As I read 1.051(c), 15.17(a), and 26.04(b)(3), an indigent person accused of a felony is entitled to have counsel appointed only if "adversarial judicial proceedings have been initiated against" him; the court "concludes that the interests of justice require representation" (a given); and he "appears in court without counsel". Others believe counsel must be appointed not later than the third (or first) working day after the date on which the court or its designee receives a request. Who is right? It seems extremely wasteful of public funds to appoint counsel for charges which may not ever be indicted and more quickly than a non-indigent would normally retain counsel. What was meant by "adversarial judicial proceedings" and why do these limitations appear in the statute if the request alone triggers the appointment? A concerned taxpayer wants to know.
Ok. so 1.051(i) sets a short deadline supposedly to minimize the client's pre-trial incarceration? But, the only time that will happen is if an unreasonable amount of bail has been set. This provision still makes no sense to me, given the cost to the public and the fact that "judicial proceedings" may be weeks down the road (or never). But, at least now I understand why it is being done. Thanks.
