Read on for important information about funding and panel victories.

Panel Funding 

The Governor’s revised proposed budget – released on May 14th –continues to provide for a $10/hour increase in the hourly rates paid to panel attorneys. This falls short of the more substantial increase originally proposed by the judiciary, but it is welcome news given the overall state of the budget.

However, even this smaller increase is not something to bank on. The state budget remains weak and nothing is guaranteed. Over the coming weeks, the Governor and the Legislature will continue to finalize the budget. FDAP will continue to advocate for, not just the $10 increase, but the $40/hour increase that comes closer to what is really needed. When the budget is finalized, we will provide an update. (Any increase would likely apply to appointments in which the Courts file the appointment order on or after July 1, 2025.)

Panel Victories

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

A169042 – [Unpublished Opinion | Jennifer Mannix] The Court of Appeal reversed a first-degree murder conviction because the trial court erroneously admitted evidence that appellant attacked another inmate – an uncharged offense – while in jail awaiting trial. When a defendant claims self-defense, evidence of conduct on the day of the offense does not constitute character evidence. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the attack as evidence of the defendant’s violent character because the defendant had not opened the door to character evidence.

A170581 – [Unpublished Opinion | Leah Spero/ UC Law Appellate Project] The Court of Appeal granted habeas relief and reversed the misdemeanor conviction for possession of a nonserialized handgun under PC 29180 because it was not a crime at the time of the arrest. The court also struck and remanded for the trial court to consider a narrower electronic search condition, eliminated the requirement that appellant pay for therapy or education, and remanded for clarification on permitted medical cannabis use.

A172178 – [Unpublished Opinion | Rudolph Kraft] The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order establishing a one-year LPS conservatorship because the Public Guardian did not present any evidence that appellant’s mental illness rendered her unable to provide for her essential needs. Without evidence of that causal link, the Public Guardian did not establish that appellant was gravely disabled.

A171482 – [Unpublished Opinion | Owen Martikan] The Court of Appeal found that the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it ordered three consecutive periods of confinement for appellant’s violations of his PRCS conditions. PC 669 and PC 3455 do not authorize a court to impose consecutive custodial terms because PRCS violations are distinct from criminal convictions, so there was no basis for consecutive terms. Consequently, the court modified the order for the three periods of confinement to be served concurrently.