L A W

O F F I C E

O F

T H E

P U B L I C

D E F E N D E R

Delivering America's Promise of Justice for All

2006-2007
ANNUAL REPORT

M

C

P

D

M A R I C O P A

C O U N T Y

CONTENTS

purpose and goals

FY07
Annual Report

3
department initiatives

4
training and diversity

organizational chart

14

18

budgeting and managing for results

20

statistical abstracts

22

The mission of the Office of the Public Defender is to provide quality
legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the
court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member
of the community.
Page 2

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

GOALS

FY07
Annual Report

T he Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office

To enhance the professionalism

provides tremendous value to the community by

and productivity of all staff.

serving an important public safety function. By
seeking effective dispositions and addressing
the underlying problems that contribute to their
criminal behavior, MCPD gives clients their best
chance to become productive and law-abiding
individuals. Our goals are:

protect

To perform our obligations in
a fiscally responsible manner

enhance

including maintaining cost
effectiveness by limiting the

promote

percentage of increase in the
annual cost per case to no

To protect the rights of our clients, to guarantee

more than the percentage

that clients receive equal protection under the

of increase in the overall

law, regardless of race, creed, national origin

annual funding of the County’s

or socioeconomic status, and to ensure that all

criminal justice group.

ethical and constitutional responsibilities and

defend

improve

ensure

partner

respond

mandates are fulfilled.
produce

To obtain and promote dispositions that are
effective in reducing recidivism, improving clients’

resolve

well-being, and enhancing quality of life for all.
achieve

To work in partnership with other agencies
to improve access to justice, develop rational

represent

justice system policies, and maintain appropriate
caseload and performance standards.

lead

Page 3

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT INITIATIVES
The Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office initiated

continue as we move into FY07-08 with the conversion of

or participated in several efforts to enhance services and

our Mental Health and Appeals databases.

processes this year. The Office was presented with several
The year marked significant strides in the receipt and
opportunities to advocate for system-wide and internal
processing of electronic messages from the Maricopa
process improvements through a variety of initiatives. The
County Superior Court. Staff implemented five separate
following reports summarize our efforts this year.
data exchanges. Scheduled Court Event provides immediate

ADMINISTRATION/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

notification to IRIS whenever a hearing or event is scheduled
in iCIS (the Maricopa County Superior Court case information

This fiscal year marked the two-year anniversary of

system). We took the feed one step further by adding a

implementation of the Indigent Representation Information

calendar function. Now we receive notice of an event, IRIS

System (IRIS). Accomplishments achieved during the

checks for the assigned attorney and sends the attorney an

past twelve months included conversion of the Office's

Outlook calendar appointment for the event. When the

Juvenile database, implementation of five

attorney checks his/her e-mail each

data exchanges, and development of new

day, he/she merely has to accept the

functionality in the application.

appointment and the event is added
to the calendar.

Staff completed the Juvenile database
conversion in September and moved over

The File a Case data exchange

700,000 records from the old CRMS case

provides updated charge information

management system into IRIS. The most

and detailed defendant identification

significant outcome of this conversion is the

data from iCIS when a direct

ability for staff to search for conflicts and

complaint is filed by the Maricopa

case information on both adult and juvenile

County Attorney’s Office (MCAO)

cases with one simple search. Previously any

with the Superior Court. Future plans

checks for information between databases

will provide for a similar electronic

required a phone call from one division to

notification on other charging

the other. This blending of case records will

instruments as well.

Page 4

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D
Through the Assigned Attorney data exchange, the Office
receives information on prosecutor assignments and, in turn,

FY07
Annual Report

such clerical tasks and reducing the amount of file storage
space required for each file.

IRIS sends defender assignment information to iCIS. This
data is subsequently passed along to MCAO. The result is
quicker notification of the involved parties on a case which
can facilitate timely case resolution
by providing accurate assignment
information at the earliest possible
point in the process.

The Initial Appearance data exchange provides
information from the Initial Appearance Court at the
Fourth Avenue Jail to our Office in an electronic format.
The data exchange was
designed in such a way that
when we receive the Initial
Appearance Court calendar,

The Electronic Document

staff simply type the assigned

Management System (EDMS) data

client’s name into IRIS, select

exchange sends electronic data to

the appropriate record and

IRIS whenever a document is filed

import the case. Staff is no

and indexed within the Clerk of the

longer required to type in data

Superior Court. Upon receipt of

such as defendant aliases, co-

these notices, IRIS links the document to the appropriate

defendant names, charges, next court events, defendant

case and locates the name of the assigned attorney. IRIS then

identification numbers, etc. Implementation of this

generates a notification message to that assigned attorney

exchange reduced duplicate efforts across the County and

advising him/her by e-mail that the document has been filed

enabled us to create case assignments much more quickly

with the Clerk of the Court. Embedded in the body of the

and accurately. Plans are in place for next fiscal year to

message is a URL link. When the recipient selects the link,

expand upon this capability so that summons bookings

he/she is taken directly to the document in the Clerk’s Office

and case assignments made later in the process can be

via the Internet. This data exchange has all but eliminated

imported in a similar manner.

the need to route paper copies of motions and minute entries
to attorneys in the Office. In addition to no longer routing
this paper, staff no longer have to locate case folders to file
the paper document, thus cutting down on time spent on

Along with implementation of data exchanges, this fiscal
year's accomplishments included numerous changes
to add or improve functionality to the IRIS application.

Page 5

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT INITIATIVES
Following are highlights of the improvements made:

• Direct access to Clerk of the Court filed documents – IRIS
users can review documents filed with the Clerk of the

• Time tracking - attorneys and staff can now track time to
specific cases and activities directly in IRIS.

Court directly from within the case in IRIS. A simple click
on a document link in IRIS takes the user to the actual filed
document in the Clerk’s Office. This reduces the number of

• Data exchange processing screens were added – these
screens provide statistics on the number and type of
transactions processed, list errors on failed transactions, and

hard-copy documents that are stored in files and reduces
the need for support staff to sort and distribute these
documents.

offer a user-friendly mechanism to make corrections and
reprocess case data.

While extensive progress has been made this year, much
remains to be done as we move into next year with

• Person merge – this function examines all new persons

implementation of IRIS in other Indigent Representation

entered into the IRIS system daily to determine if that person

Offices. We conclude this fiscal year, however, with the

already exists in the database. If a match is

satisfaction of

identified, the system is programmed to notify

knowing that

records personnel so they can make the final

automation

determination on whether or not the two

enhancements

records should be merged. This feature provides

have

more information on our clients and notice of

significantly

any previous contacts they may have had with

improved

the Office.

the quantity,
quality, and

• E-mail notification – electronic notification of

timeliness

documents filed and scheduled court events

of case

were expanded so that non-attorney staff may

information into

opt to receive such notices. This option can be set for

the Public Defender’s Office. All of these accomplishments

the user for all cases to which they are assigned or can be

impact the quality of representation provided to our clients.

requested on specific cases.
Page 6

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D
TRIAL

FY07
Annual Report

in January 2007. This project involved implementing a
“team concept” as a group structural model and basis

This fiscal year the Trial Division intensified their emphasis

for assignment of resources, case assignment, and court

on being ready to proceed to trial at the first trial setting.

