Defense attorneys lose appeal for compensation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two private defense lawyers in Marion County failed to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that they should be retroactively appointed by the Marion County Public Defender Agency and compensated for their legal work on a case that has an intricate maze of attorney representation over the course of five years.

The court’s ruling came Friday in Timothy-Patrick Treacy v. State, No. 49A02-1010-CR-1254, an attorney fee-focused continuation of a criminal appeal that a separate appellate panel had decided in a not-for-publication ruling in September 2010.

In the underlying case that evolved in Marion Superior Judge Rueben Hill’s court, Timothy-Patrick Treacy was charged in August 2006 with two misdemeanor and two felony drunk driving counts and a misdemeanor public intoxication charge. But multiple delays involving attorney representation and court congestion pushed his jury trial back three years, and Treacy was eventually convicted on all counts in August 2009. He received a sentence that was mostly suspended and resulted in 100 days in jail and probation.

Treacy challenged the convictions on grounds that he didn’t receive a trial within one year as required by Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C), but the appellate court in September 2010 affirmed the lower court’s findings because the delays were mostly caused by the defendant.

But the lawyering continued, as private attorneys Paul Ogden and Patrick Stern who’d represented Treacy toward the end of those four years argued they should be retroactively appointed as public defenders and compensated for their work. The roadmap to Treacy’s representation is scattered through two appellate records, from this most recent attorney-fees ruling to the original Court of Appeals’ NFP decision upholding Treacy’s criminal convictions and sentence.

In the four years from when the case began to when it was completed in Marion Superior Court, the defendant had five lawyers representing him at the trial level along with multiple stints of pro se representation – the list includes two private attorneys whom Treacy fired, a public defender he threatened to file a lawsuit against, and two private attorneys who were later ordered to stay on the case or represent him intermittently because of counsel indecision or delays.

James Recker was hired and then fired between August 2006 and June 2007, and Treacy wasn’t sure about hiring another lawyer or proceeding pro se. The judge appointed Marion County public defender A.J. Reiber until the defendant decided how he wanted to proceed.

Private attorney Jeffrey McQuary appeared for a September 2007 hearing, but within four months Treacy fired him. Treacy wanted to proceed pro se, and told the court that Reiber couldn’t be re-appointed because he was threatening to sue the public defender on claims he owed Treacy $3.5 million for violating his rights.

After more delays, private defense attorney Patrick Stern represented Treacy at a January 2009 hearing after the defendant’s mother retained him for $1,000.

Several more disagreements surfaced between Treacy and his counsel, with Stern noting more than once that he’d been terminated, but the defendant indicated that was not the case and the court ordered Stern to remain as counsel on the case. At one point in July 2009, after Treacy again said he’d fired Stern, Senior Judge Richard Sallee ordered Paul Ogden, who was sitting in the courtroom gallery at the time, to assist in reviewing some tapes because he was representing Treacy in an unconnected civil matter.

About three years after the man had first been charged, the jury trial commenced and Treacy was convicted and sentenced within a month. Both Ogden and Stern were representing Treacy at the time, the court records show.

Within a month of Treacy’s sentencing, Ogden and Stern both filed petitions ordering the county to pay for their costs, which were $3,765 and $3,500 respectively. Judge Hill denied the motions, and the Indiana Court of Appeals has now dismissed the appeal – mostly because the majority found that Ogden and Stern weren’t parties to the case and Treacy hadn’t requested public appointment of the two lawyers.

Finding that it didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court described this as an attempt to circumvent trial and appellate rules to litigate a compensation dispute with the MCPDA on appeal rather than through a separate lawsuit.

“Although this appeal is styled as a challenge to the trial court’s denial of Treacy’s request for counsel at public expense, no such denial is actually claimed,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “This appeal is, in fact, an appeal prosecuted by Ogden and Stern on their own behalf in an attempt to have the MCPDA reimburse them for representing Treacy.”

Judge John Baker concurred, but Judge Melissa May disagreed and found that Ogden and Stern were proper parties and they should address the merits. She would affirm the attorney fee denials because Treacy had not raised this argument on appeal and waived it, but also because he’d been given the chance for a public defender.

“If a defendant wishes representation at public expense, he must accept the public defender appointed by the trial court; to permit any other system would undermine the public defender system created by our legislature and increase the cost of providing defense for all indigent defendants.”


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?