Right to counsel
While a state may have many statutes, court decisions, or court rules governing
appointment of counsel for a particular subject area, a "Key Development" is a
statute/decision/rule that prevails over the others (example: a state high court
decision finding a categorical right to counsel in guardianships cases takes
precedence over a statute saying appointment in guardianship cases is
discretionary).
Litigation, Incarceration for Fees/Fines (incomplete)
An intermediate court found a due process right to counsel for indigent litigants in civil contempt proceedings. Padilla v. Padilla, 645 P.2d 1327, 1328 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). It relied entirely on the threat to physical liberty, and did not clarify whether it was interpreting the state or federal constitution. Although the case involved child support, the court spoke broadly about the right to counsel in all civil contempt proceedings.
It is uncertain whether it is still good law after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Turner v. Rogers.
If "yes",
the established right to counsel or
discretionary appointment of counsel
is
limited
in some way, including any of: the only authority
is a
lower/intermediate court decision or a city council,
not a high court or state legislature; there
has been
a subsequent case that
has
cast doubt; a statute
is
ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment
is not
for all types of individuals or proceedings
within that category.
categorical
yes