coverage. In this model, attorneys within a trial group

This required significant focus on proactive approaches to

are divided into specific teams and are each primarily

representation. The results have been very positive as cases

dedicated to, and responsible for, one specific division

are being resolved effectively in a shorter time frame without

of the Superior Court. Ideally, all public defender cases

sacrificing the quality of our representation.

which have been assigned to a particular judge are then,
in turn, assigned only to members of that particular

We expanded our Capital Unit from six to eight teams to meet
team assigned to that court. Each team is comprised of a
a crisis in capital case representation caused by an unexpected
secretary, investigator, paralegal, and mitigation specialist,
surge in capital case filings by the County Attorney. A team
each of whom is dedicated to, and are thus, part of that
consists of 2 attorneys, 1 mitigation specialist, 1 paralegal,
individual team. The benefit of this structure is that it
and 1 investigator . The team approach provides the most
improves the efficiency and effectiveness in the way
effective method of handling our most complex cases by
representation is assigned, conducted, and monitored
funneling the team's specialized expertise into a coordinated
throughout the life
effort on behalf of
of a given criminal
clients facing death
case. With sufficient
sentences.
resources, the idea is
Expanding on the

to have a fully staffed,

team approach to

self-contained team

case representation,

fully dedicated to

mention should be

one court per team.

made of an innovative

Though the resources

pilot project that

available at the start

was launched in one

of our project have

of our trial groups

been less than ideal,

Page 7

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT INITIATIVES
and thus, its full implementation limited, its results have not

Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). They brought

fallen shy of its ideal: They have been very positive.

a DDD liaison to the weekly Comprehensive Mental Health
Court meetings so issues of the developmentally disabled

Though a bit skeptical at first, the attorneys have voiced

could be addressed.

a very positive acceptance of the concept as a way of
making their work more efficient and productive in terms

In addition, the liaison contacts the attorneys when a DDD

of obtaining case services from support staff and of

client is arrested. The liaison is instrumental in helping our

becoming more familiar with individual courts and their

attorneys that specialize in these matters to get records and

practices. Members of support staff have voiced their

services. The coordination with DDD allowed attorneys to

approval of the concept in that it allows them to better

successfully advocate for clients to be released back to the

understand the needs of the individual attorneys, thus

community where they would receive services earlier than

allowing them to better serve them and the needs of the

they otherwise would.

case and client. From a managerial standpoint, it has proven
to be an improved way to monitor case progress and fix
individual accountability for assigned tasks. It also should
be noted that one positive side benefit has been that it has
increased a feeling of
collegiality within the
teams and between
the teams and their
assigned courts.

Attorneys specializing in criminal mental health matters
created a two-hour presentation to educate DDD
employees about the criminal justice system and the
specifics of criminal cases
in Maricopa County. This
presentation proved a
turning point for those
DDD consumers who were
facing felony charges.

Our Criminal Mental

Now the DDD providers

Health Unit created a

are aware of what really

community outreach

happens to the DDD

opportunity between

consumers in the criminal

the Public Defender's

justice system and will

Office and the

appear in court to assist

Page 8

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D
the client. In addition, specialized attorneys assist other

FY07
Annual Report

attorneys with clients that may benefit from DDD services.
They do so by reaching out to service providers, including
DDD and guardians, by attending court dates, and by
explaining services to the court and prosecutors.

This year also saw the resurrection of the Vehicular Unit as a
specialty unit. A pilot project, which involved assigning DUI
specialists to trial groups, proved inefficient and less effective.
Therefore, it was eliminated and we reverted to our previous
practice of having DUI cases handled within a specialized unit.

Although we observed a decline in workload withdrawals, the
high level of case filings last year required that we continue to
withdraw from cases based on excessive workload. In FY06,
we withdrew from 2,486 cases. This fiscal period we withdrew
from 2,414 cases, a 3% decline.
November 15 to November 18, 2006. The program
The Office welcomed an opportunity to participate in the
Fugitive Safe Surrender Program, a program sponsored
by the U.S. Marshals Service, which works with local law
enforcement, the courts, and religious leaders to take the
desperation away from the process of catching criminals.
The U.S. Marshals Service, in cooperation with the Office,
Maricopa County Superior Court, County Attorney’s Office,
the Sheriff ’s Office, Clerk of the Superior Court, the Adult
Probation Department, and the Arizona Attorney General’s
Office offered the safe surrender program to fugitives from

encouraged defendants with outstanding warrants to self
surrender at the administrative building of a local church
to speed the resolution of their case. The operation was
an overwhelming success with over 1,300 individuals
participating in the event. According to the Marshals
Service, in all, 386 felony warrants and 114 misdemeanor
warrants were cleared. Most of the other individuals who
surrendered were wanted on warrants outside the local
jurisdiction. Some presented themselves in the mistaken
belief that they were wanted on charges that had been

Page 9

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT INITIATIVES
dismissed or otherwise adjudicated. Several individuals

probationers with low level offenses who stopped meeting

surrendered who were never wanted at all.

with their probation officers because they could not pay
their fines.

Participating agencies committed to resolving as many cases
as permissible during the four day program and to giving

The event progressed at a fast pace. Three Superior Court

favorable consideration to keeping first time, nonviolent

judicial officers were present in the church activity hall

offenders out of custody. The clients who benefited from

and held court throughout the program. Program staff
conducted background and warrant checks on defendants
who appeared to determine the types of warrants pending.

The program was so successful that on the last day of the
program, over 600 defendants showed up to get a second
chance at life. Instead of closing at 5:00 PM, the operations
stayed open until the last case was resolved at 11:00 o’clock
at night. The attorneys and staff demonstrated their
commitment to indigent representation by representing
over 1,300 defendants and assisting them in having their
cases resolved. For many clients, their matters concluded
on the same day that they turned themselves in to the
authorities.

JUVENILE
Our Juvenile Division staff mentored, educated and assisted
the youth of Maricopa County and others through active
participation in several community outreach services this
this program were those who failed to show up to court

year. Participation included programs for youth, adults

previously on low level offenses; probationers who failed to

and attorneys. Attorneys staffed numerous teen courts

appear years ago, but have since stayed out of trouble; and

throughout Maricopa County, mentoring the youth in their

Page 10

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D

FY07
Annual Report

to provide information on pursuing a career in the legal
community.

The Public Defender’s Office's effort to aid young people
continued with our providing assistance with sealing
juvenile records and providing legal assistance to children
offered diversion through the Probation Department.
Former clients were sent instructions and forms describing
the process for sealing their juvenile record upon reaching
their eighteenth birthday. Juveniles that had questions
were directed to contact the Office and attorneys assisted
them in completing the forms. Also, attorneys assisted
youth who were offered diversion through the Probation
Department but had questions concerning their legal
rights. Probation officers contacted the Public Defender’s
Office to have children speak with attorneys; thus enabling
them to make an informed decision regarding whether or
not to participate in the diversion program.
roles as counsel. Attorneys provided classroom lectures
for elementary, junior high and high school students about
constitutional rights and the law. “Know Your Rights Forums”
were held in the community to reach those youth whose
schools do not offer information on constitutional rights in
the classroom. Attorneys furthered the education process
by hosting tours of the juvenile court house and facilitating
dialogs with the judges. Finally, several attorneys and
investigators participated in career day at local high schools

The Juvenile Division continued to provide assistance
to legislatures, school boards and civic groups during
the year. The Office was invited to serve on the Joint
Legislative Committee on Youthful Sex Offenders. As
a member of the Committee, we were instrumental
in discussions regarding appropriate services and
protections for youthful offenders. Senators and
Representatives consulted with our attorneys for
information and advice when considering the

Page 11

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT INITIATIVES
implementation of key legislation. One Public Defender

their case pursuant to Rule 32. The Appellate Division also

served as a consultant for the Kyrene School Board by

represented indigent individuals who were appealing Title

creating the legal ramifications segment of their sex

36, mental health court, inpatient treatment orders.

education curriculum. Another participated in the taping of
a public service announcement on programs available for
troubled youth.

Each appellate attorney maintained a broad mix of cases
ranging in difficulty from Proposition 200 drug possession
cases, for which probation is a mandatory sentence, to first

Juvenile Public Defenders also

degree capital murder

conducted presentations to

cases, for which the

numerous civic and community

death penalty has been

groups on constitutional

imposed. In addition

rights and laws that affect

to maintaining a full

youth. Finally, over the past

caseload, the attorneys

year, members of the Juvenile

in the Appellate Division

Division served the legal

regularly contribute to

community by participating

the continuing legal

in Continuing Education

education of attorneys

Programs including giving

and paraprofessionals in

presentations at conferences sponsored by the State Bar,

the criminal defense community and judges throughout

Arizona Public Defender Association, Arizona Attorneys

the state by writing articles for the Office newsletter, other

for Criminal Justice, and the Southwest Juvenile Defender

legal publications, and by presenting at training programs

Summit.

sponsored by the Maricopa County Public Defender, the

APPEALS

Arizona Public Defender Association, the Arizona Attorneys
for Criminal Justice, the State Bar of Arizona, and the

The Office’s Appellate Division remained the primary

Supreme Court of Arizona.

provider of legal services in Maricopa County for indigent
individuals who are seeking direct appellate review of their
case pursuant to Rule 31, or post-conviction relief review of

During FY07, the Appellate Division experienced a
noticeable increase in appeal cases and a decrease in

Page 12

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D
attorneys assigned to the Division. This decrease in staff

FY07
Annual Report

proposed decisions could have on the mental health

was occasioned by the transfer of attorney resources from

community. The Divison's participation had the additional

the Appellate Division to the Capital Division to absorb the

benefit of ensuring that the Office remained current issues

increase in capital cases being filed by the Maricopa County

involving the treatment of the mentally ill in the criminal

Attorney. To compensate for the imbalance created by this

system.

shift, a procedure was established to provide for the transfer
of appeal cases that could not be ethically absorbed by

Further, Mental Health Division attorneys served to

attorneys in the Appellate Division to the Office of Contract

educate the community and legislators regarding the

Counsel (now the Office of Public Defender Services) for

effects of proposed legislation. During the last legislative

assignment to contract appellate attorneys. This procedure

session, a proposed house bill would have allowed

worked extremely well to evenly distribute appeal cases

the state access to a mental health patient’s medical

between the offices that provide appellate services to

file. Attorneys invested their time to address this issue

indigent individuals and to assure that these individuals

with members of the public, mental health providers

received superior appellate and post-conviction relief

and legislative participants. The information attorneys

representation.

provided illustrated the potential effect the proposed
legislation would have on law abiding citizens.

MENTAL HEALTH
Lastly, our Mental Health Division attorneys continued
The Public Defender's Mental Health Division was involved

to provide training to students in the medical science

in many activities that concern citizens with mental health

program on court-ordered evaluations and treatment

issues. Division members participated in meetings and

processes. Mental Health is a very specialized area. The

provided training to new doctors to benefit the mentally

rules that govern mental health evaluations and treatment

ill. A member from the Division attended meetings of

are very specific. Attorneys provided students with a

the Commission of Justice System Intervention for the

detailed overview of the process and explained the legal

Seriously Mentally Ill, Arizona State Hospital’s Committee

theory behind pertinent laws. Doing so afforded students

on Guilty Except Insane, and Maricopa County Superior

the opportunity to view court-ordered evaluations from a

Court Comprehensive Mental Health Court to provide these

legal perspective and to gain an appreciation of the need

groups with insightful information regarding the effect their

to protect all citizen’s right to liberty.

Page 13

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

TRAINING ACTIVITIES
T he Office’s mission is the same -- to protect the

In December, the Office sponsored the annual “Death

fundamental rights of all individuals, by providing effective

Penalty Conference.” The Office teamed with the Federal

legal representation for indigent people facing criminal

Public Defender’s Habeas Division, the Legal Defender,

charges, juvenile adjudications, and mental health

and the Legal Advocate to engage nationally known

commitments, when appointed by Maricopa County Superior

speakers for training needed in the ever-changing death

and Justice Courts. To do so, the Office remained committed

penalty field. The Arizona Supreme Court and the Arizona

to providing training in FY07 for attorneys and support staff,

Rules of Criminal Procedure require that all lawyers

giving them the necessary resources and tools to provide

involved in death penalty litigation receive a minimum

quality representation. Therefore, as we have in the past,

of six credit hours of continuing legal education in the

the Office continued to function as the leader and primary

area. Without this seminar, many capital case litigators

sponsor for a variety of statewide programs focusing on

in Arizona could not meet minimum qualifications to

indigent defense and as the preeminent provider of public

represent clients facing the death penalty. Our role in this

defender staff training.

area is particularly critical due to shortages of qualified
capital defense attorneys in Maricopa County.

Our “New Attorney Training” program was a top priority. The
Office has consistently received statewide recognition for

In February, the Office sponsored “Living with

this program. Approximately fifty defender attorneys from

Schizophrenia and Hearing Voices,” presented by Denise

throughout the State completed the two-week program over

Beagley-Imhoff, MSC, ValueOptions Clinical Training

the last twelve months.

Specialist. This half-day seminar provided attorneys,
mitigation specialists, and other support staff with very

In October, the Office, in conjunction with the Federal Public
Defender and the Legal Defender, sponsored “Objections:
Standing Up and Speaking Up for the Defendant.” The
seminar centered on making objections using lecture and

useful information focused on the day-to-day challenges
of this psychiatric condition, including an especially
instructive discussion on techniques for working with
defendants in and out of custody.

small group learning environments to increase attorney
skills. This full-day seminar was very successful with over 140

In March, the 11th Annual “MCPD Trials Skills College” was

attorneys in attendance.

held at the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law. The
college stressed cross-examination, impeachment, jury

Page 14

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D

FY07
Annual Report

communication techniques, and voir dire. Because the costs

Defender and Arizona Capital Representation Project.

of the college facilities are minimal, the Office is able to

This captivating one-day seminar brought in nearly 100

engage renowed instructors from throughout the country.

attorneys, mitigation specialists, and other support staff.

Terrence McCarthy, the Executive Director of the Federal

Russell Stetler, a Federal mitigation trainer, and Sean

Public Defender’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois

O’Brien, an attorney and professor with University of

and nationally recognized expert on cross examination,

Missouri, were the keynote speakers.

taught impeachment and cross examination. Mr. McCarthy
also teaches at the National Criminal Defense College and

For the fifth consecutive year, the Office co-sponsored

the Western Trial Advocacy Institute. Additionally, Joshua

the “Arizona Public Defender Association Conference”

Karton, a nationally recognized speaker, presented on

along with other members of the Arizona Public Defender

Communication Techniques with an interactive lecture and

Association. The June conference was an outstanding

small group exercises. Mr.

success with nearly

Karton pioneered applying

900 attendees, over

theatre/film/television’s

200 faculty and 131

personal communication

sessions. Changes

tools to the art of trial

implemented this

advocacy. Diane Wyzga, a Trial

year enabled many

Consultant, complimented the

attorneys to obtain

communication lecture with a

all of the required

lecture on voir dire, using small

continuing legal

group exercises to develop

education credits at

better jury communication

this three-day seminar.

skills. Ms. Wyzga teaches lawyers the use of storytelling
In addition to our larger events, the Office conducted
techniques and principles for transforming compelling case
an average of two “brown bag” sessions each month for
images into desired verdict action.
attorneys and support staff. Several sessions focused
In May, the Office co-sponsored the “Mitigation

on mental health issues that adversely affect our clients,

Investigation, Integration, and Presentation” with the Legal

including Borderline Personality Disorders I & II and
Page 15

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

TRAINING ACTIVITIES
Psychiatric Evaluations. Other lunchtime session topics

included iCIS, IRIS (Indigent Representation Information

included: Miranda, Trial Techniques, Computer Forensics,

System), eFiling, New Employee Computer Training,

Special Actions, Prior Felony Convictions, DNA Evidence,

and PowerPoint classes. The Office offered over 100

Autopsies, and Internet Investigations among others. The

technology classes this fiscal year.

Office also held training sessions for attorneys and support
staff on Conversational Spanish and Advanced Spanish Legal

Finally, working under the premise that training is an
investment, the Office sent a significant number of

Terminology to facilitate effective communications with our

lawyers and staff to quality out-of-state seminars. This

growing Spanish-speaking community.

practice is beneficial for sharing knowledge and to bring
In addition, technological advances including the Superior

new ideas and concepts to Maricopa County. The out-of-

Court’s case management system (iCIS) and eFiling,

state seminars improved our day-to-day representation of

required additional focus on computer related training. We

clients and our overall professionalism within the entire

conducted many related classes to enhance user skills. They

Office.

Title of Conference/Training
Organizational Values: Valuing Diversity
Perfect Storm: Jury Summoning in Maricopa County
E-Filing Overview
IRIS—Overview/Records Mmgt/Opening/Closing and
Updating

Date(s)
7/06 – 6/07

Topic

# of
attendees

Open to all staff/part of the new employee training

136

Overview of how Maricopa County summons prospective
jurors

33

Overview of the e-Filing process with Clerk of Superior Court

65

Overview of the Indigent Representation Information System
7/1/06 – 6/30/07 (IRIS) electronic case management system

107

8/4/2006
8/15/07 and
9/27/07

Borderline Personality Disorder

9/28/2006

Strategies for attorneys and support staff (working with clients)
including diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and who
is affected

Basic Photography Overview

9/12/2006

Take it off auto—learning basic photography

19

Objections One-Day Workshop

10/20/2006

Useful exercises in using objections as a sword and shield reviewing the evidentiary rules

143

IRIS ---Adding Investigators and Viewing Caseloads
The Nuts & Bolts of Mental Health Evaluations
Support Services Supervisor Retreat/Training

Adding case management information and viewing caseloads
7/1/06-6/30/07 using IRIS

31

23

9/29/2006

What is neuropsychology? Difference between psychiatrist
and psychologist - testing & interpretation.

29

10/4/2006

Training and planning session for support staff managers and
supervisors

27

Page 16

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D
Title of Conference/Training
Attorney Manager Retreat/Training
Death Penalty Seminar

Annual Report

Date(s)
10/13/2006

Topic

# of
attendees

Training and planning session for attorney managers and supervisors

25

12/7-8/06

Annual death penalty (includes criminal specialization requirements)

202

How Police Circumvent Miranda

12/15/2006

The state of Miranda in light of Missouri v Seibert and US v Williams

31

Risk Assessment/Components of Psych
Evals

1/12/2007

Components of a psychological evaluation—forensic v. therapeutic,
commonly used assessments

30

Living w/ Schizophrenia

2/2/2007

Understanding the day-to-day challenges of this psychiatric condition

34

Advanced Spanish Terminology

1/25/2007

Advanced Spanish terminology with Q&A session

28

What We Learned in Wyoming

10/27/2006

New trial techniques - different trial techniques

8

Tour of the Maricopa County Medical Examiner’s Office including
1/1/07-6/30/07 autopsy procedures

Viewing an Autopsy
th

30

Trial Skills College 11 Annual

3/14-16/07

Hands-on practice to improve trial skills

48

An Overview of Computer Forensics

2/16/2007

Recovery of computer evidence including Q&A session

29

De-Mystifying Special Actions

2/6/2007

Page formatting/court locations/contact information/legal authority in
order to file

23

Advanced Spanish Legal Terminology

2/230/7

Advanced Spanish terminology for attorneys

6

Juryinstructions.com

3/2/2007

A hands on tutorial on navigating the juryinstruction.com website

10

DNA-Human ID Tech

3/23/2007

Understanding the statistics associated with DNA testing/sources of
error in DNA testing

41

Spring Grammar Class

2/28/07-4/18/07 Basic-intermediate-refresher grammar

9

IRIS: Time Sheets

6/13-14/07

Inputting time tracking instruction

25

Trial on Priors

4/20/2007

Detailed description of trial on the priors for attorneys

32

Basics of ADA and FMLA

3/21/2007

What do I need to know as a supervisor about…FMLA, FML and ADA

32

Demonstrative Evidence

4/6/2007

Practice instruction on how to make a trial excitable and winnable

44

Internet Investigation

5/11/2007

Overview of recent internet investigations

15

Conversational Spanish for Attorneys

2/23/2007

Conversational Spanish and working with an interpreter

8

Juryinstructions.com

3/9/2007

A hands on tutorial on navigating the juryinstruction.com website

7

Mitigation Seminar

5/25/2007

Mitigation, investigation and presentation—new and experienced
mitigation staff/attorneys

95

Litigating the Issues: PROP 100

4/27/2007

Proposition 100: How to challenge entered or remained Illegal

58

IRIS: V 2.0 Overview

8/1/2006

Overview of additions/updates to the IRIS system

74

Borderline Personality Disorder Part II

5/18/2007

Part two of strategies for attorneys and support staff (working with
clients) including diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and who is
affected

15

APDA 5th Annual Conference

6/20-22/07

Various criminal and management related topics.

736

Criminal E-Filing

7/2006-6/2007 Electronic filing with the Maricopa County Clerk of the Court.

269

E-Performance

Hands-on sessions – learning how to use the ePerformance module in
7/1/06-6/30/07 PeopleSoft

45

PowerPoint Basics

5/1/07-6/30/07 Overview of MS PowerPoint program

8

Page 17

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Page 18

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D

FY07
Annual Report

Page 19

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

BUDGET ABSTRACT
MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
BUDGET
7/1/06 THROUGH 6/30/07

ACCOUNT
SALARIES & BENEFITS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
FUEL
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
LEGAL SERVICES

EXPENDITURES
$35,908,841.33
$441,640.35
$17,870.35
$4,535.86
$1,503,021.26

OTHER SERVICES

$491,992.70

RENT & OPERATING LEASES

$652,982.86

REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE

$26,593.60

INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES

$228,896.92

TRAVEL AND EDUCATION

$344,139.20

POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING

$50,735.82

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

$0.00

VEHICLES

$0.00

DEBT SERVICES (Technology Financing)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

APPROPRIATIONS
GENERAL FUNDS
TRAINING SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
FILL THE GAP SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
DEA GRANT
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS

$206,240.57
$39,877,490.82

AMOUNT
$37,661,400.00
$571,480 .00
$1,732,065.00
$373,288.00
$40,338,233 .00

Page 20

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D

FY07
Annual Report

Budgeting and Managing for Results
Managing for Results (MfR) was established in 2000 and is a comprehensive and integrated management system that is
intended to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services. It integrates planning, budgeting, reporting, evaluating,
and decision-making.
The Public Defender’s strategic plan receives regular review and revision by the Office of Management and Budget.
Performance measurement data, along with commentary, is reported on a quarterly basis. Reported data includes case
assignment, case resolution, expenses, and attorney workload figures (% over caseload standard). Both projections
and historical actuals are included for each of the aforementioned calculations. Such detailed reporting has enabled the
Office to develop budgets for the various activities performed. Statistical and financial data is regularly combined in
Budgeting for Results analyses that are utilized by the County Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to allocate/develop
budgets for the Indigent Representation offices, including the Public Defender’s Office.
After publication of FY06’s annual report, the department received a “Managing for Results Achievement Award” for FY06
efforts. The award was presented by OMB to departments that met both Fiscal Fitness and Strategic Fitness Award criteria.
From the newsletter announcing the awards, they included the following descriptions of the criteria used.
FY05-06 Fiscal Fitness Awards Criteria used for the FY05-06 Fiscal Fitness Awards include
departmental budgets are correctly budgeted by activity; general contingency funds
are not requested; budget variances are favorable; budget projections are accurate and
timely; grant and indirect cost budgeting is done properly; and budget submissions are
timely and complete.
In addition to the Fiscal Fitness Awards, OMB presents Strategic Fitness Awards to those
departments that best adhere to Managing for Results requirements. Award winners
are selected based on criteria related to departments not exceeding revised budget
expenditures, completing/updating issue statements and goals that are valid for the
current fiscal year, developing and reporting performance measure data, and reporting
progress on strategic goals within reporting timeframes.
Efforts toward enhancing and maintaining strategic fitness continue to be a top priority for the Office.

Page 21

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

ABSTRACTS

Statistics

STATISTICAL ABSTRACT TABLE/CHART

PAGE

All Divisions
C A S E A S S I G N M E N T S A N D S TA F F I N G M O D E L

Page 24

D I V I S I O N T O TA L S N E E D E D V. F I L L E D A N D F U N D E D
AT T O R N E Y P O S I T I O N S

Page 25

Case Assignment History
H I S T O R Y O F C A S E S A S S I G N E D B Y C A S E C AT E G O R I E S

Page 26

Case Assignments by Division
TRIAL DIVISION
JUVENILE DIVISION
APPEALS DIVISION
M E N TA L H E A LT H D I V I S I O N

Page
Page
Page
Page

27
27
27
27

Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page

28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29

Page
Page
Page
Page
Page

29
30
30
30
30

Case Assignments by Type
C A P I TA L
ALL OTHER HOMICIDE
CLASS 2-3 FELONY
DUI
CLASS 4-6 FELONY
V I O L AT I O N O F P R O B AT I O N
MISDEMEANOR
M E N TA L H E A LT H
JUVENILE FELONY LEVEL DELINQUENCY
JUVENILE MISDEMEANOR LEVEL DELINQUENCY AND
INCORRIGIBILITY
J U V E N I L E V I O L AT I O N O F P R O B AT I O N
A P P E A L S ( I N C L U D E S C A P I TA L )
PLEA PCR (APPEAL PCR)
TRIAL PCR (PCR)
JUVENILE APPEALS

Page 22

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D

FY07
Annual Report

Case Resolutions History
H I S T O R Y O F C A S E S R E S O LV E D B Y C A S E C AT E G O R I E S

Page 31

Case Resolutions by Division
TRIAL DIVISION
JUVENILE DIVISION
APPEALS DIVISION
M E N TA L H E A LT H D I V I S I O N

Page
Page
Page
Page

32
32
32
32

Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page

33
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34

Page
Page
Page
Page
Page

34
35
35
35
35

Case Resolutions by Type
C A P I TA L
ALL OTHER HOMICIDE
CLASS 2-3 FELONY
DUI
CLASS 4-6 FELONY
V I O L AT I O N O F P R O B AT I O N
MISDEMEANOR
M E N TA L H E A LT H
JUVENILE FELONY LEVEL DELINQUENCY
JUVENILE MISDEMEANOR LEVEL DELINQUENCY AND
INCORRIGIBILITY
J U V E N I L E V I O L AT I O N O F P R O B AT I O N
A P P E A L S ( I N C L U D E S C A P I TA L )
PLEA PCR (APPEAL PCR)
TRIAL PCR (PCR)
JUVENILE APPEALS

Page 23

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

ABSTRACTS

Statistics

ALL DIVISIONS
Case Assignments and Staffing Model
July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007
Case Type
Capital
All other Homicide
Class 2-3 Felony

FY07
Assigned Cases 1
12

2.0

6.0

159

11.4

14.0

6,469

71.4

Class 2 & 3 in RCC/EDC

2,783

184.3

15.1

Class 2 & 3 not RCC/EDC

3,686

65.5

56.3

DUI

2,190
DUI in RCC/EDC

Class 4-6 Felony
Class 4-6 Felony in RCC/EDC
Class 4-6 Felony not RCC/EDC

Violation of Probation
Misdemeanor
Trial - Excluding Capital

8.2

1,619

432.0

3.8

571

129.0

4.4

DUI not RCC/EDC

18,272

53.8

14,108

532.4

26.5

4,164

152.6

27.3

18,646

1004.0

18.6

3,235

407.6

7.9

48,971

N/A

173.8

Juvenile Felony

2,777

144.9

19.2

Juvenile Misdemeanor and Incorrigibility

4,969

278.6

17.8

Juvenile Violation of Probation

1,865

360.1

5.2

Juvenile Division Total

9,611

N/A

42.2

Mental Health

2,546

278.6

9.1

434

24.0

18.1

2

2.0

1.0

Non-Capital Appeals
Capital Appeals
All Criminal Appeals

436

Plea PCR (Appeal PCR)

626

240.0

2.6

Trial PCR (PCR)

169

18.0

9.4

Juvenile Appeal

34

36.0

0.9

1,265

294.0

32.0

62,405

N/A

263.1

Appeals Division Total
Total of Above

Page 24

Attorneys to Meet
Standard 3

Standard 2

19.1

1 Assigned Cases are calculated as total cases opened during the time period, minus cases closed during the time
period with the following dispositions: no complaint, administrative transfer, and workload withdrawal cases.
2 Standard column represents the established caseload standard. The majority of the standards were developed during
the Spangenberg Case Weighting Study conducted in 2003.
3 Attorneys to Meet Standard is calculated by dividing cases assigned, by the established standard. This represents the
annual average caseload for one full time staff attorney in Maricopa County, assuming the attorney handled only that
type of case.

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

FY07

M C
P D

Annual Report

ALL DIVISIONS

Division Totals Needed Vs. Filled and Funded Attorney Positions
A tto rn e ys to M e e t S ta n d a rd
F Y 0 7 M o n th ly A ve ra g e F ille d A tto rn e y P o s itio n s
F Y 0 7 M o n th ly A ve ra g e F u n d e d A tto rn e y P o s itio n s
300
2 5 7 .1 3
250
2 1 9 .6

2 2 4 .6 5

200
1 7 3 .7 9

1 6 6 .3

1 6 9 .5

150

100

4 2 .1 8

50

2 8 .8

3 2 .0 3

2 9 .5
9 .1 4

7 .2

8 .6 5

1 7 .3

17

0
T ria l - E xclu d in g C a p ita l

Ju ve n ile D ivisio n T o ta l

M e n ta l H e a lth

A p p e a ls D ivisio n

T o ta l O ffice (e xclu d in g ca p ita l)

Capital cases and capital attorneys have been excluded from the trial division data to allow us to depict the remaining case types without skewed data.
Beginning in FY08, the Public Defender’s Office began having capital attorneys track their time in the Indigent Representation Information System timesheets.
The intent is to obtain sufficient data needed to develop a reliable standard. Because of the long duration of capital cases, it may take until the end of FY09
to yield a valid standard. Until then, trial division case data will be represented without capital cases or capital attorneys.

Page 25

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

ABSTRACTS

Statistics

Case Assignment
History of Cases Assigned by Case Categories
FY01-FY07 Cases Assigned 1,2
Case Type
Capital

FY01

3

All other Homicide
Class 2-3 Felony

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

0

0

3

12

11

12

12

127

147

148

149

126

119

159

5,730

5,999

5,526

6,684

6,469

Class 2-3 Felony - RCC/EDC Unkn

5,695

Unkn

Unkn

293

277

2,430

2,783

Class 2-3 Felony - Non RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

5,706

5,249

4,254

3,686

2,677

2,334

2,286

2,190

DUI

2,238

5,875

2,513

2,395

DUI - RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

612

757

1,579

1,619

DUI - Non RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

2,065

1,577

707

571

Class 4-6 Felony

11,118 11,965 16,302 18,006 17,562 18,708 18,272

Class 4, 5, & 6 Felony - RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

9,076

9,532 13,422 14,108

Class 4, 5, & 6 Felony - Non RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

8,930

8,030

Violation of Probation

5,286

4,164

13,294 14,934 14,674 15,941 17,811 19,603 18,646

Misdemeanor

4,170

Trial Division Total

5,177

4,738

4,974

4,871

3,724

3,235

36,642 40,611 43,990 47,758 48,241 51,136 48,983

Juvenile Felony Level Delinquency

3,013

2,754

2,522

2,741

2,831

3,114

2,777

Juvenile Misd Level Delinquency & Incorrigibility

4,435

3,844

3,506

4,348

4,130

4,244

4,969

2,773

2,351

2,658

2,316

2,091

1,667

1,865

10,221

8,949

8,686

9,405

9,052

9,025

9,611

1,690

1,772

2,164

2,203

2,054

2,410

2,546

Juvenile Violation of Probation
Juvenile Division Total
Mental Health Division Total

4

Appeals (includes Capital)

489

448

450

316

350

371

436

Plea PCR (Appeal PCR)

770

1,251

1,269

958

844

729

626

Trial PCR (PCR)

266

256

269

185

145

116

169

Juvenile Appeal

127

86

67

82

70

50

34

1,652

2,041

2,055

1,541

1,409

1,266

1,265

Appeals Division Total
Total of All Above

50,205 53,373 56,895 60,907 60,756 63,837 62,405

1 A substantial review of historical data was made in June and July 2007. The data here has been updated to reflect any corrections
processed at that time for FY03 through FY07.
2 Total cases opened minus cases closed during the time period with the following dispositions: no complaint, administrative transfer, and
workload withdrawal cases.
3 Until FY03, Capital cases were not tracked separately from other Murder 1 Cases.
4 Juvenile violation of probation information is not available for dispositions of conflict withdrawal or retention of private counsel for FY01.
It is estimated that the missing data would result in approximately 83 cases (3% of total opened). That number has been used to “normalize”
the data for comparative purposes.
Unkn denotes that data is not available.

Page 26

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

FY07

M C
P D

Annual Report

Case Assignments by Division

T rial D ivision T otal

Juvenile D ivision T otal
10,500

5 5 ,0 0 0
5 1 ,1 3 6
5 0 ,0 0 0
4 7 ,7 5 8

10,221
4 8 ,9 8 3

4 8 ,2 4 1

10,000

4 3 ,9 9 0

4 5 ,0 0 0

9,611
4 0 ,6 1 1

9,500

4 0 ,0 0 0

9,405

3 6 ,6 4 2
3 5 ,0 0 0

9,052

9,025

F Y 05

F Y 06

8,949

9,000

8,686

3 0 ,0 0 0
8,500
2 5 ,0 0 0

8,000

2 0 ,0 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

F Y 01

FY07

F Y 02

F Y 03

F Y 04

FY07

M ental H ealth T otal

A ppeals D ivision T otal
2 ,8 0 0

2,200

2,041

2,055

2 ,6 0 0

2 ,5 4 6

2,000

2 ,4 1 0
2 ,4 0 0
2 ,1 6 4

2 ,2 0 0

1,800

2 ,2 0 3
2 ,0 5 4

1,652

2 ,0 0 0

1,600

1,541

1 ,8 0 0

1,409

1 ,7 7 2
1 ,6 9 0

1 ,6 0 0

1,400
1,266

1,265

1 ,4 0 0

1,200
1 ,2 0 0

1 ,0 0 0

1,000
F Y 01

FY02

FY03

FY04

F Y 05

FY06

F Y 07

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Case assignments are calculated as total cases opened during the time period, minus cases closed during the time period with the following dispositions: no complaint,
administrative transfer, and workload withdrawal cases.

Page 27

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

ABSTRACTS

Statistics

Case Assignments by Type
A ll O th e r H o m ic id e

C a p ita l
170

14

159

12

12

12

12
147

150

11

148

149

10
130

127

126
119

8
110

6
90

4
3
70

2

0

0

0

FY01

FY02

50

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY01

FY07

FY02

FY03

FY05

FY06

FY07

DUI

C la ss 2 -3 F e lo n y
2 ,8 0 0

8 ,0 0 0

2 ,6 7 7
2 ,6 0 0

7 ,0 0 0

6 ,0 0 0

FY04

6 ,6 8 4

5 ,6 9 5

5 ,8 7 5

6 ,4 6 9

2 ,3 9 5

2 ,4 0 0

5 ,9 9 9
5 ,7 3 0

2 ,5 1 3
2 ,3 3 4
2 ,2 3 8

5 ,5 2 6

2 ,2 8 6
2 ,1 9 0

2 ,2 0 0

5 ,0 0 0
2 ,0 0 0

4 ,0 0 0
1 ,8 0 0

3 ,0 0 0

1 ,6 0 0

2 ,0 0 0

1 ,4 0 0

1 ,0 0 0

1 ,2 0 0

1 ,0 0 0

0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY01

FY07

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

V io la tio n o f P ro b a tio n

C la ss 4 -6 F e lo n y
2 2 ,0 0 0

2 1 ,0 0 0

1 8 ,7 0 8

1 9 ,0 0 0
1 8 ,0 0 6

1 9 ,6 0 3

2 0 ,0 0 0

1 8 ,2 7 2

1 8 ,6 4 6

1 7 ,5 6 2

1 7 ,8 1 1

1 8 ,0 0 0

1 7 ,0 0 0

1 6 ,3 0 2
1 5 ,9 4 1

1 6 ,0 0 0

1 5 ,0 0 0

1 4 ,9 3 4
1 4 ,0 0 0

1 3 ,0 0 0

1 4 ,6 7 4

1 3 ,2 9 4

1 1 ,9 6 5
1 1 ,1 1 8

1 2 ,0 0 0

1 1 ,0 0 0

1 0 ,0 0 0

9 ,0 0 0

8 ,0 0 0

7 ,0 0 0

FY01

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY07

Page 28

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

FY07

M C
P D

Annual Report

Case Assignments by Type
M isd e m e a n o r

M e n ta l H e a lth T o ta l

5 ,5 0 0

3 ,0 0 0
5 ,1 7 7

2 ,5 4 6

4 ,9 7 4

5 ,0 0 0

2 ,5 0 0

4 ,8 7 1

2 ,4 1 0

4 ,7 3 8

2 ,2 0 3

2 ,1 6 4

2 ,0 5 4
4 ,5 0 0

2 ,0 0 0
1 ,7 7 2

1 ,6 9 0

4 ,1 7 0
4 ,0 0 0

1 ,5 0 0
3 ,7 2 4

3 ,5 0 0

1 ,0 0 0
3 ,2 3 5

3 ,0 0 0

500

2 ,5 0 0

0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY01

3 ,5 0 0

2 ,7 5 4

2 ,8 3 1

2 ,7 4 1

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

5 ,5 0 0

3 ,1 1 4

3 ,0 1 3

FY03

Ju ve n ile M isd e m e a n o r L e ve l D e lin q u e n cy &
In co rrig ib ility

Ju ve n ile F e lo n y L e ve l D e lin q u e n cy

3 ,0 0 0

FY02

2 ,7 7 7

4 ,9 6 9

5 ,0 0 0

2 ,5 2 2
2 ,5 0 0
4 ,5 0 0

4 ,4 3 5

4 ,3 4 8
4 ,1 3 0

2 ,0 0 0
4 ,0 0 0

1 ,5 0 0

3 ,8 4 4
3 ,5 0 6

3 ,5 0 0

1 ,0 0 0

4 ,2 4 4

3 ,0 0 0

500

2 ,5 0 0

2 ,0 0 0

0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY01

FY07

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Ju ve n ile V io la tio n o f P ro b a tio n
3 ,0 0 0
2 ,8 0 0

2 ,7 7 3
2 ,6 5 8

2 ,6 0 0
2 ,3 5 1

2 ,4 0 0

2 ,3 1 6

2 ,2 0 0

2 ,0 9 1

2 ,0 0 0
1 ,8 6 5
1 ,8 0 0
1 ,6 6 7
1 ,6 0 0
1 ,4 0 0
1 ,2 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Page 29

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

ABSTRACTS

Statistics

Case Assignments by Type

P le a P C R (A p p e a l P C R )

A p p e a ls (in clu d e s C a p ita l)
1 ,4 0 0

600

1 ,2 5 1

1 ,2 6 9

1 ,2 0 0

489

500

448

450

436

400

1 ,0 0 0

958

371

844

350

800

316

770

729

300

626
600

200
400

100

200

0

0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY01

FY07

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Ju ve n ile A p p e a l

T ria l P C R (P C R )
140

300

127

269

266
256

120

250

100
200

185

86
169
145

150

82

80
70

67
60

116

50

100

40

50

34

20

0

0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Page 30

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

M C
P D

FY07
Annual Report

Case Resolutions

History of Cases Resolved by Case Categories
FY01-FY07 Cases Resolved 1,2
Case Type
Capital

FY01

3

All other Homicide
Class 2-3 Felony

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

0

1

2

0

3

9

4

76

100

83

75

85

60

75

4,686

4,735

4,752

4,524

4,377

4,587

4,497

Class 2-3 Felony - RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

296

224

1,417

1,488

Class 2-3 Felony - Non RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

4,228

4,153

3,170

3,009

DUI

2,093

1,832

1,869

1,522

DUI - RCC/EDC Unkn

1,887

Unkn

Unkn

262

226

987

1,056

DUI - Non RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

1,831

1,606

882

466

Class 4-6 Felony

2,091

2,002

10,085 10,610 13,723 14,891 14,703 15,148 14,331

Class 4, 5, & 6 Felony - RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

7,197

7,076 10,123 10,327

Class 4, 5, & 6 Felony - Non RCC/EDC Unkn

Unkn

Unkn

7,694

7,627

Violation of Probation

5,025

4,004

12,308 13,455 13,612 14,729 16,243 17,452 17,153

Misdemeanor

3,085

Trial Division Total

3,373

4,025

4,321

4,100

3,359

2,904

32,127 34,365 38,199 40,633 41,343 42,484 40,486

Juvenile Felony Level Delinquency

2,844

2,868

2,497

2,550

2,451

2,949

2,569

Juvenile Misd Level Delinquency & Incorrigibility

3,430

4,302

3,527

4,151

3,776

4,226

4,403

4

2,680

2,065

2,630

2,326

1,935

1,706

1,721

Juvenile Division Total

8,954

9,235

8,654

9,027

8,162

8,881

8,693

Mental Health Divison Total

1,663

1,753

2,158

2,161

2,023

2,369

2,452

Appeals (includes Capital)

419

420

422

405

295

313

328

Plea PCR (Appeal PCR)

513

852

956

1,154

632

620

501

Trial PCR (PCR)

109

153

126

148

111

84

69

Juvenile Violation of Probation

Juvenile Appeals
Appeals Division Total
Total of All Above

146

91

60

65

71

39

32

1,187

1,516

1,564

1,772

1,109

1,056

930

43,931 46,869 50,575 53,593 52,637 54,790 52,561

1 A substantial review of historical data was made in June and July 2007. The data here has been updated to
reflect any corrections processed at that time for FY03 through FY07.
2 Total cases closed during the fiscal year, minus cases closed during the fiscal year that were not resolved
by the office directly (i.e., reduced by cases in which no complaint is filed, private counsel is retained, conflict
withdrawals, workload withdrawals, and transfers to another IR department).
3 Until FY03, capital cases were not tracked separately from other Murder 1 cases.
4 Juvenile violation of probation information is not available for dispositions of conflict withdrawal or retention of
private counsel for FY01. It is estimated, the missing data would result in approximately 83 cases (3% of total
opened). That number has been used to “normalize” the data for comparative purposes.
Unkn denotes data is not available.

Page 31

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

ABSTRACTS

Statistics

Case Resolutions by Division

T ria l D ivisio n T o ta l

Ju ve n ile D ivisio n T o ta l
9 ,4 0 0

4 5 ,0 0 0

9 ,2 3 5

4 2 ,4 8 4
4 0 ,6 3 3

9 ,2 0 0

4 1 ,3 4 3
4 0 ,4 8 6

4 0 ,0 0 0

9 ,0 2 7
9 ,0 0 0

3 8 ,1 9 9

8 ,9 5 4
8 ,8 8 1

8 ,8 0 0

8 ,6 9 3

8 ,6 5 4

3 4 ,3 6 5

3 5 ,0 0 0

8 ,6 0 0
3 2 ,1 2 7
8 ,4 0 0
3 0 ,0 0 0
8 ,1 6 2

8 ,2 0 0

8 ,0 0 0

2 5 ,0 0 0

7 ,8 0 0

2 0 ,0 0 0

7 ,6 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY01

FY07

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

M e n ta l H e a lth D ivisio n T o ta l

A p p e a ls D ivisio n T o ta l
2 ,6 0 0

1 ,9 0 0

2 ,4 5 2

1 ,7 7 2

1 ,8 0 0

2 ,3 6 9

2 ,4 0 0

1 ,7 0 0
2 ,1 5 8

2 ,2 0 0

1 ,6 0 0

2 ,1 6 1

1 ,5 6 4

2 ,0 2 3

1 ,5 1 6

2 ,0 0 0

1 ,5 0 0
1 ,8 0 0

1 ,4 0 0

1 ,7 5 3
1 ,6 6 3

1 ,3 0 0
1 ,2 0 0

1 ,6 0 0

1 ,1 8 7
1 ,4 0 0

1 ,1 0 9
1 ,1 0 0

1 ,0 5 6
1 ,2 0 0

1 ,0 0 0
930
1 ,0 0 0

900
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Page 32

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

FY07

M C
P D

Annual Report

Case Resolutions by Type
C a p ita l

A ll O th e r H o m icid e

10

110
9

9

100

100

8
7

90
85

6

83

5

80

3

3

75

70

60

60

1

1

0

0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

50
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

DUI

C la ss 2 -3 F e lo n y
2 ,2 0 0

4 ,8 0 0
4 ,7 3 5
4 ,7 0 0

75

2

2

0

76

4

4

4 ,7 5 2

2 ,0 9 3

2 ,0 9 1

4 ,6 8 6

2 ,0 0 2

2 ,0 0 0
1 ,8 8 7

1 ,8 3 2

4 ,5 8 7

4 ,6 0 0

1 ,8 6 9

1 ,8 0 0

4 ,5 2 4
4 ,4 9 7

4 ,5 0 0

1 ,6 0 0
1 ,5 2 2

4 ,4 0 0

4 ,3 7 7
1 ,4 0 0

4 ,3 0 0
1 ,2 0 0

4 ,2 0 0

1 ,0 0 0

4 ,1 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY01

FY07

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

1 8 ,0 0 0

1 6 ,0 0 0
1 4 ,8 9 1

FY07

V io la tio n o f P ro b a tio n

C la ss 4 -6 F e lo n y

1 5 ,0 0 0

FY06

1 5 ,1 4 8

1 7 ,4 5 2

1 7 ,1 5 3

1 7 ,0 0 0

1 4 ,7 0 3

1 6 ,2 4 3

1 4 ,3 3 1

1 6 ,0 0 0

1 4 ,0 0 0

1 3 ,7 2 3

1 4 ,7 2 9

1 5 ,0 0 0
1 3 ,0 0 0

1 4 ,0 0 0

1 3 ,4 5 5

1 2 ,0 0 0

1 3 ,6 1 2

1 3 ,0 0 0
1 1 ,0 0 0

1 2 ,3 0 8

1 0 ,6 1 0

1 2 ,0 0 0

1 0 ,0 8 5
1 0 ,0 0 0

1 1 ,0 0 0
9 ,0 0 0

1 0 ,0 0 0

8 ,0 0 0

9 ,0 0 0

7 ,0 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

8 ,0 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Page 33

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

ABSTRACTS

Statistics

Case Resolutions by Type
M is d e m e a n o r

M e n ta l H e a lth
3 ,0 0 0

4 ,5 0 0
4 ,3 2 1
4 ,3 0 0

2 ,5 0 0

4 ,1 0 0

4 ,1 0 0

2 ,3 6 9

4 ,0 2 5

2 ,4 5 2

2 ,1 6 1

2 ,1 5 8

2 ,0 2 3

3 ,9 0 0
2 ,0 0 0
3 ,7 0 0

1 ,7 5 3

1 ,6 6 3
1 ,5 0 0

3 ,5 0 0
3 ,3 7 3

3 ,3 5 9

3 ,3 0 0
3 ,1 0 0

1 ,0 0 0

3 ,0 8 5
2 ,9 0 4

2 ,9 0 0

500
2 ,7 0 0
0

2 ,5 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY01

FY07

J u v e n ile F e lo n y L e v e l D e lin q u e n c y

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

J u v e n ile M is d L e v e l D e lin q u e n c y & In c o rrig ib ility

3 ,5 0 0

3 ,0 0 0

FY02

5 ,0 0 0

2 ,8 4 4

2 ,9 4 9

2 ,8 6 8

4 ,5 0 0
2 ,4 9 7

2 ,5 0 0

4 ,4 0 3
4 ,3 0 2

2 ,5 6 9

2 ,5 5 0

4 ,2 2 6

4 ,1 5 1

2 ,4 5 1

4 ,0 0 0
3 ,7 7 6
2 ,0 0 0

3 ,5 0 0

3 ,5 2 7

3 ,4 3 0

1 ,5 0 0

3 ,0 0 0
1 ,0 0 0

2 ,5 0 0

500

0

2 ,0 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

J u v e n ile V io la tio n o f P ro b a tio n
2 ,8 0 0
2 ,6 8 0

2 ,6 3 0

2 ,6 0 0

2 ,4 0 0

2 ,3 2 6

2 ,2 0 0
2 ,0 6 5
2 ,0 0 0

1 ,9 3 5

1 ,8 0 0

1 ,7 0 6

1 ,7 2 1

FY06

FY07

1 ,6 0 0

1 ,4 0 0

1 ,2 0 0

1 ,0 0 0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

Page 34

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

FY07

M C
P D

Annual Report

Case Resolutions by Type

P le a P C R

A p p e a ls (in clu d e s C a p ita l)
1 ,4 0 0

450
430

419

420

422

1 ,2 0 0

1 ,1 5 4

405

410

1 ,0 0 0

390

956
852

370

800

350

632
328

330

620

600
513

501

313
310

400
295

290

200
270

0

250
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY01

FY07

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Ju ve n ile A p p e a ls

T ria l P C R
160

180

146
160

153

140

148

140

120

126
120

111

109

100

91

100
80

84
80

69

71
60

60

65

60
39

40

32

40
20

20

0

0
FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

Page 35

MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

620 West Jackson, Suite 4015
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-7711
Page 36

M A R I C O P A

C O U N T Y

P U B L I C

D E F E N D E R ' S

O F F I C E