Appellate Defenders Inc.

"We have just found out that claims that were submitted to our office from June 22 forward are scheduled to be paid by registered warrants. Here is what happened: the court-appointed counsel budget ran out of funds the week of June 15. Because we had been advised by the Department of Finance that our request for deficiency funds to cover the unfunded expenses in fiscal year 08-09 had been approved, but the money would not be received until sometime in July, we asked permission to borrow money internally from other courts of appeal funds with the promise to repay it when we received the deficiency funds. This transaction was not approved until late on June 24. Claims received by the AOC from June 22 through June 24 were transmitted to SCO along with the June 26 claims, with the assurance from the SCO that the claims would be paid by check. As you know, the SCO subsequently changed its position. So all the claims submitted during the week of June 22 will now be paid by warrant. Thanks for your understanding, and my apologies for this situation.

All the claims "submitted during the week of June 22" does not refer to when the claims were "submitted" by the panel attorneys to the projects or even when the claims were "transmitted" to the AOC by the projects. Rather, it refers to when the AOC would have transmitted the claims to the SCO. Thus, claims transmitted from the projects to the AOC on Friday night, June 19, and received by the AOC on Monday morning, June 22, would be included among those to be paid by warrant under this new timeline.

In light of the many recent changes, what payments will ultimately be made by check and what by warrant, as well as which banks and credit unions may cash the warrants, and when, all remain unpredictable at this time. A recent internet article we have found regarding payments by warrants and which institutions are accepting them, is from the Thursday San Francisco Chronicle and has a question and answer section. The internet address is: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/02/MN3E18HI04.DTL&tsp=1 .

We will continue to pass on any information we receive during this difficult period.

As previously noted, to assist panel attorneys in sorting out the information floating around, ADI has designated two staff attorneys as claim "hotline" contacts -- Dave Rankin (dkr@adi-sandiego.com, 619-696-0284 ext. 33) and Cheryl Geyerman (cag@adi-sandiego.com, 619-696-0284 ext. 23). They will investigate questions and try to pin down the accurate answers.

In addition, we are starting a "State Budget Updates" page on our website as a "clearinghouse," with links to useful articles and any bank websites stating their policies. (http://www.adi-sandiego.com/StateBudgetUpdates.html.) Panel attorneys are invited to notify Dave or Cheryl whenever they learn of a particular bank's policy or read a helpful article. The purpose of the site is just to point you toward general sources of information; panel attorneys are responsible for verifying any information before acting in reliance on it and for ascertaining particular details about their own bank's policies.

All of us – ADI, the other projects, and the AOC – assure you of our continuing support. I know it is hard to be upbeat in these circumstances, but we do wish you and yours a wonderful holiday.

With shock and horror, we forward this message to you from the Administrative Office:

"I am distressed to inform you that our Accounting Office just received a call from the State Controller’s Office telling us that, contrary to what they told us last week, claims processed on Friday, June 26 will be paid by registered warrants, not checks."

Panel News Alert - June 26, 2009

At ADI on Thursday, we kept attorneys and support staff on duty after we got the announcement of the payment deadline about 4:00 p.m. We eventually were able to process all claims in the office that had been prepared for attorney review. That included claims received before this week, except for a few problem claims requiring further action. Those very recently arrived and not yet ready for attorney review could not be processed before the deadline. Our paralegals, who do the pre-attorney preparation, had been keeping as current as possible for weeks, knowing the urgency. By 6:30, 110 had been tagged for transmission to the AOC overnight.

When we checked this morning, the transmission had gone through, and the AOC has said those will be sent to the Controller the same day, thus meeting the deadline. Attorneys have been notified of the transmission in the usual way. The AOC will notify the few whose claims it could not accept because of tax ID and similar technical problems.

We’ll keep processing claims as a high priority, despite the warrant situation.

Panel News Alert - June 25, 2009

The Administrative Office of the Courts informed the projects Thursday, June 25, that the state Controller’s Office had informed them that day any claims received by their office on or after Monday, June 29, would be paid by registered warrants rather than checks or direct deposit. Since claims are transmitted from the projects to the AOC automatically at night and uploaded the next business day, that means any claim not transmitted by the project by Thursday, June 25, will be paid by warrant.

Since we were informed of this late Thursday afternoon, the day of the deadline, we had little time to prepare or react but worked as hard as we could to process claims already in the office, on a triage basis. We know this is vitally important to our attorneys and have been giving claims our high priority since the crisis emerged some time ago.

