Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center Publication Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona FY 2015 Fill the Gap Report January 2016 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Chairperson BILL MONTGOMERY Maricopa County Attorney Vice-Chairperson DAVID K. BYERS, Director Administrative Office of the Courts JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff MARK BRNOVICH Attorney General JOE R. BRUGMAN, Chief Safford Police Department KELLY “KC” CLARK Navajo County Sheriff SEAN DUGGAN, Chief Chandler Police Department CHRIS GIBBS, Mayor City of Safford DREW JOHN Graham County Supervisor ELLEN KIRSCHBAUM, Chairperson Board of Executive Clemency BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney FRANK MILSTEAD, Director Department of Public Safety SHEILA POLK Yavapai County Attorney CHARLES RYAN, Director Department of Corrections DAVID SANDERS Pima County Chief Probation Officer HESTON SILBERT Law Enforcement Leader VACANT Chief of Police VACANT Sheriff VACANT Former Judge JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director MATTHEW BILESKI, M.A. Statistical Analysis Center Senior Research Analyst ALEXANDER LOPEZ Statistical Analysis Center Intern Arizona Criminal Justice Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3 FILL THE GAP FUNDS LEGISLATION ............................................................................... 3 ARIZONA CASE TIMELINES ............................................................................................. 5 RESEARCH METHODS ....................................................................................................... 5 Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) ................................................................... 5 REPORT LAYOUT............................................................................................................... 6 APACHE COUNTY .............................................................................................................. 7 COCHISE COUNTY .......................................................................................................... 11 COCONINO COUNTY ....................................................................................................... 15 GILA COUNTY ................................................................................................................. 19 GRAHAM COUNTY ........................................................................................................... 23 GREENLEE COUNTY ........................................................................................................ 26 LA PAZ COUNTY .............................................................................................................. 30 MARICOPA COUNTY ....................................................................................................... 34 MOHAVE COUNTY ........................................................................................................... 39 NAVAJO COUNTY ............................................................................................................ 43 PIMA COUNTY................................................................................................................. 47 PINAL COUNTY ............................................................................................................... 52 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY .................................................................................................... 56 YAVAPAI COUNTY .......................................................................................................... 60 YUMA COUNTY ................................................................................................................ 64 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 68 ACJC Recommendations .................................................................................................. 68 APPENDIX A: Arizona Fill the Gap Balances, Revenues and Expenditures................. 70 APPENDIX B: Summary of the Use of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds in FY2015 ................. 72 APPENDIX C: Arizona Revised Statutes Authorizing Fill the Gap Funding ................. 73 APPENDIX D: Arizona Supreme Court Rules Outlining Court Case Processing .......... 80 FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Arizona Criminal Justice Commission EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the 1990s, Arizona’s growing population, in combination with increased funding for law enforcement, resulted in a larger volume of cases processed through the courts. To keep pace with the increase in cases, State Fill the Gap (FTG) legislation was introduced to fund prosecutors, indigent defense agencies and the courts with general fund appropriations and fine revenues. The purpose of these funds is to reduce case processing times in each county and statewide. In 1999, the passage of Senate Bill 1013 assigned the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) the responsibility of administering the State Aid to County Attorneys Fund and the State Aid to Indigent Defense Fund. The formula for distributing these State Fill the Gap (FTG) funds to each county is based on the average of cases filed in superior court over a three-year period and the population of each county. Along with the Commission’s fiduciary responsibilities, A.R.S. §412409 requires ACJC to report annually on each agency’s State FTG fund expenditures and their progress toward improving criminal case processing. The Arizona Supreme Court established case processing standards through Supreme Court Rule 8.2, requiring that felony cases (excluding capital cases and complex cases) be adjudicated within 180 days of arraignment, or 150 days for in-custody defendants. Time exclusions include continuances for exceptional circumstances, cases requiring lengthy trial preparations, determination of a defendant’s mental competency or disability, absence or incompetence of the defendant, probable cause remanding, disclosure time extensions, trial calendar delays, certain joinder of trials, setting a transfer hearing and the inability to take the accused into custody (see Appendix D). In January 2015, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted standards proposed by the Steering Committee on Arizona Case Processing Standards. These standards require 65 percent of felony cases to be disposed within 90 days, 85 percent within 180 days and 96 percent within 365 days. General fund appropriations were eliminated in FY2010, and budgetary adjustments redirected a total of $1,500,100 in FY2015 from the State Aid to Indigent Defense fund ($800,100 to the Arizona Attorney General for the Capital Post-Conviction Prosecution Program and $700,000 to the Arizona Department of Public Safety for operating expenses). As a result of these budgetary adjustments to the State FTG program, county attorneys were the only agencies to receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2015 totaling $973,600. According to information provided by the county attorneys, the total of $813,050 in FY2015 expenditures was spent on the following: salaries, fringe, and overtime ($741,441); equipment ($1,750); contractual services ($25,761); case management software ($24,450); travel expenses ($1,187); and other (i.e. operating, supplies, etc.) expenditures ($18,459). Of the $1,764 in State FTG funding carried over by indigent defense agencies to FY2015, $1,189 was spent by the Mohave County Legal Defender for equipment, supplies, and other operating expenses. A total of $594 in State FTG funding will be carried over by indigent defense agencies into FY2016. While no county attorney nor indigent defense agency reported 100 percent felony cases adjudicated within 180 days, some agencies – Cochise County Public and Legal Defender’s Offices, Greenlee County Attorney’s Office, Greenlee County Superior Court, and Maricopa County Public Defense Services – reported adjudicating at least 85 percent of cases within 180 days. According to the county attorney statistics, eight agencies had an increase in 180-day felony case adjudication from FY2014 to FY2015, despite an increase in reported felony case filings from FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 1 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 39,170 in FY2014 to 47,742 in FY2015. A total of six counties had indigent defense agencies reporting improved 180-day felony case processing from FY2014 to FY2015. Unfortunately, a small number of agencies were unable to report case processing statistics because their case management systems lack the ability to track the requested case processing information. According to the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) repository, the processing of felony charges from arrest through disposition date within 90 days improved within eight Arizona counties from FY2009 to FY2015. A total of seven counties improved felony charges processing within 180 days during this same period. Data included all arrest and disposition information available in the ACCH as of July 2015. Recommendations for improving case processing include the following: establishment of expenditure guidelines; the restoration of funding for indigent defense agencies; the creation of agency-specific strategic plans; the upgrading of case management systems that assist all agencies in the collection of standard case processing statistics; and identifying agency and county best practices that result in improvements in case processing and incorporate a collaborative approach across agencies. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 2 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission INTRODUCTION In 1999, Arizona Senate Bill 1013 (Forty-Fourth Legislature, First Regular Session, Laws 1999, Chapter 346), that became known as State Fill the Gap (FTG) legislation, was passed into law. Senate Bill 1013 created three separate funds to be used by three stakeholders in the case disposition process to improve criminal case processing: county attorneys, public/indigent defense and the courts. These three entities have received State FTG funds from legislative appropriations and from fines, fees, penalties, and surcharges collected from offenders by the Arizona Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and county and local courts. The monies are dispersed according to a formula based on each county’s population and a three-year average of county superior court criminal case filings. Per A.R.S. §41-2409, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) is responsible for administering the funds for the county attorneys and indigent defense agencies across Arizona. Fill the Gap legislation was enacted to address the increasing number of cases processed in the court system caused by the rising Arizona population and an increase in law enforcement resources in the 1990s. Most recently, Arizona’s population increased 1.3 percent from 6,581,054 on July 1, 2013 to 6,667,241 on July 1, 2014, and the number of Superior Court felony case filings statewide was 51,089 in FY2014, an increase of 8.7 percent from 46,981 cases filed in FY2013.1,2 State FTG funding is expected to improve case processing times, to assist counties in meeting case processing standards established by the Arizona Supreme Court and to minimize the impact that population growth and increased felony filings has on the criminal justice system. As required by A.R.S. §41-2409, this report addresses the ACJC’s statutory mandate to report on expenditures of the State FTG funds and resulting improvements to felony case processing. The report provides an explanation of the FTG program including statutory authority, the appropriation formulas and designated current and prior fund recipients. The report also presents funding balances, allocations, and expenditures by organization, case processing data and information and recommendations on how to improve the State Fill the Gap program. FILL THE GAP FUNDS LEGISLATION The Arizona Legislature created the State Aid to County Attorneys Fund (A.R.S. §11-539), the State Aid to Indigent Defense Fund (A.R.S. §11-588), and the State Aid to the Courts Fund (A.R.S. §12-102.02) in 1999 to provide funding for prosecutors, indigent defense and courts to bring case processing times in line with Arizona Supreme Court standards. Six statutes govern the collection, administration and reporting of State FTG funds. The formula for State FTG funding is outlined in A.R.S. §41-2421 and A.R.S. §12-116.01. According to A.R.S. §41-2421, five percent of certain “filing fees, including clerk fees, diversion fees, fines, penalties, surcharges, sanctions and forfeitures” collected by the Arizona Supreme Court and appellate courts is allocated to the State FTG funds according to the following formula: 1 July 1, 2013 Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, Incorporated Places and Unincorporated Balance of Counties. (2015, November 30). Retrieved from https://population.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/pop- estimates2013-04pla.pdf. July 1, 2014 Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, Incorporated Places and Unincorporated Balance of Counties. (2015, November 30). Retrieved from https://population.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/pop-estimates2014-04pla.pdf. 2 Superior Court Narrative Summary. (2015, November 30). Retrieved from http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/39/2014DR/Superior Court.pdf#page=3. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 3 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission     21.61 percent to the State Aid to County Attorneys Fund; 20.53 percent to the State Aid to Indigent Defense Fund; 57.37 percent to the State Aid to the Courts Fund; and 0.49 percent to the Department of Law for the processing of criminal cases. As described in A.R.S. §12-116.01.B, a seven percent surcharge is collected on all criminal fines, penalties, and forfeitures, on traffic and vehicular penalties, fines, and forfeitures, and on game and fish Title 17 statute violations. Funds from the seven percent surcharge are distributed as follows:       15.44 percent to the State Aid to County Attorneys Fund; 14.66 percent to the State Aid to Indigent Defense Fund; 40.97 percent to the State Aid to the Courts Fund; 0.35 percent to the Department of Law for the processing of criminal cases; 14.29 percent to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission for distribution to full service forensic crime laboratories; and 14.29 percent to the Arizona Supreme Court for allocation to the municipal courts. ACJC administers the portion of the funds allocated to the State Aid to the County Attorneys Fund and the State Aid to the Indigent Defense Fund while the Arizona Supreme Court administers the portion of the funds allocated to the State Aid to the Courts Fund. This report provides data and information regarding the funds administered exclusively by ACJC. In FY2015, State FTG funds in the amount of $973,600 were allocated to the State Aid to County Attorneys Fund while no funds were allocated to the State Aid to Indigent Defense Fund. The ACJC-administered FTG funds are distributed according to formulas established in A.R.S. §412409 (Figure 1). Funds were distributed to the county attorneys based on each county’s threeyear average of felony case filings and the county’s annual population, as reported by the Arizona Department of Economic Security. Figure 1: ACJC Fill the Gap Fund Formula FY2015 Step 1: County’s Felony Filings in Superior Court: Total Year 1 + Total Year 2 + Total Year 3 = 3 Year County Total 3 Year County Total ÷ 3 = 3 Year Average County Felony Filings Statewide Felony Filings in All Superior Courts: Total Year 1 + Total Year 2 + Total Year 3 = 3 Year Statewide Total 3 Year Statewide Total ÷ 3 = 3 Year Average Statewide Felony Filings 3 Year Average County Felony Filings ÷ 3 Year Average Statewide Felony Filings = Step 1 Result Step 2: County Population ÷ Statewide Population = Step 2 Result Step 3: ( Step 1 Result + Step 2 Result ) ÷ 2 = Composite Index a a Composite Index used as a county multiplier across Fill the Gap funds to determine county fund distribution. In FY2015, six counties – Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties – experienced a decrease in funding from FY2014 due to the FTG formula. Funding changes from FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 4 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission FY2014 to FY2015 allocation totals ranged from a decrease of 12.9 percent in La Paz County to an increase of 15.0 percent in Pinal County. ARIZONA CASE TIMELINES Case processing standards are established by the Arizona Supreme Court. Arizona Supreme Court Rules of Criminal Procedure set the time limitations for trial cases. According to the A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 8.2, cases involving felony defendants in custody are given up to 150 days from arraignment to conclude, and cases involving out-of-custody felony defendants are given up to 180 days for adjudication. Any complex cases are given up to 270 days, capital cases are given up to two years, and as outlined in A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure Rules 8.4 and 8.5, excluded periods and continuances must be excluded from the time clock calculations. Exceptions to these time limitations include the following: cases with continuances due to extraordinary circumstances and delays resulting from the defendant’s absence or efforts to determine mental competency; disclosure extensions; remand for new probable cause determinations; busy court calendars; trial joinders; and Rule 40 transfer hearings. As of January 1, 2015, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted the case processing standards outlined by the Steering Committee on Arizona Case Processing Standards. Administrative Order No. 201481 assigned the following felony case processing standards:    65 percent reaching disposition within 90 days; 85 percent reaching disposition within 180 days; and 96 percent reaching disposition within 365 days. Time exclusions in the processing of felony cases includes warrants, pre-adjudication diversions and special actions/appeals and Rule 11 cases. RESEARCH METHODS The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) developed an annual reporting form and financial report for capturing State FTG expenditures in FY2015, criminal case processing improvements resulting from the funding, case processing statistics and comments on any issues encountered relating to case processing throughout the fiscal year. Data from the reporting documents were compiled and analyzed by county to identify common spending priorities, funding balances, improvements in data gathering and reporting practices and case processing highlights and challenges that agencies face, especially among indigent defense agencies that did not receive funding in FY2015. It is important to note that case processing statistics may vary between the county prosecutor and indigent defense agencies as well as across counties. County prosecutors typically use the filing date as the initial start date of a felony case while public defenders will typically use the date of assignment to cases requiring indigent defense services. Also, many agencies across the state use unique case management systems to track case processing statistics. This greatly limits the standardization of case processing statistics across the state. Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 5 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Data captured by the agencies are often not comparable across agencies, and in some cases, not comparable across years because of annual adjustments made to the collection and reporting methods. For this reason, SAC staff analyzed county case processing times using adjudicated felony charges (excluding first degree homicide charges) available in the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) repository, maintained by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). The date of initial arrest on a specific felony charge was used as a proxy for the arraignment date. The date of case disposition finalization was used as the adjudication date. The case processing data includes the following disposition findings: guilty verdicts; nolo contendere pleas; pleas to other charges; deferred sentencing; deferred prosecution; acquittals; court dismissals; and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Any appellate court findings are excluded from analysis, since original court dates are overwritten by the appellate court dates. Data for each fiscal year is standardized to include the previous eight years of arrest charges. As a result, every charge is given at least 180 days for disposition completion by the time the DPS extract was pulled in July 2015. For example, the arrest charge for a FY2009 adjudication must have occurred between calendar years 2001 and 2008. Previous research conducted by the SAC revealed that 44.3 percent of calendar year 2013 felony arrest charges entered into the ACCH by December 31, 2014 were missing subsequent disposition information in the ACCH by the end of calendar year 2014.3 Standardizing the data is necessary to assure reliable measurement for trend analyses. Also important to note, is that the ACCH analyses include any and all time delays (e.g., warrant status, court delays, trial continuances, diversion, etc.) that by Arizona Supreme Court rules should be excluded from case processing time measures. While there are limitations to using ACCH data to analyze case processing times, this process provides a uniform measurement tool for each county. Thus, the ACCH tables should be used to gauge overall changes in case processing times in each county and across fiscal years rather than an exact measurement of case processing timeframes, per Arizona Supreme Court rules. REPORT LAYOUT This report is organized by Arizona county profiles. Each county section of this report begins with a brief summary of the county populations, followed by a financial breakdown of ACJC FTG balances, allocations and expenditures. Summaries are provided to describe how the county attorneys and indigent defense agencies used existing funds to improve case processing times. Finally, self-reported agency case processing statistics and criminal history record repository (ACCH) case processing statistics are analyzed. Appendix A provides a breakdown of fund balances, allocations, funds received, and expenditures by county attorney offices and indigent defense agencies. Appendix B provides a statewide summary list of FTG expenditures reported during FY2015. Appendices C and D include the Arizona Revised Statutes and Supreme Court Rules relevant to the ACJC-administered portion of the State Fill the Gap Program. 3 Bileski, Matt. (2015, May 1). Completeness of Criminal History Records in Arizona, CY 2004-2013. (November 30, 2015). Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/Completeness%20of%20Criminal%20History%20Records%20in%20Arizona, %20CY2003-2012.pdf. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 6 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Apache County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 71,868 0.9% 1.1% St. Johns 7 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Apache County In FY2015, the Apache County Attorney’s Office funding allocation increased by 7.5 percent from FY2013 to FY2014. The Attorney’s Office was allocated a total of $8,168 in ACJC FTG funds, but only $6,126 was made available to the County Attorney during the fiscal year. The Apache County Superior Court did not receive FTG funds in FY2015 for indigent defense services. Table 1. Apache County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Apache County Attorney’s Office $7,596 $8,168 7.5% Apache County Superior Court $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 2. Apache County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Apache County Attorney’s Office $7,641.50 $6,126.00b $0.00 ($13,500.00) $267.50 Apache County Superior Court $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Chart 1. Apache County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $18,000.00 $16,000.00 Fund Revenues $14,000.00 $12,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Apache County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Apache County Superior Court 8 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Apache County Attorney’s Office During FY2015, the Apache County Attorney’s Office used ACJC FTG funds to support a portion of the software cost to migrate to a new case management system, PROSECUTORbyKarpel developed by Karpel Solutions. While the County Attorney reported improved case processing of felony cases adjudicated, the agency did acknowledge that defense attorneys struggled to keep up with expedited case processing. According to the County Attorney, defense attorneys needed continuances for plea agreements, investigations and defense interviews. According to data provided by the Apache County Attorney’s Office, the reported percentage of felony case filings adjudicated within 180 days increased from 50.0 percent in FY2014 to 66.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 3). This is the highest percentage adjudicated within 180 days since 68.0 percent reported in FY2011. A total of 393 felony cases were filed in FY2015, a decrease of 7.7 percent from FY2014. In FY2015, the 180-day adjudication rate included time on warrant status. Table 3. Apache County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Adult Felony Cases Except Appeals and Probation Revocations FY2009a FY2010b FY2011b FY2012b FY2013b FY2014b FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a b 67.0% 65.0% 68.0% 52.0% 59.0% 50.0% 66.0% 253 245 315 440 356 426 393 FY2009 cases include probation revocation and appeals cases. FY2010 thru FY2014 cases exclude time on warrant status. Apache County Indigent Defense The Apache County Superior Court did not receive FY2015 Fill the Gap funds to provide additional support for indigent defense, and the court carried over a zero balance from FY2014. The superior court also reported that local funding cuts continue to hamper case processing efforts in FY2015. Reductions in funding in combination with rising costs for contracted indigent defense attorneys, private investigators, interpreters and experts were also reported as negatively impacting case processing. In addition, the superior court also reported that a growing number of defendants also require psychiatric and/or psychological evaluations, adding to court services costs. The court did recognize efforts to clean up data entered into the system to improve the monitoring of cases through the courts and to provide more accurate statistics. Table 4. Apache County Superior Court Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Filed in FY2015 Except for Warrant Status Cases, Cases Involving Appeals, Diversion Cases, Probation Violation Cases, and Cases of Mental Competency Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a FY2009a FY2010 No Data 51.6% Provided No Data 213 Provided FY2011 No Data Provided FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 67.6% 60.7% 73.8% 67.5% 220 299 271 275 237 Probation violation cases were reportedly included in the FY2009 data. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 9 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission In FY2015, the Apache County Superior Court reported that 67.5 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing (see Table 4). This was a decrease from 73.8 percent reported in FY2014. Felony case filings fell from 275 in FY2014 to 237 in FY2015. ACCH Case Processing Statistics for Apache County According to data compiled from the ACCH repository in July 2015, rates of felony charges adjudicated within 90 and 180 days of arrest increased from FY2009 to FY2015 (see Table 5). Adjudications within 90 days rose from a low of 8.2 percent in FY2009 to 17.5 percent in FY2015. The percentage adjudicated within 180 days also increased from 26.8 percent to 43.3 percent over the same period. It is important to note that the total number of arrest counts resulting in felony adjudications and entered into the ACCH fell 86.1 percent from 698 in FY2009 to 97 in FY2015. Table 5. Apache County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2015 Fill the Gap Report FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 273 227 182 218 202 153 300 8.2% 9.2% 18.8% 11.4% 14.7% 26.5% 17.5% 26.8% 29.9% 49.9% 37.8% 39.9% 62.8% 43.3% 698 1,144 579 638 696 438 97 10 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Cochise County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 129,628 2.5% 1.9% Bisbee 11 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Cochise County In FY2015, the Cochise County Attorney’s Office was allocated $16,460 in FTG funds, a one percent increase from FY2014. The Attorney’s Office received $12,345 of the total allocation during the fiscal year. The Cochise County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 6. Cochise County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Cochise County Attorney’s Office $16,294 $16,460 1.0% Cochise County Public Defender’s Office $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 7. Cochise County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Cochise County Attorney’s Office $17,958.38 $12,345.00b $115.38 ($6,365.22) $24,053.54 Cochise County Public Defender’s Office $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Chart 2. Cochise County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $35,000.00 Fund Revenues $30,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Cochise County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Cochise County Public Defender's Office 12 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Cochise County Attorney’s Office In FY2015, Fill the Gap funds were used by the Cochise County Attorney’s Office to partially fund staff salaries and fringe benefits. According to the County Attorney, these funds are essential in supporting personnel positions that reduce the burden on attorney caseloads, and at least one position would be at risk if State FTG funds were no longer available. The agency continued to recognize the successes made through the Early Resolution Court (ERC). More than half of felony cases are closed through the ERC within a five- to six-week period from initial appearance. In FY2015, the Cochise County Attorney’s Office reported that 68.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing, a decrease from 71.0 percent reported in FY2014 (see Table 8). The percentage of felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing have decreased since the 72.0 percent reported in FY2009. The total number of felony cases filed has increased since FY2013, and the total increased 13.5 percent from 584 in FY2014 to 663 in FY2015. Table 8. Cochise County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Indicted or Direct Information Felony Cases Filed Which Closed in FY2015 Except Warrant and Adult Diversion Cases FY2009a FY2010 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 72.0% 76.0% 78.0% 71.0% 68.0% 71.0% 68.0% 758 827 859 781 581 584 663 Adult diversion cases were reportedly included in the FY2009 statistics. Cochise County Indigent Defense The Cochise County Public Defender’s Office and Legal Defender’s Department did not receive FY2015 ACJC FTG funds, and both agencies carried over a zero balance from FY2014. Lack of ACJC FTG funding for indigent defense was cited as creating an imbalance in available resources when considering funding available to prosecution and the courts. Also affecting case processing were staff turnover and vacancies. The Public Defender continued to participate in the county’s Criminal Justice Task Force and the ERC. The Task Force is devoted to collaboration, efficiency and improving the administration of justice throughout the county. The Public Defender also participated in the Court Assisted Recovery (CARe) diversion program, a program that focused on serving the needs of veterans and other misdemeanor defendants with mental illness or substance abuse issues. The Cochise County Public Defender’s Office reported that 94.0 percent of all felony cases from FY2015 were adjudicated within 180 days of arraignment, the highest percentage reported over the seven-year period (see Table 9). The total number of felony cases filed fell from 362 in FY2009 to 270 in FY2015. The Cochise County Legal Defender’s Department reported in FY2015 that 93.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing, the same percentage reported in FY2014 (see Table 10). The Legal Defender’s Department experienced an increase in felony case filings from 123 in FY2009 to 230 in FY2015. Both indigent defense agencies met the 180-day case processing time standard established by the Arizona Supreme Court in January 2015. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 13 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Table 9. Cochise County Public Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Superior Court Felony Cases Concluded in FY2015 Except Bench Warrants, Diversion, Complex Cases, Probation Revocations, Withdrawals and Appeals. FY2009a FY2010a Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 94.0% 362 395 404 385 233 265 270 Failed diversion cases were included in FY2009 and FY2010 statistics. Table 10. Cochise County Legal Defender’s Department Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Superior Court Felony Cases Concluded in FY2015 Except Bench Warrants, Diversion, Probation Revocations, Withdrawals and Appeals. FY2009a FY2010a FY2011 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 71.0% 89.0% 90.0% 88.0% 92.0% 93.0% 93.0% 123 223 245 254 200 210 230 Failed diversion cases were included in FY2009 and FY2010 statistics. ACCH Case Processing Statistics for Cochise County ACCH data for Cochise County reveal that the percentage of felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of arrest decreased from 52.7 percent in FY2009 to 44.4 percent in FY2015 (see Table 11). Felony charges adjudicated within 90 days, however, increased from 8.5 percent in FY2009 to 20.9 percent in FY2015. Felony case adjudications rose 93.4 percent to 1,702 in FY2015. Table 11. Cochise County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2015 Fill the Gap Report FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 179 186 178 232 249 282 196 8.5% 11.4% 28.7% 17.8% 17.8% 18.2% 20.9% 52.7% 48.2% 50.7% 34.7% 36.0% 37.2% 44.4% 880 1,269 1,900 2,398 1,855 1,603 1,702 14 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Coconino County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 139,372 8.1% 2.1% Flagstaff 15 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Coconino County In FY2015, the Coconino County Attorney’s Office received a total of $19,008 in ACJC FTG funds, an increase of 2.4 percent from FY2014. The County Attorney’s Office received a total of $14,256 in FY2015 due to a fine revenue shortage for the 4th quarter allocation. The Coconino County Superior Court did not receive FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015 for indigent defense services. Table 12. Coconino County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Coconino County Attorney’s Office $18,562 $19,008 2.4% Coconino County Superior Court $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 13. Coconino County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Coconino County Attorney’s Office $0.00 $14,256.00b $0.00 ($19,008.00)c $0.00 Coconino County Superior Court $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b c Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Agencies encumbered the 4th Quarter allocation during FY2015 in anticipation of receipt of funds. Chart 3. Coconino County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 Fund Revenues $30,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Coconino County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Coconino County Superior Court 16 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Coconino County Attorney’s Office The Coconino County Attorney’s Office utilized FTG funds in FY2015 to support the partial salary of one deputy county attorney position. The County Attorney continued to participate in the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and the Felony Task Force. Despite efforts to improve case processing, the agency identified the following case processing complications beyond the agency’s control: 1) management of court division calendars; 2) newly-appointed judges and reduced coordination across court divisions; and 3) delays and continuances set forth by defense counsel. The Coconino County Attorney’s Office reported that in FY2015 51.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of the filing date or arraignment date (see Table 14). This percentage was a drop from 89.0 percent reported in FY2009. Felony cases filed also decreased from a high of 1,447 filings reported in FY2009 to a low of 735 filings reported in FY2015. Table 14. Coconino County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Arraigned in FY2015 Excluding Days on Warrant Status FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 89.0% 78.0% 73.0% 68.0% 52.0% 50.0% 51.