ILNews

Court reverses decision denying trial counsel appointment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has determined a Jay Superior judge didn’t look at a defendant’s “total financial picture” when assessing his need for a court-appointed attorney. It has ordered a new indigency evaluation and trial for the misdemeanor battery charge.

A three-judge panel ruled today in Zachariah D. Reese v. State of Indiana, No. 38A05-1104-CR-171, reversing and remanding the case from Jay Superior Judge Max C. Ludy Jr.

Reese had been charged in 2010 with battery resulting in bodily injury, and at an initial hearing the 25-year-old requested the court appoint an attorney to represent him. He told the judge about his $7.25 an hour job at a fast food restaurant and how he had little money after his rent, bills, and necessary expenses. The judge denied his request for court-appointed counsel after determining Reese wasn’t “totally without funds in order to hire an attorney” and that he should have some money left over each week to put toward a lawyer.

Four months later, Reese renewed his request and told the court that he had taken a new higher-paying job but had been laid off and was without any income. Reese said he wasn’t able to save any money to hire an attorney and that he wasn’t going to immediately receive any tax refund money because he didn’t file electronically. The court continued the bench trial for the end of March and ordered that Reese use some of the $1,500 tax refund he expected to put toward an attorney.

Reese didn’t have an attorney at the trial on March 30, and the court found him guilty of battery and sentenced him to one year, with all but 90 days suspended for probation. The judge then conducted an indigency hearing for appeal, and after listening to testimony found Reese was indigent and appointed appellate counsel.

Looking at Reese’s situation and how the court inquired about his finances at all the hearings, the appellate court found the judge should have done a more thorough job in assessing indigency. Specifically, the trial court didn’t inquire in February about the bills Reese had to pay and instead focused on the fact that Reese hadn’t saved any money since the initial hearing.

The court relied on Redmond v. State, 518 N.E. 2d 1095, 1095 (Ind. 1988) and Hall v. State, 826 N.E.2d 99, 105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), dealing with indigency and trial court discretion in appointing counsel.

“While we are reluctant to override a trial court’s determination of a criminal defendant’s indigency, it is apparent from the record that Reese lacked the resources to employ an attorney,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the panel, which included Judges John Baker and James Kirsch. “In short, ordering Reese to retain private counsel in his circumstances would indeed result in a substantial financial hardship. Based upon the record and Reese’s ‘total financial picture,’ we conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to appoint trial counsel to represent him.”


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT