Read on for important information about changes to experts, investigators, and translator expenses, upcoming trainings, employment opportunities, and panel victories.

Changes to Expert, Investigator, and Translator Expenses 

Effective immediately, the following changes apply to all cases (no matter the date of appointment):

• The maximum amount of funds the projects are authorized to approve for experts, investigators, and translators is now standardized statewide.
• FDAP is now authorized to approve, in appropriate cases, requests for funds up to $1,700 for experts/investigators and $1,700 for translators.
• On July 1, 2026, the caps increase to $1,900. On July 1, 2027, the caps increase to $2,100.
• All hourly rate caps are eliminated and the rates will be reviewed for reasonableness.

Requests for more than $1,700 must be submitted to the Court of Appeal. Please refer to the Getting Paid section of FDAP’s website to review the First District’s policies on obtaining preapproval (from both FDAP and the Court of Appeal) for expert, investigator, and translator expenses.

Upcoming Trainings 

Latest RJA Legislative Changes: AB 1071 Recap (OSPD-IDID)
November 5, 2025, 12:15 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. | Remote
Join OSPD-IDID for a nuts and bolts overview of the most recent changes to the Racial Justice Act. The most recent RJA legislation [AB 1071] clarifies discovery provisions, the need to impose a remedy, and multiple post-conviction procedural components. During this session, OSPD will walk through the statutory changes, its impact on pending litigation, and provide practical tips for defenders moving forward. OSPD will also have a Q&A session and attempt to explain why certain changes were or were not made if participants are interested. 1 hour of MCLE Credit is offered for this training. Register here.

New Legislation Webinar 2025 (FDAP)
December 3, 2025, 12:00 p.m. – TBD | Remote
As 2025 draws to a close, a host of new legislation relevant to our work and the people we serve will be enacted into law. Please join FDAP Staff Attorneys Kaiya Pirolo and Liv Gee for an overview of new criminal, juvenile delinquency, and civil commitment laws. This webinar is eligible for MCLE credit, including appellate and criminal specialization credit. The length of the webinar is yet to be determined, depending on the number and complexity of new laws enacted this year.

Appointed Appeals Essentials (CAP-LA)
December 9, 2025, 10:00 a.m. – 2:45 p.m. | Remote
This training covers the basics of appointed appellate practice, from appointment to case closure. Designed for new panel attorneys or those wanting a refresher, it focuses on practical skills, common challenges, and strategies for producing clear, persuasive briefs. Panel attorneys from all of the appellate projects are welcome and encouraged to attend. Topics to be covered: Pre-briefing Responsibilities, Issue Spotting, Overview of Sentencing, Brief Writing, and After the Opinion & Closing Out the Case. 4.25 hours of MCLE credit are offered.

Employment Opportunities 

The California Supreme Court is inviting qualified panel attorneys to accept appointment in capital appeals. Click here to learn more about qualifications, appointment, and compensation.

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.

A159026 – [Unpublished Opinion | A. Charles Dell’Ario] The Court of Appeal, following the California Supreme Court’s remand in People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, reversed the trial court’s orders revoking probation and executing a suspended sentence. Our high court held that AB 1950 retroactively shortened appellant’s probation to two years, which had expired before the violations. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate the revocation orders, vacate the PC 667.5(b) enhancements, and recalculate custody credits.

A171064 – [Unpublished Opinion | Laura Petty] The Court of Appeal reversed a judgment finding appellant in violation of his Post-Release Community Supervision conditions. At a revocation hearing alleging appellant’s failure to attend a program he had been referred to, a probation officer testified that appellant was discharged from the program. The trial court allowed the testimony, which was based on a letter the officer said he received from the program, on the basis that reliable hearsay is admissible. The Court of Appeal held the letter lacked “sufficient indicia of reliability” and was therefore inadmissible.

A172858 – [Unpublished Opinion | Ellen Ivens-Duran]
Appellant, who was 16 years old when he pled no contest to attempted murder in 2014, had his 17-year sentence recalled pursuant to PC 1172.1. He was resentenced to 17 years. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for certification to juvenile court for a transfer hearing. Because recall “effectively vacated the earlier judgment,” Proposition 57 requires that the juvenile court determine whether it would have transferred appellant’s case to adult criminal court under current law.

A170549 – [Unpublished Opinion | Nat Miller] The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that police unlawfully searched his residence under a vague search condition. The condition did not expressly permit a residential search and the prosecutor failed to prove it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe it did. The court remanded to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea.