CopyCited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 17, 2021 | 311 Ga. 485
...in the trial court
record, and the habeas court made no specific reference to this testimony in its
order. We provide a more detailed description of pertinent parts of the record
as context for the discussion of the legal issues below.
2 OCGA §
17-12-2 (6) (C) defines “indigent person” in pertinent part as:
A person charged with a felony who earns ....
...enders (and
other indigent defense providers), rather than to the trial courts, the
authority and responsibility to determine if criminal defendants are
indigent and therefore entitled to appointed counsel at the
government’s expense. See OCGA §
17-12-24 (a) (“The circuit public
defender[ or] any other person or entity providing indigent defense
services ....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2021 | 311 Ga. 135
...A §
17-12-1
(b), that is “responsible for assuring that adequate and effective
legal representation is provided . . . to indigent persons who are
entitled to representation under this chapter.” OCGA §
17-12-1 (c).
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA §
17-12-2 (6) (C) defines an “indigent
10
defendant” for purposes of the IDA as
[a] person charged with a felony who earns or, in the case
of a juvenile, whose parents earn, less than 150 percent of...
...es that might reasonably
be used to employ a lawyer,” therefore removing Duke from the
statutory definition of indigency. We agree with Duke that the trial
court erred in adopting the GPDC and circuit public defender’s
interpretation of OCGA §
17-12-2 (6) (C) that pro bono counsel
qualifies as “other resources” under the IDA’s definition of
indigency.
It is well settled that “[a] statute draws its meaning ....
...170, 172-173 (1) (751 SE2d 337) (2013), while also giving
meaning to all words in the statute, see Arby’s Restaurant Group v.
McRae,
292 Ga. 243, 245 (734 SE2d 55) (2012). When we construe
a statute on appeal, our review is de novo. See Hankla v. Postell,
293 Ga. 692, 693 (749 SE2d 726) (2013).
OCGA §
17-12-2 (6) (C) contemplates that a criminal defendant
with earnings below certain poverty guidelines is indigent unless he
has “other resources that might reasonably be used to employ a
lawyer[.]” (Emphasis supplied.) While the parties f...
... available to “employ
a lawyer.” Further, the fact that a defendant has pro bono counsel
is not evidence that he has “other resources that might reasonably
be used to employ a lawyer” for the purpose of determining indigence
under OCGA §
17-12-2 (6) (C)....
...circumstances change.
14
ancillary services under the IDA is erroneous.
The IDA provides state-funded legal defense services for
indigent defendants, which includes attorneys and investigators.
See OCGA §§
17-12-23 (discussing representation of indigent
defendants by circuit public defenders);
17-12-28 (authorizing
employment of investigators by circuit public defenders);
17-12-29
(authorizing employment of administrative, clerical, and
paraprofessional personnel by circuit public defenders)....
...ircuit public defenders,
or other attorneys . . . .”). Indeed, when the General Assembly wished
to limit the IDA’s reach as it applies to “other attorneys,” the
legislature did so explicitly. See, e.g., with all emphases supplied,
OCGA §§
17-12-24 (c) (“The circuit public defender shall keep and
maintain appropriate records, which shall include the number of
persons represented, including cases assigned to other counsel based
on conflict of interest.”);
17-12-33 (a) and (b)...
...al officer for the
21
its own employees and the circuit public defenders and their
employees, but also through contracts with outside counsel and
ancillary service providers. See, e.g., OCGA §§
17-12-12.1;
17-12-28;
17-12-29;
17-12-31 (a)....
...And Georgia
law allows circuit public defenders and the GPDC to pursue such
arrangements with outside attorneys and other professionals not
employed by their agencies, including attorneys who otherwise
engage in private law practice. See id.; see also OCGA §§
17-12-2 (8)
(defining “public defender” as “an attorney who is employed in a
circuit public defender office or who represents an indigent person
pursuant to [the Georgia Indigent Defense Act of 2003]”);
17-12-33...
...a contractual agreement with an “attorney who is not employed by the circuit
public defender office” in the event such attorney is appointed to represent an
indigent defendant in a case in which the circuit public defender office has a
conflict of interest. See OCGA §
17-12-22 (b). Such attorneys must meet the
requirements for training, experience, qualifications, and standards of
representation established by the GPDC. See OCGA §
17-12-22 (c).
20 I agree with the majority that the participation of pro bono counsel,
alone, does not impact Duke’s indigency status.
47
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Co...
