Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass'n v. Atherton
2011 UT 58
| Utah | 2011Background
- LDA petitions for extraordinary relief challenging Judge Atherton's order requiring LDA to fund an expert for indigent defendant Augustine.
- Augustine, initially indigent and represented by LDA, later hired private counsel, leading to LDA's withdrawal from representation.
- Atherton held a hearing on Augustine's funding motion on October 16, 2009; LDA received no notice and did not attend.
- Order post-hearing required LDA to provide funding for Augustine's expert, though LDA only learned of it later.
- LDA contends lack of notice and opportunity to be heard violated due process; the Utah Court of Appeals remanded after initially reversing, and the petition seeks relief vacating the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LDA's due process rights were violated by lack of notice/participation. | LDA asserts due process requires notice and hearing before its interests are adjudicated. | Atherton argues no statutory notice requirement existed for LDA and prior contract with County dictated funding. | Yes; due process violated; vacate order. |
| Whether absence of explicit statutory notice in the Indigent Defense Act excuses notice requirements. | LDA contends lack of explicit notice does not relieve due process obligations. | Atherton claims statute silence allowed absence of notice. | No; due process requires notice regardless of statute's silence. |
| Whether contract-based triggers in the IDA compelled automatic funding by LDA when the defendant had private counsel. | LDA would be obligated under IDA to fund resources regardless of defendant's representation. | County/LDA contract controls funding; court must fund via contract based on notice. | Statute does not mandate automatic funding; remand to resolve funding source consistent with due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 156 P.3d 782 (2007 UT 17) (nonparty due process requires notice and hearing before adjudicating interests)
- Bowen v. Utah State Bar, 177 P.3d 611 (2008 UT) (constitutional issues reviewed for correctness; due process principles apply)
- Chen v. Stewart, 100 P.3d 1177 (2004 UT 82) (constitutional issues are questions of law reviewed for correctness)
- State v. Burns, 4 P.3d 795 (2000 UT 56) (framework for determining indigent defense entitlement under IDA)