Baker, J.
Scott Schuck appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct error in which he argued that his attorney was entitled to reimbursement from public funds for investigatory costs accrued prior to trial. Finding that these investigatory costs were necessary for an adequate defense, but that the calculation of reasonable costs is a decision better made by the trial court, we reverse and remand.
…..
The State argues that by pleading guilty, Schuck rendered any investigation “not necessary,” as “there was no need to counter the State’s case because Schuck’s conviction was based entirely upon his own admissions in pleading guilty.” Appellee’s Br. p. 17. This argument is unavailing for several reasons.
First, our Supreme Court has made clear that defense services to indigent defendants “‘should provide for investigatory, expert, and other services necessary to quality representation. These should include not only those services and facilities needed for an effective defense at trial but also those that are required for effective defense participation in every phase of the process.’” Scott, 593 N.E.2d at 200 (quoting ABA Standards for Criminal Justice (Third Edition), Standard 5-1.4 (approved 1990) 49 Crim. L. Rep. (BNA) No. 2, at 2022 (April 10, 1991)). The need to factually investigate the claims made against a defendant does not begin at trial. It begins before trial, and the information revealed during the course of the investigation will often be of vital consequence to the defendant and his attorney when deciding whether to accept a plea deal. That is precisely what happened in the present case.
Moreover, the State’s argument has terrible public policy implications. Public defenders or pro bono defenders would face a dilemma: if they believed that their client might plead guilty, they would be discouraged from spending any money on any factual investigation of the case. On the other hand, if they decided to spend some money on an investigation, they would be discouraged from counselling their client to accept any plea deal because it would render public reimbursement unavailable. Ironically, in the name of conserving scarce public money, the State would require pro bono defenders seeking public funds to go through a full trial, which would be vastly more expensive, even where the defendant is willing to plead guilty.
….
The trial court also expressed a concern that the fees requested were unreasonably high. This is certainly a determination that is within the trial court’s discretion to make. But we do not believe that the process should work like a gameshow, where a request for too much money results in no money being awarded. Rather, if the trial court believes that the funding requested is unreasonably high, the trial court should hold a factfinding hearing to determine the appropriate amount of funding, and then award that amount instead.
That is what should occur in this case. Having found that hiring the investigator was necessary in this case, we believe the trial court should now determine what would be the reasonable cost of such an investigation.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to hold a hearing to determine the amount of public funding that should be awarded.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.