Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

AB 395

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

criteria for determining indigency for purposes of representation by the State Public Defender and requiring the exercise of rule-making authority.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

Under current law, the State Public Defender (SPD) provides counsel to

represent people in various legal proceedings, including criminal proceedings that

may result in imprisonment, and proceedings concerning emergency detention,

involuntary civil commitment, protective placement, paternity determination, and

juvenile delinquency. The SPD provides counsel to children and juveniles in

protective services and delinquency proceedings regardless of the child's or juvenile's

income or assets. The SPD provides counsel to adults in proceedings concerning

involuntary commitment for mental health or alcoholism treatment, protective

placement or services, or involuntary administration of psychotropic medication

regardless of the adult's income or assets. In other types of proceedings, the SPD may

provide counsel only to people who are indigent.

Current law provides that a person is indigent for purposes of SPD

representation if the person's income and assets, after deduction for reasonable and

necessary living expenses, are insufficient to cover the cost of effective legal

representation. Current law equates reasonable and necessary living expenses with

benefit amounts under the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children

program. However, in determining whether a person can afford counsel, courts are

not limited by the SPD indigency criteria. If a person is the subject of a legal

proceeding for which he or she has the right to appointed counsel if he or she cannot

afford counsel, and the person offers proof that he or she cannot afford counsel, the

court must independently review the person's circumstances. If the court finds that

the person cannot afford counsel and does not meet the criteria for SPD appointment,

the court must appoint counsel and the county in which the court sits must pay the

appointed counsel.

This bill changes the criteria for determining indigency for the purpose of SPD

representation. Under the bill, the SPD must adopt rules regarding indigency

determinations that require the SPD, when assessing a person's eligibility, to

consider the anticipated costs of effective representation for the type of case in which

the person is involved. The rules must also require that assets and income be treated

as available to the person to pay the costs of legal representation if they exceed the

asset and income ceilings for eligibility for the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program,

except that the asset exclusion for a person's home is limited to $30,000. (To be

eligible for the W-2 program, a person's household assets, after excluding up to

$10,000 for a vehicle and the value of the person's home, cannot exceed $2,500, and

his or her household income cannot exceed 115 percent of the federal poverty line.)

Additionally, under the rules, the SPD must treat assets or income of the person's

spouse as the person's assets or income, unless the spouse was the victim of a crime

the person allegedly committed. The bill provides the Public Defender Board

authority for 49.25 new full-time equivalent general purpose revenue positions.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , A. Williams (D) , Berceau (D) , Bies (R) , Colon (D) , Dexter (D) , Fields (D) , Grigsby (D) , Hebl (D) , Hintz (D) , Jorgensen (D) , Kessler (D) , Mason (D) , Molepske Jr. (D) , Parisi (D) , Petrowski (R) , Pope-Roberts (D) , Richards (D) , Roys (D) , Seidel (D) , Sherman , Smith (D) , Soletski (D) , Spanbauer (R) , Staskunas (D) , Tauchen (R) , Turner (D) , Van Akkeren (D) , Van Roy (R) , Young (D)

15 cosponsors

Coggs (D) , Erpenbach (D) , Hansen (D) , Lassa (D) , Lehman (D) , Miller (D) , Olsen (R) , Plale (D) , Risser (D) , Robson (D) , Schultz (R) , Sullivan (D) , Taylor (D) , Vinehout (D) , Wirch (D)

Votes

Assembly: Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 10, Noes 0

Passed 10–0 Nov 3, 2009 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Assembly: Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 14, Noes 0

Passed 14–0 Jan 15, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Aug 26, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Sherman, Hebl, Grigsby, Hintz, Bies, Berceau, Colon, Dexter, Fields, Jorgensen, Kessler, Mason, Molepske Jr., A. Ott, Parisi, Petrowski, Pope-Roberts, Richards, Roys, Seidel, Smith, Soletski, Spanbauer, Staskunas, Tauchen, Turner, Van Akkeren, Van Roy, A. Williams and Young;Cosponsored by Senators Coggs, Risser, Sullivan, Miller, Olsen, Vinehout, Wirch, Robson, Lassa, Erpenbach, Lehman, Plale, Hansen, Taylor and Schultz

  2. Aug 26, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics

  3. Sep 2, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Oct 6, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by committee on Judiciary and Ethics

  7. Nov 3, 2009 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 10, Noes 0

  8. Nov 3, 2009 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 8, Noes 2

  9. Nov 3, 2009 · Assembly

    Referred to joint committee on Finance

  10. Jan 14, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by joint committee on Finance

  11. Jan 14, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  12. Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 14, Noes 0

  13. Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 14, Noes 0

  14. Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 13, Noes 1

  15. Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  16. Jan 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 1-26-2010 by committee on Rules

  17. Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  18. Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 adopted

  19. Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 adopted

  20. Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly

    Placed at the foot of the calendar of 1-26-2010

  21. Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly

    Laid on the table

  22. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1