Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri confronted the caseload crisis of the Missouri public defender system in three consolidated cases. In two of the cases, the Supreme Court of Missouri limited the ability of district public defender offices to control their caseload. In the third case, the Supreme Court of Missouri found that it was statutorily impermissible for trial court judges to appoint public defenders to represent indigent defendants in the attorney’s private capacity.
The Supreme Court of Missouri first highlighted the caseload crisis facing the Missouri public defender system that contributed to the factual circumstances of the three cases at issue.[2] In the last twenty years, the number of persons in Missouri sentenced for felony offenses has tripled.[3] “Since 1985, the number of offenders convicted of drug offenses (possession, distribution and trafficking) has increased by nearly 650 percent, while non-drug sentencing has increased by nearly 230 percent.”[4] “During the decade of the 1990s, the population of Missouri grew by 9.3 percent, while the prison population grew by 184 percent.”[5] While the public defender system represents 80% of persons charged with crimes that carry a penalty of incarceration, in the past six years the system has had no addition in staff.[6] During the same six years, the caseload of the Missouri public defender system [rose] by 12,000 cases.[7] In short, the court noted that the Missouri Public Defender’s Office has been facing, and continues to face, significant case overload problems with its lawyers and staff overworked.[8]
As noted by the Missouri legislature and cited by the court, this caseload crisis creates a real conflict between ensuring effective assistance of counsel for individual clients and preventing the state of Missouri from being sanctioned in federal court for not providing representation to all indigent offenders.[9] Public defenders personally “are risking their own professional lives,” as public defenders are not exempt from the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.[10] “The excessive number of cases to which the public defender's offices currently are being assigned calls into question whether any public defender fully is fully meeting his or her ethical duties of competent and diligent representation in all cases assigned.”[11]
B. Missouri Public Defender Commission v. The Honorable Kenneth W. Pratte
I. Facts
The defendant was charged with first-degree assault and abuse of a child.[12] The defendant was represented by private counsel from June 2007 to mid-October 2008.[13] In mid-October 2008, Judge Pratte granted private counsel leave to withdraw.[14] The defendant applied for a public defender, but the public defender denied the request under an administrative rule, 18 Code of State Regulations 10-2.010, which was promulgated by the Missouri Public Defender Commission.[15] This rule provides that “[t]he State Public Defender System shall not represent indigent defendants who have at any time during the pendency of the case retained private counsel,” including judicially permitted withdrawal.[16] Judge Pratte ordered the public defender to enter the case and denied a motion to rescind.[17] The Missouri Public Defender Commission filed a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Missouri.[18]
II. Legal Background
The Supreme Court of Missouri declined to provide deference to the administrative rule as being reasonable because the administrative rule conflicted with a statute, Missouri Revised Statute section 600.086.1.[19] This section provides, “‘A person shall be considered eligible for representation [by the public defender] . . . when it appears from all the circumstances of the case including his ability to make bond, his income and the number of persons dependent on him for support that the person does not have the means at his disposal or available to him to obtain counsel in his behalf. . . .’”[20] The court reasoned that the rule conflicts with the statute because it would deny representation for those who do not have the means at their disposal to obtain counsel.[21] As such, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that 18 Code of State Regulations 10-2.010 is invalid.[22] The court further determined that Judge Pratte properly considered all the factors in the statute for determining whether the defendant was indigent and, therefore, denied the writ of prohibition.[23]
C. Missouri Public Defender Commission v. The Honorable Gary Oxenhandler
I. Facts
In April 2002, the defendant, with the assistance of a public defender, pleaded guilty to passing bad checks, a felony.[24] She was granted suspended imposition of sentence and placed on probation.[25] The defendant later violated probation and was taken into custody.[26] She applied for assistance from the public defender, who denied her request because under 18 Code of State Regulations 10-4.010 public defender offices are to deny representation for parole violations when the office is classified as having limited availability status.[27] As of July 2009, every office of the Missouri public defender was on limited availability status.[28] Despite the administrative rule, Judge Oxenhandler appointed the public defender to the case.[29] The public defender sought a writ of prohibition, and the writ was appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri.[30]
