Miss. R. Crim. P. 7.3
Comment
Rule 7.3 establishes a procedure for the determination of indigency. In making a determination of indigency, the court should consider factors such as the defendant's income and sources of income; employment status; real or personal property owned; outstanding obligations; and the number and age(s) of any dependant(s). See Miss. Code Ann. § 25-32-9(1). The court shall not consider the fact that the defendant has been released on bond, or the financial ability of friends or relatives not legally responsible for the defendant.
Rule 7.3(e) establishes the rule for appointment of public defenders rather than private counsel in counties or municipalities that have a public defender's office. See Miss. Code Ann. § 25-32-9(1). When the public defender's office cannot represent an indigent defendant (e.g., when there is a conflict of interest or the public defender is unable to provide prompt and adequate representation), private counsel shall be appointed. See Miss. Code Ann. § 25-32-13.
Rule 7.3(g) provides for continuity of representation by requiring the trial or appellate court to appoint new counsel for a defendant legally entitled to such representation on appeal, when prior counsel is permitted to withdraw. See M.R.A.P. 6(b); Jones v. State, 355 So. 2d 89, 91 (Miss. 1978) ("An accused is not only entitled to counsel at trial, but he is entitled to counsel on appeal from a conviction on the merits. If he is indigent and unable to afford an attorney, then he is entitled to a court-appointed attorney at trial and on appeal.").
Rule 7.3(h) is consistent with existing law regarding the compensation of appointed counsel. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-17. Rule 7.3(i) addresses the reimbursement of reasonable and necessary expenses to appointed counsel. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-15-17, 99-15-21; Howell v. State, 989 So. 2d 372, 390 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Ruffin v. State, 447 So. 2d 113, 118 (Miss. 1984)) ("[a]n indigent's . . . right to defense expenses . . . is conditioned upon a showing that such expenses are needed to prepare and present an adequate defense"); Hansen v. State, 592 So. 2d 114, 125 (Miss. 1991) (State must pay for "non-legal personnel needed by the defense" on showing of "substantial need"); Wilson v. State, 574 So. 2d 1338, 1341 (Miss. 1990).