Case Title: State v. Morgan

Citation: 173 Vt. 533, 789 A.2d 928

Docket Number: 2000-343

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Morgan (2000-343); 173 Vt. 533; 789 A.2d 928

[Filed 19-Dec-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 00-343

                             JANUARY TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	                }	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
     v.	                                }	District Court of Vermont,
                                        }	Unit No. 3, Franklin Circuit
                                        }
Seth Morgan	                        }	DOCKET NO. 931-7-00 Frcr

                                                Trial Judge: Charon A. True

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Seth Morgan appeals from a district court order that
  requires defendant to pay the  clerk of the court $513.00 within sixty days
  to repay the State for the services of appointed counsel.   He contends
  that he has no ability to pay this money.  We reverse and remand for
  additional findings.

       Before considering the circumstances of this case, we examine the
  statutory framework for  appointment of counsel.  The public defender
  statute creates a three-step procedure for consideration  of the
  applicant's financial circumstances.  In the first step, the court
  determines whether the  applicant is needy by considering the applicant's
  income, assets, outstanding obligations and number  of dependents.  13
  V.S.A. § 5236(b).  "A needy person is a person who at the time of need 
  assessment is financially unable, without undue hardship, to provide for
  full payment of an attorney  and all other necessary expenses of
  representation or who is otherwise unable to employ an attorney."  A.O. 4 §
  5(b).  If the applicant is determined to be needy and is charged with a
  serious offense, then  the court will assign counsel.

       In the second step, the court determines the applicant's ability to
  pay for all or part of the  defender services.  13 V.S.A. § 5238(b).  At
  this step, the income of the applicant's cohabitating  family members is
  deemed to be income of the applicant.  Id.; A.O. 4 § 5 (d).  Any applicant
  whose  income is above 125% of the federal poverty guidelines is presumed
  able to pay part of the cost of  services.  Id.  The statute sets forth the
  repayment amount, according to income, as a percentage of  the average
  direct cost of representation per case.  13 V.S.A. § 5238(c).  In the third
  step, the court  designates the repayment amount as a co-payment, which
  must be paid prior to assignment of  counsel, id. § 5238(d), as
  reimbursement, which must be paid within sixty days of the order, id. § 
  5238(e), or partially co-payment and partially reimbursement.

       An applicant who has been ordered to make a co-payment or
  reimbursement may petition the  court at any time for remission of all or
  part of the amount on the ground that it will impose a  manifest hardship
  on the applicant or the applicant's family.  See id. § 5238(f).  The
  applicant may  also appeal a co-payment or reimbursement order to a single
  justice of this Court.  Id. § 5338(h).  

 

       In this case, defendant was charged with burglary of an occupied
  dwelling in violation of 13  V.S.A. § 1201(c).  On July 17, 2000, at his
  initial appearance, he applied for public defender  services.  His
  application form indicates that he was eighteen years old and had had no
  income in the  previous twelve months.  It also states that there are five
  other people in his household: mother, step-father, grandmother,
  grandfather, and uncle.  Gross income from wages of the cohabitants during
  the  last twelve months was $42,576.00, although these wages appear to be
  only those of mother and  stepfather.  Under assets, the form lists three
  vehicles, two valued at $5,000 and $10,000  respectively, and one on which
  $2,370 is owing and no net worth is indicated.  There are also two  bank
  accounts listed: defendant's account with $8.23 and the cohabitants'
  savings account with  $1071.00.  Under monthly expenses, defendant has
  indicated that he has $162 of expenses per month  for automobile insurance,
  life insurance and motor vehicle loan payment.  He lists no other expenses. 
 
       The court made no further inquiry.  Based on the information in the
  application, the court  found that defendant is a needy person because he
  does not have sufficient assets or income to retain  counsel.  Because
  defendant is needy and is charged with a serious offense, the court ordered 
  assignment of counsel.  The court, however, ordered defendant to pay
  $513.00 - 100% of the average  direct cost of representation - for the
  services of assigned counsel.  All of the $513 was designated a 
  reimbursement due within sixty days of the order.

       Defendant appealed to this Court, stating "I am 18 years old and I
  don't have a job and have  no means of being able to pay this money."  He
  indicates that his mother and stepfather are allowing  him to live with
  them until he gets his diploma, a job and a place of his own.  Nonetheless,
  according  to defendant, they do not support him.  Upon receiving this
  notice of appeal, this Court, in a single-justice decision, requested that
  the Defender General submit a brief addressing the constitutionality  of 13
  V.S.A. § 5238(b) and A.O. 4 § 5(d), which require, in determining the
  reimbursement amount,  that "income of the applicant's cohabitating family
  members shall be deemed to be income of the  applicant."  A.O. 4 § 5(d). 
  The Defender General has filed an amicus brief, arguing that the rule 
  violates defendant's rights under the Due Process Clause and the Sixth
  Amendment of the United  States Constitution.  

       In Fuller v. Oregon,