Read on for a new year’s message from FDAP and important information about upcoming trainings, panel victories, and claims procedures.
Happy New Year from All of Us at FDAP
Happy new year to all of our colleagues on the FDAP panel and on the appellate project staffs and panels throughout the state. The year we leave behind was marked by challenges, successes and the promise of innovations that speak to the continued resilience and excellence of California’s appellate court-appointed counsel system.
A special thanks to all the panel attorneys who have stepped up to take expanded individual caseloads in the face of increased court dockets statewide and shrinking panel ranks. We know this effort brings added stress and is not always coupled with the most flexible of deadlines. In 2025, we will continue our efforts to address this challenge by recruiting new panel attorneys and educating the courts about the need for a realistic approach to extension of time requests.
In 2024, we welcomed many new faces at FDAP: Michael Allen, Kaiya Pirolo, Cheryl Anderson, Maria Leftwich and Matthew Bedrick, who are already contributing as if they have been at FDAP for decades. While we miss our colleagues who left for new opportunities, they all remain in the business of securing justice, with Jeremy Price and Lauren Dodge joining the Contra Costa Public Defender’s Office, Nat Miller becoming a panel attorney, and Stephanie Clarke being the first FDAP staff attorney appointed to the superior court bench.
In 2025, we look forward to continuing and extending the collaborations with our colleagues at ADI, CAP-LA, CCAP, and SDAP. On the heels of the 2023 statewide effort to tackle a dependency backlog in the Second District, 2024 brought innovative efforts to support panel attorneys through a statewide training committee that is ensuring a current and thorough agenda of training events open to all the attorneys in the state, as well as shared efforts to highlight new legal developments on our websites.
In 2024, the advocacy of the appellate projects brought to the table a pending judiciary request for a $40/hour raise for the panel and a 30% increase in funding for the projects. As the state budget is developed over the next six months, FDAP will continue to fight for this essential funding. And we will not let up in years to follow. Even if the proposal is accepted in full, the current proposal only narrows the gap and does not fully fund the panel or the projects.
We are excited to jump into 2025 with a panel of dedicated and creative attorneys ready–as always–to tackle new laws, scour records for errors, and vigorously fight for justice for our mutual clients.
Happy new year to all. We look forward to continued collaborations in 2025 and beyond.
Upcoming Trainings From the Appellate Projects
In a collaborative effort, the appellate projects (CCAP, FDAP, ADI, SDAP & CAP-LA) will be providing MCLE trainings open to the statewide panel.
Appellate Practice Selected Topics Seminar (Hosted by CAP-LA)
January 21, 2025, 8:45 a.m. – 3:15 p.m. | Hybrid
Panel members from all appellate projects are welcome and encouraged to attend. Topics include Updates in Criminal Case Law, the Racial Justice Act & the Improper Use of Peremptory Challenges, Perspectives from the Bench, Protecting Your Client at Resentencing, and Ethics. 5.0 hours of general and appellate and criminal specialization MCLE credit is offered, including 1.0 hour of Recognition and Elimination of Bias in the Legal Profession and 1.0 hour of Legal Ethics. View Details
The Power of Story (Hosted by ADI)
January 28, 2025, 10:30 – 11:30 a.m. | Hybrid
Presenter: Vincent Brunkow, Chief Appellate Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.
This hybrid training will discuss the structure and components of good storytelling to empower participants to tell winning stories in their cases. 1.0 hour of general MCLE credit is offered. If you are attending in-person, please RSVP by January 24, 2025 to Deanna Lopas at dll@adi-sandiego.com, or Siri Shetty at sds@adi-sandiego.com. For those who wish to attend virtually, Zoom registration for the event will end at 8:30 a.m., two hours before the event begins.
Upholding Civility in Appellate Advocacy: Professionalism and Respect in the Practice of Law (Hosted by ADI)
February 19, 2025, 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
In this virtual program, ADI Staff Attorney Donna Chirco will discuss the definition of civility, its impact on our practice and advocacy, and more. 1.0 Civility in the Legal Profession MCLE credit is offered. The registration link will be available closer to the event.
(Hosted by FDAP)
February 25, 2025, 12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
March 13, 2025, 12:00 – 1:15 p.m.
