North Carolina § 7A-498 - Title.

§ 7A-498. Title.

This Article shall be known and may be cited as the "Indigent Defense Services Act of 2000". History (2000-144, s. 1.) Cross References. - As to rules and regulations relating to the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in certain criminal cases, see the Indigent Defense Services Rules in the Annotated Rules of North Carolina. Editor's Note. - Session Laws 2000-144, s. 49, as amended by Session Laws 2001-424, s. 22.11(a), provides: "Except as otherwise provided in this Part, this act becomes effective July 1, 2001. G.S. 7A-498, 7A-498.1, 7A-498.2, 7A-498.4, 7A-498.5, 7A-498.6, and 7A-498.7(g), as enacted in Section 1 of this act, and Section 13 of this act are effective when they become law [August 2, 2000]; however, except as otherwise provided in this Part, no rules, standards, or other regulations issued by the Commission on Indigent Defense Services, and no decisions regarding the actual delivery of services shall take effect prior to July 1, 2001, and all authority over the expenditure of funds shall remain with the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts prior to that date. The Commission shall be responsible for the expenditure of funds for all cases pending on or after July 1, 2001." Session Laws 2013-360, s. 18A.4, as amended by Session Laws 2014-100, s. 18B.1(k), provides: "The Office of Indigent Defense Services shall issue a request for proposals from private law firms or not-for-profit legal representation organizations for the provision of all classes of legal cases for indigent clients in all judicial districts. The Office of Indigent Defense Services shall report on the issuance of this request for proposals to the Chairs of the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Justice and Public Safety and the Senate Appropriations Committee on Justice and Public Safety and to the Chairs of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety by October 1 of each year. In cases where the proposed contract can provide representation services more efficiently than current costs and ensure that the quality of representation is sufficient to meet applicable constitutional and statutory standards, the Office of Indigent Defense Services shall use private assigned counsel funds to enter into contracts for this purpose. In selecting contracts, the Office of Indigent Defense Services shall consider the cost-effectiveness of the proposed contract. Disputes regarding the ability of the potential contractor to provide effective representation for clients served by the contract shall be determined by the senior resident superior court judge for the district." Session Laws 2014-100, s. 1.1, provides: "This act shall be known as 'The Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2014.'" Session Laws 2014-100, s. 38.4, provides: "Except for statutory changes or other provisions that clearly indicate an intention to have effects beyond the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the textual provisions of this act apply only to funds appropriated for, and activities occurring during, the 2014-2015 fiscal year." Session Laws 2014-100, s. 38.7, is a severability clause. Session Laws 2016-94, s. 19A.4(a)-(e), as amended by Session Laws 2018-5, s. 18A.3, provides: "(a) Pilot Project. - The Administrative Office of the Courts, in conjunction with the Office of Indigent Defense Services and the chief district court judges and judicial district bars of certain selected judicial districts, shall establish and implement a pilot project to establish a uniform fee schedule for the payment of attorneys' fees for legal representation of indigent persons in district court. The purpose of the project is to create a uniform fee schedule that (i) provides the funding necessary to cover the cost of legal representation of indigent persons and (ii) may be used as a standard to compare and evaluate attorneys' fees paid for the representation of persons in district court in any of the legal actions or proceedings listed in G.S. 7A-451(a). "(b) Sites. - The Administrative Office of the Courts shall, after consultation with the Office of Indigent Defense Services, select one or more counties in at least six judicial districts in which to implement the pilot project. Two of those counties shall have small caseloads in district court; two shall have medium caseloads in district court; and two shall have large caseloads in district court. Any judicial district selected by the Administrative Office of the Courts shall participate in the pilot project. The following districts shall not be selected as sites for the implementation of the pilot project: District 10, District 18, and District 26. "The chief district court judge of a county selected to participate in the pilot project may request to withdraw the county from participation in all or portions of the pilot project. The request shall be in writing, submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts, and shall include specific reasons for the request. The Administrative Office of the Courts, after consultation with the Office of Indigent Defense Services, may, in its discretion, grant the request. If a county withdraws completely from the pilot program, the Administrative Office of the Courts may, after consultation with the Office of