Read on for important information about sending legal mail to county jails, a new practice guide on communicating with clients in CDCR, an upcoming training, a TypeLaw brief preparation offer, a misdemeanor panel opportunity, and panel victories.
Reminder to Send Legal Mail Directly
to the Local Jail Address
Eight of the 12 counties within the First District are now using out-of-state, for-profit mail screening service companies to process non-privileged inmate mail. Mendocino uses GettingOut, Napa and San Mateo use Smart Communications, and Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Solano, and Sonoma use Pigeonly. These companies open all non-privileged mail, screen for contraband, scan the mail, and send a digital or hard copy of the mail to the inmate. Panel attorneys should be aware that, although the jail websites within these eight counties list out-of-state addresses for non-privileged inmate mail, all legal mail should be mailed directly to the client at the local address of the jail. Assume that any legal mail sent to these out-of-state addresses for non-privileged inmate mail will not reach your client. All legal mail should be clearly marked as “Legal Mail” and include the attorney’s full name and return address. As a reminder, while some counties will allow for metal clasps, staples, or paper clips, most do not, and deputies will remove them.
Contra Costa County is requiring attorneys to take extra steps through Pigeonly when sending legal mail. Attorneys must authenticate through Pigeonly by setting up an account. Credentials (bar card information, legal practice, and government-issued ID) provided to Pigeonly will be verified through state licensing and regulatory agencies. Once approved, attorneys will need to print unique mailing labels with a security barcode for local jail facility staff to verify upon receipt. Any legal mail received by Pigeonly at their Las Vegas facility will be returned to the sender.
New Guide: Communicating with Clients in CDCR
In partnership with FDAP, the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Berkeley Law has put together a practical guide on communicating with clients in CDCR. It covers newer communication tools, including confidential video calls and tablet-based messaging, alongside the more familiar methods like legal mail and confidential phone calls.
The guide walks through how each method works in practice, including confidentiality considerations and the realities of communicating within the CDCR system. It includes guidance on tablet communications, what is and is not confidential, how messages and calls are monitored, and when they may be useful, as well as what to expect when scheduling and conducting confidential video calls.
It also includes a reminder that’s easy to overlook: effective communication is not just about sending information, but making sure it’s understood.
It’s available on the FDAP website.
Upcoming Appellate Project Trainings
Writing to Win (ADI)
May 20, 2026, 12:00-1:00 p.m. | Remote
ADI staff attorneys Deanna Lopas and Christine Johnson will discuss how to use the essential components of introductions, headings, and conclusions to frame your issue, tell a cohesive story, and leave a lasting impression upon the court. 1.0 hour of MCLE general and appellate specialization credit will be offered.
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, which is updated monthly.
A171924 – [Unpublished Opinion | Brian McComas] The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s felony vandalism convictions, which each required proof of $400 of damage, because improper hearsay was the only evidence of the “damage value” and nothing in the record foreclosed reasonable doubt as to that element. The Court remanded with instructions for the government to either retry appellant on the felony charges or accept reductions to misdemeanor convictions.
A172233 – [Unpublished Opinion | Sarah Javaheri] The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due to trial counsel’s failure to raise appellant’s mental illness as a mitigating sentencing factor. Early in the criminal case, appellant was found incompetent to stand trial, diagnosed with substance abuse disorder, and sent to DSH for restoration. Yet, after he was tried and convicted, counsel failed to argue that his mental health was a contributing factor in the crime (and therefore a mitigating factor at sentencing).
A169802 – [Unpublished Opinion | Heather Monasky] The Court of Appeal reversed the sentence and remanded because, while appellant was on probation, SB 567 amended PC 1170(b), changing the maximum term sentence to the middle term, unless aggravating factors are stipulated to by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite this change in the law, after finding appellant violated his probation, the trial court executed the upper term sentence without a proper showing.
A173553 – [Unpublished Opinion | Elizabeth Klippi] Father appealed from the combined six- and 12-month review hearing, arguing that he was not provided with reasonable services in two critical areas: 1) the AOD assessment and treatment; and 2) special-needs parenting classes. The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that services were not reasonable when the Agency offered AOD and assessment services only a few weeks before the combined hearing, as well as failed to provide any “useful, concrete resources” to help father enroll in the necessary parenting classes.
San Francisco Misdemeanor Appellate Panel is Recruiting
The San Francisco Bar Association is recruiting attorneys to handle misdemeanor appeals in the Superior Court Appellate Division. San Francisco pays $148.00 per hour (minus a 5% administrative fee) for appointed misdemeanor appeals. If you are interested, send an email to Betsy Wolkin (bwolkin@sfbar.org) containing a brief paragraph about yourself and your interest in undertaking misdemeanor appeals, and attach a recent CV and a writing sample. Please direct questions to bwolkin@sfbar.org or 415-710-7732.
TypeLaw Brief Preparation—Offer for Panel Attorneys
TypeLaw, a platform for attorneys to format briefs (including tables), is offering panel members self-service use of the platform at a discounted rate of $200/mo. for an annual contract. If more than 250 panel attorneys sign up, the price will be reduced to $100/mo.
The servcies available include:
- Building the TOC and TOA
- Formatting + hyperlinking citations to the record and to authority
- Attaching exhibits and formatting bookmarks
- Live human support by webchat, email, or phone
Use referral code: PANEL when creating your TypeLaw account or contact Hannah Zeman at contact@typelaw.com to sign up.