Treacy v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1632
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Treacy was charged in 2006 with multiple offenses related to OWI and BAC; conviction in 2009 and affirmed on appeal in 2010, with sentence upheld as to the convictions at issue here.
- Stern appeared for Treacy starting 2009; Ogden later became involved but did not file a trial court appearance.
- Stern asked the trial court to appoint him and have the county pay his fee; the trial court denied.
- Stern and Ogden filed a petition to compel the Marion County Public Defender Agency (MCPDA) to pay their fees; MCPDA objected.
- The trial court denied their fee petition; Ogden and Stern appealed, asserting error in Treacy’s representation at public expense, but neither Ogden, Stern, nor MCPDA were parties below.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the named appellants were not proper parties to the judgment below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Ogden, Stern, and MCPDA proper appellate parties? | Treacy would be affected by the fee dispute and remains a party. | Ogden and Stern (and MCPDA) were not parties below and cannot appeal. | No; they were not proper parties; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does Appellate Rule 17 limit appellate participation to parties of record? | Treacy’s interests compel party status on appeal. | Rules limit to trial-court parties; no proper party status here. | Yes; lack of proper party status requires dismissal. |
| Could MCPDA have appeared as amicus or via intervention? | MCPDA has an interest and could participate. | Intervention or amicus status not properly invoked; not sufficient to create party status. | Intervention/amici status not recognized to create appellate party; dismissal appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- W.J. & M.S. Vesey v. Hillman, 139 Ind.App. 363, 198 N.E.2d 233 (1964) (parties not proper appellate participants in judgment below)
- Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2002) (pauper counsel payment; trial court discretion; post-trial fee payment)
- Sholes v. Sholes, 760 N.E.2d 156 (Ind.2001) (counsel payment within appellate review context)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind.2001) (issues raised on direct appeal; waiver of later claims)
- State ex rel. Shorter v. Allen Superior Court, 155 Ind.App. 269, 292 N.E.2d 286 (1973) (indigent defense and appointment of pauper counsel; discretionary)
- Treacy v. State, 2010 WL 3496797 (Ind.Ct.App.) (direct appeal; unrelated to fee petition)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Young, 852 N.E.2d 8 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (motions panel decisions reviewable; party-status considerations)