Mohave County
Office of the Public Defender

2000/2001
Annual Report
Prepared by:
Dana P. Hlavac
Public Defender
PO Box 7000
316 N. 5th St
Kingman, AZ 86402-7000

Executive Summary
The Public Defender’s Office for Mohave County was authorized 10 attorneys and
11 support staff during Fiscal year 2001. Unfortunately there was a significant
exodus of professional staff in the first and second quarters of the fiscal year. The
result of this exodus was an insufficient staff to handle assigned caseloads from the
Mohave County courts. This resulted in the approval and implementation of
private contracts for the provision of professional legal services for indigent
defendants within Mohave County.
These private contracts resulted in significant over expenditure from approved
budgetary amounts. The total cost of representation was extraordinarily high as a
result and is reflected in the per cost figures in Section *** of this report.
On the positive side, by the end of the fiscal year, many of the private contracts
were allowed to expire and not be renewed. This was accomplished due to the
hiring of new attorneys. While the staffing level was not complete prior to the end
of the fiscal year, projected hires allowed for the Public Defender’s Office to retain
virtually all Superior Court non-conflict cases filed after May 1, 2001.
Section One of this report summarizes the number of cases to which the Public
Defender’s Office was appointed, the number of cases sent to private contract
attorneys and the number of cases that required other counsel due to conflicts
within the Public Defender’s Office. An accounting of funds budgeted and
expended is also set forth in Section Two. Section Three sets out the basis for
calculating the cost per case of indigent defense for fiscal year 2001. This is
broken down into cost for cases retained by he Public Defender’s Office and costs
for cases sent to private contract counsel. Lastly this report sets forth projections
for fiscal year 2002 and beyond.

Section 1 – Caseload Figures
The Mohave County Indigent Defense system is designed to provide legal
representation to poor criminal defendants. A Public Defender office is statutorily
authorized1 to provide legal services in: a) criminal cases2, b) extradition hearings3;
c) sanity hearings under title 364; d) involuntary commitment hearings under title
365; e) commitment hearings under 13-45186; f) juvenile delinquency
proceedings7; g) appeals to higher courts8; h) juvenile proceedings other than
delinquency (i.e. dependency and neglect)9; and h) mental health hearings
regarding release recommendations held before the psychiatric security review
board pursuant to 13-399410. However, the Mohave County Public Defender’s
Office has traditionally handled only criminal and juvenile delinquency
proceedings. Other representation of indigent persons has been handled by private
contracts through the Court Administrator’s office and are not addressed in this
report.
During fiscal year 2001 the Mohave County Public Defender’s Office was
appointed to the following cases as compared to prior years:

FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001

Misdemeanors Juvenile Felony Total11
810
116
1616
2108
771
151
1755
2254
925
244
2443
3089

% Change
n/a
7%
37%

According to standards set by the Supreme Court of Arizona in State v. Joe U.
Smith, 140 Ariz. 355 (1984) an attorney can effectively handle 150 cases per year.
The court flatly stated that “Under NO circumstances should maximum allowable
caseloads for each full-time attorney exceed [this limit]”.

1

A.R.S. § 11-584
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(a)
3
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(b)
4
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(c)
5
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(d)
6
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(e)
7
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(f)
8
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(g)
9
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(h)
10
A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1)(i)
11
Case weighting formula established by Arizona Supreme Court in Joe U. Smith v. State counts a misdemeanor at
.5, a juvenile case at .75 and a felony at 1. Using these ratios the formula for total cases is ((# misdemeanors x .5) +
(# of juveniles x .75) + (# of felonies )).
2

In order to provide an ethically appropriate standard of representation that would
not subject any given attorney to disciplinary claims and actions (including a
possible loss of license) the Public Defender’s Office would require a staff of 20.5
attorneys. The Public Defender’s Office is currently staffed at 11 attorneys.
While technology has certainly advanced since Joe U. Smith was decided in 1984,
it is unclear to what level this strict admonition from the Arizona Supreme Court is
appropriate in today’s society. Advances in computers, case management
software, document automation and other management tools has certainly provided
attorneys with an ability to handle a greater volume of work without compromising
the integrity of the delivered work product. However, the current discrepancies in
caseloads in Mohave County versus the approved levels of Joe U. Smith are
inviting a dilemma in Mohave County. Any single Defendant who were to
discover the actual caseloads of his attorney would have standing to sue the County
for failure to comply with statutory mandates, which through Joe U. Smith include
the provision of competent and effective counsel. This type of a lawsuit would
likely be couched in terms of a 1983 civil rights lawsuit against the County.
Not only would this type of a lawsuit subject the County to pecuniary damages, but
it could also potentially open up virtually every past criminal case to appellate
review for ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to adequately protect Mohave
County against such liability, it is my recommendation that the county increase the
number of attorneys within the Public Defender’s Office to a minimum of 15. I
would note that even an increase to 15 attorneys would still mean a caseload of 206
per attorney. It is my opinion that the advances in technology over the last 16
years could very well justify the increase of allowable caseloads by 1/3.
Actual Expenditures by FY

FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001

Actual
$ 1,187,259.69
$ 1,160,172.49
$ 1,751,749.01

% Change
n/a
-2.2%
51%

Actual Expenditures by FY Internal vs. Contract

FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001

Internal
$ 932,157.35
$ 930,463.59
$ 764,342.64

% Change
Contract
N/a
$ 255,102.34
-.2 %
$ 229,708.90
-17.9 % $ 987,406.37

% Change
N/a
-9.9 %
329.9 %

General Fund Approved Budget

FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001

Approved Budget
$1,187,260.00
$ 1,198,817.00
$ 1,357,150.00

Percent Change
na
.97
13.2