Should You Request a Court-Appointed Lawyer for a Shoplifting Charge

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Pennsylvania

I recently got caught shoplifting at a Walmart in PA. I know what you are thinking, I'm already kicking myself over it. There is no excuse. But it was 225$ total and they did not arrest me that day.

I had the stuff and was walking out the store when two staff members stopped me and one asked me where my receipt was. I told her I didn't have it. She then told me to follow her to a room in the back. I did and was friendly and she was friendly to me. The cops came because it was over a certain amount. They ran a background check and nothing came up, this was my first time getting in trouble for anything ever. They told me that I would be getting something in the mail in about 2 weeks about by court date and hearing. They told me that it would be a misdemeanor 1 because of the amount. I am literally scared to death. I'm in college and trying to graduate, totally doesn't make things any worse. I forgot the amount of money they told me I had to pay right off the bat? And I was wondering what is going to happen next? They advised me I should get a lawyer and try to take a class to get it off my record but they said it might stay on though. I don't have money for a lawyer! And from what I've heard lawyers appointed to us are neve good, I read that a good lawyer can even get the charges dropped completely for a first time offense as well as not paying any fines. I just want to know if a court appointed lawyer is worth it? I am unemployed at the moment and have no money coming in. Even if I try to get a job right now retail theft will be on my record and no one will hire me. How am I suppose to pay all this with literally no money. I also heard something about the store sending you something in the mail requesting money that can be up to 5times the amount it was? I'm literally shaking. I haven't had a job in quite some time, I've been sick and can't get a job. I feel awful and just want to know what my best option is. How do people pay for a lawyer with no money? Can I set up a payment plan as low as 20$ a month? Literally I'd be working off jobs to just get by.

Also I'm freaking out about the lawyer because I don't want to spend time in jail. I read that for a first time they most likely won't give you time but my goods were over $200 I don't want to get a court appointed lawyer who might not know how to help me and I get jail time. I've never been in jail before and the maximum is like a year. I'm in college :( I'm freaking out someone please help.

If there is a potential for jail time with the charge against you then the state must provide you an attorney if you are indigent. So apply for a public defender (PD). The PD will know what options you have and how best to keep you out of jail. You might even qualify for some kind of diversion program that can keep the theft charge off your criminal record.

Chances are good lawyer or not, you won't get the charges just dropped. As TM says if you're indigent you can get a public defender. Perhaps your best option is if you can get into ARD. ARD allows you to complete a period of probation and avoid a criminal record if you successfully complete it. Understand that even with a PD this will cost you. The costs of your prosecution will be somewhere close to $2000. They will allow you to pay this in small increments.

I find it totally offensive when lawyers that the taxpayers provide you are dissed but lawyers that you pay for are called "good" lawyers. A public defender went to the same law school and took the same bar exam as your so-called "good" lawyer, but they didn't issue him a magic wand when he (or she) chose to enter public service and see that your rights are protected when entitled little brats who think they're too special to follow the law decide to break it. They can't wave a magic wand and make everything go away. Guess what, kid. YOU'RE GUILTY. You take a presumption of innocence into court with you, yes, but the state isn't going to have to work very hard to prove their case. That's not the fault of the PD. What the living hell makes you think a court appointed lawyer won't know how to help you? What do you think they do day after day after day after day? They defend shoplifters a whole lot more often than your so-called "good" lawyers, I can tell you that. They know the judges and the prosecutors and which ones will go for what kind of a deal. But if that's not good enough for you, then by all means pay for a "good" lawyer your very own little self. Heaven knows the taxpayers would just as soon not.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I find it totally offensive...

---

Bravo, well said.

I've heard the same rubbish about court-appointed lawyers and I agree, offensive. Unfounded. Untrue.

The general public has no idea what to think. How would they know? While PDs are highly competent attorneys, they often carry case loads of 250+ clients at one time. It is difficult to get a lot of a PD's time, no matter how brilliant s/he is.

Having said that, a first time petit theft defendant with no other record is going to get a standard deal from a prosecutor. The choice of attorney will make no difference in most jurisdictions. You will likely qualify for pre-trial diversion of some sort, after which the formal charges are dropped if you complete everything. That is not a function of you lawyer, that's a function of the criminal justice system offering a 2nd chance for people with that profile. Pre-trial diversion results in lower recidivism than regular criminal adjudication. So inquire about that when you consult whatever attorney you end up with.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I find it totally offensive when lawyers that the taxpayers provide you are dissed but lawyers that you pay for are called "good" lawyers. A public defender went to the same law school and took the same bar exam as your so-called "good" lawyer, but they didn't issue him a magic wand when he (or she) chose to enter public service and see that your rights are protected when entitled little brats who think they're too special to follow the law decide to break it. They can't wave a magic wand and make everything go away. Guess what, kid. YOU'RE GUILTY. You take a presumption of innocence into court with you, yes, but the state isn't going to have to work very hard to prove their case. That's not the fault of the PD. What the living hell makes you think a court appointed lawyer won't know how to help you? What do you think they do day after day after day after day? They defend shoplifters a whole lot more often than your so-called "good" lawyers, I can tell you that. They know the judges and the prosecutors and which ones will go for what kind of a deal. But if that's not good enough for you, then by all means pay for a "good" lawyer your very own little self. Heaven knows the taxpayers would just as soon not.

