Court Opinion

ID: 9857208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:01:24.512811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:11.717902
License: Public Domain

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with much of the majority’s opinion, we part company on what it properly recognizes to be the' “thorny question” of causation, specifically proximate cause. Maj. Op. at 609. The Ohio Revised Code places the duty squarely upon the court to hold a hearing into a defendant’s financial resources before committing-him to a jail or workhouse for failure to pay a fine. Ohio Rev.Code- § 2947.14.1 In a perfect world, defense *620counsel should remind the court of its statutory obligation, particularly when it is in the best interest of his or her client.2 However, simply because judges face lengthy and growing dockets does not excuse them from fulfilling a statutory duty, as the majority suggests. Nor may a court refrain from inquiring into an issue that has not been raised by the litigants when a statute commands it. This court, for instance, has an independent duty to examine the basis of its jurisdiction regardless of whether the parties have briefed the issue. Accordingly, it seems to me that the majority is in error when it concludes that the trial court’s breach of its duty does not sever the “chain of causation” between plaintiffs injury and defendant’s alleged wrongdoing. Maj. Op. at 610.
In eases of outright misrepresentation by defense counsel, I agree with the majority that an erroneous ruling on the part of the court would not serve as a superseding cause. That is not the case here, however. The majority states that “there is no dispute that the Public Defender did not present the municipal judge with any information about Power’s financial status.” Maj. Op. at 611. On the contrary, counsel informed the court that “Mr. Powers is homeless and can’t come up with any bond,” which put the court on notice that an indigency hearing was necessary if the court intended to confine Powers for nonpayment of his fine.3 It is hard for me to fathom how counsel’s statement, as the majority would have it, “left the municipal judge with the misleading impression that Power’s financial circumstances did not need to be investigated prior to incarcerating him on the unpaid fine.” Maj. Op. at 611. In short, I find nothing in this record to support the majority’s conclusion that the Public Defender, not the court, proximately caused Power’s alleged constitutional injury.
I respectfully dissent.

. As the majority notes, there may be scenarios where requesting a hearing is not in the best interest of the client, Maj. Op. at 617, which may help to explain why the statutory scheme places the duty to inquire on the court.

. The fact that Powers was represented by the Public Defender in the first place likewise provided a clear signal to the court that his financial resources were limited.