Case Name: Donald D. SILL, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT of Iowa In and For CLAYTON COUNTY, Honorable T. H. Nelson, Judge, Respondent
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1971-03-11
Citations: 184 N.W.2d 699
Docket Number: No. 54449
Parties: Donald D. SILL, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT of Iowa In and For CLAYTON COUNTY, Honorable T. H. Nelson, Judge, Respondent.
Judges: All Justices concur, except LeGRAND and BECKER, JJ., who concur specially.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 184
Pages: 699–701

Head Matter:
Donald D. SILL, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT of Iowa In and For CLAYTON COUNTY, Honorable T. H. Nelson, Judge, Respondent.
No. 54449.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
March 11, 1971.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Max A. Gors and Michael J. Laughlin, Asst. Attys. Gen., and E. Michael Carr, Delaware County Atty., for respondent.
Swift & Swift, by John Q. Swift, Manchester, for petitioner.

Opinion:
RAWLINGS, Justice.
Petitioner, Donald D. Sill, was granted review by certiorari of trial court's orders denying applications for appointment of counsel, and trial transcript, for purpose of appeal from conviction of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury and sentence accordingly entered. The writ is sustained.
Initially charged by indictment with the crime of assault with intent to murder, petitioner was found to be indigent and trial counsel thereupon appointed to represent him.
Following conviction and sentence petitioner filed verified applications for appointment of an attorney and costs of transcript, at county expense, in order to effect appeal, as an indigent, to this court. These applications were accompanied by a financial statement disclosing petitioner had $72 assets, debts totaling $893, and he received a spending money gift of $20 each week from his stepfather.
The county resisted these applications and hearing was held before respondent, a judge of the Thirteenth Judicial District. The only showing then made which could in any manner reflect upon petitioner's financial statement was that he suffered no known infirmities and had been seen drinking with some friends. Petitioner testified his efforts to secure compensatory employment had been unsuccessful.
Trial court found petitioner was not indigent and denied both applications. On application to reconsider, in light of Weaver v. Herrick, 258 Iowa 796, 140 N.W.2d 178, trial court again refused petitioner's requests.
I. No useful purpose will be served by an extended discussion of the matter at hand.
Our holding in Weaver v. Herrick, supra, based upon an exhaustive analysis of the instant subject, is here controlling. See also The Code 1971, Chapter 336B; State ex rel. Riendeau v. Tahash, 276 Minn. 26, 148 N.W.2d 557, 559-560 (Minn.); ABA Standards Relating to Providing Defense Services, Approved Draft, § 6.1.
Each and all of trial court's orders constituted an abuse of discretion and were illegal. The writ is accordingly sustained, orders under review annulled, and this cause remanded to respondent court for an order appointing counsel for petitioner, furnishing transcript, and perforce the printing costs of record and briefs essential to a meaningful appeal.
Writ sustained, orders annulled and cause remanded.
All Justices concur, except LeGRAND and BECKER, JJ., who concur specially.
LARSON, J., who takes no part.