Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session
criteria for determining indigency for purposes of representation by the State Public Defender and requiring the exercise of rule-making authority.
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- 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)
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 pageNo 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 pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- 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
- Aug 26, 2009 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics
- Sep 2, 2009 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Oct 6, 2009 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by committee on Judiciary and Ethics
- Nov 3, 2009 · Assembly
Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 10, Noes 0
- Nov 3, 2009 · Assembly
Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 8, Noes 2
- Nov 3, 2009 · Assembly
Referred to joint committee on Finance
- Jan 14, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 2 offered by joint committee on Finance
- Jan 14, 2010 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly
Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 14, Noes 0
- Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly
Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 14, Noes 0
- Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly
Report passage as amended recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 13, Noes 1
- Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Jan 20, 2010 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 1-26-2010 by committee on Rules
- Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 adopted
- Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 2 adopted
- Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly
Placed at the foot of the calendar of 1-26-2010
- Jan 26, 2010 · Assembly
Laid on the table
- Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1