Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appellate Public Defender topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellate public defender asks Legislature for deputy attorney to reduce costly contracts
Summary
The Idaho Office of the State Appellate Public Defender told the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee it seeks funding for an additional deputy to handle non‑capital appeals, saying hiring would cost less than continuing to send overflow work to contract attorneys.
The Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee heard on a budget presentation from the Office of the State Appellate Public Defender that the office is requesting funding for a deputy state appellate public defender who would take non‑capital felony, misdemeanor and juvenile appeals.
Christopher Lahoset, a budget analyst with the Legislative Services Office, told the committee that the office currently has 26 authorized full‑time positions and has been operating with few vacancies. Lahoset said that continuing to send overflow appellate cases to private firms costs the office an estimated $254,000 per year, while hiring a state attorney at about a $140,000 salary “would yield cost savings for the agency.”
The request is framed as a cost‑containment measure: the deputy position would add internal capacity to absorb overflow work and reduce what the office pays outside counsel. Lahoset also summarized other recent budget moves, including a one‑time supplemental of $1,309,400 approved by the Legislature in 2023 to address a surge in cases; those funds were largely reappropriated and are not part of the agency’s base budget.
Eric Leighton, the director appearing with staff Justin Curtis (chief of the appellate unit) and Rachel Murray (office administrator), told legislators the office’s caseload rose sharply after the pandemic and that turnover tied to state public defender reorganization contributed to temporary staffing gaps. “It has been a challenging year…I’m very happy to report that we’re, for the moment, fully staffed,” Leighton said, while noting imminent departures in the office.
Committee members questioned whether contracting out overflow cases is more expensive and whether the proposed position would simply shift case assignments among existing appellate attorneys. Leighton said the office typically assigns appeals according to attorney experience and that adding a thirteenth appellate attorney would distribute the roughly 650 cases the office expects in a year across more in‑house capacity. He also confirmed the office must continue to contract representation when conflicts of interest prevent in‑house counsel from taking a matter.
Why this matters: roughly 85% of the office’s recent expenditures have been personnel costs, and officials told the committee the choice is between expanding in‑house capacity and paying private firms to handle spikes in workload. The committee did not take a formal vote during the hearing; members requested more detail to weigh whether the hire would be budget‑neutral or yield savings over time.
The committee will consider the office’s request as it finalizes budget recommendations this session.
