Redmond v. State, 20S00-8607-CR-666
| Decision Date | 10 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 20S00-8607-CR-666,20S00-8607-CR-666 |
| Citation | 518 N.E.2d 1095 |
| Parties | Lee Albert REDMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, David P. Freund, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard C. Webster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
A jury trial resulted in a conviction of appellant of the crime of Rape, a Class B felony, for which he received sixteen (16) years and Criminal Deviate Conduct, a Class B felony, for which he received sixteen (16) years, the sentences to run concurrently.
Appellant claims his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court refused to appoint pauper counsel and forced him to stand trial without an attorney.
For a period of over ten months, appellant appeared in court on several occasions and clearly indicated that he did not wish to go to trial without being represented by counsel. Appellant did not own an automobile or real property. At the beginning of this period of time, the evidence was that he took home approximately $450 every two weeks, that he paid $200 per month rent and supported a wife, who was unemployed, and a daughter and a son. As time went on, his take-home pay decreased to $300 to $340 every two weeks.
Each time appellant would appear in court he would again state his intention to employ counsel but advise the trial court that he was unable to raise the money to pay the fees quoted to him by attorneys. Those fees ranged from $500 to $2,000. The trial judge suggested to appellant that he try to arrange time payments with an attorney or to borrow funds with which to pay the fee.
Although the trial judge showed great patience and granted appellant several continuances in order to obtain counsel, the likelihood of appellant being able to employ counsel appears to be remote. With no automobile and no real estate to secure a loan and with the prospects of a long prison sentence, it seems highly improbable that appellant could borrow any money. It also seems improbable that appellant could have arranged with an attorney any payment that would have extended over a period of time, considering that it would have been unrealistic to expect appellant to continue any payments after he started a prison sentence.
We have previously held that the determination of indigency lies within the discretion of the trial court and that we are reluctant to override that discretion. Poe v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 94. However, as Justice Hunter stated in Moore v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 3, 401 N.E.2d 676, we are dealing with a fundamental constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel. The record must show that the trial court gave careful consideration commensurate with the right at stake. Justice Hunter further observed:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vincent
...a basic constitutional right. Id. at 1262 (citations omitted). Accord People v. Nord, 790 P.2d 311, 313 (Colo.1990); Redmond v. State, 518 N.E.2d 1095, 1095 (Ind.1988). On precedential, policy, and conceptual grounds, we may have differences on the question of which standard should be appli......
-
Bowen v. State
...we are reluctant to override that discretion on appeal. Reese v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1207, 1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citing Redmond v. State, 518 N.E.2d 1095, 1095 (Ind.1988)). However, the trial court does not have the discretion to deny counsel to an indigent defendant. Gilmore v. State, 953 ......
-
Timothy W. Parish v. State
...at public expense. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Parish's request for counsel at public expense. See Redmond v. State, 518 N.E.2d 1095, 1096 (Ind.1988) (distinguishing facts in Redmond from facts in Moore v. State, 273 Ind. 3, 401 N.E.2d 676 (1980), where the defendant had eq......
-
Elliott v. Elliott
...his family will suffer substantial hardship if he is held responsible for the costs of his appeal. Joe's reliance upon Redmond v. State (1988), Ind., 518 N.E.2d 1095, is not persuasive. During the ten-month period before Redmond's trial, his biweekly earnings decreased from $450 to $300-$34......