Office of
Criminal Justice
Services

FY 2010
Indigent Defense Services
Annual Report
Prepared by:
Dana P. Hlavac
Deputy County Manager
316 N. 5th St.
Kingman, AZ 86401

Executive Summary
This report is prepared in accordance with A.R.S. §11-584(A)(2) & (3) which requires the
preparation and filing of an annual report of indigent defense services rendered during the prior
fiscal year with the Board of Supervisors, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, and the Chief
Probation Officer on the average cost of defending a felony case. This report combines the
requirements of A.R.S. §11-584(A)(2) & (3) by setting forth the number of cases filed and to which
an indigent defense attorney was appointed during FY 2010 together with an accounting of funds
expended in FY 2010. This report is the first annual report issued under the new structure of
Indigent Defense in Mohave County. One of the major changes is that all expenditures related to
every criminal case are now allocated to the agency which was assigned the representation of the
case. This report encompasses data from FY 09 which was not submitted as a result of significant
organizational changes made within the area of criminal justice services during the latter part of FY
09. The report will also highlight several accomplishments during the year. Finally, the report
provides an analysis of the statistics for future planning purposes.
This report also incorporates data relevant to the Loan Repayment Assistance and Relocation
Assistance Programs that were approved by the Board of Supervisors in January of 2005. This data
will review the number of attorneys on staff at the beginning of the fiscal year that were projected to
be eligible for participation in the Loan Repayment Assistance Program together with data regarding
their individual and collective comparison of employment history in relation to historical trends in
attorney retention.
FY 2010 represented the twenty-fifth full year of operation for the Law Offices of the Mohave
County Public Defender, the twenty-first year of operation for the Mohave County Legal Defenders
Office and the first year for the Appellate Defenders Office (ADO - handling appeal cases arising
out of the representation of an indigent defendant). Together with private contract counsel these
offices continue to provide quality legal services to those persons whose defense has been entrusted
to Mohave County for representation.
The Law Office of the Mohave County Public Defender, Legal Defenders Office and Appellate
Defender’s Office continue to strive to fulfill their goal of providing indigent defense services in a
cost efficient manner. The staff at all offices remain dedicated to considering the impact of internal
operations and organizational structure on the effectiveness and efficiency provided to the taxpayers
of Mohave County. During the latter part of FY 09, responsibility for providing contract counsel
was shifted from the Public Defenders Office to an office of Criminal Justice Services. The Office
of Criminal Justices Services also is responsible for the provision of all non-county services required
within the Mohave County justice system.
FY 2010 marked a substantial landmark in recruiting and retention in the indigent defense offices of
Mohave County. During FY 2010 no new attorneys were hired and two attorneys were laid off as a
result of a reduction in overall case filings within the criminal justice system, (One from PDO and
one from LDO). Other than the reduction in force no other attorneys left employment during FY 10.
At the end of the fiscal year, one hundred percent (100%) of the professional staff had over a year
experience with the office. The outlook for staff licensed attorneys is very strong going into FY
2

