State ex rel. Missouri Public Defender Commission v. Waters
2012 Mo. LEXIS 160
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Missouri Public Defender Commission sought a writ of prohibition to force the trial court to withdraw the appointment of the public defender to represent Jared Blacksher under 18 CSR 10-4.010.
- 18 CSR 10-4.010 creates a caseload protocol; after three consecutive months over capacity, a district office may certify limited availability and decline new appointments.
- The circuit court appointed the public defender to Blacksher; the PD office moved to set aside, arguing the rule was violated or inapplicable.
- A hearing occurred; no party argued the rule was invalid or inapplicable; the court treated it as a legal obligation but questioned its practical effectiveness.
- A special master concluded the protocol was not inaccurate and procedures nominally followed, but failed to resolve the issue due to lack of voluntary agreement.
- Blacksher eventually pleaded guilty; the Court issued a writ resolving the appointing court’s order by vacating the appointment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court improperly appoint the public defender despite the rule? | Blacksher: not applicable; PD office should be available only if not limited. | Orr/Waters: constitutional right to counsel requires appointment regardless of caseload. | Yes; court erred by not applying the rule. |
| Does 18 CSR 10-4.010 conflict with the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel? | Rule supplements obligation to provide counsel; must be followed to protect rights. | Rule could override statutory command to provide counsel; may be invalid if conflicting. | Rule properly supports effective counsel; Sixth Amendment requires competent representation. |
| May a court balance caseload rules with constitutional/ethical duties rather than follow them? | Court should triage to protect rights when overload occurs. | Court cannot pick and choose rules; must follow valid promulgated rules. | Court must follow valid rules and use inherent docket-management power to protect rights. |
| Is the writ petition moot given Blacksher's plea and sentencing? | Issue remains live for guidance on rule application and systemic concerns. | Contested issues became moot after plea; relief would be ineffectual. | Not moot; public interest exception applies to guide future conduct and rule application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Davis, 488 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. banc 1972) (claims that rules must be followed unless invalid; weighty reasons required to overturn)
- State ex rel. Missouri Pub. Defender Comm’n v. Pratte, 298 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. banc 2009) (balanced Sixth Amendment rights with public defender duties; affirmed agency authority)
- Cooper v. State, 356 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. banc 2011) (potential conflict of interest alone not enough for ineffective assistance; actual conflict required)
- Krupp v. State, 356 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. banc 2011) (extends Cooper; requires actual conflict/prejudice for relief)
- Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel at all critical stages)
- Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (right to effective counsel applies to pretrial stages; not just trial)