Direct deposits are temporarily suspended. Since they will be resumed upon resolution of the crisis, the AOC asks that you not change your banking information at this time, if possible.

We urge panel attorneys to continue to submit claims during the warrant period, to get in line when they can be paid in cash payments.

We feel solidarity with you and urge everyone to keep your spirits up. Our work is exceedingly important, and your dedication is key.

Click here to review the latest news alert which covers the following topics:

We received the following message today from the Administrative Office of the Courts:

Click here to review the latest news alert which covers the following topics:

ADI is happy to pass on this message from the Administrative Office of the Courts:

Good News! As of today (March 13, 2009), the AOC’s Accounting Office has verified that yesterday, March 12, 2009, the State Controller’s Office (SCO) has processed court-appointed counsel (CAC) payments for the claims that were transmitted to the SCO on or before March 6, 2009. As new information is verified, we will continue to keep you updated on the payment of your CAC claims by the SCO. Hopefully this information will assist you in planning for your financial obligations.

Panel News Alert - March 6, 2009

The following notice is from Marcia Taylor of the Administrative Office of the Courts:

“We were notified by the State Controller today that they have started to pay the pending claims of panel attorneys. Since cash flow is still a problem for them, they are adhering to their policy of waiting until they have had the claim in their office for 30 days. I am trying to get more clarification about when they expect to resume paying in a timely manner and will keep you apprised.”

Click here to read memo from the Administrative Office of the Courts on the status payment for Court-Appointed counsel.

The memo discusses the possibility that the Controller’s Office will begin issuing registered warrants (IOU’s) in lieu of checks as early as February 1, 2009. It also notifies us that, when and if the warrants start to be issued, direct deposits will be temporarily suspended until the state is able to pay again through checks.

In light of the urgency of the situation, ADI strongly advises panel attorneys to take available precautions against the likely pending hardships. Needless to say, common sense dictates exercising financial prudence during this time. Especially, this means filing claims promptly over the next few weeks.

ADI will make expeditious handling of claims a top internal priority. We rose to the occasion in the last half of June 2008, when a budget impasse was looming, and are prepared to do the same again. Every ADI employee knows what this means to you, and we will do everything in our power to minimize the impact.

Panel News Alert - November 2008

Click here to read the November News Alert which includes information on the following:

ADI announces the 2008 Paul Bell Fellowship, awarded to a panel attorney to attend the National Legal Aid and Defender Association annual Appellate Defender Training Seminar in New Orleans, scheduled for December 11-14 this year. For more details on the Fellowship, click here. For more information on the seminar, click here. (Last year’s winners, Neale Gold and Allison Simkin, have also been invited to attend, because the 2007 seminar was cancelled)

On September 17, ADI will be hosting its monthly MCLE Criminal Law discussion series. Go to the Calendar of Events page for more information.

Click here for a news alert discussing the continuing problem of incomplete records in dependency appeals, attorneys' duties in completing the record, and the current difficulty of obtaining certain transcripts from the San Diego County Juvenile Court.

Click here for a sample petition for review challenging the denial of a record with continuance hearings.

Click here to read the Executive Director's news alert addressing the following topics:

1) “The Life and Times of the California Determinate Sentencing System: Cunningham and Family”: This paper provides a kind of “primer” on the basic cases and issues involved. The first reviews the odyssey that began almost 10 years ago, gained serious momentum in Apprendi and Blakely, and moved directly into California in Cunningham, only to be rendered virtually toothless by the California Supreme Court in Black II and Sandoval. The second part surveys issues that are left after the California Supreme Court decisions. The appendix is an compilation, or “family tree,” of the cases, from ancestors of Cunningham, to its near kin, to California Supreme Court decisions and review-granted cases, and finally to Court of Appeal cases.

2) “Single Valid Factor Test: A Critique”: This document analyzes critically one of the most important holdings of Black II, the doctrine of the single valid factor, which provides that the existence of one Blakely-compliant factor in aggravation is sufficient to satisfy that case, even though the judge relied on numerous invalid factors, as well, and likely (or certainly) would not (or could not) have imposed the upper term without those invalid factors. The analysis argues that this doctrine postulates a Determinate Sentencing Law that never was and that it is internally incoherent.

3) “Due Process / Ex Post Facto Issues in Sandoval Remedy”: This document outlines the due process / ex post facto ramifications of retroactively applying revised sentencing rules less favorable to the defendant than the ones in existence at the time of the criminal act. It reviews the various ways the Sandoval reformation makes the law less favorable within the meaning of ex post facto law and criticizes the California Supreme Court’s efforts to avoid the ex post facto objections. It sets forth the correct test and demonstrates that the Supreme Court has revised a statute in a way that, if done by the Legislature itself, would have been unconstitutional.

4) “In re Gomez – Letter of Amicus Curiae Appellate Defenders, Inc., in Support of Petition for Review; Alternatively, Request for Depublication”: The last attachment is the ADI amicus curiae letter supporting the petition for review in In re Gomez, a case in which the Court of Appeal had denied a habeas corpus petition raising Cunningham on the ground that decision was “new law” and could not be applied retroactively to cases final before the date of its issuance. The California Supreme Court has granted review in the case, S155425, now in the reply brief stage. ADI plans to file an amicus brief, which will be posted on the website when filed.

We hope these materials will be a helpful reference tool and a foundation for future briefing.

Click here to read the Executive Director's News Alert addressing the following topics:

The Chief Justice has declared Monday and Tuesday, October 22 and 23, court holidays in Division One of the Fourth Appellate District, for purposes of computing filing dates. Click here to read the order.

This means that any document due one of those two days in Division One will be timely if filed Wednesday, October 24. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 12-13, 135; Cal. Rules of Court, 1.10.) Please note that this does not extend the date of finality of an opinion for purposes of computing the time a petition for review is due. (Rule 8.500(e)(1).)

If you have been affected by the wildfires in southern California and will have problems with deadlines in cases, whether or not in Division One, please advise the relevant court.

ADI stands ready to help facilitate communication efforts and do whatever else we can to mitigate the disruptions caused by the fire. We are acutely aware of the hardships so many are facing, and our thoughts go out to all.

Panel News Alert - September 2007

The AOC has announced a $5 increase in the hourly rate for panel attorneys, applicable to cases with appointments made on or after July 1, 2007. Combined with other recent increases, it is another step toward making compensation more closely commensurate with the great professional talent and dedication the panel brings to our system. Click here for more information.

Click here to read the Late Summer Panel News Alert which includes information on recruitment of new panel attorneys, ordering a hard copy of the Appellate Practice Manual, and an update on having associate counsel appearing at oral argument.

Panel News Alert - August 2007

The memorandum linked below discusses the recent California Supreme Court cases in People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 and People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, applying Blakely-Cunningham to the California DSL. It analyzes issues raised by them and suggests procedures to follow in pending and future cases. As questions arise in your own cases, please consult the assigned staff attorney for specific guidance.

The April News Alert includes information about the e-claims system, change in mileage rate, dependency motions in Division One, updated Appellate Practice Manual Manual, augmentation, and procedures in cases with no arguable issues. Click here to read the News Alert.

Click here to read letter from court regarding implementation of Conservatorship of Ben C.

Click here to read memo from Executive Director Elaine Alexander regarding new developments in procedures in cases with no arguable issues.

Panel News Alert - February 2007

In Cunningham v. California (Jan. 22, 2007, No. 05-6551) 549 U.S.___ [2007 U.S. Lexis 1324], the United States Supreme Court struck down the part of the California sentencing system that permits imposition of the upper term on the basis of facts, other than a prior conviction, not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant. For a memo from ADI Executive Director Elaine Alexander regarding the impact of this decision, click here.

Click here to see Misc. Order No. 020207 issued by the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal regarding this case. It applies to all three divisions of the Fourth Appellate District.

• For post-AOB cases, a supplemental brief based on Cunningham may be filed without asking leave to file. It must be titled “Supplemental Brief filed pursuant to Cunningham v. California (Jan. 22, 2007), No. 05-6551) ___ U.S. ___.” The order provides a schedule for filing a response and a reply, depending on the stage of the case.

• For cases already submitted, the submission will be vacated for purposes of the supplemental briefing.

• Counsel must be prepared to discuss the decision at oral argument. If it is set before Feb. 23 and court requests supplemental briefing on Cunningham at the argument, counsel may submit it within two weeks.

Changes to California Rules of Court

Major changes to the California Rules of Court went into effect on January 1, 2007. The most noticeable is the complete reorganization and renumbering of the rules. For a memo from ADI Executive Director Elaine Alexander detailing the changes, click here. For a chart listing the substantive changes, click here.

If the case has co-appellants, each attorney must state on the cover of the briefs what individual client that attorney represents. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14(b)(10)(E).) Some attorneys have been neglecting to do this, and it creates confusion.

Certificate of interested parties inapplicable to criminal and juvenile appeals

New rule 14.5, requiring a certificate of interested parties (CIP) with the first filing by each party, applies only to general civil cases, not to criminal or juvenile appeals. Please let ADI know if a court send you a notice that a CIP needs to be filed.

Division Two has requested us to remind counsel of several matters. Its notice is here. In summary:

• Oral argument waiver/confirmation letters must be timely.
• Envelopes for all counsel are required.
• Rule 32.1(b) record correction requests must be sent to the appellate department of the superior court rather than the branch office.
• The bound edge and all staples, both front and back, must be covered with tape (rule 14(b)(8)).

Extension requests in Division One dependency appeals to include waiver of corresponding rule 17 time

Dependency attorneys are reminded that if they need an extension of time to file their brief, the request should include a statement agreeing that any rule 17 time will be reduced by the number of days of the extension. (Policy announced by Presiding Justice McConnell on March 22, 2005.) This includes extension requests tied to an augment/correction. The language would be something like: “I agree that any additional time granted [after the augmented/corrected record is filed] may be deducted from the period provided under rules 17(a), 37.3(b)(5), and 37.4(a)(2).”

Request to correction record in fast-track dependency cases to be submitted to Court of Appeal, not juvenile court clerk

If the normal record in a fast-track case (fast-track cases include all dependency appeals in Divisions One and Three and terminations of parental rights in Division Two. (Rule 37.4.) as received is incomplete, a request to correct it must be made to the Court of Appeal, as if it were an augment request, not to the lower court. (Rule 37.4(d)(1).) This is different from non-fast-track appeals, including other juvenile cases and criminal cases. The purpose is to give the Court of Appeal control over the process because of the tight deadlines. A form for faxing this request is on the court website.

The court reports that it is receiving a number of fax filings of the documents permitted under the pilot program and feels that it has been a real benefit to panel attorneys. It is quick, saves postage and a trip to the post office, is received almost instantaneously, and provides confirmation of sending.

Rules of Court renumbered

Just when we thought we had finally learned the new numbers of the criminal and juvenile rules, as revised over the past few years, the entirety of the California Rules of Court is being reorganized and renumbered. Effective January 1, 2007, the new system will use the number of the title followed by a period and the rule number. The appellate rules will be in title 8. The numbers will range from 8.1 to 8.1125.

The revised rules and related conversion tables can be reviewed on the court website. There are some wording and substantive changes, which we will summarize.