II. Legal Background
As with 18 Code of State Regulations 10-2.010, the Supreme Court of Missouri declined to provide deference to the administrative rule as being reasonable because the administrative rule conflicted with a statute, Missouri Revised Statute section 600.052.4(3), which requires the pubic defender office to represent defendants who are charged with violating probation.[31] Given the conflict, the statute controls, and 18 Code of State Regulations 10-4.010(2)(C) and (E), limiting representation of those on parole, is invalid.[32]
D. Missouri Public Defender Commission v. The Honorable Gene Hamilton
I. Facts
The defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident.[33] The defendant was represented by the public defender and placed on parole, which he later violated.[34] The public defender’s district office denied representation because of 18 Code of State Regulations 10-4.010, which limits representation of parole violations when a public district defender office has limited availability status.[35] Judge Hamilton, under Supreme Court Rule 31.02(a), authorizing criminal trial court judges to appoint counsel if failure to do so would result in injustice, appointed a public defender in his private capacity as a member of the local bar.[36] The public defender sought a writ of prohibition, and the writ was appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri.[37]
II. Legal Background
The Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that, although Rule 31.02(a) does not by its text limit the appointment power of trial judges to appoint counsel for indigent defendants when the Rule is read in light of Missouri Revised Statute section 600.021.2, limiting public defenders to their public practice, the Rule does convey authority to appoint public defenders in their private capacity.[38] As such, the appointment of the public defender in his private capacity as a member of the bar was improper, and the writ was granted permanent status.[39]
E. Commentary
The Supreme Court of Missouri in Pratte, a unanimous opinion, significantly curtailed the ability of the Missouri Public Defender’s Office to control its caseload. Following Pratte, the Public Defender’s Office is barred from denying representation on the basis of prior representation or on the basis that the charge is one of a parole violation. The court’s rulings compelling representation were based on broad statutory provisions with constitutional underpinnings requiring representation of the indigent. As the court based its rulings on very broad statutory provisions with constitutional underpinnings, there is the distinct possibility that the court will strike down other attempts by the public defender office to control its caseload. The court’s long commentary on the “caseload crisis” demonstrates that the court is far from indifferent to the resource shortage facing the Missouri public defender system. In fact, the court’s opening commentary on the state of the public defender system is a signal that the court finds the status quo unacceptable, but it is unwilling to encroach on the duty of the legislature as some other state supreme courts have done.[40] The unanimous opinion of the court expanding the obligations of the public defender system, despite grave concern for the resource shortage of the Missouri Public Defender’s Office, communicates a vision of the public defender system that is widely shared on the court - a public defender system that is reasonably financed to represent those without the ability to afford representation, notwithstanding the procedural posture of their case or their prior financial status.
-Sean Smith
[1] Missouri Public Defender Commission v. Pratte, 298 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. 2009).
[2] Id. at 873-80.
[3] Id. at 877.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 878.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 880.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 881.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id. at 882.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id. at 883.
[23] Id. at 882-83.
[24] Id. at 883.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Id. at 880 (citing to Mo. State Public Defender Cumulative Caseload Report (July 2009)).
[29] Id. at 883-84.
[30] Id. at 884.
[31] Id. at 885.
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] Id. at 886.
[39] Id.
[40] Id. at 888 (citing to National Right to Counsel Committee, Judiciary's Authority to Provide Relief (ch.3(C)), in Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel (2009), available at http://tcpjusticedenied.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=84 (last accessed Nov. 24, 2009)).
[30] Id. at 884.
[31] Id. at 885.
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] Id. at 886.
[39] Id.
[40] Id. at 888 (citing to National Right to Counsel Committee, Judiciary's Authority to Provide Relief (ch.3(C)), in Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel (2009), available at http://tcpjusticedenied.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=84 (last accessed Nov. 24, 2009)).
