Public defender representation

The monetary threshold to receive the services of a public defender could change.

It is one provision in a bill sponsored by Rep. Debra Hilstrom (DFL-Brooklyn Center).

Under HF509, criteria would be established to determine public defender eligibility based on the person’s income and severity of the charge.

For a misdemeanor, a defendant could receive the aid of a public defender if their annual income does not exceed 150 percent of federal poverty guidelines. The percentage increases to 175 percent for a gross misdemeanor and 200 percent for a felony. Under current law, a person or their dependent residing in the same household that receives “means-tested government benefits” is eligible for a public defender.

“We’re not expanding or, frankly, significantly contracting eligibility, but trying to give the judges some guidelines, make it more consistent across the state, and direct the statute at the individual or the client, rather than the people that are in the household,” said Kevin Kajer, chief administrator of the Board of Public Defense.

Approved Feb. 24 by the House Public Safety Policy and Oversight Committee, the bill was sent to the House Finance Committee. A companion, SF409, sponsored by Sen. Mee Moua (DFL-St. Paul), awaits action by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Other changes include:

• a defendant would not be eligible for a public defender in a petty misdemeanor case;

• clarification that a chief appellate public defender is to represent those pursuing an appeal or post-conviction relief, while in all other cases they are to be represented by the district public defender; and

• a court “may,” rather than “shall,” direct an employed defendant to reimburse the state for the cost of a public defender.

“There are some instances where somebody may not qualify, but then they are appointed a public defender and then the court is ordering that reimbursement,” Kajer said. “We’re trying to give the court some flexibility here, and hopefully have those folks appointed private counsel rather than a public defender.”