2014 COA 80M
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Sanford B. Schupper was charged with felony theft in 1995; he initially sought court-appointed counsel but later paid privately.
- By 2001 counsel withdrew for nonpayment; defendant filed an indigency affidavit and, after delay, a public defender was appointed; the prosecution challenged indigency.
- A series of indigency hearings occurred in 2001, including asset investigations and hearings about whether defendant had access to assets and income sufficient to pay for counsel.
- The court found substantial non-exempt assets and a luxury lifestyle, concluding defendant was not indigent and not entitled to court-appointed counsel, despite prior representations of indigence.
- After the indigency determination, defendant proceeded to trial pro se in March 2002; he was later appointed counsel in June 2002 for subsequent proceedings, and the case included a COCCA/other counts with subsequent recusal litigation.
- Defendant was convicted of theft, with related check-fraud counts hung; appellate history includes remands, reversals, and remands addressing whether counsel was properly appointed and whether recusal occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indigency determination abuse? | Schupper asserts court abused discretion in denying indigent status. | Schupper contends assets/income should have shown indigency. | No abuse; court properly weighed evidence and assets. |
| Need for Arguello advisement and validity of waiver? | People contends waiver valid given advisement. | Schupper argues lack of express Arguello advisement invalidated waiver. | Waiver valid; court considered total circumstances and defendant knowingly waived. |
| Trial court bias/recusal necessity? | Schupper alleges bias due to indigency rulings and recusal requests. | Schupper claims judge biased and should have recused. | No reversible bias; rulings not sufficient to show bias; denial of recusal proper under record. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Adams, 836 P.2d 1045 (Colo. App. 1991) (burden to prove indigency; preponderance standard)
- People v. Steinbeck, 186 P.3d 54 (Colo. App. 2007) (indigency standards; Chief Justice Directive guidance)
- United States v. Rubinson, 543 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1976) (assets concealment evidence in indigency determinations)
- United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1983) (defendant bears burden to show need for counsel; credibility matters)
- People v. Alengi, 148 P.3d 154 (Colo. 2006) (requirement to show capability to afford counsel; credibility considerations)
- Arguello, 772 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1989) (valid waiver standard; required advisement and inquiry)
- King v. People, 728 P.2d 1264 (Colo. 1986) (procedural requirements for waivers and investigations of indigency)
- People v. Rawson, 97 P.3d 315 (Colo. App. 2004) (factors for voluntary waiver and awareness of rights)
- Saucerman v. Saucerman, 461 P.2d 18 (Colo. 1969) (bias standard; required to show impartiality beyond speculation)
- Goebel v. Benton, 830 P.2d 995 (Colo. 1992) (rulings alone do not establish bias; need explicit bias showing)