Indigent Defense Services, select another county that has a similar caseload to participate in the pilot program. "(c) Criteria. - The Administrative Office of the Courts shall consult with and collaborate with the Office of Indigent Defense Services and with the chief district court judges and district bar of each of the judicial districts selected to participate in the pilot project when developing the fee schedule and the plan for its implementation. All of the following criteria shall be considered and addressed when developing the fee schedule: "(1) The amount required to cover the full cost of providing adequate legal services and representation to indigent persons. "(2) The procedure for and time frame within which attorneys' fees shall be awarded. "(3) A methodology, to be implemented as part of the pilot project, that provides for review of the uniform fee schedule at least every biennium and that incorporates appropriate increases in the uniform fee schedule based on the information from the review. "(4) Any other criteria deemed relevant by the Administrative Office of the Courts. "(d) Time Frame. - The Administrative Office of the Courts shall select one or more counties in at least six judicial districts to participate in the pilot project by February 1, 2017. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall complete the development of the fee schedule for the pilot project by March 1, 2017. The Administrative Office of the Courts, the Office of Indigent Defense Services, and the selected judicial districts shall begin implementation of the pilot project within the district court of each judicial district by April 1, 2017. "(e) Report. - The Administrative Office of the Courts shall report by May 1, 2017, to the chairs of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety on the status of the six judicial districts selected and the fee schedule developed. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall report on the results of the pilot project to the chairs of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety by March 15, 2018. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall continue to monitor the pilot project after making its initial report and shall report by March 15 every two years thereafter on its findings and any recommendations regarding the pilot projects to the chairs of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety." Session Laws 2016-94, s. 1.2, provides: "This act shall be known as the 'Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2016.'" Session Laws 2016-94, s. 39.4, provides: "Except for statutory changes or other provisions that clearly indicate an intention to have effects beyond the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the textual provisions of this act apply only to funds appropriated for, and activities occurring during, the 2016-2017 fiscal year." Session Laws 2016-94, s. 39.7, is a severability clause. Session Laws 2017-57, s. 18A.2, as amended by Session Laws 2018-5, s. 18A.1, provides: "Indigent Defense Services (IDS), in conjunction with the Administrative Office of the Courts and the National Center for State Courts, shall develop a workload formula for the public defender offices. Indigent Defense Services shall use funds available to develop the workload formula. IDS shall make an interim and a final report on the workload formula as well as the number of public defenders it recommends to be allocated to each public defender office. IDS shall submit the reports to the chairs of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety and the chairs of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee on Justice and Public Safety and the Senate Appropriations Committee on Justice and Public Safety. The interim report is due no later than May 1, 2018, and the final report is due no later than December 1, 2018." Session Laws 2018-5, s. 1.1, provides: "This act shall be known as the 'Current Operations Appropriations Act of 2018.'" Session Laws 2018-5, s. 39.4, provides: "Except for statutory changes or other provisions that clearly indicate an intention to have effects beyond the 2018 2019 fiscal year, the textual provisions of this act apply only to funds appropriated for, and activities occurring during, the 2018 2019 fiscal year." Session Laws 2018-5, s. 39.7, is a severability clause. Session Laws 2017-57, s. 1.1, provides: "This act shall be known as the 'Current Operations Appropriations Act of 2017.'" Session Laws 2017-57, s. 39.4, provides: "Except for statutory changes or other provisions that clearly indicate an intention to have effects beyond the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium, the textual provisions of this act apply only to funds appropriated for, and activities occurring during, the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium." Session Laws 2017-57, s. 39.6, is a severability clause. Legal Periodicals. - For comment on assigned counsel and public defender systems, see 49 N.C.L. Rev. 705 (1971). For note discussing failure to communicate and effective assistance of counsel in light of State v. Hutchins, 303 N.C. 321 , 279 S.E.2d 788 (1981), see 13 N.C. Cent. L.J. 101 (1981). For note, "Lessons from New Orleans: A Stronger Role for Public Defenders in Spurring Indigent Defense Reform," see 66 Duke L.J. 1565 (2017).