Court Opinion

ID: 9679238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:45:01.256557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:11.628371
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I concur in the result reached by the majority but believe the decision should be based squarely on the provisions of 336B.6, The Code, 1971. I disagree that the result here is controlled by Weaver v. Herrick, 258 Iowa 796, 140 N.W.2d 178, which raised as its real issues the authority to appoint counsel for appeal when there had been no such appointment for trial and the propriety of refusing counsel to an indigent because the trial court held the appeal to be frivolous.
Here the trial court found that defendant was not indigent, a finding with which the majority neither agrees nor disagrees. Under our new statute (336B.6) it is immaterial whether this finding is right or wrong. That law requires the appointment of an attorney for any person asking it even if such person is financially able to employ a lawyer privately. In such case the reasonable amount of the fee is taxed as part of the court costs against him. It appears this section fits the present situation exactly. I think we should say so.