2011. All current professional staff is licensed at the time of the finalization of this report. This has
resulted in the highest level of staffing ever for indigent defense and a current vacancy rate of
roughly five percent (5%). As a result of this increase in experienced staff, the use of outside
contract counsel was reduced by an additional twelve percent (12%). For FY 2010, the vacancy rate
was the lowest since this data has been recorded (2001) at six percent (6%). Overall productivity, as
measured by hours worked, was among the highest ever at a total of 41,774 man hours, or an
average of 42.98 hours per week.
FY 2010 was the third full year the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender has been
operating in the renovated historic St. John’s United Methodist Church (former Mohave County
Public Health) building. The renovated facility has significantly improved morale, efficiency and
overall professionalism within the office. Long term benefits are being seen in greater success at
recruiting and retention efforts. The Legal Defenders Office continues to be located on Pine Street.
Compared to over 700 cases which were “overflowed” to private counsel in FY 2008 due to an
inability to handle them in-house, no cases were sent to “overflow” contractors during FY 10.
Overall use of outside contract attorneys dropped to only 527 total cases versus 1271 in FY 08 and
578 in FY 09. Private contract counsel costs for direct non-death penalty legal services on criminal
cases rose from $470,086 in FY 09 to $558,209 in FY 10 predominantly as a result of several related
cases arising from a major drug sting operation.
FY 10 was the first year that both the Legal and Public Defender office’s began to handle mental
health cases1. These cases had previously been handled by contract counsel with all costs paid
through the courts mandated services budget. There are no historical records which would provide a
readily accessible basis for determining the cost per case of those private counsel cases prior to the
cases being handled internally by the staffed legal offices. However, since there was no additional
cost associated with taking these cases on, it is fair to state that there was a direct cost savings.
Assuming the prior costs were in line with comparative costs, this would have represented a savings
of roughly one thousand dollars per case. With a total of forty-three (43) cases being handled
internally during FY 10, the savings is approximated at forty three thousand dollars ($43,000) this
compares to a projected savings of ten to twenty thousand dollars ($10,000 - $20,000) predicted to
the Board in backup materials for the November 16, 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting.
Additionally, since the implementation of the “Hot Job” incentive program for recruiting and
retention in 2005, retention is up from 25% to virtually 100%. There are now sufficient data points
to make an initial assessment that the “Hot Job” incentive program (LRAP and Moving Expenses) is
a fiscally responsible program that has more than paid for itself since inception.
The provision of legal services through the staff at the Public Defender’s Office was the cheapest
manner of providing service on a weighted case basis. The use of private contract counsel remained
the most expensive delivery method, coming in roughly two hundred and twenty five dollars ($225)
per case higher than the overall average cost per case, one hundred and ninety nine dollars ($199)
more than the average cost of a Legal Defender and over three hundred forty dollars ($340) more
than the average case cost of the Public Defender.

1

The authorization to handle these cases was only obtained at the November 16, 2009 Board meeting.

3

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 4
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 6
Part I - Indigent Defense Caseload Statistics.............................................................................7
A.
Service Delivery Methods ............................................................................................ 7
B.
Case Classifications ...................................................................................................... 7
1. Felony Cases ............................................................................................................... 9
2. Juvenile Cases........................................................................................................... 10
A. Delinquent and Incorrigible Juveniles .................................................................. 11
B. Dependencies ........................................................................................................ 11
3. Misdemeanor Cases .......................................................................................................... 12
4. Appeals and Post Conviction Relief Cases................................................................... 12
Part II - Indigent Defense Costs...............................................................................................13
Cost per Case Analysis ......................................................................................................... 17
Part III - FY 2010 Highlights and Achievements ....................................................................21
Human Resources – .............................................................................................................. 22
Part V – Conclusion (Challenges and Trends for the Future)..................................................23
Appendix A - Where the Numbers Come From and What They Represent............................25
Appendix B - Breakdown of Most Prevalent Crimes for FY 2010 By Charge .......................26
Appendix C – Cost per Case Analysis using Weighting Factors ............................................28
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Case appointment trends from Fiscal year 2003 through 2010 for criminal and
delinquency cases. ................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2 – Case filing trends from Fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2010 by case type........ 12
Figure 3 - This Chart illustrates the average cost per case for all three forms of legal service
providers, as well as the average for all services for fiscal year 2010.................................. 17
Figure 4 - This Chart shows an annual comparison for all four indigent defense provider systems
and the average for the county provided service. ................................................................. 18
Figure 5 - This chart shows the volume of raw cases handled by the respective service provider
systems within Mohave County............................................................................................ 18
Figure 6 – This Figure illustrates the eight year average cost of handling a case between the three
major legal service providers................................................................................................ 20
Figure 7 - This figure represents the trending of total and weighted case appointments for
Mohave County over the past eight fiscal years. It is notable that the significant increase in
appointments from 2003-2007 has been reversed in the period 2007-2010......................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1 – This table shows the raw caseloads assigned to each of the three respective delivery
providers of indigent defense for FY 2010. ............................................................................ 8
Table 2 – This table lists the totality of expenditures under the primary General Fund account
which comprises the main budget for the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public
4