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 1,447 884 967 1,082 805 978 735 Coconino County Indigent Defense The Coconino County Superior Court did not receive State FTG funds in FY2015. In addition, the court reported a balance of $0.00 in available Fill the Gap funds at the beginning of the fiscal year. The Superior Court also noted a number of factors negatively impacting case processing, including: 1) defendants with additional pending charges or multiple open cases that are time consuming to consolidate into one court division; 2) increased complexity of Superior Court felony cases requiring longer judicial times; 3) delays in the plea process due to priors or seriousness of offenses; 4) slow processing of evidence from law enforcement and the crime labs; 5) continuances resulting from delays in discovery and high volumes of victims/restitution; and 6) limited providers for Rule 11 and Rule 26.5 evaluations. Table 15. Coconino County Superior Court Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Criminal Cases Involving a Felony Charge FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 85.0% 82.0% 68.0% 73.0% 66.0% 68.0% 70.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 1,070 986 851 723 906 924 1,030 The Coconino County Superior Court reported an increase in felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing from 68.0 percent in FY2014 to 70.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 15). Nonetheless, this was a drop in the 180-day adjudication rate from 85.0 percent reported in FY2009. The Superior Court observed recent increases in the total number of case filings from a low of 723 in FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 17 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission FY2012 to 1,030 in FY2015. The total number of FY2015 filings is not as high as the 1,070 felony filings reported in FY2009. ACCH Case Processing Statistics for Coconino County According to ACCH data for Coconino County, the percentage of felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of arrest fell from 37.9 percent in FY2009 to 21.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 16). Charges adjudicated within 90 days also decreased from 13.5 percent in FY2009 to 3.9 percent in FY2015. Despite a 38.5 percent increase from FY2014, the total number felony case adjudications during the fiscal year reduced from 2,277 in FY2009 to 1,219 in FY2015. Table 16. Coconino County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2015 Fill the Gap Report FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 220 255 270 215 247 306 347 13.5% 12.3% 8.4% 11.1% 8.5% 9.0% 3.9% 37.9% 34.5% 25.8% 41.7% 32.0% 23.5% 21.0% 2,277 1,533 1,726 1,517 1,757 880 1,219 18 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Gila County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 54,219 3.2% 0.8% Globe 19 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Gila County In FY2015, the Gila County Attorney’s Office was allocated $9,176 - a 7.7 percent decrease from FY2014. The County Attorney’s Office received $6,882 within the fiscal year due to a delay in the 4th quarter allocation. Gila County Superior Court did not receive ACJC FTG funds to support indigent defense over the previous four fiscal years. Table 17. Gila County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Gila County Attorney’s Office $9,941 $9,176 -7.7% Gila County Superior Court $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 18. Gila County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Gila County Attorney’s Office $57,105.85 $6,882.00b $402.66 ($0.00) $64,390.51 Gila County Superior Court $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Chart 4. Gila County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 Fund Revenues $16,000.00 $14,000.00 $12,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Gila County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Gila County Superior Court 20 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Gila County Attorney’s Office In FY2015, the Gila County Attorney’s Office did not expend State FTG funds. The County Attorney had a total of $64,390.51 available by the end of FY2015. The agency reported a need to upgrade their case management system, along with computer equipment and software for improved case tracking and custom report generation. The Attorney’s Office plans to use available funds for these upgrades in the near future. The office collaborated with county law enforcement agencies as well as the Clerk of the Courts to obtain agency reports, evidentiary materials and minute entries electronically for assistance in the charging and prosecution of cases. The County Attorney acknowledged that staff shortages and outdated equipment/software have negatively impacted case processing, along with an inability to obtain follow-up from law enforcement. The Gila County Attorney’s Office reported a decrease in the 180-day adjudication rate from 79.0 percent in FY2014 to 65.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 19). The rate decrease could possibly be the result of new reporting practices that include warrant status cases and deferred prosecution cases in FY2015. The County Attorney’s Office filed a total of 512 felony cases during FY2015, an increase of 48.8 percent from 344 reported in FY2014. Table 19. Gila County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Filed in FY2015 FY2009a FY2010b FY2011c FY2012c FY2013c FY2014c FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 95.0% 90.0% 60.0% 80.0% 83.0% 79.0% 65.0% 685 607 599 308 447 344 512 Total Felony Cases Filed a b c Cases in FY2009 specifically excluded appeals, warrants, deferred cases, and homicides. Cases in FY2010 only excluded petitions for probation revocation, appeals, and diversion cases. Cases in FY2011 thru FY2014 excluded cases on warrant status and deferred prosecution. Gila County Indigent Defense The Gila County Superior Court did not receive FY2015 ACJC FTG funds. Also, the agency reported a zero balance in ACJC FTG funds at the start of FY2015. The Superior Court highlighted two efforts during the fiscal year that were expected to improve case processing. One effort was the tagging of certain class six felonies as “early disposition cases,” or cases eligible for expedited processing within the court. The Superior Court marked these cases in the court calendar, and the court would then process these cases with limited continuances and more involved hearings. The second effort was to eliminate multiple defendants within a single case. Unique case numbers per defendant allowed for the court to close a case on a defendant without having to wait for an additional defendant’s sentencing at a later time. Finally, the caseflow manager held monthly trial meetings with calendar administrators, judges and the judicial assistants to assign cases. The Superior Court commented on certain events that negatively impacted case processing. Some defendants had multiple cases, and new charges were added when a case was nearing resolution. Also, a number of Notices of Change of Judge were filed within the county effectively delaying the case processing to get the new judge acquainted with the cases. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 21 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Table 20. Gila County Superior Court Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Adjudicated by Sentencing or Dismissal and Consolidated Cases FY2009a FY2010 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 73.8% 65.4% 57.1% 56.2% 53.7% 47.3% 37.0% 685 733 620 614 562 461 651 Cases in FY2009 excluded bench warrants, deferred prosecution time, Rule 11 cases, and special action cases. The Gila County Superior Court reported a steady decrease in the 180-day felony case adjudication rate from 65.4 percent of all adjudications in FY2010 to 37.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 20). Despite a 41.2 percent increase in felony case filings from FY2014, the total number of felony cases filed decreased from 733 in FY2010 to 651 in FY2015. Certain cases were excluded in the rate calculation and filings total in FY2009, so these statistics are excluded in the trend analysis. Case Processing Statistics for Gila County The ACCH data for Gila County show that the percentage of felony case adjudications finalized within 180 days of arrest rose from 16.8 percent in FY2009 to 19.9 percent in FY2015 (see Table 21). Felony adjudications completed within 90 days also increased from 3.1 percent in FY2009 to 3.6 percent in FY2015. The total number of arrest charges resulting in felony case adjudications increased from 953 in FY2009 to 1,249 in FY2015. Table 21. Gila County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2015 Fill the Gap Report FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 379 290 307 301 291 248 346 3.1% 5.3% 3.3% 5.9% 6.2% 7.0% 3.6% 16.8% 25.0% 18.2% 24.0% 20.7% 24.1% 19.9% 953 932 1,355 1,327 1,061 1,201 1,249 22 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Graham County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 38,315 12.1% 0.6% Safford 23 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Graham County In FY2015, the Graham County Attorney’s Office received a total of $6,984 in ACJC FTG funds, a decrease of 2.7 percent from FY2014. Due to fine revenue shortages for the 4th quarter allocation, funds received by the Attorney’s Office in FY2015 came to $5,238. The Graham County Superior Court did not receive ACJC FTG funds to support indigent defense in FY2015. Table 22. Graham County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Graham County Attorney’s Office $7,179 $6,984 -2.7% Graham County Superior Court $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 23. Graham County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Graham County Attorney’s Office $6,946.16 $5,238.00b $38.53 ($2,916.34) $9,306.35 Graham County Superior Court $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Chart 5. Graham County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $12,000.00 Fund Revenues $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Graham County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Graham County Superior Court 24 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Graham County Attorney’s Office The Graham County Attorney’s Office obtained a wireless presenter, one chair, a printer and a label printer along with other supplies with ACJC FTG funds. Available ACJC FTG funds were also used to pay the maintenance fee for the agency’s case management system, Time Matters. The new equipment and supplies helped to maintain efficiencies within the office, and the case management system assisted in the tracking of cases and kept a record of attorneys assigned to certain cases. Remaining funds will be used for additional computers and other equipment necessary to improve case processing in the future. The County Attorney continued to scan files into the case management system for ease of access to important documents, and the scanners were also used to email disclosures to the defense attorneys. Law enforcement agencies disclosed items in a timely manner to defense counsel and the prosecutors, including body camera videos via Evidence.com. According to the County Attorney’s Office, the percentage of felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing in FY2015 was 58.0 percent, a reduction from 73.0 percent reported in FY2009 (see Table 24). Felony case filings also fell over this period from 507 filings in FY2009 to 390 filings in FY2015. It is important to note that in FY2011 the agency began pulling data from the agency’s case management system, while prior years’ data were collected from the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts. Table 24. Graham County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Criminal Felony Cases Filed in the Superior Courts Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 73.0% 76.4% 100.0% 100.0% 67.0% 72.0% 58.0% 507 449 456 427 391 406 390 Graham County Indigent Defense The Graham County Superior Court did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2015, and the agency’s FTG fund balance remained at $0.00. The agency reported that lack of state funding placed the burden on the county to limit resources elsewhere to provide sufficient funds for indigent defense counsel. The agency did note that any future funding would be used to provide quality legal services to defendants in the court system and to improve caseload efficiency. During FY2015, the Superior Court lost a presiding judge to retirement, and case processing delays ensued while a successor was chosen. In FY2015, the court reported that 69.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days (see Table 25). This was a decrease from the 72.8 percent of felony adjudications reported in FY2009. The total number of felony cases filed also fell from 528 in FY2009 to 411 in FY2015. The Graham County Superior Court was unable to provide case processing statistics from FY2011 to FY2013, because these data were not available in their case management system. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 25 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Table 25. Graham County Superior Court Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Criminal Felony Cases Filed in Superior Court Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed FY2009 FY2010 72.8% 76.4% 528 520 FY2011 No Data Provided FY2012 No Data Provided FY2013 No Data Provided FY2014 FY2015 72.0% 69.0% 456 433 447 406 411 Case Processing Statistics for Graham County Data from the ACCH indicate that the percentage of felony case adjudications finalized within 180 days of arrest in Graham County rose from 27.0 percent in FY2009 to 28.4 percent in FY2015 (see Table 26). Also in FY2015, 8.5 percent of felony case adjudications were finalized within 90 days. The number of arrest charges resulting in felony case adjudications remained stable at 942 in FY2009 and 946 in FY2015. Table 26. Graham County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 263 261 256 215 234 273 276 7.6% 5.5% 7.8% 9.2% 5.7% 6.7% 8.5% 27.0% 26.9% 30.5% 37.8% 32.5% 27.0% 28.4% 942 871 898 892 1,061 831 946 Greenlee County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 26 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: 10,476 27.4% 0.2% Clifton ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Greenlee County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 27 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission In FY2015, the Greenlee County Attorney’s Office was allocated a total of $1,476 in ACJC FTG funds, an increase of 8.1 percent from FY2014. A total of $1,107 was received by the County Attorney’s Office due to a fine revenue shortage that delayed the 4th quarter allocations. The Greenlee County Superior Court did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 27. Greenlee County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Greenlee County Attorney’s Office $1,366 $1,476 8.1% Greenlee County Superior Court $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 28. Greenlee County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Greenlee County Attorney’s Office $0.00 $1,107.00b $0.00 ($1,107.00) $0.00 Greenlee County Superior Court $74.32 $0.00 $0.08 ($0.00) $74.40 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Chart 6. Greenlee County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $3,000.00 Fund Revenues $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Greenlee County Attorney's Office Greenlee County Superior Court Greenlee County Attorney’s Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 28 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission In FY2015, the Greenlee County Attorney’s Office spent available ACJC FTG funds on file folders for case organization, colored paper for easy information document retrieval, compact discs to record interviews and other visuals for disclosure to defense attorneys and portable containers to transport file folders to and from the courtroom. The supplies continue to improve efficiencies throughout the process (e.g., finding documentation quickly, assuring all disclosures and victim notices were made, etc.). The County Attorney also noted that although law enforcement provided reports quickly, the officers did take a number of weeks to fulfill requests for follow-up. The Greenlee County Attorney’s Office reported adjudicating 94.0 percent of felony cases in FY2015 within 180 days of filing, an increase from 83.0 percent reported in FY2014 (see Table 29). The County Attorney’s Office reported a total of 124 felony cases filed in FY2009 compared to 170 reported in FY2014. It is important to note that a number of data collection methods have been implemented over the seven-year period, and the types of felony cases included in the case processing statistics have changed over time. Nonetheless, the County Attorney met the 180-day standard in FY2015 set by the Arizona Supreme Court. Table 29. Greenlee County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Felony Cases Filed by the County Attorney FY2009 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a FY2010a FY2011a FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 99.0% 99.0% 96.0% 88.0% 69.0% 83.0% 94.0% 126 127 117 122 118 170 124 Cases in FY2010 and FY2011 excluded cases with active warrants. Greenlee County Indigent Defense The Greenlee County Superior Court did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2015, and the agency reported an FY2015 beginning balance of $74.32. The Superior Court did not expend the funds in FY2015, and the court reported that any future funds made available through the State FTG program would go toward salaries for indigent defense attorneys. Prior FTG funding supported quality indigent defense services to expedite the processing of cases and reduced the need for the court to go to other counties for contracted defense attorneys. The Superior Court commented that firm trial dates and limited continuances assisted case processing in FY2015. Cases requiring a change of the judge led to delays due to travel time and scheduling with out-of-county judges. The Superior Court reported that, in FY2015, 99.0 percent of all felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing (see Table 30). There were a total of 105 felony cases filed during FY2015, an increase from 101 cases filed in FY2014. Similar to the County Attorney data, the data collection parameters used by the court to obtain these statistics have changed over the years, thus comparisons across fiscal years is not recommended. The court also met the 180-day standard for felony cases, as adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court. Table 30. Greenlee County Superior Court Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 29 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Leading to Sentencing or Dismissal Except Out-of-County Judge, Warrant Status, and Other Pending Cases FY2009a FY2010b FY2011b FY2012c Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a b c FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 95.0% 96.0% 87.0% 91.0% 99.0% 94.0% 99.0% 91 75 82 71 70 101 105 FY2009 cases excluded courtesy supervision, interstate compact, dismissal, pending Rule 11, opened in error, and pending cases. Cases in FY2010 and FY2011 included warrant status cases. FY2012 cases excluded interstate compact, out-of-county judge, warrant status, and opened in error cases. ACCH Case Processing Statistics for Greenlee County According to ACCH data for Greenlee County, in FY2015 62.0 percent of felony case adjudications were finalized within 180 days of arrest, a decrease from 76.9 percent in FY2009 (see Table 31). Felony case adjudications completed within 90 days also dropped from 45.6 percent in FY2009 to 29.0 percent in FY2015. The total number of arrest charges resulting in felony case adjudications increased from 147 charges in FY2009 to 403 charges in FY2015. Table 31. Greenlee County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 101 136 331 111 139 130 130 45.6% 37.6% 14.3% 35.0% 20.8% 31.3% 29.0% 76.9% 75.9% 29.8% 78.9% 69.1% 69.7% 62.0% 147 170 467 180 178 310 403 La Paz County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 30 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: 21,205 2.9% 0.3% Parker ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in La Paz County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 31 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The La Paz County Attorney’s Office was allocated a total of $3,776 in ACJC FTG funds in FY2015. This is a 12.9 percent decrease from funds allocated in FY2014. The La Paz County Public Defender’s Office did not receive FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 32. La Paz County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference La Paz County Attorney’s Office $4,335 $3,776 -12.9% La Paz County Public Defender’s Office $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 33. La Paz County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance La Paz County Attorney’s Office $20,060.17 $3,915.75b $29.65 ($10,316.58) $13,688.99 La Paz County Public Defender’s Office $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. Includes FY2014 4th Quarter funds received in FY2015, offsetting the FY2015 4th Quarter allotment received after the fiscal year. Chart 7. La Paz County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $12,000.00 Fund Revenues $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year La Paz County Attorney's Office La Paz County Public Defender's Office La Paz County Attorney’s Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 32 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission During FY2015, the La Paz County Attorney’s Office used ACJC FTG funds to purchase Time Matters case management software along with case management technical support and training. Training was provided to new legal assistants to improve productivity, statistical reporting and reviewing of budgets. The County Attorney’s Office reported that, in FY2015, 50.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing, a reduction from 74.0 percent reported in FY2014 (see Table 34). The agency also reported a decrease in felony cases filed from 357 in FY2009 to 261 in FY2015. Prior to the transition to a new case management system, the County Attorney’s Office was unable to report case processing statistics between FY2009 and FY2013. Table 34. La Paz County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Felony Cases Filed in FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed FY2009 No Data Provided FY2010 No Data Provided FY2011 No Data Provided FY2012 No Data Provided FY2013 No Data Provided FY2014 FY2015 74.0% 50.0% 357 407 318 203 229 264 261 La Paz County Indigent Defense The La Paz County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2015. With no additional funds carried over from FY2014, the Public Defender explained that lack of funds resulted in inadequate access to investigators, experts, legal research, scientific testing and training. According to the Public Defender, removing State FTG funds from indigent defense moved the burden to the County Boards of Supervisors to fully fund the constitutionally-mandated indigent defense services across the state. Redirecting these funds to law enforcement and prosecuting agencies further established an imbalance in resources within the justice system. Table 35. La Paz County Public Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Felony Cases Filed in FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed FY2009 No Data Provided 369 FY2010 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2011 No Data Provided FY2012 No Data Provided FY2013 No Data Provided FY2014 FY2015 80.3% 50.0% 318 267 276 264 177 The La Paz County Public Defender’s Office reported that 50.0 percent of FY2015 felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days (see Table 35). This was a decrease from the 180-day adjudication rate of 80.3 percent in FY2014. The agency reported a total of 177 felony cases filed in FY2015, a decrease from the 264 cases filed in FY2014. ACCH Case Processing Statistics for La Paz County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 33 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Felony case adjudications finalized within 180 days of arrest in La Paz County decreased from 35.2 percent in FY2009 to 30.2 percent in FY2015 (see Table 36). The percentage of felony cases adjudicated within 90 days also fell from 11.8 percent in FY2009 to 8.8 percent in FY2015. Arrest charges resulting in felony case adjudications rose by 32.6 percent from 585 in FY2009 to 776 in FY2015. Table 36. La Paz County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 240 211 194 230 231 203 241 11.8% 13.5% 13.2% 12.3% 10.7% 6.0% 8.8% 35.2% 38.0% 47.9% 35.8% 32.5% 45.5% 30.2% 585 652 570 416 345 486 776 Maricopa County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 34 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: 4,008,651 12.1% 60.1% Phoenix ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Maricopa County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 35 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission In FY2015, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office received $456,054 in ACJC FTG funds, despite an allocation total of $608,072 for the fiscal year. The 4th quarter allocation amount was delayed due to a shortage in fine revenue collected. The Maricopa County Public Defense Services did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Funding for the County Attorney fell 2.1 percent from FY2014 to FY2015. Table 37. Maricopa County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Maricopa County Attorney’s Office $621,285 $608,072 -2.1% Maricopa County Public Defense Services $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 38. Maricopa County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Maricopa County Attorney’s Office $1,040,941.84 $456,054.00b $126.36 ($556,806.72) $940,315.48 Maricopa County Public Defense Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Chart 8. Maricopa County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $800,000.00 $700,000.00 Fund Revenues $600,000.00 $500,000.00 $400,000.00 $300,000.00 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Maricopa County Attorney's Office Maricopa County Public Defender's Office Maricopa County Attorney’s Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 36 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office expended $556,806.72 of ACJC FTG funds in FY2015 to support staff salaries, overtime and benefits for a total of thirteen full-time legal support assistant positions. The funded staff assisted in processing cases forwarded by law enforcement agencies for prosecution. The legal support assistants opened new case files and prepared paperwork for arraignment, charging, preliminary hearings and grand jury cases. Staff was also tasked with migrating and scanning all documents to an electronic filing system. As a partner of the Maricopa County Justice Council, the County Attorney continued to collaborate with other justice partners by transitioning to electronic discovery transmittals to the defense and by piloting an effort to electronically receive criminal case submittals from law enforcement. As the agency stresses the transition to more efficient, electronic case files in the new case management system, future funding will reportedly help the agency reach the following goals: process out-of-custody submittals prior to a defendant’s release on other charges; process out-of-custody cases within 30 days of a submittal receipt; and more efficiently make charging decisions to reduce delays in the process. The County Attorney acknowledged that case processing times were reduced due to electronic sharing of pre-sentence information with the probation department and discovery information with the defense attorneys. Also, electronic filing of cases, along with easier redaction and Bate stamp methods, reduced case processing times. Alternately, outdated technology and electronic data exchange methods at other criminal justice agencies were cited as negatively impacting case processing within the county. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office reported that 79.1 percent of felony cases disposed in FY2015 were adjudicated within 180 days of filing, a decrease from 85.0 percent reported in FY2014 (see Table 39). The number of felony cases filed by the County Attorney increased by 52.8 percent from 20,226 in FY2014 to 30,909 in FY2015. Prior to FY2015, the County Attorney consistently reported a 180-day adjudication rate at 85.0 percent or higher. In FY2015, the rate dropped below the 85.0 percent case processing standard outlined by the Arizona Supreme Court. Table 39. Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Disposed in FY2015 Except Homicides, Highly Complex Cases, Appeals, Conflicts, Purged Cases, Probation Violations, Post-Convictions, Diversion Time, Time Spent in Rule 11 Proceedings, Time in Warrant Status, and Time in Special Actions FY2009a FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 86.5% 88.0% 89.3% 86.3% 85.0% 85.0% 79.1% Total Felony Cases Filed 40,760 38,862 33,860 21,550 20,226 20,226 30,909 a Cases in FY2009 included conflict and purged cases. Maricopa County Indigent Defense During FY2015, the Maricopa County Public Defense Services did not receive ACJC FTG funds, and the agency reported a beginning fund balance of $0.00. The agency has been converting a number of smaller databases to the latest Justware Defender case management system. The agency’s goal is to migrate fully to the Justware system to improve statistical information, business practices and caseload management. Public Defense Services also continued to identify ways to improve processes at the regional court centers (RCC), the early disposition courts (EDC) FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 37 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and through the new Felony Pretrial Intervention Program (FPIP). The agency expected that these adjustments would continue to improve case processing over time. The Public Defense Services commented on a number of factors negatively impacting case processing over the years, including the following: 1) U.S. Supreme Court rulings affecting plea bargaining in the RCC and EDC; 2) logistic issues involving the relocation of county courts to the South Court Tower; 3) policies initiated by the prosecution to redact victim information from police reports; and 4) harsher plea offers for a number of offenders. The Maricopa County Public Defense Services reported that 85.3 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of the arraignment date in FY2015 (see Table 40). The 180-day adjudication rate increased from 80.2 percent reported in FY2014. Felony cases filed fell from 25,234 in FY2014 to 24,377 in FY2015. It is important to note that the agency excluded cases with non-terminal disposition findings beginning in FY2014. In FY2015, the agency reportedly met the 85 percent 180-day case processing standard established by the Arizona Supreme Court. Table 40. Maricopa County Public Defense Services’ Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Closed in FY2015 Except Appeals, Probation Violations, and Non-Terminal Disposition Cases FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014a FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Closed within 180 Days of Arraignment/Assignment 83.5% 86.3% 86.2% 86.3% 86.1% 80.2% 85.3% Total Felony Cases Filed 36,997 33,064 31,270 31,036 30,245 25,234 24,377 a FY2014 is the first year when cases resulting in non-terminal disposition findings were reportedly excluded from the statistics. ACCH Case Processing Statistics for Maricopa County Maricopa County ACCH data reveal that felony case adjudications finalized within 180 days of arrest fell from 50.5 percent in FY2009 to 41.2 percent in FY2015 (see Table 41). Felony case adjudications within 90 days of arrest also decreased from 21.7 percent in FY2009 to 19.9 percent in FY2015. The number of arrest charges resulting in felony case adjudications lowered from 54,212 in FY2009 to 40,543 in FY2015. Table 41. Maricopa County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 38 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 179 175 183 181 198 206 216 21.7% 24.3% 23.5% 21.9% 20.1% 20.3% 19.9% 50.5% 51.7% 49.1% 49.8% 44.8% 43.9% 41.2% 54,212 51,982 51,530 45,702 48,677 48,137 40,543 Mohave County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 39 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: 204,000 10.4% 3.1% Kingman ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Mohave County In FY2015, the Mohave County Attorney’s Office allocation of ACJC FTG funds increased 11.8 percent to a total of $30,756. The Attorney’s Office received $23,067 during the fiscal year due FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 40 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to a fine revenue shortage that delayed the final 4th quarter allocation. The Mohave County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 42. Mohave County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Mohave County Attorney’s Office $27,510 $30,756 11.8% Mohave County Public Defender’s Office $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 43. Mohave County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Mohave County Attorney’s Office $0.00 $23,067.00b $0.00 ($30,756.00)c $0.00 Mohave County Public Defender’s Office $1,183.48 $0.00 $5.76 ($1,189.24) $0.00 a b c Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Agencies encumbered the 4th Quarter allocation during FY2015 in anticipation of receipt of funds. Chart 9. Mohave County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $60,000.00 Fund Revenues $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Mohave County Attorney's Office Mohave County Public Defender's Office Mohave County Attorney’s Office The Mohave County Attorney’s Office used FY2015 ACJC FTG funding to support the partial salary and benefits of a prosecuting attorney. In Colorado City, additional funds went toward investigator FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 41 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission expenses and a laptop computer for a victim advocate. The County Attorney reported that prosecutor tenure at the agency helped to efficiently move cases along, and collaboration with the North Canyon Justice Court guaranteed the presence of a victim advocate in Colorado City whenever necessary. Case processing was negatively impacted by support staff turnover, outdated equipment, an increase in co-defendant cases and delays in receiving police reports. The final two issues – increased co-defendant cases and police report delays – presented more of a complication for the defense counsel by assigning multiple defendants per case and prolonging the wait time to receive police reports through prosecutor disclosure. The Mohave County Attorney’s Office reported reductions in the 180-day adjudication rate for all adult and juvenile felony case filings from 85.0 percent in FY2009 to 78.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 44). The number of felony cases filed rose from 2,281 in FY2009 to 2,344 in FY2015. Table 44. Mohave County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Felony Adult and Juvenile Cases FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 85.0% 86.0% 87.0% 83.0% 76.0% 77.0% 78.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 2,281 1,991 2,163 2,141 2,337 2,418 2,344 Mohave County Indigent Defense In FY2015, the Mohave County Public Defender’s Office and Legal Defender did not receive ACJC FTG funds, but the Legal Defender carried over a balance of $1,183.48 from FY2014. All available funds went toward books and a printer for the appellate court attorney and dry cleaning for one defendant. All funds were spent by the end of FY2015, and the Legal Defender no longer has funds available for staff training and equipment. Lack of funding has reportedly impacted the Public Defender’s Office staffing levels, and replenished funding would provide additional support staff to take over document processing from secretaries and paralegals. Despite being short-staffed with high caseloads, the Public Defender’s Office recognized the quality of the staff as a factor positively impacting case processing. The Legal Defender acknowledged the positive impact that the Indigent Defense Services had in screening cases for assignment and contract attorney management. Inconsistent data entered during the prior administration negatively impacted case processing. The Mohave County Public Defender’s Office has been unable to obtain the requested case processing statistics from the local and state case management systems from FY2011 to FY2015. The Public Defender’s Office was able to provide a total number of felony cases filed at 1,616 in FY2015 (see Table 45). The Mohave County Legal Defender reported a total of 559 felony cases filed in FY2015. The overall total for felony cases filed in FY2015 (2,175) was less than the total of 2,273 reported in FY2014. Table 45. Mohave County Public/Legal Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Filed and Assigned to the Public/Legal Defender in FY2015 (Public Defender Total Excludes Petitions to Revoke Probation) FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 42 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a b FY2009 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2010a 75.0% 2,121 FY2011 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2012 No Data Provided FY2013 No Data Provided FY2014 No Data Provided FY2015 No Data Provided 3,852 1,112b 2,273 2,175 The FY2010 data excludes 256 cases assigned to contract counsel for which data is not available. Total number of FY2013 felony cases filed and reported by the Mohave County Legal Defender’s Office. Other years’ statistics reported by the Public Defender’s Office. ACCH Case Processing Statistics for Mohave County Data from the ACCH show that the percentage of felony case adjudications finalized within 180 days of arrest in Mohave County fell from 55.5 percent in FY2009 to 52.8 percent in FY2015 (see Table 46). Felony cases adjudicated within 90 days increased from 22.0 percent in FY2009 to 23.6 percent in FY2015. Over this same period, charges resulting in felony adjudications increased 77.5 percent from 1,825 in FY2009 to 3,239 in FY2015. Table 46. Mohave County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 162 152 160 165 175 172 172 22.0% 26.3% 26.9% 23.6% 21.5% 26.1% 23.6% 55.5% 59.3% 59.8% 54.5% 51.5% 52.1% 52.8% 1,825 1,988 2,119 1,963 2,712 2,985 3,239 Navajo County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 43 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: 109,185 2.8% 1.6% Holbrook ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Navajo County In FY2015, the Navajo County Attorney’s Office received a total of $13,122 in ACJC FTG funds. The County Attorney was allocated $17,496 in FY2015, but the 4th quarter allocation was delayed FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 44 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission due to a shortage in fine revenue. The total allocation was an increase of 1.4 percent from FY2014. The Navajo County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 47. Navajo County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Navajo County Attorney’s Office $17,246 $17,496 1.4% Navajo County Public Defender’s Office $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 48. Navajo County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Navajo County Attorney’s Office $12,380.40 $13,122.00b $85.19 ($29,961.59)c $0.00 Navajo County Public Defender’s Office $491.46 $0.00 $3.24 ($0.00) $494.70 a b c Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Agencies encumbered the 4th Quarter allocation during FY2015 in anticipation of receipt of funds. Chart 10. Navajo County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $35,000.00 Fund Revenues $30,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Navajo County Attorney's Office Navajo County Public Defender's Office Navajo County Attorney’s Office The Navajo County Attorney’s Office spent ACJC FTG funds in FY2015 on LegalEdge case management software modifications for Byrne grant reporting and maintenance/licensing fees FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 45 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission for Microsoft Enterprise and LegalEdge software. All modifications and fees provided the most current software and support at the agency. Despite a decrease in cases filed, budget issues reduced staffing levels and increased caseload among attorneys. Serious felony and complex cases continue to climb, thus further delaying the processing of certain cases. The County Attorney also noted that defense attorneys are requesting numerous continuances that impact the 180-day case processing statistics. Further, arraignment is delayed up to 90 days in the justice courts, and the agency struggles with recording an accurate arraignment date for case processing statistics. In FY2015, the County Attorney continued to make modifications to the case management system to improve statistics. In FY2015, the County Attorney’s Office reported that 34.0 percent of felony cases filed were adjudicated within 180 days of filing, an increase from 16.0 percent in FY2009 (see Table 49). A total of 1,087 felony cases were filed by the Navajo County Attorney’s Office in FY2015, down from 1,635 reported in FY2009. Table 49. Navajo County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Filed in FY2015 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 16.0% 11.0% 9.0% 9.9% 32.0% 32.0% 34.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 1,635 1,258 1,266 1,295 1,156 1,166 1,087 Navajo County Indigent Defense During FY2015, the Navajo County Legal Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds, and the office did not carry over a balance from FY2014. The Navajo County Public Defender’s Office also did not receive FY2015 funding, but the agency did carry over a balance of $491.46 from FY2014. According to the Public Defender, lack of funding has limited the resources once supported by ACJC FTG funds, and the lack of resources created an imbalance between prosecutors and indigent defense. In FY2015, the Public Defender had to under-fill attorney positions and serious cases increased, leading to slower case processing. Table 50. Navajo County Public Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases with an Appointed Public Defender during FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 100.0% 91.0% 95.0% 88.0% 89.0% 83.0% 84.0% 538 1,254 823 1,359 1,067 1,360 1,264 The Public Defender’s Office reported that, in FY2015, 84.0 percent of felony cases filed were adjudicated within 180 days (see Table 50). The agency consistently reported a 180-day adjudication rate above 85 percent until FY2014. The Public Defender’s Office experienced an increase in the total number of felony cases filed from 538 in FY2009 to 1,264 in FY2015. The Legal Defender’s Office reported 87.0 percent of felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 46 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission in FY2015, an increase from 83.0 percent in FY2014 (see Table 51). Filings fell slightly from 593 in FY2014 to 583 in FY2015. The Legal Defender reported that lack of State FTG funds noticeably impacted the agency’s budget. The office discontinued Westlaw licensing, greatly limiting access outside the office. The agency also had to contract for investigators, continue to work with outdated computers and office equipment and maintain caseloads without temporary employees and limited staff. Table 51. Navajo County Legal Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2014 Statistics: Adult Felony Cases with an Appointed Legal Defender through the Superior Court Including Petition to Revoke Probation Cases Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a FY2009 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2010 FY2011 FY2012a FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 82.0% 79.0% 81.0% 81.0% 83.0% 87.0% 399 335 490 540 593 583 The inclusion of petition to revoke probation cases took place in FY2012. ACCH Case Processing Statistics for Navajo County Navajo County ACCH data reveal that felony case adjudications finalized within 180 days of arrest increased overall from 42.3 percent in FY2009 to 44.3 percent in FY2015 (see Table 52). Felony cases adjudicated within 90 days increased from 15.7 percent in FY2009 to 20.2 percent in FY2015. The number of arrest charges resulting in felony case adjudications decreased over the same period from 1,583 in FY2009 to 1,117 in FY2015. Table 52. Navajo County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 219 234 253 249 229 184 204 15.7% 14.5% 11.7% 13.9% 16.0% 22.1% 20.2% 42.3% 40.0% 32.9% 37.2% 37.9% 48.7% 44.3% 1,583 1,423 1,379 1,309 1,269 866 1,117 Pima County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 47 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: 1,007,162 7.1% 15.1% Tucson ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Pima County FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 48 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission In FY2015, the Pima County Attorney’s Office received a total of $97,470 in ACJC FTG funds. The County Attorney was allocated $129,960 in FY2015, and the reduction in funds received was due to a shortage in fine revenues that delayed the 4th quarter allocation. The Pima County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 53. Pima County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Pima County Attorney’s Office $122,912 $129,960 5.7% Pima County Public Defender’s Office $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 54. Pima County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Pima County Attorney’s Office $94,300.68 $97,470.00b $2,801.66 ($15,206.40) $179,365.94 Pima County Public Defender’s Office $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Chart 11. Pima County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $140,000.00 Fund Revenues $120,000.00 $100,000.00 $80,000.00 $60,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Pima County Attorney's Office Pima County Public Defender's Office Pima County Attorney’s Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 49 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission In FY2015, the Pima County Attorney’s Office used ACJC FTG funds to partially support the salaries and benefits of support staff along with telephone and internet services throughout the agency. Staff funded by FTG monies managed caseloads and assessed which cases should be disposed as non-trial cases and which should move to trial. Support staff helped to alleviate paperwork duties for the prosecutors. Remaining FY2015 and prior FTG funds will be used for salaries and benefits of staff, as well as any equipment needs in future fiscal years. The agency identified high prosecutor turnover, increasing caseloads, elevated totals in reported crimes and arrests, heightened police presence and a higher trial/sentencing rate for violent offenders as barriers to improving case processing. One positive aspect is the office’s leadership in the Justice Partners group, a group that focused on leveraging technology and collaboration to share electronic files among criminal justice agencies. The Pima County Attorney’s Office reported that felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing decreased from 76.0 percent of felony cases adjudicated in FY2009 to 70.0 percent of adjudicated cases in FY2015 (see Table 55). The total number of felony cases filed also fell 6.2 percent from 5,993 in FY2009 to 5,621 in FY2015. Table 55. Pima County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Adjudicated during FY2015 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 76.0% 74.0% 72.0% 64.0% 60.0% 75.0% 70.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 5,993 5,312 4,401 5,114 5,469 6,057 5,621 Pima County Indigent Defense The Pima County Public Defender’s Office did not receive FY2015 ACJC FTG funds and the agency reported a zero fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year. Due to lack of funding, the Public Defender’s Office struggled to pay for the case management maintenance agreement and other necessary equipment. The agency used funds from two vacant legal secretary positions to cover the cost. This added a greater burden on the remaining secretaries to absorb the additional workload. At the expense of the county, the Public Defender will be requesting county general fund monies to fill the two vacant positions. The Public Defender commented that the elimination of indigent defense funding negatively impacted the balance of resources for prosecutors and defense counsel. The agency suggests that both sides should be equally funded to maintain equal access to resources. In FY2015, the Pima County Public Defender’s Office reported that 43.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of the filing date, a decrease from 76.0 percent reported in FY2009 (see Table 56). The agency also reported a decrease in the total number of felony case filings from 5,993 in FY2009 to 5,704 in FY2015. Table 56. Pima County Public Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 50 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Felony Cases Adjudicated FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 76.0% 74.0% 72.0% 40.0% 71.0% 75.0% 43.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 5,993 5,312 4,783 4,944 5,469 6,294 5,704 ACCH Case Processing Statistics for Pima County According to the ACCH data, the percentage of felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of the arrest date in Pima County increased overall from 51.7 percent in FY2009 to 53.2 percent in FY2015 (see Table 57). The percentage of felony cases adjudicated within 90 days also increased from 12.0 percent in FY2009 to 17.1 percent in FY2015. Improved adjudication rates took place while arrest charges resulting in felony adjudications rose from 12,527 in FY2009 to 13,748 in FY2015. Table 57. Pima County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2015 Fill the Gap Report FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 175 174 181 199 210 174 169 12.0% 11.0% 10.0% 7.8% 10.8% 15.3% 17.1% 51.7% 51.7% 49.8% 45.0% 42.7% 52.1% 53.2% 12,527 12,182 11,706 13,047 15,315 13,901 13,748 51 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Pinal County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 396,237 58.4% 5.9% Florence 52 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Pinal County In FY2015, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office was allocated $54,016 in ACJC FTG funds, but the agency received a total of $40,512 due to a shortage in fine revenues available during the 4th quarter. The County Attorney FY2015 allocation was a 15.0 percent increase from FY2014. The Pinal County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 58. Pinal County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Pinal County Attorney’s Office $46,982 $54,016 15.0% Pinal County Public Defender’s Office $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 59. Pinal County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Pinal County Attorney’s Office $0.00 $40,512.00b $227.55 ($54,243.55)c Pinal County Public Defender’s Office $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) a b c Ending Balance $0.00 $0.00 Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Agencies encumbered the 4th Quarter allocation during FY2015 in anticipation of receipt of funds. Chart 12. Pinal County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $80,000.00 $70,000.00 Fund Revenues $60,000.00 $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Pinal County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Pinal County Public Defender's Office 53 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Pinal County Attorney’s Office In FY2015, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office spent ACJC FTG funds on the salaries (not including benefits) for two Legal Secretary II positions. Both legal secretary positions were assigned to processing criminal cases, preparing charging information, ensuring timely filing of motions and documents and case management through adjudication. The County Attorney worked closely with Pretrial Services and the county jail staff to guarantee that the proper arrest and booking information for suspects was captured, and that dangerous suspects were not inappropriately released from custody. These efforts also resulted in the timely release of case information to the prosecutor, leading to improved case processing. Alternately, annual county general fund budget cuts have negatively impacted case processing through the inability to fill legal secretary and paralegal positions. The Pinal County Attorney’s Office reported in FY2015 that 60.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing, an increase from 31.0 percent reported in FY2009 (see Table 60). The total number of felony cases filed, however, fell from 1,606 in FY2009 to 1,258 in FY2015. Table 60. Pinal County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Adjudicated in FY2015 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 31.0% 57.0% 68.0% 70.0% 61.0% 58.0% 60.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 1,606 1,915 2,469 2,473 2,013 2,672 1,258 Pinal County Indigent Defense The Pinal County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2015, and the agency did not carry over ACJC FTG funds from FY2014. Since no funding was available, the office was unable to hire additional staff to boost case processing. If future funds were made available, the funds would help support attorney and staff positions for this very purpose. The Public Defender identified the Early Disposition Court (EDC) as having a positive effect on felony case processing. The agency also mentioned higher staff turnover, loss of key personnel and the addition of a second EDC court to process backlogged cases as having a negative impact on case processing and attorney caseload. The Public Defender’s Office reported an increase of 127.0 percent in felony cases filed from 1,990 in FY2009 to 4,518 in FY2015 (see Table 61). The agency was unable to report in FY2015 an exact percentage, but rather, an approximation of 60 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing. The 180-day adjudication rate fell from 69.0 percent in FY2009 to 61.0 percent in FY2014. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 54 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Table 61. Pinal County Public Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Felony Adult Cases with an Appointed Public Defender FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 69.0% 86.0% 86.0% 84.4% 61.0% 61.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 1,990 2,426 3,511 2,768 2,013 3,206 FY2015 Data Not Available 4,518 Case Processing Statistics for Pinal County Data for Pinal County from the ACCH indicate that the percentage of felony charges adjudicated within 180 days has decreased over the six-year period from 45.6 percent in FY2009 to 28.2 percent in FY2015 (see Table 62). It is important to disclaimer that the number of arrest charges resulting in felony adjudication has dropped dramatically by 82.5 percent since FY2009 to 465 total charges in FY2015. Table 62. Pinal County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH* FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 195 175 183 164 154 257 251 11.8% 13.1% 18.9% 30.0% 38.5% 16.1% 6.5% 45.6% 51.5% 49.2% 56.4% 54.9% 33.7% 28.2% 2,662 3,096 2,948 2,472 2,183 968 465 * In FY2014, ACJC staff first addressed the reduction in felony case adjudication charges in Pinal County. Pinal County Superior Court staff discovered extended delays in the reporting of disposition information to the DPS, and staff also explained that disposition reporting forms may be backlogged due to the lack of a county deputy assigned to conduct arrest fingerprinting at the court on those defendants who had been summoned to court without having been previously fingerprinted in FY2014. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 55 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Santa Cruz County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 49,554 13.1% 0.7% Nogales 56 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Santa Cruz County In FY2015, the Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office was allocated a total of $5,952 in ACJC FTG funds, an increase of 1.1 percent from FY2014. The County Attorney received a total of $4,464 during the fiscal year, due to a shortage of fine revenue that delayed the 4th quarter allocation. The Santa Cruz County Superior Court did not receive ACJC FTG funds for defense services in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 63. Santa Cruz County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office $5,887 $5,952 1.1% Santa Cruz County Superior Court $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 64. Santa Cruz County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office $10,202.52 $4,464.00b $0.00 ($10,524.39) $4,142.13 Santa Cruz County Superior Court $15.02 $0.00 $10.47 ($0.00) $25.49 a b Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Chart 13. Santa Cruz County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $12,000.00 Fund Revenues $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Santa Cruz County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Santa Cruz County Superior Court 57 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office In FY2015, the Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office used a portion of ACJC FTG funds to partially support one temporary office assistant position. The temporary assistant opened all new cases at the agency, forward the cases to the County Attorney for charging and monitored cases in follow up when charges were pending. The temporary position enabled permanent county attorney staff to focus on preparing documents for criminal cases. Future ACJC FTG funds will continue to support positions such as the temporary office assistant position for effective case processing. The County Attorney’s Office continued to experience complications with its computer operating system and the collection of case processing statistics (see Table 65). Table 65. Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed FY2009 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2010 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2011 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2012 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2013 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2014 No Data Provided No Data Provided FY2015 No Data Provided No Data Provided Santa Cruz County Indigent Defense The Santa Cruz County Superior Court did not receive FY2015 ACJC FTG funds for indigent defense services, but the agency carried over a $15.02 ACJC FTG fund balance from FY2014. The carried-over funds went unspent over the fiscal year period. Any future funds available to the Superior Court would be used to add attorneys to process felony cases and to hire a facilitator to change processing practices. The court found that judges became more aware of time delays in case processing when the latest statewide time standards went into effect. Data cleaning within the AJACS system also improved case processing results. Factors that negatively affected case processing in FY2015 included continuances requested by defense attorneys and prosecutors due to insufficient time to prepare for hearings and plea agreements. Beginning in FY2015, the Superior Court is collaborating with the Prosecutor’s Office and the Adult Detention Center to improve the restoration to competency in Rule 11 cases. By conducting restoration within the county, time delays will be minimized and case processing expedited. Table 66. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Felony Cases Adjudicated in FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed a FY2009a FY2010a FY2011a FY2012a FY2013a No Data 42.0% 37.0% 39.0% 45.0% Provided 311 309 199 217 270 FY2014 FY2015 45.0% 74.0% 234 238 Felony cases include all cases filed at the superior court whether indigent defense counsel has been assigned or not. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 58 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The Superior Court reported that 74.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing in FY2015 (see Table 66). This was a noticeable increase from 45.0 percent adjudicated within 180 days, as reported in FY2014. The court reported a total of 238 felony cases filed in FY2015, a slight increase from 234 reported in FY2014. Case Processing Statistics for Santa Cruz County Data from the ACCH show that the percentage of felony case adjudications finalized within 180 days of arrest rose to 61.7 percent in FY2015 from 54.3 percent in FY2009 (see Table 67). Felony case adjudications completed within 90 days also increased from 22.3 percent in FY2009 to 34.1 percent in FY2015. The total number of arrest charges resulting in felony case adjudication dropped from 628 in FY2009 to 481 in FY2015. Table 67. Santa Cruz County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2015 Fill the Gap Report FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 166 176 237 224 223 187 146 22.3% 20.1% 17.8% 19.6% 19.3% 26.8% 34.1% 54.3% 50.7% 38.1% 40.9% 40.4% 48.4% 61.7% 628 766 499 433 631 601 481 59 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Yavapai County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 215,357 9.5% 3.2% Prescott 60 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Yavapai County In FY2015, the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office was allocated $33,924 in ACJC FTG funds, a 9.3 percent decrease from FY2014. The County Attorney received $25,443 during FY2015, due to a shortage in fine revenue that resulted in a delay in the 4th quarter allocation. The Yavapai County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 68. Yavapai County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Yavapai County Attorney’s Office $37,419 $33,924 -9.3% Yavapai County Public Defender’s Office $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 69. Yavapai County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Yavapai County Attorney’s Office $0.00 $25,443.00b $38.47 ($33,962.47)c $0.00 Yavapai County Public Defender’s Office $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b c Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Agencies encumbered the 4th Quarter allocation during FY2015 in anticipation of receipt of funds. Chart 14. Yavapai County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $80,000.00 $70,000.00 Fund Revenues $60,000.00 $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Yavapai County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Yavapai County Public Defender's Office 61 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Yavapai County Attorney’s Office During FY2015, the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office used ACJC FTG funds to support approximately half the cost of an entry-level attorney position. Fill the Gap funds continued to support involvement in the Early Disposition Court, an effort that is also supported by the superior court, indigent defense and probation services. The Early Disposition Court (EDC) focuses on expediting felony cases through the court process and reducing caseloads for attorneys working cases that require more traditional case processing. Revisions to the EDC process in FY2014 have since led to greater efficiencies and reducing time devoted to cases not likely to resolve within the EDC. The same stakeholders involved with the Early Disposition Court also collaborate with the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee to identify potential efficiencies in case processing. The County Attorney’s Office noted certain factors weighing on the processing of criminal cases, including 1) a limited number of judges available for jury trials; and 2) current court rules requiring a probable cause hearing within 10 days. Recent superior court changes may automatically resolve the first issue in the future, and extending the 10-day probable cause hearing requirement would reduce delays by allowing enough time for defense attorneys to meet with clients prior to the first hearing in the EDC. The Yavapai County Court Administration Office provided case processing statistics for FY2014 and FY2015. Felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing increased from 78.0 percent of all adjudications in FY2014 to 82.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 70). The County Attorney filed 2,038 felony cases during FY2015, a 14.5 percent increase from the 1,780 reported in FY2014. Case processing statistics were not available from FY2010 to FY2013. Table 70. Yavapai County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Filed during FY2015 FY2009 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 84.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 2,453 FY2010 No Data Provided FY2011 No Data Provided FY2012 No Data Provided FY2013 No Data Provided FY2014 FY2015 78.0% 82.0% 2,105 1,837 1,980 1,783 1,780 2,038 Yavapai County Indigent Defense In FY2015, the Yavapai County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds, and the agency reported a zero balance at the beginning of the fiscal year. The office collaborated with the superior court, the county attorney, the sheriff’s office and the probation department to expedite cases through the county’s EDC. Meanwhile, the agency reported that county attorney plea policies delayed case processing and trial court calendars were overloaded throughout the fiscal year. The Yavapai County Public Defender’s Office reported a decrease in felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing from 83.1 percent in FY2014 to 79.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 71). The total number of felony case filings rose from 2,283 in FY2014 to 2,512 in FY2015. Unfortunately, data captured in fiscal years prior to FY2014 are different from the data captured in FY2014 and FY2015. As a result, data comparisons to years prior to FY2014 are discouraged. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 62 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Table 71. Yavapai County Public Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Excluding Capital Murder, Bench Warrant, and Rule 11 Restoration Cases FY2009a FY2010b FY2011c FY2012c CY2012d Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 84.0% 79.9% 76.7% 81.3% Total Felony Cases Filed 2,686 2,510 2,245 2,321 FY2014 FY2015 85.0% 83.1% 79.0% 2,090 2,283 2,512 a FY2009 cases included all felony cases. Data were provided by the Yavapai County Public Defender’s Office in FY2010. Data from prior fiscal years were submitted by the Administrative Office of the Courts. c FY2011 and FY2012 cases excluded capital murder, bench warrant, Rule 11, and probation violation cases. d CY2012 cases were for calendar year 2012. b Case Processing Statistics for Yavapai County Criminal history data for Yavapai County reveal that felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing fell from 67.3 percent in FY2009 to 60.8 percent in FY2015 (see Table 72). Similarly, the percentage of cases that were adjudicated within 90 days of filing decreased from 44.4 percent in FY2009 to 43.6 percent in FY2015. The total number of arrest charges in the ACCH resulting in felony adjudication dropped from 5,434 in FY2009 to 4,948 in FY2015. Table 72. Yavapai County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2015 Fill the Gap Report FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 108 123 121 132 158 138 122 44.4% 40.2% 37.6% 35.8% 31.7% 36.5% 43.6% 67.3% 63.2% 66.8% 64.6% 55.8% 59.5% 60.8% 5,434 3,926 3,579 3,742 4,578 4,654 4,948 63 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Yuma County 2014 ADOA Population Estimate: Estimated Population Growth 2005-2014: Percent of Arizona Population: County Seat: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 212,012 15.4% 3.2% Yuma 64 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ACJC Fill the Gap Funding in Yuma County In FY2015, the Yuma County Attorney’s Office received a total of $21,282 in ACJC FTG funds, due to a delay in the 4th quarter allocation resulting from a fine revenue shortage. The County attorney was allocated $28,376 in FY2015 funds, a reduction of 2.4 percent from FY2014. The Yuma County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds in FY2014 and FY2015. Table 73. Yuma County Fine Revenue Allocationsa of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2014 – FY2015 FY2014 FY2015 Difference Yuma County Attorney’s Office $29,086 $28,376 -2.4% Yuma County Public Defender’s Office $0 $0 0.0% a The allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Table 74. Yuma County Balances and Expenditures of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds FY2015 Beginning Funds Interest Fund Ending Balance Receiveda Earned Expenditures Balance Yuma County Attorney’s Office $0.00 $21,282.00b $0.00 ($28,376.00)c $0.00 Yuma County Public Defender’s Office $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.00) $0.00 a b c Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. This amount does not include the final 4th Quarter allotment because the payment was received after the close of the fiscal year. Agencies encumbered the 4th Quarter allocation during FY2015 in anticipation of receipt of funds. Chart 15. Yuma County Fill the Gap Funding Allocations FY2006-FY2015 $60,000.00 Fund Revenues $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Fiscal Year Yuma County Attorney's Office FY2015 Fill the Gap Report Yuma County Public Defender's Office 65 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Yuma County Attorney’s Office The Yuma County Attorney’s Office directed FY2015 ACJC FTG funds toward the salary of one investigator. The additional staff position helped the office maintain its timely case processing and played a vital role as a member of the support staff to get cases moving quickly. The investigator attended interviews and located witnesses and defendants in the agency’s cases. The investigator also served subpoenas, assisted with summons, performed services to attorneys at trials and hearings and provided additional assistance, as needed. The County Attorney recognized collaboration with defense attorneys and the courts, the presence of the funded investigator and reductions in felony filings as three leading causes of improved case processing. Alternately, the agency reported a number of status hearings that were unnecessary, and some of these hearings took up valuable time from attorneys. The County Attorney’s Office reported that, in FY2015, 76.0 percent of felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days of filing, an increase from 72.0 percent reported in FY2014 (see Table 75). Felony case filings totaled 1,838 in FY2009 and fell to 1,407 in FY2015. Table 75. Yuma County Attorney’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: Felony Cases Filed in FY2015 Except Probation Violations, Juvenile Cases, and Extraditions FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing 72.0% 68.0% 70.0% 67.0% 66.0% 72.0% 76.0% Total Felony Cases Filed 1,838 1,701 1,691 1,355 1,903 1,679 1,407 Yuma County Indigent Defense During FY2015, the Yuma County Public Defender’s Office did not receive ACJC FTG funds, and the agency reported an initial ACJC FTG balance of $0.00. The agency commented that the major factors negatively affecting case processing include the following: 1) effective conflict checks; 2) case management; and 3) overflow statistics. Table 76. Yuma County Public Defender’s Office Felony Case Processing Statistics FY2009-FY2015 Cases Included in FY2015 Statistics: All Felony Cases Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 Days of Filing Total Felony Cases Filed FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 55.0% 73.0% 69.0% 65.0% 67.0% 79.0% 39.0% 971 940 908 958 920 941 1,558 In FY2015, the Yuma County Public Defender’s Office reported a decrease in felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing from 55.0 percent in FY2009 to 39.0 percent in FY2015 (see Table 76). The agency reported a 60.5 percent increase in felony cases filed from 971 in FY2009 to 1,558 in FY2015. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 66 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Case Processing Statistics for Yuma County Yuma County data from the ACCH indicate that the percentage of felony charges adjudicated within 180 days from arrest increased from 52.9 percent in FY2009 to 55.3 percent in FY2015 (see Table 77). Conversely, felony cases adjudicated within 90 days decreased from 11.2 percent of all charges adjudicated to 9.7 percent of adjudications in FY2015. The total number of arrest charges resulting in felony adjudications dropped 26.2 percent from 2,516 in FY2009 to 1,857 in FY2015. Table 77. Yuma County Felony Case Processing Statistics from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System FY2009-2015 Cases Included in Analysis: All arrest counts leading to disposed felony charges (excluding first-degree homicides) during the fiscal year and resulting in guilty verdicts, nolo contendere pleas, pleas to other charges, deferred sentencing, deferred prosecution, acquittals, court dismissals, and findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity. Median Number of Days from Arrest (per Count) to Felony Case Adjudication for Finalized Cases in the ACCH Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 90 Days of Arrest Percent of Adjudicated Felony Cases (by Arrest Count) Finalized within 180 Days of Arrest Total Number of Arrest Counts Resulting in Felony Case Adjudication in the ACCH FY2015 Fill the Gap Report FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 172 183 182 174 175 156 169 11.2% 11.6% 9.3% 8.7% 10.4% 10.3% 9.7% 52.9% 49.0% 49.5% 52.8% 51.1% 62.7% 55.3% 2,516 3,006 2,852 2,632 1,037 1,127 1,857 67 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS In FY2015, county attorneys received a total of $973,600 in State FTG funds through fine revenues collected, and indigent defense agencies did not receive funds during the fiscal year. The county attorneys expended a total of $813,050 on attorney and other staff positions, equipment, contractual services, improvements and maintenance to case management software, travel and other operating expenses and supplies. One indigent defense agencies used a total of $1,189 available in prior State FTG funds for equipment, supplies, and other operating costs. Detailed financial information and an expenditure list are available in Appendices A and B. In FY2015, county attorney and indigent defense agencies did not meet the case processing standards set forth by the Arizona Supreme Court through Arizona Supreme Court Rule 8.2. However, some agencies did report meeting the felony case processing standard for 180-day adjudication as laid out in the Court’s Administrative Order No. 2014-081. Five county attorney and indigent defense agencies in FY2015 reported 85 percent or greater felony case processing rates within 180 days of arraignment. Also in FY2015, approximately half of county attorney and indigent defense agencies improved their case processing statistics compared to FY2014. Trend analyses using information available in the ACCH showed that eight counties experienced improved 90-day felony case processing from arrest to disposition (including Rule 8.4 time exclusions), and seven counties had improvements in their 180-day felony case processing from FY2009 to FY2015. Agencies acknowledged a number of factors that negatively affect case processing, including the following: 1) lack of ACJC State FTG funds creating an imbalance in resources available to prosecutors and indigent defense; 2) limited staffing due to reduced budgets and high employee turnover; 3) increased caseloads for attorneys; 4) outdated technology (e.g. case management systems, computers, etc.) and equipment; 5) excessive delays and continuances throughout the criminal justice process; 6) change in judges, judge turnover, and overloaded court calendars; 7) delays in law enforcement reporting and follow-up; 8) increases in serious and complex cases; 9) elevated numbers of co-defendant cases, defendants with multiple cases, and late charging additions; and 10) attorney plea policies that delayed case processing. ACJC Recommendations In order to move forward with improving case processing times and documenting progress made, several recommendations are suggested by the ACJC:  Guidelines should be established detailing appropriate expenditures for ACJC State FTG funds that emphasize improving case processing times. Currently, there are no guidelines outlining appropriate State FTG fund expenditures.  Future funding levels should remain consistent with the levels established prior to FY2009 by reinstating the general fund contribution and the indigent defense fine revenue appropriation of ACJC State FTG funds. The reinstatement of aforesaid funds for county prosecutors and indigent defense agencies will ensure renewed support for improving felony case processing.  Each agency should develop long-term strategic plans to reduce case processing times. Such plans should include coordination with other agencies using ACJC State FTG funds. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 68 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission  Each county should have the capacity to report consistent and comparable case processing statistics. If this information is not readily available from the courts, case management system enhancements should be implemented at the agency level so that case processing statistics are easily accessible. Agencies within each county should make a collaborative effort to standardize definitions and data processing within their respective case management systems, and appropriate funding should be made available to the agencies in order to accomplish this objective.  Agencies that have not reported progress in improving felony case processing times should learn from best practices currently being implemented by other agencies or by other counties. Coordination among agencies within each county is advantageous in identifying current gaps in case processing as well as resources available across agencies. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 69 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission APPENDIX A: Arizona Fill the Gap Balances, Revenues and Expenditures Table 78. State Aid to County Attorney Fill the Gap Balance Detail FY2015 Beginning Fund Funds Interest Fund Balance Allocationa Receivedb Earned Expenditures Apache County Attorney $7,641.50 Cochise County Attorney $17,958.38 Coconino County Attorney $0.00 Gila County Attorney $57,105.85 Graham County Attorney $6,946.16 Greenlee County Attorney $0.00 La Paz County Attorney $20,060.17 Maricopa County Attorney $1,040,941.84 Mohave County Attorney $0.00 Navajo County Attorney $12,380.40 Pima County Attorney $94,300.68 Pinal County Attorney $0.00 Santa Cruz County Attorney $10,202.52 Yavapai County Attorney $0.00 Yuma County Attorney $0.00 County Attorney Total $1,267,537.50 $8,168.00 $16,460.00 $19,008.00 $9,176.00 $6,984.00 $1,476.00 $3,776.00 $608,072.00 $30,756.00 $17,496.00 $129,960.00 $54,016.00 $5,952.00 $33,924.00 $28,376.00 $973,600.00 $6,126.00 $12,345.00 $14,256.00 $6,882.00 $5,238.00 $1,107.00 $3,915.75d $456,054.00 $23,067.00 $13,122.00 $97,470.00 $40,512.00 $4,464.00 $25,443.00 $21,282.00 $731,283.75 $0.00 $115.38 $0.00 $402.66 $38.53 $0.00 $29.65 $126.36 $0.00 $85.19 $2,801.66 $227.55 $0.00 $38.47 $0.00 $3,865.45 Ending Balance ($13,500.00) $267.50 ($6,365.22) $24,053.54 ($19,008.00)c $0.00 ($0.00) $64,390.51 ($2,916.34) $9,306.35 ($1,107.00) $0.00 ($10,316.58) $13,688.99 ($556,806.72) $940,315.48 ($30,756.00)c $0.00 c ($29,961.59) $0.00 ($15,206.40) $179,365.94 ($54,243.55)c $0.00 ($10,524.39) $4,142.13 ($33,962.47)c $0.00 ($28,376.00)c $0.00 ($813,050.26) $1,235,530.44 a Fund allocation is the projected revenue based on the statutory formula. Funds Received is the actual payment made to each county during the fiscal year. c Agencies encumbered the 4th Quarter allocation during FY2015 in anticipation of receipt of funds. d Includes FY2014 4th Quarter funds received in FY2015, offsetting the FY2015 4th Quarter allotment received after the fiscal year. b Table 79. State Aid to County Attorney Fill the Gap Expenditures by County FY2015 Case Other Salary/Fringe/ Equipment Contractual Management Travel (Operating/ Overtime Purchases Services Software Supplies) Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma State Total $0.00 $6,365.22 $19,008.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $556,806.72 $28,493.00 $0.00 $3,662.40 $54,243.55 $10,524.39 $33,962.47 $28,376.00 $741,441.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $674.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,076.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,750.70 FY2015 Fill the Gap Report $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,761.59 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,761.59 $13,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,433.52 $0.00 $5,316.58 $0.00 $0.00 $4,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $24,450.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,187.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,187.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $808.12 $1,107.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,544.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $18,459.12 Total Expended $13,500.00 $6,365.22 $19,008.00 $0.00 $2,916.34 $1,107.00 $10,316.58 $556,806.72 $30,756.00 $29,961.59 $15,206.40 $54,243.55 $10,524.39 $33,962.47 $28,376.00 $813,050.26 70 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Table 80. Indigent Defense State Fill the Gap Balance Detail FY2015 Beginning Fund Interest Fund Balance Allocation Earned Expenditures Apache County Superior Court Cochise County Public Defender Coconino County Superior Court Gila County Superior Court Graham County Superior Court Greenlee County Superior Court La Paz County Public Defender Maricopa County Public Defender Mohave County Public Defender Navajo County Public Defender Pima County Public Defender Pinal County Public Defender Santa Cruz County Superior Court Yavapai County Public Defender Yuma County Public Defender Indigent Defense Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $74.32 $0.00 $0.00 $1,183.48 $491.46 $0.00 $0.00 $15.02 $0.00 $0.00 $1,764.28 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.08 $0.00 $0.00 $5.76 $3.24 $0.00 $0.00 $10.47 $0.00 $0.00 $19.55 ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($1,189.24) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($1,189.24) Table 81. State Aid to Indigent Defense Fill the Gap Expenditures by County FY2015 Case Other Salary/Fringe/ Equipment Contractual Management Travel (Operating/ Overtime Purchases Services Software Supplies) Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma State Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 FY2015 Fill the Gap Report $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $332.51 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $332.51 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $856.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $856.73 Ending Balance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $74.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $494.70 $0.00 $0.00 $25.49 $0.00 $0.00 $594.59 Total Expended $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,189.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,189.24 71 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission APPENDIX B: Summary of the Use of ACJC Fill the Gap Funds in FY2015 Staff Salary and Contractual Services - Attorney positions that reduced other attorney caseloads and improve case processing - Support staff positions that assisted attorneys in tracking, organizing, and prosecuting felony cases - One attorney position at the expedited disposition court that helped reduce the felony caseloads at other county courts - One agency investigator position - Overtime hours worked by staff. Equipment, Software, Supplies and Other Operating Expenses - One laptop computer, printers, and a label printer that improved case processing and office functions - Office supplies, including file folders, portable file folder containers, colored paper, compact discs, and other supplies - Office software used to improve daily functions (i.e., Microsoft Enterprise) - Telephone and internet services - A wireless presenter - A chair. Case Management Systems - Upgrades, maintenance, technical support, and/or licensing fees for case management software - Training on the use of the new case management system provided to support staff - Software purchases toward a case management system. Other Expenditures - Law books - Dry-cleaning for a defendant - Expenses for an off-site investigator. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 72 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission APPENDIX C: Arizona Revised Statutes Authorizing Fill the Gap Funding 11-539. State aid to county attorneys fund A. The state aid to county attorneys fund is established consisting of monies appropriated to the fund and monies allocated pursuant to section 41-2421, subsections B and J. The purpose of the fund is to provide state aid to county attorneys for the processing of criminal cases. B. The Arizona criminal justice commission shall administer the fund. The commission shall allocate fund monies to each county pursuant to section 41-2409, subsection A. C. All monies distributed or spent from the fund shall be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by the counties for the processing of criminal cases by county attorneys. D. Monies in the state aid to county attorneys fund are exempt from the provisions of section 35-190 relating to lapsing of appropriations and monies allocated pursuant to section 41-2421, subsections B and J are subject to legislative appropriation. Any state general fund monies appropriated to the fund may be spent without further legislative appropriation. E. On notice from the commission, the state treasurer shall invest and divest monies in the fund as provided by section 35-313, and monies earned from investment shall be credited to the fund. 11-588. State aid to indigent defense fund A. The state aid to indigent defense fund is established consisting of monies appropriated to the fund and monies allocated to the fund pursuant to section 41-2421, subsections B and J. The purpose of the fund is to provide state aid to the county public defender, legal defender and contract indigent defense counsel for the processing of criminal cases. B. The Arizona criminal justice commission shall administer the fund. The commission shall allocate monies in the fund to each county pursuant to section 41-2409, subsection C. C. All monies distributed or spent from the fund shall be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by counties for the processing of criminal cases by the county public defender, legal defender and contract indigent defense counsel in each county. D. Monies in the state aid to indigent defense fund are exempt from the provisions of section 35-190 relating to lapsing of appropriations and monies allocated pursuant to section 41-2421, subsections B and J are subject to legislative appropriation. Any state general fund monies appropriated to the fund may be spent without further legislative appropriation. E. On notice from the commission, the state treasurer shall invest and divest monies in the fund as provided by section 35-313, and monies earned from investment shall be credited to the fund. 12-102.02. State aid to the courts fund A. The state aid to the courts fund is established consisting of monies appropriated to the fund and monies allocated pursuant to section 41-2421, subsections B and J. The purpose FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 73 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission of the fund is to provide state aid to the superior court, including the clerk of the superior court, and justice courts for the processing of criminal cases. B. The supreme court shall administer the fund. The supreme court shall allocate monies in the fund to the superior court, including the clerk of the court, and the justice courts in each county according to the following composite index formula: 1. The three year average of the total felony filings in the superior court in the county, divided by the statewide three year average of the total felony filings in the superior court. 2. The county population, as adopted by the department of economic security, divided by the statewide population, as adopted by the department of economic security. 3. The sum of paragraphs 1 and 2 divided by two equals the composite index. 4. The composite index for each county shall be used as the multiplier against the total funds appropriated from the state general fund and other monies distributed to the fund pursuant to section 41-2421. C. The presiding judge of the superior court in each county, in coordination with the chairman of the county board of supervisors or the chairman's designee, the clerk of the superior court, the presiding justice of the peace and an elected justice of the peace of the county shall submit a plan to the supreme court that details how the funds allocated to the county pursuant to this section will be used and how the plan will assist the county in improving criminal case processing. The presiding judge of the superior court, the chairman of the board of supervisors or the chairman's designee, the clerk of the superior court, the presiding justice of the peace and an elected justice of the peace shall sign the plan and shall indicate their endorsement of the plan as submitted or shall outline their disagreement with any provisions of the plan. The supreme court may approve the plan or require changes to the plan in order to achieve the goal of improved criminal case processing. D. By January 8, 2001 and every year thereafter by January 8, the supreme court shall report to the governor, the legislature, the joint legislative budget committee, each county board of supervisors and the Arizona criminal justice commission on the expenditure of the fund monies for the prior fiscal year and on the progress made in achieving the goal of improved criminal case processing. This information may be combined into one report with the information required pursuant to section 12-102.01, subsection D. E. All monies spent or distributed from the fund shall be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by the counties for the processing of criminal cases in the superior court, including the office of the clerk of the superior court, and justice courts. F. Monies in the state aid to the courts fund are exempt from the provisions of section 35190 relating to lapsing of appropriations and monies allocated pursuant to section 412421, subsections B and J are subject to legislative appropriation. Any state general fund monies appropriated to the fund may be spent without further legislative appropriation. G. On notice from the supreme court, the state treasurer shall invest and divest monies in the fund as provided by section 35-313, and monies earned from investment shall be credited to the fund. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 74 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 12-116.01. Surcharges; fund deposits A. In addition to any penalty provided by law, a surcharge shall be levied in an amount of forty-seven per cent on every fine, penalty and forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses and any civil penalty imposed and collected for a civil traffic violation and fine, penalty or forfeiture for a violation of the motor vehicle statutes, for any local ordinance relating to the stopping, standing or operation of a vehicle or for a violation of the game and fish statutes in title 17. B. In addition to any penalty provided by law, a surcharge shall be levied in an amount of seven per cent on every fine, penalty and forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses and any civil penalty imposed and collected for a civil traffic violation and fine, penalty or forfeiture for a violation of the motor vehicle statutes, for any local ordinance relating to the stopping, standing or operation of a vehicle or for a violation of the game and fish statutes in title 17. C. In addition to any penalty provided by law, a surcharge shall be levied through December 31, 2011 in an amount of seven per cent, and beginning January 1, 2012 in an amount of six per cent, on every fine, penalty and forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses and any civil penalty imposed and collected for a civil traffic violation and fine, penalty or forfeiture for a violation of the motor vehicle statutes, for any local ordinance relating to the stopping, standing or operation of a vehicle or for a violation of the game and fish statutes in title 17. D. If any deposit of bail or bond or deposit for an alleged civil traffic violation is to be made for a violation, the court shall require a sufficient amount to include the surcharge prescribed in this section for forfeited bail, bond or deposit. If bail, bond or deposit is forfeited, the court shall transmit the amount of the surcharge pursuant to subsection H of this section. If bail, bond or deposit is returned, the surcharge made pursuant to this article shall also be returned. E. After addition of the surcharge, the courts may round the total amount due to the nearest one-quarter dollar. F. The judge may waive all or part of the civil penalty, fine, forfeiture and surcharge, except for mandatory civil penalties and fines, the payment of which would work a hardship on the persons convicted or adjudicated or on their immediate families. If a fine or civil penalty is mandatory, the judge may waive only all or part of the surcharges prescribed by subsections A, B and C of this section and section 12-116.02. If a fine or civil penalty is not mandatory and if a portion of the civil penalty, fine, forfeiture and surcharge is waived or suspended, the amount assessed must be divided according to the proportion that the civil penalty, fine, bail or bond and the surcharge represent of the total amount due. G. The surcharge imposed by this section shall be applied to the base fine, civil penalty or forfeiture and not to any other surcharge imposed. H. After a determination by the court of the amount due, the court shall transmit, on the last day of each month, the surcharges collected pursuant to subsections A, B, C and D of this section and a remittance report of the fines, civil penalties, assessments and surcharges collected pursuant to subsections A, B, C and D of this section to the county treasurer, except that municipal courts shall transmit the surcharges and the remittance report of the fines, civil penalties, assessments and surcharges to the city treasurer. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 75 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission I. The appropriate authorities specified in subsection H of this section shall transmit the forty-seven per cent surcharge prescribed in subsection A of this section and the remittance report as required in subsection H of this section to the state treasurer on or before the fifteenth day of each month for deposit in the criminal justice enhancement fund established by section 41-2401. J. The appropriate authorities specified in subsection H of this section shall transmit the seven per cent surcharge prescribed in subsection B of this section and the remittance report as required in subsection H of this section to the state treasurer on or before the fifteenth day of each month for allocation pursuant to section 41-2421, subsection J. K. The appropriate authorities specified in subsection H of this section shall transmit the surcharge prescribed in subsection C of this section and the remittance report as required in subsection H of this section to the state treasurer on or before the fifteenth day of each month for deposit in the Arizona deoxyribonucleic acid identification system fund established by section 41-2419. L. Partial payments of the amount due shall be transmitted as prescribed in subsections H, I, J and K of this section and shall be divided according to the proportion that the civil penalty, fine, bail or bond and the surcharge represent of the total amount due. 41-2409. State aid; administration A. The Arizona criminal justice commission shall administer the state aid to county attorneys fund established by section 11-539. By September 1 of each year, the commission shall distribute monies in the fund to each county according to the following composite index formula: 1. The three year average of the total felony filings in the superior court in the county, divided by the statewide three year average of the total felony filings in the superior court. 2. The county population, as adopted by the department of economic security, divided by the statewide population, as adopted by the department of economic security. 3. The sum of paragraphs 1 and 2 divided by two equals the composite index. 4. The composite index for each county shall be used as the multiplier against the total funds appropriated from the state general fund and other monies distributed to the fund pursuant to section 41-2421. B. The board of supervisors in each county shall separately account for the monies transmitted pursuant to subsection A of this section and may expend these monies only for the purposes specified in section 11-539. The county treasurer shall invest these monies and interest earned shall be expended only for the purposes specified in section 11-539. C. The Arizona criminal justice commission shall administer the state aid to indigent defense fund established by section 11-588. By September 1 of each fiscal year, the commission shall distribute monies in the fund to each county according to the following composite index formula: FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 76 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 1. The three year average of the total felony filings in the superior court in the county divided by the statewide three year average of the total felony filings in the superior court. 2. The county population, as adopted by the department of economic security, divided by the statewide population, as adopted by the department of economic security. 3. The sum of paragraphs 1 and 2 divided by two equals the composite index. 4. The composite index for each county shall be used as the multiplier against the total funds appropriated from the state general fund and other monies distributed to the fund pursuant to section 41-2421. D. The board of supervisors shall separately account for the monies transmitted pursuant to subsection C of this section and may expend these monies only for the purposes specified in section 11-588. The county treasurer shall invest these monies and interest earned shall be expended only for the purposes specified in section 11-588. E. By January 8, 2001 and by January 8 each year thereafter, the commission shall report to each county board of supervisors, the governor, the legislature, the joint legislative budget committee, the chief justice of the supreme court and the attorney general on the expenditure of the monies in the state aid to county attorneys fund and the state aid to indigent defense fund for the prior fiscal year and on the progress made in achieving the goal of improved criminal case processing. 41-2421. Enhanced collections; allocation of monies; criminal justice entities A. Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection J of this section, five per cent of any monies collected by the supreme court and the court of appeals for the payment of filing fees, including clerk fees, diversion fees, fines, penalties, surcharges, sanctions and forfeitures, shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, and allocated pursuant to the formula in subsection B of this section. This subsection does not apply to monies collected by the courts pursuant to section 16-954, subsection A, or for child support, restitution or exonerated bonds. B. The monies deposited pursuant to subsection A of this section shall be allocated according to the following formula: 1. 21.61 per cent to the state aid to county attorneys fund established by section 11-539. 2. 20.53 per cent to the state aid to indigent defense fund established by section 11-588. 3. 57.37 per cent to the state aid to the courts fund established by section 12102.02. 4. 0.49 per cent to the department of law for the processing of criminal cases. C. Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection J of this section, five per cent of any monies collected by the superior court, including the clerk of the court and the justice courts in each county for the payment of filing fees, including clerk fees, diversion fees, adult and juvenile probation fees, juvenile monetary assessments, fines, penalties, surcharges, sanctions and forfeitures, shall be transmitted to the county treasurer for allocation pursuant to subsections E, F, G and H of this section. This FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 77 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission subsection does not apply to monies collected by the courts pursuant to section 16-954, subsection A or for child support, restitution or exonerated bonds. D. The supreme court shall adopt guidelines regarding the collection of revenues pursuant to subsections A and C of this section. E. The county treasurer shall allocate the monies deposited pursuant to subsection C of this section according to the following formula: 1. 21.61 per cent for the purposes specified in section 11-539. 2. 20.53 per cent for the purposes specified in section 11-588. 3. 57.37 per cent to the local courts assistance fund established by section 12102.03. 4. 0.49 per cent to the state treasurer for transmittal to the department of law for the processing of criminal cases. F. The board of supervisors in each county shall separately account for all monies received pursuant to subsections C and E of this section and expenditures of these monies may be made only after the requirements of subsections G and H of this section have been met. G. By December 1 of each year each county board of supervisors shall certify if the total revenues received by the justice courts and the superior court, including the clerk of the superior court, exceed the amount received in fiscal year 1997-1998. If the board so certifies, then the board shall distribute the lesser of either: 1. The total amount deposited pursuant to subsection C of this section. 2. The amount collected and deposited pursuant to subsection C of this section that exceeds the base year collections of fiscal year 1997-1998. These monies shall be distributed according to the formula specified in subsection E of this section. Any monies remaining after this allocation shall be transmitted as otherwise provided by law. H. If a county board of supervisors determines that the total revenues transmitted by the superior court, including the clerk of the superior court and the justice courts in the county, do not equal the base year collections transmitted in fiscal year 1997-1998 the monies specified in subsection C of this section shall be transmitted by the county treasurer as otherwise provided by law. I. For the purposes of this section, base year collections shall be those collections specified in subsection C of this section. J. Monies collected pursuant to section 12-116.01, subsection B shall be allocated as follows: 1. 15.44 per cent to the state aid to county attorneys fund established by section 11-539. 2. 14.66 per cent to the state aid to indigent defense fund established by section 11-588. 3. 40.97 per cent to the state aid to the courts fund established by section 12102.02. 4. 0.35 per cent to the department of law for the processing of criminal cases. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 78 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 5. 14.29 per cent to the Arizona criminal justice commission for distribution to state, county and municipal law enforcement full service forensic crime laboratories pursuant to rules adopted by the Arizona criminal justice commission. 6. 14.29 per cent to the supreme court for allocation to the municipal courts pursuant to subsection K of this section. K. The supreme court shall administer and allocate the monies received pursuant to subsection J, paragraph 6 of this section to the municipal courts based on the total amount of surcharges transmitted pursuant to section 12-116.01 by that jurisdiction's city treasurer to the state treasurer for the prior fiscal year divided by the total amount of surcharges transmitted to the state treasurer pursuant to section 12-116.01 by all city treasurers statewide for the prior fiscal year. The municipal court shall use the monies received to improve, maintain and enhance the ability to collect and manage monies assessed or received by the courts, to improve court automation and to improve case processing or the administration of justice. The municipal court shall submit a plan to the supreme court and the supreme court shall approve the plan before the municipal court begins to spend these allocated monies. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 79 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission APPENDIX D: Arizona Supreme Court Rules Outlining Court Case Processing Rule 8.1. Priorities in scheduling criminal cases a. Priority of Criminal Trials. The trial of criminal cases shall have priority over the trial of civil cases. Any scheduling conflicts will be resolved in accordance with Rule 5(j), Uniform Rules of Practice. b. Preferences. The trial of defendants in custody and defendants whose pretrial liberty may present unusual risks shall be given preference over other criminal cases. c. Duty of Prosecutor. The prosecutor shall advise the court of facts relevant to determining the order of cases on the calendar. d. Duty of Defense Counsel. The defendant's counsel shall advise the court of the impending expiration of time limits in the defendant's case. Failure to do so may result in sanctions and should be considered by the court in determining whether to dismiss an action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 8.6. e. Extraordinary Cases. Within twenty-five days after the arraignment in Superior Court either party may apply in writing to the court for a hearing to establish extraordinary circumstances requiring the suspension of Rule 8 in a particular case. Within five days of the receipt of the application the court shall hold the hearing and make findings of fact. The findings shall be immediately transmitted to the Chief Justice who may approve or decline to approve them. Upon approval of the findings by the Chief Justice, they shall be returned to the trial court where upon motion of either party the trial court may suspend the provisions of Rule 8 and reset the trial date for a time certain. Rule 8.2. Time limits a. General. Subject to the provisions of Rule 8.4, every person against whom an indictment, information or complaint is filed shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction of the offense within the following time periods: (1) Defendants in Custody. 150 days from arraignment if the person is held in custody, except as provided in subsection (a), paragraph (3) of this section. (2) Defendants Released From Custody. 180 days from arraignment if the person is released under Rule 7, except as provided in subsection (a), paragraph (3) of this section. (3). Complex Cases. One year from arraignment for cases in which the indictment, information or complaint is filed between December 1, 2002 and December 1, 2005, and for subsequent cases 270 days from arraignment if the person is charged with any of the following: (i) 1st Degree Murder, except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this rule, (ii) Offenses that will require the court to consider evidence obtained as the result of an order permitting the interception of wire, electronic or oral communication, (iii) Any complex cases as determined by a written factual finding by the court. FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 80 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (4). Capital Cases. Twenty-four months from the date the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty pursuant to Rule 15.1(i). b. Waiver of Appearance at Arraignment. If a person has waived an appearance at arraignment pursuant to Rule 14.2, the date of the arraignment held without the defendant's presence shall be considered the arraignment date for purposes of subsection (a), paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this rule. c. New Trial. A trial ordered after a mistrial or upon a motion for a new trial shall commence within 60 days of the entry of the order of the court. A trial ordered upon the reversal of a judgment by an appellate court shall commence within 90 days of the service of the mandate of the Appellate Court. d. Extension of Time Limits. These time limits may be extended pursuant to Rule 8.5. e. Trial Dates. In all superior court cases except those in which Rule 8 has been suspended pursuant to Rule 8.1(e), the court shall, either at the time of arraignment in superior court or at a pretrial conference, set a trial date for a time certain. Rule 8.4. Excluded periods The following periods shall be excluded from the computation of the time limits set forth in Rules 8.2 and 8.3: a. Delays occasioned by or on behalf of the defendant, including, but not limited to, delays caused by an examination and hearing to determine competency or intellectual disability, the defendant's absence or incompetence, or his or her inability to be arrested or taken into custody in Arizona. b. Delays resulting from a remand for new probable cause determination under Rules 5.5 or 12.9. c. Delays resulting from extension of the time for disclosure under Rule 15.6. d. Delays necessitated by congestion of the trial calendar, but only when the congestion is attributable to extraordinary circumstances, in which case the presiding judge shall promptly apply to the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court for suspension of any of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. e. Delays resulting from continuances in accordance with Rule 8.5, but only for the time periods prescribed therein. f. Delays resulting from joinder for trial with another defendant as to whom the time limits have not run when there is good cause for denying severance. In all other cases, severance should be granted to preserve the applicable time limits. g. Delays resulting from the setting of a transfer hearing pursuant to Rule 40 of these rules. Rule 8.5. Continuances a. Form of Motion. A continuance of a trial may be granted on the motion of a party. Any motion must be in writing and state with specificity the reason(s) justifying the continuance. b. Grounds for Motion. A continuance of any trial date shall be granted only upon a showing that extraordinary circumstances exist and that delay is indispensable to the FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 81 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission interests of justice. A continuance may be granted only for so long as is necessary to serve the interests of justice. In ruling on a motion for continuance, the court shall consider the rights of the defendant and any victim to a speedy disposition of the case. If a continuance is granted, the court shall state the specific reasons for the continuance on the record. c. Other Continuances. No further continuances shall be granted except as provided in Rules 8.1(e), 8.2(e) and 8.4 (d). FY2015 Fill the Gap Report 82