Panel News Alert - March 2006

Grant of Certiorari in Cunningham v. California As undoubtedly all panel attorneys are aware, the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review the question whether choice of the upper term under the California sentencing scheme falls within the scope of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. ADI continues to adhere to its previous advice in Blakely After Black, which can be found here. Please study the guidance closely; it is very important to protecting clients’ rights. Blakely held a state may impose a sentence on the basis of specified facts, other than prior convictions, only if they have been admitted by the defendant, or if a jury (or another trier, if the defendant has waived jury) has found them true beyond a reasonable doubt. In People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, the California Supreme Court held Blakely does not invalidate the California sentencing scheme as to the choice of an upper term or consecutive sentencing. The case in which the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari is People v. Cunningham (2005, unpublished, No. A103501) 2005 Cal.App.Unpub. Lexis 3383, cert. granted sub nom. Cunningham v. California (Feb. 21, 2006, No. 05-6551) ___ U.S. ___ [2006 U.S. Lexis 1136].) Cunningham involves only imposition of the upper term. The grant of certiorari in Cunningham does not affect Black’s validity as binding authority on California courts unless and until the United States Supreme Court disagrees with it on the merits. At this time Black remains the law in California. We summarize the main points made in our Blakely After Black memo: (1) Until the United States Supreme Court definitely rules on the California sentencing scheme, counsel should preserve Blakely issues (explicitly acknowledging, however, that Black is binding law in California). To do so, they must raise them properly in Court of Appeal opening brief and must petition for review to the California Supreme Court. (2) If the United States Supreme Court holds Blakely invalidates the sentencing scheme as to choice of the upper term, all cases not yet final on direct appeal when Blakely was decided (June 24, 2004) will be covered by Cunningham. A case is “final on direct appeal” when the time for petitioning for certiorari has expired – normally, 90 days after denial of review by the California Supreme Court. (3) It is not necessary to petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in order to preserve the issue for later relief in either federal or state courts. Cunningham does not change that. If in a particular case counsel believes such a petition is important to protecting the client – or if counsel has any doubt about the matter – he or she should contact the assigned ADI staff attorney. This is especially important if the case is getting close to the certiorari deadline (as stated above, normally 90 days after denial of review by the California Supreme Court). (4) For post-remittitur cases to which Blakely applies (i.e., those not yet final on direct appeal when Blakely was decided), no immediate action is necessary in most cases. Until Cunningham is decided, seeking state habeas corpus or recall of the remittitur would be futile – and potentially risky to the client because of the successive petitions rule. Counsel should, however, keep a close eye on the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus. In most situations the one-year clock starts running 90 days after denial of review by the California Supreme Court. Counsel should contact ADI for cases close to that deadline. We have considerable materials on the subject and can provide forms for federal habeas corpus petitions, which the client would normally file in pro per. (5) Keep in mind the pointers we gave about “Blakely in Real Life” in our Blakely After Black memo. Counsel should weigh the practical effects on their clients of the various courses this sojourn might take, so that they can make decisions that are not only legally correct, but also wise, and give clients a realistic view of what might happen to them. We are aware that attorneys have received somewhat differing advice from various appellate projects on certain procedural aspects. Please do not hesitate to contact the assigned ADI staff attorney if you think any of your clients will need procedures other than those outlined here and in Blakely After Black. I surely understand attorneys’ confusion and uncertainty when they try to keep their footing on the ever-shifting landscape of sentencing jurisprudence. I hope the guidance here and the much more extensive discussion in Blakely After Black will provide the background for counsel to think through the issues in a clear, correct, and commonsense way.

New Voluntary Fax Filing Pilot Program in Division One

Division One of the Fourth Appellate District has approved a new pilot program allowing attorneys voluntarily to file specified documents by fax rather than mail. For more information on this program, click here.

Direct Deposit Option Very good news for panel attorneys: As you may already have been notified, the Administrative Office of the Courts will give attorneys the option of having their compensation claim payments directly deposited to their accounts, thus saving transmission time and the need for a physical deposit on the attorney’s end. The AOC e-mail says: "We are pleased to announce that direct deposit of CAC compensation is now available to all CAC panel attorneys. This payment option will allow CAC panel attorneys access to their funds two or three days sooner than under the current payment system. This is a voluntary payment program where participants must complete and submit an enrollment authorization form."

Following are the documents sent to the CAC panel attorneys announcing the direct deposit program:

ADI has negotiated a special rate with Lexis for attorneys on the panel. Please contact Jay Nelson at (619) 278-8835 for packages and pricing.

Click here for a memo from ADI’s director offering guidance on handling Blakey cases in the aftermath of People v. Black (June 20, 2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238. It covers cases on direct appeal, post-appeal cases, and the future. Attorneys are encouraged to call ADI if they have questions.

Division Three Mail Filings Division Three requires attorneys to inform the clerk’s office by telephone when they are relying on rule 40.1(b)(3)(A) of the California Rules of Court for filing an opening brief. That rule provides a brief is deemed timely filed if the time had not expired when it was mailed by priority or express mail, as shown by the postmark or postal receipt. If the attorney does not call and the brief does not arrive before time runs, the clerk’s office will issue a rule 17 notice. (If there has already been a rule 17 notice, the court will not issue a second, but will contact ADI about dismissing the appeal or, alternatively, relieving counsel without compensation and appointing another attorney.)

Addressing briefs to trial counsel or the superior court judge by name When serving a brief on trial counsel in a public defender’s office or district attorney’s office or on the superior court, be sure to include the name of the individual attorney or judge involved in the trial. It is a time-consuming job for the clerks in those organizations to go back through closed records and try to identify the attorney or judge. Appellate counsel has the information right on the transcript and can do so much more efficiently. Please include this information on the proof of service, as well. ADI is helping those organizations resolve this problem.

Sade C. briefs in Division One – seeking time for a client who wants to file a pro per brief Division One dismisses the appeal after receiving County Counsel’s motion to dismiss a Sade C. case. It does not ordinarily allow time for the client to file a pro per brief (unlike Divisions Two and Three). If the client actually has said he or she intends to file a pro per brief, counsel should advise the court of that when filing the Sade C. brief and request time for filing it. The request should not be made routinely, but only when the client has expressed an actual and credible intention of filing it. “Routine” requests, without a specific statement about the client’s intent, will be denied.

In People v. Howard (January 27, 2005) 34 Cal.4th 1129 The California Supreme Court recently held violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2 [driving with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while fleeing from a pursuing police officer] is not inherently dangerous for purposes of second degree felony murder. This decision should of course be brought up where applicable in any active case. Because it affects the definition of the offense, it also should be fully retroactive, at least to crimes committed after the 1998 amendment to section 2800.2 that added subdivision (b). Please go to the Howard Resource Page under Appellate Practice Articles to review a more detailed memo from Elaine A. Alexander and additional resources prepared by ADI and FDAP.

Supreme Court Expands Web Site Information in Pending Cases On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court announced a new Internet service that offers links to the complete published Court of Appeal opinions in cases that the high court has accepted for review. (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revgranted.htm) The state’s high court accepts appeals in more than 5,000 Court of Appeal cases each year. Although the opinions in those cases are already on the Internet, they have not been linked to the Supreme Court’s weekly actions to accept cases for review until now. "We believe that the new service will be a helpful, expedited way for appellate practitioners, and even trial or transaction attorneys, to assess what issues are under review by the Supreme Court," said Frederick "Fritz" Ohlrich, Clerk of the Court. To access the new feature, viewers should go to the Opinions section of the California Courts Web site at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/. The next step is to click on "Review Granted Published Opinions," the last choice on the left-hand navigation bar. The new service was suggested by San Francisco appellate lawyer Paul D. Fogel, a member of the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Appellate Practice. The California Supreme Court offers these other online information services:

COURT PERMISSION REQUIRED TO APPEAR FOR ATTORNEY OF RECORD Our court has asked that the court's permission be obtained before counsel who is not attorney of record appears or makes a filing on behalf of appointed counsel. Permission is not required to associate counsel to assist on a case if associated counsel will not be appearing or making a filing. The court recognizes that the need occasionally arises for an attorney to "pinch hit" for another. But the court's obligation to appoint counsel for indigent litigants entails not only the initial appointment, but approval of subsequent counsel appearing on the client's behalf. ADI expects strict compliance with this requirement.Extension of Time Requests The court is tightening up on extension requests and has asked us to pass on some reminders. All extension requests should be specific about the reasons for the request and the progress on the case to date. A request for fewer than 30 days, especially in dependency cases or in cases with prior extensions, might be more successful than a “routine” 30-day one.
In criminal cases, extension requests should include the following information: • Total pages of record.
• Number of volumes of record.
• Client’s sentence.
* Use of the form on ADI’s Web site is helpful In dependency cases, counsel should include all of the information on ADI’s extension request form as provided in the Juvenile Appeals section of our site.

Updating boilerplate and forms to include current rule references
As of January 1, 2004, the criminal rules of the California Rules of Court were revised and renumbered. Following the revisions, we noted that many attorneys nevertheless continued to use boilerplate statements of appealability and other procedural passages referring to the rule numbers and provisions as they were before January 2004. For example, many statements of appealability still refer to "rule 31," the former rule dealing with notices of appeal, rather rule 30, the current one. Attorneys of course should make sure their standard language referring to rules, and indeed any other references to rules in their pleadings, are accurate. The ADI Web site has a chart comparing the former and current rule provisions: http://www.adi-sandiego.com/ADI_News/RulesChanges.htm

Assistance from Innocence Projects on Cases Potentially Involving a Factual Innocence Investigation:
Whenever a case may involve, in your judgment, a factually innocent client, consult ADI and consider referring the case to the law school innocence project in the region. In the Fourth Appellate District and other Southern California areas, that would be:California Innocence Project
Justin Brooks, Executive Director
California Western School of Law
225 Cedar Street, San Diego, CA 92101-3046
(619) 525-7079
http://www.cwsl.edu Northern California cases should be referred to the Northern California Innocence Project, http://www.ncip.scu.edu. ADI can help you determine whether the innocence investigation is within the scope of the appellate appointment. If it is, the innocence project may be able to give you valuable guidance; if it is not, the project may be able to take over the investigation.