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.”



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.