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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT