Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/2022 Item 041 MOHAVE COUNTY REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION FORM
FROM: Blake E. Schritter, Indigent Defense Services Director FORMAL ACTION: ❑
CONTACT/EXT: (928) 753-0738 X4109 CONSENT: FA
DATE: 10/25/2022 RESOLUTION: ❑
OTHER: ❑
BOS MEETING DATE: November 07, 2022 INFORMATION ONLY: ❑
SUMMARIZE THE ISSUE&DESIRED ACTION CLEARLY/ATTACH BACKUP MATERIAL: Acknowledge receipt of and accept the annual report as
mandated by A.R.S. §I 1-584(B)(2)submitted by the Indigent Defense Services Director.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to acknowledge receipt of and accept Indigent Defense Services' annual report for Fiscal Year 2022.
Reviewed and Approved By:
County Attorney Human Resources 0 Finance County Administrator
Board Action Taken:
Approved as Requested>10 No Action Taken ❑ Disapproved ElContinued to ❑ Approved with the following changes:
Acknowledged receipt and referred to:
Filing Information and Retrieval
Filed Bid Filed Agreement
BOS Resolution Filed Yearly Correspondence
Filed Petition Filed Dedication
Filed Land Sold Filed Land Acquired
Filed Franchise ID Resolution
Filed Improvement District Filed Other
Date Routed:!I/O
Additional Information:
XC: `
J
�I
TPV E cod
Mohave County o ;
N
Office of Indigent Defense Services DITAT DEUS
1aea '
Blake E. Schritter 316 N.51 Street PHONE: (928)753-0738
Indigent Defense Services Director P.O.Box 7000 FAX:(928)753-0721
Kingman,AZ 86402-7000 E-MAIL: IDS@mohave.gov
MEMORANDUM
To:Ronald Gould,Chairman,Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Travis Lingenfelter,Mohave County Supervisor District 1
Hildy Angius,Mohave County Supervisor District 2
Buster D.Johnson,Mohave County Supervisor District 3
Jean Bishop,Mohave County Supervisor District 4
Honorable Stephen C. Moss.,Presiding Judge, Mohave County Superior Court
Alan M.Palomino,Mohave County Chief Probation Officer
From:Blake E. Schritter,Indigent Defense Services Director
Date: October 25,2022
Subject: INDIGENT DEFENSE ANNUAL REPORT MANDATED BY A.R.S§11-584(B)(2)
Arizona Revised Statute §11-584(B)(2) mandates that an annual report on the"average cost of defending a felony
case"is to be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors, Presiding Judge, and Chief Probation Officer. IDS, in
conjunction with the other defense offices,has spearheaded the effort to submit this report. The following data sets
have been prepared by Indigent Defense Services for the purpose of meeting Fiscal Year 2022 statutory requirements
outlined above.
DEFINITION
The statute provides no definition of a felony case nor any methodology to calculate these costs. For the purpose of
this report, a felony case is defined as any case with a felony designation at the time of filing, wherein the Courts
have referred the case to Indigent Defense Services to assign mandated defense counsel via the Public Defender,
Legal Defender,Legal Advocate,or an attorney on contract with Mohave County.It should be noted that,due to the
distinction of cases being classified as a felony at the time of filing,these figures include Justice Court felonies that
may be resolved as a misdemeanor.
METHODOLOGY
The indigent defense offices represent clients in a variety of case types—not all of which are criminal felonies.As
such,the formula implemented to determine the average cost of defending a felony is percentage based. Using this
methodology, we have calculated each defense office's total caseload and determined what percentage of these
caseloads are felonies. This percentage is then applied to each agency's budget expenses (including salaries and
1
# � Y
4
personnel), to determine a proportional cost per agency. Once calculated, these proportional costs are totaled and
then divided by the number of felonies in which indigent defense was assigned.
AVERAGE COST OF DEFENDING A FELONY CASE
FY22 Case Counts,
Total Felony Caseload Total
Case Type PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Expenditures I Percentage
Felony 1380 966 0 252 2598 PDO $1,873,744.58 56% $1,057,573.63
Misdemeanor 694 275 0 203 1172 LDO $1,120,341.45 67% $755,761.06
PTR 209 94 0 32 335 LAO $957,314.21 0% $0.00
Appeal 1 1 28 54 84 IDS $2,084,006.21 20% $417,132.30
Rule 32 0 0 0 81 81 Total: $2,230,466.99
Delinquency 14 54 150 28 246 Total Felony Cases: 2,598
Delinquency PTR 3 20 38 19 80 $858.53
Dependency 0 0 178 374 552
GuardionshiplGC Invest. 0 0 8 177 185
Severance 0 0 12 39 51
MH 144 22 0 0 166
2445 1432 414 1259 5550
FY21 Case Counts
Total Felony Caseload Total
Case Type PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Expenditures I Percentage
Felony 1632 503 0 243 2378 PDO $1,829,267.18 65% $1,180,919.32
Misdemeanor 545 160 2 141 848 LDO $1,040,673.23 64% $663,445.67
PTR 206 72 0 19 297 LAO $1,053,388.75 0% $0.00
Appeal 1 0 19 54 74 IDS $2,041,870.01 21% $425,170.88
Rule 32 0 0 0 71 71 Total: $2,269,535.87
Delinquency 16 18 144 23 201 Total Felony Cases: 2,378
Delinquency PTR 8 8 59 7 82 $954.39
Dependency 0 0 202 444 646
Guardianship 1 0 26 132 159
Severance 0 0 14 33 47
MH 119 28 0 0 147
2528 789 466 1167 4950
Total Felony Caseload Total
Case Type PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Expenditures I Percentage
Felony 1611 527 1 470 2609 PDO $1,742,066.58 62% $1,071,989.79
Misdemeanor 610 160 1 357 1128 LDO $984,944.08 62% $612,828.25
PTR 224 89 0 50 363 LAO $1,006,281.95 0% $1,860.04
Appeal 0 1 18 60 79 IDS $2,300,408.62 28% $654,078.68
Rule 32 0 13 0 60 73 Total: $2,340,756.76
Delinquency 22 29 236 34 321 Total Felony Cases: 2,609
Delinquency PTR 14 12 69 9 104 $897.19
Dependency 0 0 200 468 668
Guardianship 0 0 16 101 117
Severance 0 0 0 44 44
MH 137 16 0 0 153
2618 847 541 1653 5659
Using the above definition and formulas, it was determined that FY22 saw a proportional total of$2,230,466.99
spent on 2598 felony cases producing an average cost of$858.53 to defend a felony case.Comparatively,FY21 saw
a proportional total of$2,269,535.87 spent on 2,378 felony cases producing an average cost of$954.39 to defend a
felony case. One critical question that should be asked is why has the average cost decreased if felony filings
increased?The answer to that is that our formula is calculated based on actual expenses within the offices.It should
be noted that the Public Defender's Office experienced significant attorney shortages in this reporting period,which
required their typical caseload to be overflowed to LDO and IDS. This shortage also produced salary savings thus
decreasing the total actual expenses accompanied with fewer PDO felony assignments due to staff shortages,which
impacted the formula resulting in a lower average cost to defend a felony.
2
It must be noted that some critique and refinement of these calculations and methodology is appropriate. There are
a number of factors that can affect the average annual cost including: the severity of the case, the number of co-
defendants in cases,experts or professional services needed,the number and length of jury trials, staffing vacancies,
and fluctuation of murder or capital case expenses.As such,the average cost may vary considerably between years.
This portion of this report is submitted solely to satisfy the statutory requirement.
DEPENDENCIES
In addition to the mandated requirement of reporting the average cost of defending a felony, IDS has included a
comprehensive report of dependency filings,assignments,and costs over the previous two fiscal years. It should be
noted that these statistics will produce different totals than previous reports as the information below is presented
in a fiscal year format rather than calendar year. Additionally, case assignments may vary minimally as cases can
change agencies after several months of performed work.
Month Court Filings Cases Assigned Monthly Dependency Costs
PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals of IDS Assignments
July 7 0 0 7 15 22 $41,840.00
August 15 0 0 14 27 41 $30,100.00
September 17 0 0 16 39 55 $54,009.48
October 11 0 0 14 31 45 $41,236.00
November 19 0 0 19 39 58 $54,160.96
December 13 0 0 12 24 36 $45,904.00
January 17 0 0 17 29 46 $78,740.00
February 25 0 0 24 48 72 $38,471.36
March 8 0 0 8 17 25 $79,688.13
April 17 0 0 17 39 56 $29,403.52
May 15 0 0 15 35 50 $53,203.52
June 15 0 0 15 31 46 $54,302.88
179 0 0 178 374 552 $601,059.85
* Includes pd. 13
Month Court Filings Cases Assigned Monthly Dependency Costs
PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals of IDS Assignments
July 12 0 0 12 29 41 $15,507.52
August 24 0 0 23 50 73 $39,110.00
September 21 0 0 14 35 49 $56,746.00
October 27 0 0 27 61 88 $60,824.60
November 10 0 0 13 24 37 $72,413.50
December 26 0 0 20 41 61 $80,015.38
January 11 0 0 9 21 30 $50,569.52
February 20 0 0 15 31 46 $60,618.00
March 16 0 0 18 43 61 $77,700.00
April 20 0 0 20 40 60 $86,322.56
May 14 0 0 12 32 44 $42,759.80
