Read on for important information about hourly-rate increases and a compensation-claim guidelines change, and more …

Hourly Rate Increase ($25/hour) and Increased Administrative Time Guideline Take Effect July 1, 2026

Hourly Rate Increase

The final Fiscal Year 2026-27 state budget has been finalized and includes the $25/hour increase for panel attorneys. The new rates are $145, $155, and $165/hour. The new rate applies to cases in which the appointment order was filed on or after July 1, 2026.

Administrative Time Guideline (Line 22) Increased to 3.0 Hours

In addition, we are pleased to announce that AIDOAC has approved an increase to the administrative time guideline (Line 22).

The new guideline will be 3.0 hours and applies to cases in which the appointment order was filed on or after July 1, 2026.

It will operate like any other guideline. It is neither a floor nor a ceiling. An attorney claiming more than 3.0 hours must provide an explanation. As with the other guidelines, even when the claimed amount is at or below the 3.0 guideline, we may inquire as to the tasks involved when the amount claimed seems high for the circumstances of the case. Those circumstances would include but are not limited to such things as how many filings there were, how long the case was pending, the complexity of the compensation claim, whether it was necessary to send the record to the client, etc.

Welcome to new FDAP Panel Attorneys

We are pleased to welcome to the FDAP panel nine attorneys who joined us in the second quarter of 2026: Melinda Capozzi, Kree Filer, Alexander Golovets, Ronald Gomez, Eric Loftman, Jennifer Ng, Arthur Richmond, Linn Van Meter, and Michael Whelan. We look forward to working with you on your FDAP cases and to having you as part of the FDAP community.

New Resource: Filing Requirements and Service Charts

We’ve added a new Filing Requirements and Service Charts resource to the FDAP website to make it easier to confirm filing and service requirements at a glance. It is accessed through the Filing Requirements and Service Charts icon on our home page and under Legal Resources. It is organized in easy-to-reference charts, bringing together key filing deadlines, service requirements, and length limits in one convenient location.

Certiorari Granted on Constitutionality of Assault Weapon Bans

On June 30, 2026, the U.S Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases raising Second Amendment challenges to laws barring possession of “assault weapons” such as AR-15’s: Viramontes v. Cook County, 25-238 (concerning a county ordinance), and Grant v. Higgins, 25-566 (concerning a Connecticut law).

California courts have consistently rejected similar challenges to Pen. Code § 30605, and the California Supreme Court has previously declined to review the issue. See People v. Crenshaw (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1169; People v. Bocanegra (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1236 (and prior cases discussed there).

In view of the certiorari grants in Viramontes and Grant, attorneys should raise similar Second Amendment challenges to assault weapon possession convictions in pending California appeals, notwithstanding the adverse California precedents. Moreover, because extant California precedents (which were binding on trial courts) upheld the constitutionality of the California statute, there should be strong grounds for overcoming any asserted waiver/forfeiture bars based on failure to raise such challenges in the trial court.

Panel Victories 

Below are a few noteworthy First District victories from this past month. There were other victories that could not be included. Please visit the FDAP website for a complete list of panel victories.

A174221 – [Unpublished Opinion | Suzanne Davidson] Mother appealed the juvenile court’s dispositional orders. Preliminarily, the Court of Appeal agreed with mother that, even though the minor had subsequently been returned to her care, the appeal was not moot due to the potential collateral consequences. On the merits, the Court of Appeal reversed and concluded that the juvenile court’s decision removing the minor was not supported by substantial evidence. The Agency did not prove that there was a substantial danger to the minor that could not be remedied through any lesser protective measures short of removal.

A170475 – [Unpublished Opinion | Sandra Gillies] The Court of Appeal held that a prosecutor’s peremptory strike of a Black prospective juror, based mainly on his negative experience with the criminal justice system, was presumptively invalid under PC 231.7(e)(1). The record lacked clear and convincing evidence rebutting that presumption. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial.

A175108 [Unpublished Opinion | Elizabeth Klippi] Mother appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under WIC 300(c) [substantial risk of serious emotional harm]. The Court of Appeal agreed that the finding pertaining to mother’s conduct was not supported by substantial evidence and reversed the jurisdictional order in part. The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to review mother’s appeal because the jurisdictional finding’s validity could affect the juvenile court’s subsequent orders as well as further family court proceedings.

A174355 – [Unpublished Opinion | Amanda Waters-Luttrell] The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the trial court to consider appellant’s ability to pay the court operations and court facilities assessments, and to allow appellant to challenge the $300 restitution fine and the probation revocation fine under the excessive fines clause.

A172670 – [Unpublished Opinion | Micah Reyner] The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment because appellant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel for a jury trial. The record affirmatively showed that appellant misunderstood his sentencing exposure and the trial court did nothing to correct it.

A171294 – [Unpublished Opinion | George Lazarus] The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s arson conviction for insufficient evidence. After considering the plain meaning and legislative history of PC 450(b) and 451(c), the court held that burning a grassy area on a sidewalk is not “forest land.” The court remanded the matter for a full resentencing.