Discretionary appointment of counsel - prisoners
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).
The Iowa Supreme Court has said the trial court has the inherent power to appoint counsel for prisoners. Larson v. Bennett, 160 N.W.2d 303 (Iowa 1968).
One example of the exercise of this discretion is Bolds v. Bennett, 159 N.W.2d 425, 426, 429 (Iowa 1968) (citations omitted) (finding trial court may abuse its discretion in not appointing counsel in habeas case where "complex factual data must be developed in order to support the prisoner's position", as in such "peculiar" factual situations, "it may be reversible error for the district court to fail to appoint counsel to assist the applicant or to assure in other ways that the prisoner receives a fair and meaningful hearing" as required by federal constitution; court relies on federal cases).
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.
Appointment of Counsel: discretionary Qualified: no