ILNews

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.”

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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT