Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defense Appellate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellate public defender seeks new deputy attorney to curb costly overflow contracting
Summary
State Appellate Public Defender staff told the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee the office requests one additional deputy appellate attorney and re-appropriation authority to manage a recent surge in appeal work and to reduce reliance on contracted outside counsel.
The State Appellate Public Defender requested one new deputy appellate public defender position and continued re-appropriation authority as it faces a post‑pandemic surge in appeals and periodic overflow contracting.
Legislative budget analyst Christopher Lahoset told the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee the office has 26 authorized full‑time positions and “no vacancies” as of Dec. 15, while personnel make up roughly 85% of total expenditures. Lahoset said the office’s request includes adding a deputy attorney because contracted overflow cases could otherwise cost about $254,000 per year, whereas an in‑state attorney salary was estimated at about $140,000.
The request is aimed at having an additional in‑house attorney handle “non capital felony, misdemeanor, and juvenile district and post conviction appeals,” according to Eric Leighton, director of the State Appellate Public Defender. Leighton told the committee the office’s appellate unit would then be 13 attorneys and that case assignments are distributed based on attorney experience.
Lahoset noted that the office had used a one‑time supplemental appropriation in recent years to pay for an influx of cases and is seeking re‑appropriation for remaining funds (about $1,259,000 at the time of the presentation) to continue covering overflow work.
Committee members probed current practices and costs. Leighton said the office always contracts out conflict cases and also contracts overflow cases when needed. He told senators and representatives that contracting is “an imperfect solution” because it is more expensive than in‑house handling, can cross fiscal years and relies on salary savings to pay invoices. He told the panel about 14 cases had been outsourced in the past year and a half.
Several committee members asked about turnover and how staffing affects criminal justice processes. Leighton said turnover had been exacerbated by the creation of the State Public Defender and departures to that new office, but that the Appellate Office was “fully staffed” at the time of testimony. He also said the unit uses varied caseloads as training for newer attorneys.
The presentation referenced Idaho Code section 19‑5905 describing the office’s statutory charge to represent indigent persons on appeal. No formal committee votes were recorded during the hearing.
The office asked the committee to consider the supplemental and a new position as a cost‑saving measure that would reduce reliance on more expensive contracting for overflow cases.
