IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MONTICELLO, ARKANSAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISPOSITION

OF CERTAIN COSTS

O R D E R

Now comes on before this Court the matter of the disposition of certain court costs which have been earmarked by the Quorum Court of Drew County, Arkansas, for utilization in the expenditures necessitated by the Public Defenders Office for the Tenth Judicial District of the State of Arkansas; and with respect to the assessment, the collection, and disposition before this court of said court costs, this Court does find as follows:

1. That due to certain issues raised before the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, the constitutionality of the Public Defenders System, and the appointment of indigent counsel, in criminal cases in the State of Arkansas is in doubt.

2. That an indigent defendant in the Municipal Court of Monticello, Arkansas, is no less entitled under the United States Constitution to the appointment of counsel than is a defendant in the Municipal Court of Little Rock, Arkansas, or the Circuit Court of Drew County, Arkansas.

3. That this Court is determined that it must review the present situation prior to making any disposition of any court cost which may be assessed with respect to the operation of the Public Defenders Office in the Tenth Judicial District.

4. That this Court deems it advisable to withhold the imposition of any court cost with respect to the Public Defenders Office on all cases, until further written of this court; that the Clerk of this Court is directed to compile any lists, make any accounting notations, and to withhold the imposition and assessment of such funds as would normally be assessed, collected, and remitted to the Public Defenders commission for the Tenth Judicial District of Arkansas, and should continue to make any such notations as are necessary to comply with government accounting functions and safely maintain said notations, lists, and money, pending further order of this Court.

5. That the disposition of all such funds is being withheld pending further order of this court, or until the operation by law of a statutorily required disposition, whichever event occurs first.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the Court withholds the imposition of court costs relative to the Public Defenders Office within the Tenth Judicial District of Arkansas for the month of November, 1991, and succeeding months thereafter until further order of this Court; and the Clerk of this Court should continue to compile a list of any such cases and costs handled by this Court and assemble such in a manner as to and safely maintain said lists in the Clerks office.

2. The disposition of all such funds are being withheld until further order of this court, or until the operation by law of a statutorily required disposition, whichever event occurs first.

RENDERED AND ORDERED to be recorded NUNC PRO TUNC as of November 1, 1991, on this 27 day of November, 1991.





______________________________

William R. Daniels

MUNICIPAL JUDGE



IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MONTICELLO, ARKANSAS

IN THE MATTER OF DISPOSITION

OF CERTAIN COURT COSTS

ORDER

Now comes on before this Court the matter of the disposition of certain court costs which have been earmarked by the Quorum Court of Drew County, Arkansas, for utilization in the expenditures necessitated by the Public Defender's Office for the Tenth Judicial District of the State of Arkansas; and with respect to the assessment, the collection, and disposition before this Court of said costs, this Court does find and Order as follows:

1. That this Court did enter a NUNC PRO TUNC Order as of November 1, 1991, withholding until further Order of the court the imposition of court costs relative to the Public Defender's Office within the Tenth Judicial District of Arkansas for the months of November, 1991, and succeeding months thereafter until further Order of this Court.

2. That the present system of providing for attorneys for indigent defendants within the State of Arkansas, is violative of an appointed attorney's rights as granted by the Equal Protection Clause of the United State Constitution. Arnold v. Kemp, 306 Ark 294, 813 SW 2d 770 (1991).

3. That the present system of appointing private attorneys to represent indigent defendants, without providing a method for their just and reasonable compensation, is a confiscatory "taking" and deprives an attorney of his rights to due process of law in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Arnold v. Kemp.

4. That the present system maintained in the State of Arkansas for the providing of indigent counsel, wherein some counties provide for public defenders, some provide for the appointment of private attorneys, and other counties provide a combination of methods, violates an indigent defendant's right to equal protection under the laws as provided in the United States Constitution.

5. That Drew County Ordinance 89-4 provides for the appointment of the Tenth Judicial District Public Defenders Office in all cases where an indigent defendant is entitled to an attorney under the laws of the State of Arkansas and the United States. Failure or refusal to furnish a public defender for an indigent defendant in the Municipal Court of Monticello denies such a defendant in the Municipal Court of Monticello equal protection of the law; further, by the failure or refusal of the Tenth Judicial Dictrict Public Defender's Office to serve as counsel for indigent defendants, the Municipal Court of Monticello is forced into a position of appointing a private attorney, with no method or assurance of being able to compensate said attorney for the services to be rendered, which thereby constitutes a "taking" of an attorney's services that violate both the Equal Protection Clauses, and Due Processes Clauses of the United States Constitution. Further, Arkansas law prohibits the utilization of general public funds for indigent defense counsel where a Public Defender's Office has been established (such as in the Tenth Judicial District). Arnold v. Kemp; also, Arkansas Attorney General opinion Arkansas 90-168; also Ark Code 14-20-102 (c).

6. That the system of providing for counsel for indigent defendants as maintained in the State of Arkansas, as well in the Tenth Judicial District, as well as in Drew County, Arkansas, is unconstitutional.

7. That the use of public funds, or the use of the court system to impose court cost for the maintenance of an unconstitutional system, is unconstitutional and illegal.

8. That this Court declines, and hereby suspends, the imposition of all court costs relating to Drew County Ordinance 89-4.

RENDERED AND ORDERED to be recorded on this ______ day of ________, 1992.

_____________________________

William R. Daniels

MUNICIPAL JUDGE