Court Opinion

ID: 7825855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:06:47.257557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:51.891688
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part. Act 1193 of 1993 which establishes the Trial Public Defender Offices was enacted April 19, 1993, with an effective date of July 1, 1993. Counsel for the three defendants in this case, all of whom were indigent, were appointed by the trial court the previous month in June 1993. Because the Capital, Conflicts, and Appellate Office created under Act 1193 had not been established at the time of the appointments and because the trial court found that that office rendered no assistance to counsel in the trials of these matters, I agree that the State should be responsible for the legal fees to private counsel. Act 1193 clearly contemplates the appointment of the Capital Office in the event of a conflict of interest in the public defender’s office. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-87-205 (Supp. 1993). I see no reason, though, not to follow Act 1193 with regard to other defense costs and expenses incurred after July 1, 1993. Act 1193 provides: (a)(1) The commission [Arkansas Public Defender Commission] is authorized to pay expenses regarding the defense of indigents, other than salaries, attorney’s fees, and regular office expenses. (2) The expenses shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, fees for expert witnesses, testing, and travel. (3) (A) Whenever, in a case involving an indigent person, a judge orders the payment of funds for the aforementioned expenses, the judge shall transmit a copy of the order to the commission, which is authorized in its discretion to pay the funds. (B) If the commission declines to pay the funds, the funds shall be paid by the county wherein the crime was committed, provided that the Arkansas Supreme Court may promulgate rules for the stay of such orders in the event that they are contested. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-87-212(a) (Supp. 1993). It is unclear from the record whether the Commission was requested to pay the specified expenses. I would apply Act 1193 and remand the matter of the expenses and costs to the trial court so that the statutory procedure might be followed.