 89-124); King (Emanuel) v. State (No. 89-327); Short (Billy) v. State (No. 89-235); Vera (Jovina) v. State (No. 89-235); Miles (Jimmy) v. State (No. 89-239); Colbert (Freddie) v. State (No. 89-320); Williams (Randy) v. State (No. 89-882); Streeter (Frank) v. State (No. 89-978); Odom (Timmy) v. State (No. 88—2552); Mitchell (Leonard) v. State (No. 89-637); Reynolds (Willie) v. State (No. 89-234); Glass (Michael) v. State (No. 89-448); Wilder (Rickie) v. State (No. 89-205); Thomas (Steven) v. State (No. 89—993); Gonzalez (Obed) v. State (No. 89-388); Huseby (Sheldon) v. State (No. 89-1117); Smith (Leon) v. State (No. 89-756); Plummer (Alonzo) v. State (No. 89-768); Whitfield (Clinton) v. State (No. 89-613); Austin (Iris) v. State (No. 89-528); Barnes (Ellis) v. State (No. 88-3255); Hawthorne (Dennis) v. State (No. 88-2333); Wright (Diane) v. State (No. 89-386); Bell (Ernest) v. State (No. 88-3144); Givens (Edgar) v. State (No. 89-519); Curry (David) v. Seate (No. 89-178) Averett (Norvin) v. State (No. 89-526); Butler (Frank) v. State (No. 88-2957); Jordan (Tracy) v. State (88-2858); Oldacre (John) v. State (No. 89-1329); Holloway (Robin) v. State (No. 89-596); Robertson (Charles) v. State (No. 89-1038); Yonn (Donald) v. State (No. 89-343); Montana (Darryl) v. State (No. 89-498); Kelly (Frank) v. State (No. 88-3007); Bradley (Robert) v. State (No. 89-494); Owens (Carlton B.) v. State (No. 89-503); Carter (Dedric A.) v. State (No. 89-103); Davis (Julius) v. State (No. 89-700); Bishop (Raymond) v. State (No. 88-2349); Donald (Vernon) v. State (No. 89-755); Manning (Harold) v. State (No. 88-2167); Griffis (Ralph Edward) v. State (No. 88-2738); Valentine (Randall) v. State (No. 89-888); Durocher (Michael Alan) v. State (No. 89-497); Baker (Brian) v. State (No. 89-1138); Buckley (Barry) v. State (No. 89-1061); Amicarelli (Edmund Paul) v. State (No. 89-279); Williams (Anthony) v. State (No. 89-1199); Hall (Calvin) v. State (No. 89-1040).
    
   ON MOTIONS TO ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULES AND FOR AUTHORIZATION TO WITHDRAW, AND TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

PER CURIAM.

We have consolidated the above appeals only for the purpose of issuing our opinion on the motions of the Office of the Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit (hereinafter the public defender), requesting approval of briefing schedules for certain cases assigned to his office and for authorization to move to withdraw from other cases.

This court granted a similar motion almost exactly one year ago, see Grube v. State, 529 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We will not repeat the factual predicate for the relief nor our legal conclusions as described in Grube, except to the extent they may differ on consideration of the present motions. For example, last year the public defender represented that his office was funded for 8.25 attorney units while under Public Defender Association Standards funding for 13.75. units would be appropriate. It is represented that this year those numbers are 8.9 and 16.5 units, respectively, thus indicating that the Legislature has not kept current, much less increased, the funding necessary to permit the public defender to adequately staff his office. Additionally, the motion requests permission to withdraw from up to 150 future cases, rather than 100 cases as was requested last year. We find relief is appropriate under the circumstances.

The public defender asks this court to expressly direct the trial courts to appoint * private counsel, rather than the local circuit public defender, when he is permitted to withdraw in future cases. We find that such a holding would unreasonably restrict the discretion of the circuit courts in making the appointments.

The state asks that we permit local county governments, which will be responsible for the fees of substitute private counsel, to appear in this cause and be heard. We deny this request on authority of Escambia County v. Behr, 384 So.2d 147, 150 (Fla.1980).

Motions granted.

BOOTH, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.  