ILNews

Court erred in denying court-appointed counsel

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's convictions because the trial court failed to adequately ascertain whether he was indigent for purposes of court-appointed counsel.

In Bradley G. Shively v. State of Indiana, No. 12A02-0903-CR-235, Bradley Shively requested a court-appointed attorney at his initial hearing on charges of domestic battery, criminal confinement, and battery. The trial court denied his request at the initial hearing after asking how much money he made, if he had a house or car, and how much money he had in his checking account.

Shively moved to continue his trial and again asked for a court-appointed attorney. A different judge also denied his request. Shively proceeded pro se and was convicted on the charges.

Before sentencing, the trial judge that held the first indigency hearing conducted a more in-depth examination of Shively's finances and then appointed him counsel for sentencing.

While there is no set specific financial guideline for the determination of indigency, the trial court should have done a more thorough inspection of Shively's finances at his first hearing, the appellate court ruled. Both hearings provided just a rough estimate of his finances, and the record shows at his second hearing, Shively's financial situation was much worse. There weren't discussions of his obligations to his children, any debt payments or other fixed obligations, wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

The judge noted it's telling that Shively was appointed counsel after trial but before sentencing and found indigent for the purposes of this appeal. There doesn't appear to be any changes to his financial status between the second pre-trial hearing and the indigency hearing that happened after trial.

"If Shively was indigent for purposes of sentencing and appeal, it is difficult to perceive why he was not indigent for purposes of trial; there does not appear to have been any marked changed in Shively's financial status, particularly between the second pre-trial indigency hearing and the post-trial hearing," he wrote. "Although we understand the reluctance of a trial court to appoint an attorney for one who may be 'gaming the system,' in this instance we do not believe sufficient care was given to a close examination of Shively's financial situation."

Judge Barnes wrote as the case stands now, Shively is still indigent and should be considered so for the purposes of further proceedings on remand unless there is evidence his financial situation has markedly improved.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT