Opinion ID: 1213697
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: statutory rights to public funding of civil appeals

Text: We first turn to the two motions considered here in which the request for public funding is based on a statutory right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings. This right has been granted by the Legislature in these two cases, one a dependency case and the other an action under the sexually violent predator act. [6] Again, the issues are as follows: 1. Where the Legislature has provided a statutory right to counsel at all stages of a proceeding, is there a right to counsel on an appeal of right? 2. If a right to counsel on appeal exists, does it include the right to public funding of the expenses necessary to adequately present the appeal? 3. Does the right to appeal at public expense include the right to move for discretionary review of an interlocutory trial court order? Our current procedure for determining when an indigent civil litigant should be permitted to appeal at public expense is governed by In re Lewis, 88 Wn.2d 556, 564 P.2d 328 (1977), our most recent opinion on the issue, and by RAP 15.2. In re Lewis, a 1977 four-person departmental decision, held: Equal protection requires the state to provide appointed counsel for appeal and a right of appeal at public expense in those classes of cases in which indigents are entitled to appointed counsel at the trial level and a right of appeal is provided. This principle was developed in criminal cases but it applies to other disputes involving matters of such a fundamental nature as to require appointment of counsel at the trial level, such as juvenile delinquency proceedings and proceedings concerning possible permanent deprivation of parental rights. ... Where issues of a less fundamental nature are involved, the right to pursue remedies at public expense is considerably more limited. In such cases, in addition to establishing indigency and good faith, the moving party has an obligation to allege facts and cite authority demonstrating that the appeal is well taken and a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Upon such a showing the court may exercise its inherent power to waive fees; however, it is not required that the state supply counsel. (Italics ours. Citations omitted.) In re Lewis, 88 Wn.2d at 558-59. Under the In re Lewis holding there are two classes of indigent civil appellants. First are those who have a right to counsel at trial and a right to appeal. In re Lewis holds these appellants have a right to public funding of their appeals, including the right to appointed counsel. Second are those involved in all other civil cases. In re Lewis holds that, in this latter class (cases where the issue is of a less fundamental nature), public funding of an appeal is discretionary with this court and is based on a showing that the appeal is taken in good faith, has merit and that it is necessary to correct a miscarriage of justice. In re Lewis, at 559. Our court rule, RAP 15.2, is not entirely consistent with In re Lewis; it provides: (a) Motion for Order of Indigency. A party seeking review partially or wholly at public expense must move in the trial court for an order of indigency.... If the case is a civil case which does not involve a termination of parental rights or a disposition in a juvenile offense proceeding, the party must also demonstrate ... that the issues the party wants reviewed have probable merit and that the party has a constitutional right to review partially or wholly at public expense. (b) Action by Superior Court. The superior court shall decide the motion for an order of indigency, after a hearing if the circumstances warrant, as follows: (1) Denial Generally. The superior court shall deny the motion if a party has adequate means to pay all of the expenses of review.... (2) Cases Involving Crimes, Parental Rights, Juvenile Offenses. In a criminal case, a case involving a termination of parental rights, or a case involving a disposition in a juvenile offense proceeding, the superior court shall grant the motion and enter an order of indigency if the party seeking public funds is unable by reason of poverty to pay for all or some of the expenses of appellate review. (3) Other Civil Cases. If the case is a civil case which does not involve a termination of parental rights or a disposition in a juvenile offense proceeding and if the party is unable by reason of poverty to pay for all of the expenses of review, the superior court shall enter findings of indigency . .. . The findings shall conclude with an order to the clerk of the superior court to promptly transmit to the Supreme Court, without charge to the moving party, the findings of indigency, the motion for an order of indigency, the affidavit in support of the motion, and all other papers submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion. The superior court clerk shall promptly transmit to the Supreme Court the papers designated in the findings of indigency. (c) Action by Supreme Court. If findings of indigency and other papers relating to the motion for an order of indigency are transmitted to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will determine whether an order of indigency in that case should be entered by the superior court. The determination will be made by a department of the Supreme Court on a regular motion day without oral argument and based only on the papers transmitted to the Supreme Court by the superior court clerk, unless the Supreme Court directs otherwise. If the Supreme Court determines that the party is seeking review in good faith, that an issue of probable merit is presented, and that the party is entitled under the state or federal constitution to review partially or wholly at public expense, the Supreme Court will enter an order directing the trial court to enter an order of indigency. In all other cases, the Supreme Court will enter an order denying the party's motion for an order of indigency.... (Italics ours.) RAP 15.2(a)-(c). Under RAP 15.2, therefore, an indigent appellant is entitled to public funding of an appeal, including appointed counsel, if the case is a criminal or juvenile offender proceeding or if it involves the termination of parental rights. In all other civil cases  regardless of what rights the constitution or Legislature have bestowed on litigants  RAP 15.2 requires an indigent civil litigant to prove: (1) the appeal is brought in good faith, (2) the issues to be reviewed have probable merit, and (3) a state or federal constitutional right to appeal at public expense exists. This standard conflicts with legislation which recognizes that an indigent litigant may have a statutory right to counsel on appeal based solely on the nature of the proceeding and on the fact of indigency. For example, the dependency statute, RCW 13.34, under which the appellant in the Grove case was granted a right to counsel at trial, provides: At all stages of a proceeding in which a child is alleged to be dependent pursuant to RCW 13.34.030(2), the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian has the right to be represented by counsel, and if indigent, to have counsel appointed for him or her by the court. Unless waived in court, counsel shall be provided to the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian, if such person (a) has appeared in the proceeding or requested the court to appoint counsel and (b) is financially unable to obtain counsel because of indigency as defined in chapter 10.101 RCW. (Italics ours.) RCW 13.34.090(2). In RCW 10.101, a statute setting forth the guidelines to be used by our courts to determine indigency, our Legislature further explained its position on public funding of counsel for indigent litigants. Although none of the parties involved in the cases before us have cited RCW 10.101, it contains the clearest expression of legislative intent on this subject. RCW 10.101.005 sets forth the Legislature's finding as follows: The legislature finds that effective legal representation should be provided for indigent persons and persons who are indigent and able to contribute, consistent with the constitutional requirements of fairness, equal protection, and due process in all cases where the right to counsel attaches. (Italics ours.) [2, 3] While RCW 10.101 does not create a substantive right to counsel in specific cases, it does express the Legislature's determination that public policy is best served by providing effective legal representation to indigent litigants in all cases in which there is a right to counsel. RCW 10.101 does not limit its effect to those cases in which a constitutional, as opposed to a statutory, right to counsel attaches, but by its terms clearly includes those cases in which the Legislature has itself determined that counsel should be provided to indigent litigants at public expense. See, e.g., RCW 10.101.020(1) (providing that a determination of indigency shall be made for all persons wishing the appointment of counsel in criminal, juvenile, involuntary commitment, and dependency cases, and any other case where the right to counsel attaches. (Italics ours.)). The Legislature also intended that the policy expressed in RCW 10.101 should apply to the various stages of a court proceeding, including the appellate stage. RCW 10.101.010(1) (in general, an indigent person is one who, at any stage of a court proceeding, is unable to pay the anticipated cost of counsel for representation); see also 51st Legislative Session of Washington, Final Report (1989) (evidencing the legislative concern with inconsistent indigent defense policies in the different divisions of the Court of Appeals). [4] Thus, under the policy expressed in RCW 10.101, if there is a statutory right to counsel at all stages of a particular court proceeding, that right should include representation through an appeal as of right. [5] Accordingly, we hold that indigent civil litigants who have a statutory right to counsel at all stages of the proceeding have a right to counsel on an appeal of right. These litigants need not prove a constitutional right to appeal at public expense nor prove the probable merit of their claims in order to appeal at public expense. We now turn to the question of whether the costs incidental to an appeal, such as the filing fee, expenses related to the preparation of the report of proceedings and clerk's papers, and the cost of reproducing briefs, should be paid for by public funds in cases where the indigent litigant has a statutory right to counsel. [7] Here, the Legislature expressed its findings and its policy by stating that the legal representation to be afforded indigents in cases where a right to counsel attaches should be  effective legal representation. (Italics ours.) RCW 10.101.005. Effective representation requires an adequate record on appeal as well as the ability to file a notice of appeal and to present the case to the appellate court. See, e.g., Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 100 L.Ed. 891, 76 S.Ct. 585, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055 (1956) (trial court transcript must be provided an indigent criminal appellant when necessary for adequate review); Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 496, 9 L.Ed.2d 899, 83 S.Ct. 774 (1963) (state required to supply adequate record on review of criminal case, where state provided appeal). The right to counsel without a corresponding right to present a record to the reviewing court is an empty right. The Legislature's intent, as evidenced from its finding that indigent litigants who have a right to counsel should have  effective legal representation, would be thwarted were we to hold that the statutory right to counsel on appeal did not include the instruments necessary to permit effective presentation of the issues on appeal. [6] We therefore hold that RCW 10.101.005, finding that persons who are indigent and who have a right to counsel should have effective legal representation, contemplates the public payment of expenses and fees necessary to provide an adequate record to the appellate court and to present the appeal. Next considering whether this statutory right to counsel and public funding of costs on appeal includes the right to move for discretionary review of a trial court's interlocutory order and, in those instances where the motion is granted, a right to public funding of the discretionary review, we hold as follows. [8] [7] Our appellate court procedural rules provide two methods of seeking review of trial court decisions. One is review as a matter of right, called an appeal, and the other is review by permission of the reviewing court, called discretionary review. RAP 2.1(a). RAP 15.2 provides a method of asking for public funding of appellate court actions to any party seeking review partially or wholly at public expense. RAP 15.2(a). RAP 15.2 is not limited to those who seek review as a matter of right. A party moving for discretionary review of an interlocutory trial court order bears a heavy burden. In such cases discretionary review will be granted only: (1) If the superior court has committed an obvious error which would render further proceedings useless; or (2) If the superior court has committed probable error and the decision of the superior court substantially alters the status quo or substantially limits the freedom of a party to act; or (3) If the superior court has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such a departure by an inferior court or administrative agency, as to call for review by the appellate court. RAP 2.3(b). During the past five years fewer than 10 percent of the motions for discretionary review filed in the Court of Appeals in this state have been granted. 1993 Report of the Courts of Washington, at 58 (on file with the Office of the Administrator for the Courts of Washington). As noted above, RCW 10.101 recognizes a right to effective legal representation at any stage of a court proceeding. This broad language differs from that contained in other statutes dealing with the same subject matter. For example, RCW 4.88.330 provides for public payment of an indigent litigant's expenses on appeal only where the litigant has been judicially determined to have a constitutional right to obtain a review. [8] We hold that the legislative finding set forth in RCW 10.101.005 indicates that the Legislature contemplated public funding of appellate review, including motions for discretionary review of interlocutory trial court orders, in those cases where the indigent litigant has a statutory right to counsel at all stages of the proceeding. It is the Legislature's prerogative, as the taxing and appropriating branch of government, to determine what actions other than those which are constitutionally mandated will be publicly funded. [9] To conclude, if there is a statutory right to counsel at all stages of the court proceeding, then, under the policy expressed in RCW 10.101, that right includes a right to counsel on appeal and for the purpose of filing a motion for discretionary review. This right to counsel further contemplates a right to public funding of expenses necessarily incident to effective appellate review. To the extent it conflicts with this decision, In re Lewis, 88 Wn.2d 556, 564 P.2d 328 (1977), is overruled. To the extent RAP 15.2 requires proof beyond that required under our decision here, it is inapplicable. [9]