---

Thank you for this, CBG. Lawyers don't defend people -- we defend their rights.

Quote:

---

Quoting jdbofky

---

The general public has no idea what to think. How would they know? While PDs are highly competent attorneys, they often carry case loads of 250+ clients at one time. It is difficult to get a lot of a PD's time, no matter how brilliant s/he is.

Having said that, a first time petit theft defendant with no other record is going to get a standard deal from a prosecutor. The choice of attorney will make no difference in most jurisdictions. You will likely qualify for pre-trial diversion of some sort, after which the formal charges are dropped if you complete everything. That is not a function of you lawyer, that's a function of the criminal justice system offering a 2nd chance for people with that profile. Pre-trial diversion results in lower recidivism than regular criminal adjudication. So inquire about that when you consult whatever attorney you end up with.

---

What type of PD system does that area of PA have? I am appointed counsel in Ohio. I am not a PD. While those terms are used interchangeably, they are different. I have retained clients as well. The only differences are -- I know the county will pay me and I am paid at a lower rate by the county.

Quote:

---

Quoting Ohiogal

---

What type of PD system does that area of PA have? I am appointed counsel in Ohio. I am not a PD. While those terms are used interchangeably, they are different. I have retained clients as well. The only differences are -- I know the county will pay me and I am paid at a lower rate by the county.

---

State law requires the county to have at least one counsel on staff. Typically, they have many on staff (even the smaller counties have over a dozen). It's unusual that counsel from outside the office is appointed. Alas, despite how things are in Ohio, the Commonwealth uses the term appointed counsel to mean a PD Office staff attorney assigned to a given client.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

State law requires the county to have at least one counsel on staff. Typically, they have many on staff (even the smaller counties have over a dozen). It's unusual that counsel from outside the office is appointed. Alas, despite how things are in Ohio, the Commonwealth uses the term appointed counsel to mean a PD Office staff attorney assigned to a given client.

---

Not all those who ask are granted a PD office staff. Appointed counsel exists -- especially when there are conflicts or the like. If there are co-defendants both cannot be represented by PDs from the same office.

That doesn't override anything I said. I'll REITERATE. The Pennsylvania STATE CODE and the PD offices uses the term "appointed counsel" to describe both the case where a staff attorney in the PD office is assigned and when outside cousnel is obtained for the indigent defendent. As I stated, use of outside counsel is unusual but yes it is indeed done.

Quote:

---

Quoting Ohiogal

---

Not all those who ask are granted a PD office staff. Appointed counsel exists -- especially when there are conflicts or the like. If there are co-defendants both cannot be represented by PDs from the same office.

---

Here in Florida we have statutory agencies called "Regional Conflict Counsel" who are appointed to cases in which there is a conflict with the PD. They are very similar to the PD's office, however.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

That doesn't override anything I said. I'll REITERATE. The Pennsylvania STATE CODE and the PD offices uses the term "appointed counsel" to describe both the case where a staff attorney in the PD office is assigned and when outside cousnel is obtained for the indigent defendent. As I stated, use of outside counsel is unusual but yes it is indeed done.

---

Actually that is NOT what you stated. You stated:

Quote:

---

Alas, despite how things are in Ohio, the Commonwealth uses the term appointed counsel to mean a PD Office staff attorney assigned to a given client

---

This time you changed it to clarify. Which is what I was attempting to do with my post. Your most recent post is not a reiteration but a clarification.

What I said is TRUE in both cases. Pennsylvania uses the term to apply to assignment of staff attorneys. That doesn't say it isn't also used in the more common way as in Ohio. You've twice intimated both to me and to the original poster that our use of "appointed counsel" is incorrect, when it is your lack of understandiong of the Pennsylvania statutes and legal system that is in question. The term "appointed counsel" is cast in the statute in PA, in addition to its operational use.

What happens in Ohio and Florida are immaterial to the poster's situation in Pennsylvania.

I suspect the OP is long gone from this thread, and I was comparing notes with Ohiogal as friendly conversation. If that is not welcomed on this site, let me know and I'll not be friendly. I see so many that aren't so maybe that's a taboo at expertlaw.com...