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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT