Read on for important information about FDAP’s in-person annual seminar, new FDAP staff, upcoming trainings, a judicial appointment, and panel victories.
FDAP In-Person Annual Seminar:
Registration Closes October 3rd
Registration for our October 10th seminar closes soon! Register by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 3rd.
This is a great opportunity to earn 5.25 hours of MCLE credit, meet with your colleagues in person, connect with the appellate indigent representation community, and hear from great speakers on current topics in criminal and dependency law. If you have any questions, contact mcle@fdap.org. Please note the training will not be recorded or live streamed.
Welcome to New FDAP Staff!
Over the last several months, we’ve had several fantastic additions to the FDAP staff. Nicole Kalum and Olivia (Liv) Gee joined FDAP as staff attorneys, and Judith Mondragon is a new administrative assistant. Eleanor Mammen is a legal fellow supported by funding from the Penn Carey Law Catalyst Fellowship. Profiles of new (and not so new) staff members can be found in the About Us section of the FDAP website.
FDAP Panel Attorney Matthew Siroka
Appointed to the Bench
Congratulations to Matt Siroka on his appointment to the Marin County Superior Court! Matt has been a member of the FDAP panel since 2005 and also worked as a staff attorney at FDAP from 2009-2011.
Upcoming Trainings
An Insider’s Look at Petitions for Review and Requests for De-publication (LA County Bar Association)
October 14, 2025, 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.| Remote
Please join the Appellate Courts Section Program for “An Insider’s Look at Petitions for Review and Requests for De-publication.” Justice Groban and Jessica Barber, Director of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Central Staff, will present, moderated by David Ettinger. Register here.
CACJ 2025 Appellate Practice Seminar
Navigating Change: Emerging Law, Evolving Tools, and Effective Advocacy in Criminal Appeals
October 25, 2025, 9:00 a.m. – 2:45 p.m. | Remote
Join CACJ for the
2025 Appellate Seminar—a dynamic program designed for defense attorneys navigating today’s rapidly evolving appellate terrain. This year’s lineup tackles critical changes in resentencing law, explores new strategies for 1172.6 and implied malice appeals, and addresses key procedural challenges like
Batson/Wheeler under Penal Code 237.1.
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.
A171147 – [Unpublished Opinion | Michael Reed] The Court of Appeal struck several of appellant’s probation conditions as unconstitutionally overbroad. The court noted that the struck conditions—pertaining to appellant’s online activity—had “no connection whatsoever” to her criminal conduct; moreover, these conditions purported to address concerns that were better targeted by other imposed conditions. As to the remaining challenged conditions relating to “costumes,” “toys,” and items that “may be used for the purpose of sexual arousal,” the Court remanded with instructions to impose “narrower,” “clearer” conditions.
A169874 – [Unpublished Opinion | Christopher Stansell] The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the fact that appellant’s offenses were not violent felonies, which is a mitigating circumstance “weigh[ing] greatly in favor of dismissing” a two-year on-bail enhancement under PC 1385(c)(2)(F).
A170390 – [Unpublished Opinion | Rudolph Alejo] The Court of Appeal vacated six probation conditions because the trial court impermissibly delegated authority to probation to decide the kinds of programming or treatment in which appellant was required to participate, including whether he was required to participate in a residential treatment program. On remand, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to specify what kind(s) of programming or treatment are required because there was sufficient uncertainty in the record.
A171029 – [Unpublished Opinion | Kelly Woodruff] The Court of Appeal reversed convictions on 51 counts of misdemeanor petty theft because they were necessarily included in appellant’s conviction for grand theft. The grand theft conviction was based on aggregating the petty thefts, which were all part of single plan, so the greater and necessarily included offenses arose out of the same course of conduct.