June 20 0 0 19 37 56 $74,040.00
221 0 0 202 444 646 $716,626.88
3
FY22 EXPENDITURES BY IDS
Indigent Defense Services is tasked with serving as a centralized intake and assignment agency as well as managing
funds and budgets for mandated legal services.This report is a comprehensive accounting for all mandated services
provided or secured by IDS for Fiscal Year 2022:
Juvenile Dependency $ 601,071.85 Capital/Capital OMurder(Non-Capital)8%
Is $ 243,093.22 Appeals 11%
Appeals Conflict Flat
Conflict Flat Rates/Hourly $ 216,838.68 Rates/Hourly 13% OClverflow 7%
Capital/Capital Appeals $ 186,346.84
Murder(Non-Capital) $ 134,331.56 ■Operation King Crimson
Overflow $ 126,202.20 Appeals 14% (22 Co-D) 4%
Operation King Crimson(22 Co-D) $ 73,243.21 ■Severances 3%
Severances $ 53.116.46
Title 14/ritle 36 $ 32.788.77 OTitle 14/Ttle 362%
Recovery Court $ 18,408.00 Juvenile
Juvenile Delinquency $ 15,461.87 Dependency35% ■Recovery Court 1%
TOTAL: $ 1,700,902.66
OJuvenile Delinquency 1%
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES(MHS) It TOTALS
Rule 11 $ 81,173.14 Rule 11 _Rule 26.5
Rule 26.5 $ 2,687.50
97% 3%
TOTAL: "' $ 83,860.64
Capital 14%
COURT COSTS/INVESTIGATIONS TOTALS
Murder(Non-Capital) $ 74,403.87 PDO 21% Title 14/3611% OOperation King Crimson
IDS $ 66,619.14 (22 Co-D)2%
PDO $ 59,831.25 O LDO 1%
Capital $ 38,712.26
Title 14/36 $ 30,349.05 O LAO 1%
Operation King Crimson(22 Co-D) $ 5,949.00
LDO $ 3,944.85 IDS 24% Murder(Non-Capital)
LAO $ 1,866.34 26%
TOTAL: $ 281,676.76
4
CONFLICT VS. OVERFLOW ANALYSIS
The final data included in this report is an analysis of the number of cases assigned through Indigent Defense Services
to attorneys on contract with Mohave County. Conflict cases are any cases that pose a legal conflict for staff offices
to represent.The most frequently cited conflict involves multiple co-defendants or representation of a client in which
former clients are involved and the attorney's involvement would violate their duty of loyalty to their former client.
Cases assigned as overflow are cases in which staff defense offices lack sufficient staffing to accept case assignments.
During this reporting period, the Public Defender's Office had significant staffing shortages, which resulted in
overflow of justice court misdemeanors. Felonies listed below include felony cases in the Justice Court which may
have been plead down to a misdemeanor offense.
Overflow vs. Conflict IDS Assignments
FY 20(Felony) IDS Assignments
Case Status PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Conflict Overflow
Conflict Case 42 30 0 106 178 178 292
Overflow 263 29 0 0 292 38% 62%
305 59 0 106 470
FY 20(Misdemeanor) IDS Assignments
Case Status PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Conflict Overflow
Conflict Case 13 6 0 26 45 45 312
Overflow 279 33 0 0 312 13% 87%
292 39 0 26 357
FY 21(Felony) IDS Assignments
Case Status PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Conflict Overflow
Conflict Case 33 24 0 154 211 211 32
Overflow 30 2 0 0 32 87% 13%
63 26 0 154 243
FY 21(Misdemeanor) IDS Assignments
Case Status PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Conflict Overflow
Conflict Case 12 10 0 32 54 54 87
Overflow 85 2 0 0 87 38% 62%
97 12 0 32 141
FY 22(Felony) IDS Assignments
Case Status PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Conflict Overflow
Conflict Case 33 19 0 85 137 137 115
Overflow 110 5 0 0 115 54% 46%
143 24 0 85 252
FY 22(Misdemeanor) IDS Assignments
Case Status PDO LDO LAO IDS Totals: Conflict Overflow
Conflict Case 8 7 0 16 31 31 172
Overflow 172 0 0 0 172 15% 85%
180 7 0 16 203
FY22 FY21 FY20 FY19
Conflict Overflow Conflict Overflow Conflict Overflow Conflict Overflow
Felony 137 115 211 32 178 292 231 283
54% 46% 87% 13% 38% 62% 45% 55%
Misdemeanor 31 172 54 87 45 312 57 143
15% 85% 38% 62% 13% 87% 29% 72%
Cases Billed Hourly* 14 10 16 36
6% 4% 3% 7%
*Does not include Misd.
5
SUMMATION
The Indigent Defense System in Mohave County has faced unique challenges including increased felony filings,
staffing shortages amongst defense agencies,limited contract attorney availability,and the mandated requirement to
assign counsel in Operation King Crimson—a 22 co-defendant case,the largest in Mohave County's known history.
However,a coordinated effort between defense offices in addition to a strategic assignment philosophy has enabled
Mohave County to maintain efficacy in the utilization of our limited resources.It is difficult to identify trends within
the criminal justice system as multiple factors influence crime—socioeconomics, law enforcement staffing, court
and prosecutor staffing levels,etc. However,Indigent Defense Services,along with Mohave County's other defense
offices,shall continue to provide mandated services while making every attempt possible to contain costs.
CC:
Sam Elters,Mohave County Manager
Kip Anderson,Mohave County Superior Court Administrator
Jon Gillenwater,Mohave County Public Defender
Ron Gilleo,Mohave County Legal Defender
Bobbie Shin,Mohave County Legal Advocate
Matthew J. Smith,Mohave County Attorney
6