Please join us for an online training on how appellate counsel can identify and address the immigration consequences triggered by a client’s criminal conviction. We are pleased to have Alameda County Deputy Public Defender and Supervising Immigration Defense Attorney Raha Jorjani join us for a presentation on immigration consequences and the tools available to post-conviction counsel when the client did not receive proper advisements from the court or counsel. Raha will also provide us with key updates regarding applicable immigration law changes put in place by the incoming federal administration.Save the date for FDAP’s Annual Seminar! The seminar will be held in person on October 10, 2025 at the California Endowment’s conference center in downtown Oakland. Join us for a day of criminal and dependency breakout sessions, a keynote speaker, lunch, and the opportunity to connect with your colleagues. Approximately 5 hours of MCLE credit, including appellate and criminal specialization, will be provided.
Other Upcoming Trainings
Measure Twice, Object Once (OSPD)
January 23, 2025, 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.
Ninety-Seven percent of Americans now own a cell phone. And now more than ever, law enforcement is seeking location data generated by these devices. This presentation explains how location data is generated by mobile devices and provides an overview for attacking this data. It also provides practical advice for dealing with these materials in a case. 1 hour of MCLE Credit in Technology in the Practice of law is offered.
CDCR Credits, Release Dates, and Parole Consideration Dates (OSPD)
January 28, 2025, 12:15 – 1:30 p.m.
Knowing how the CDCR calculates credits and sets release and parole dates is necessary for evaluating case options and advising clients. Heather MacKay will share her expertise in deciphering CDCR’s current policies, including how release and parole dates are recalculated after resentencings. Questions will be answered at the end of the presentation. 1.25 hours of MCLE Credit is offered.
Identifying and Challenging Digital General Warrants (OSPD)
January 30, 2025, 12:15 p.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Law enforcement agencies are obtaining warrants to identify any digital device present in an area, to uncover anyone who searched for particular topics on Google, and to search entire devices. This presentation will explore these unconstitutional techniques, including how to identify their use and how to challenge them. 1 hour of MCLE Credit is offered.
Claims for Deceased or Incapacitated Panel Attorneys
We recently asked panel attorneys to provide emergency contact information. In addition, the State Bar has recently described the ethical duty to have a succession plan should the attorney die or become incapacitated. While much of the focus is on protecting clients, another aspect of this planning is ensuring you or your estate are fully paid for the work performed.
If a panel attorney dies or is incapacitated, the appellate project is able to submit payment recommendations without a claim. Usually, we are unable to obtain billing records and have to do our best to estimate reasonable payment amounts for various tasks that are apparent from our file. Unfortunately, we likely miss some things that aren’t apparent (e.g. unbriefed issues, communication with the client, etc.). If the family member (or other individual) stepping in has access to billing records and drafts of not-yet-filed documents, that could help tremendously in obtaining full payment.
For these reasons, we encourage panel attorneys to include in their succession plan a system that gives an emergency contact, trustee, or administrator access to the attorney’s billing records and casefiles.
Panel Victories
Below are a few noteworthy First District victories from this past month. There were many other victories that could not be included. Keep up the great work!
A169561 – [Published Opinion | Panel Attorney Erin Keefe] Prior to a scheduled WIC 366.22 hearing, mother filed a request under EC 730 for a bonding study. The juvenile court denied the request stating it was improper for the court to appoint an expert to aid mother in her “defense” and that the request was unripe. The Court of Appeal disagrees holding that a parent may request, and the court must consider a request, for appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in their capacity as a party to the dependency proceedings. In addition, the appellate court holds that is is not categorically premature for a parent to request appointment of an expert to perform a bonding study during the reunification phase.
A166197 – [Unpublished Opinion | Amanda Roze] The Court of Appeal remanded this matter to the juvenile court to: 1) reconsider and set the maximum term of confinement as required by WIC 875(c)(1); 2) reconsider the baseline term of confinement pursuant to section 875(b) and Rule 5.806; and 3) correct the dispositional order to reflect appellant’s accurate, shorter custodial time because the juvenile court miscalculated the predisposition credits. In addition, the court reversed a juvenile restraining order against the appellant because it was issued without the required notice and hearing.
A169914 – [Unpublished Opinion | Richard Schwartzberg] The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order denying appellant’s PC 1203.4 petition to set aside his previous no contest plea because he met the statutory criteria for relief. Although the appellant’s probation was terminated due to a change in law that reduced the length of his probation, the trial court was still required to grant the petition as the appellant fulfilled his probation conditions for the entire period of probation, and the outstanding restitution (which was converted to a civil judgment) could not serve as a basis for denying relief.
A169619 – [Unpublished Opinion | Donald Lipmanson] In this appeal from a PC 1172.75 resentencing, the Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court found that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not asking to conduct a full resentencing hearing, where sentencing relief was available and client’s C-file demonstrated rehabilitation efforts as well as no violent behavior. The court remanded this matter to the trial court to conduct a full resentencing hearing.