Read on for important information about budget updates, First District news, changes to the compensation guidelines, upcoming trainings, and panel victories.
State Senate Budget Hearing
Last week, a State Senate budget sub-committee held a hearing on various judiciary items including the Governor’s proposed $10/hour increase in panel rates and 7% increase in appellate project funding. Speakers from the judiciary, the projects and the panel persuasively explained the great need for increased funding to combat the recruitment and retention crisis which is causing the depletion of the ranks of attorneys handling appointed appeals.
We are grateful to our judiciary partners for supporting our funding with presentations at the hearing from Justice Boulware Eurie (Third Dist.; AIDOAC member) and JCC Director of Budget Services Zlatko Theodorovic.
During public comment, project staff and panel attorneys explained that the Governor’s proposal is not adequate to address the crisis and urged the Senators to increase the funding to the level originally proposed by the judiciary: a $40/hour increase for the panel and a 30% increase for the projects. A big thanks to panel attorneys Candace Hale, Scott Cameron, Sangeeta Sinha, and Chris Stansell and former staff attorney Jeremy Price, who generously traveled long distances and sat through a long hearing to make brief public comments. The comments were well-received and Senators thanked them for their work. In addition, all the appellate project executive directors spoke.
For those wishing to listen to the hearing, the main presentation of the appointed counsel funding item by our judiciary partners is at timestamps
1:15:08 to 1:21:08, and the project and panel public comments are at 2:13:58 to 2:35:22.
Given it is a tight budget year, a tough road remains ahead of us in terms of any substantial increase over the Governor’s proposal, but we may have moved the needle. The Committee seemed generally concerned and requested more information. The projects will be back in Sacramento on March 17 for a similar hearing before the Assembly budget sub-committee.
Compensation Claims Guideline Changes Effective March 1, 2025
We are very pleased to announce that effective March 1, several favorable and important changes have taken effect in connection with compensation claims.
For cases in which the appointment order is filed on or after March 1, 2025, the following changes apply:
- Communications Guideline (Attorney Hours Line 1): the communications guideline is increased from 3.5 hours to 5.0 hours. This means no explanation is required on the communications line unless the communication with the client and trial counsel exceeds 5.0 hours.
- Photocopying Rate (Expense Line 1): the new photocopying rate is actual cost up to $.25/page. (See below regarding printing an electronic record.)
- Travel Expense Guidelines (Expense Line 5): the travel expense guidelines are also updated:
- Mileage: increased to $0.70 per mile
- Lodging: varies depending on location, with various counties and cities having different rates. Some locations have different rates for different times of year. The rates for San Francisco (e.g. for First District oral argument) are actual cost up to $259 (January – August) and actual cost up to $272 (September – December). The statewide claims manual will soon be updated with the new rates for all locations.
- Meals: actual cost, up to: breakfast: $12.00 (if necessary to be on the road before 7 a.m.); lunch: $14.25 (if related to a necessary overnight stay); dinner: $21.00 (if necessary to be on the road after 7 p.m.)
- Printing an Electronic Record: printing of the electronic transcripts received from the court for the client is compensable at actual cost, if reasonable, when the record is requested by the client and the client is unable to receive an electronic file. Printing of the record is claimed on the miscellaneous expense line (Expense Line 9).
Again, these changes are effective for cases in which the Court files the appointment order on or after March 1, 2025. (The dates on which the attorney accepts the appointment and on which the appellate project recommends the appointment do not control. And the dates on which a task is performed or an expense is incurred similarly do not control.)
First District News
Judge Charles A. Smiley has been confirmed as an associate justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division One. Prior to his appointment to the Court of Appeal, Justice Smiley served as an Alameda County Superior Court judge. More information can be found here.
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.
Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions (Hosted by FDAP)
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 new federal administration. 1.25 hours of general MCLE credit and appellate and criminal specialization will be offered.
CDCR Insights: Classification, Programming, Resentencing, a Correctional Counselor’s Perspective (Hosted by ADI)
April 9, 2025, 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
CDCR Counselor Clarence Hogan will provide information on the programming/jobs available at a prison, the new California Model, how an incarcerated person is classified and assigned to a prison, the process for determining which incarcerated person merits resentencing letters, and prison mail regulations, tablet usage, and visiting. 1.0 hour of MCLE credit and appellate and criminal specialization will be offered. A registration link will be provided closer to the event.
Persuasive Legal Writing
April 29, 2025, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. (Hosted by CAP-LA)
Presented by Daniel U. Smith, retired Certified Appellate Specialist and member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers. In “Persuasive Legal Writing,” Mr. Smith teaches the key writing techniques that judges advocate to make legal writing persuasive. This is a general legal writing seminar on how to achieve clarity with writing that exemplifies brevity, simplicity, continuity and specificity. Attendees will receive a copy of “Persuasive Legal Writing” at no cost. 2.0 hours of MCLE credit will be offered.
SDAP’s Annual Seminar
May 30, 2025, time TBD
SDAP’s annual seminar will be held on Friday, May 30 via Zoom. The exact time and topics will be announced soon.
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 Trainings
The New Age of Sentencing Part I: Aggravating Factors (OSPD)
March 18, 2025 3:00-4:00 p.m.
The New Age of Sentencing Part 2: Enhancements and Beyond (OSPD)
March 25, 2025 12:15-1:15 p.m.
This rescheduled two-part series will cover the most recent statutory and case law updates in the ever-changing landscape of felony sentencing. From dealing with aggravating circumstances to preserving the best record for appeal, this series will provide attorneys with the tools necessary to best represent clients at felony sentencing.
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.
A169053 – [Unpublished Opinion | Christopher Stansell] The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because the record suggests that the trial court did not understand its sentencing discretion under PC 12022.53 to impose a lesser gun enhancement under PC 12022.5.
A170656 – [Unpublished Opinion | Katie Curtis] The Court of Appeal reversed the WIC 300 jurisdictional order. Under WIC 300(g), the juvenile court committed legal error when it focused on facts at the time of the initial detention rather than at the time of the hearing. As to WIC 300(b)(1), substantial evidence did not support a conclusion that mother was suffering from untreated mental illness or drug addiction. The fact that a parent has a mental illness, without more, is insufficient to support jurisdiction. At the time of the hearing, mother was treating her mental illness, and there was no evidence of risk of harm.
A167687 – [Unpublished Opinion | Michelle Peterson] The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed and remanded for a new Pitchess hearing because the trial court did not make an adequate record of the documents it considered in deciding appellant’s motion for the lead detective’s personnel records. As a result, the court had no way to evaluate whether the trial court erred in determining which documents to withhold. Also, if the custodian of records did not produce the whole personnel file for the trial court’s review, the trial court must ensure the record adequately reflects the custodian’s reasoning for withholding documents.
A170932 – [Unpublished Opinion | Amanda Roze] The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court failed to adhere to WIC 875’s requirements by not awarding precommitment credits, mistakenly setting a maximum term beyond appellant’s 25th birthday, and failing to set a valid baseline term.
A169049 – [Unpublished Opinion | Jennifer Sheetz] The Court of Appeal struck a probation condition allowing warrantless searches of appellant’s electronic devices as unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481. Although appellant forfeited this issue by failing to object at sentencing, the court exercised its discretion to consider it.