Defender................................................................................................................................ 14
Table 3 - This table lists the totality of expenditures under the primary General Fund account
which comprises the main budget for the Mohave County Legal Defender. ....................... 15
Table 4 – This table lists the totality of expenditures under the primary General Fund account
which comprises the main budget for the Mohave County Appellate Defender.................. 15
Table 5 - This table lists the totality of expenditures under the primary General Fund account
which comprises the main budget for the Office of Criminal Justice Services. ................... 16
Table 6 – This table shows the percentage of total indigent defense expenditures for Mohave
County that were attributable to each of the three delivery providers. It is reasonable to
expect roughly 60% of all funding to be through the PDO, 15% to be to contracts, 5% to
appeals and 20% to LDO in an average year........................................................................ 19
Table 7 – This table is solely based on the number of charges filed. It is possible for a single
case to contain multiple charges, and therefore the numbers can NOT be used to calculate
caseloads. .............................................................................................................................. 26

5

Introduction
This report is intended to provide an overview of indigent defense legal services provided by
Mohave County for Fiscal Year 2010.
The first section of this report will discuss indigent defense caseloads and statistics. The caseloads
will be broken down by type of case (i.e.: felony, juvenile, misdemeanor) and by major charge (i.e.:
assault, theft, etc.).
The second section will discuss costs associated with indigent defense and provide a breakdown of
the costs per case on a weighted case basis for FY 2010. The term “weighted case” is used
throughout this report to represent an adjustment to raw caseload figures based on acceptable annual
workload standards under State (Joe U. Smith) and Federal (US Department of Justice Compendium
of Standards for Indigent Defense Systems) law. Felony cases are weighted as a complete case and
are therefore fully credited (a 1:1 ratio). Misdemeanor cases are weighted as .375 cases (a 3:8 ratio)
based on the standard caseload permissible being 400 versus 150 for felonies. Juvenile cases are
weighted as .75 cases (a 3:4 ratio) based on the standard permissible caseload being 200 versus 150
felonies. Probation violation cases are weighted as .375 cases (a 3:8 ratio) based on the standard
caseload permissible being 400 versus 150 for felonies. Appeals are weighted as 6 cases based on
the standard permissible caseload being 25 (a 6:1 ratio) while post-conviction relief proceedings are
weighted as 2 cases based on the standard permissible caseload being 70 (a 2:1 ratio). Mental
Health cases are weighted as .5 cases based on anecdotal review of cases (a .5:1 ratio). During FY
2010 the necessity of ensuring that caseloads were properly managed and reviewed continued to be
governed by the American Bar Association’s ethics opinion 06-0441 (Appendix A).
Caseload/workload issues have become a major issue not only in Mohave County, but throughout
the nation. The current status of this issue, as it impacts operational considerations in Mohave
County, is addressed in this section.
The third section will highlight several of highlights and achievements within the indigent defense
sector during the year.
The fourth section will detail human resource issues and participation in the Loan Repayment and
Relocation Assistance Programs.
The final section is a conclusion that will discuss challenges and trends that need to be considered in
future planning for success.

6

Part I - Indigent Defense Caseload Statistics
A.

Service Delivery Methods
In Mohave County, there is one method by which indigent persons2 accused of committing
criminal acts are provided legal services. They are appointed an attorney and the initial case
paperwork is referred to the Office of Criminal Justice Services. As soon as paperwork is
received, the individuals’ name is screened for potential conflicts in representing the
individual within the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender. If there is no
apparent conflict based on the initial paperwork, a case file is opened and the case is sent to
the Public Defender for the assignment of a specific attorney.3 If a conflict is identified, the
Legal Defender‘s Office is contacted and a similar conflict check is performed for that
office. If there is a conflict in both the Public and Legal Defender offices, the case is then
assigned to a contract counsel based on a rotating schedule and attorney qualifications.
Data is maintained within the newly created Office of Criminal Justice Services on all cases
to which an individual has been assigned government funded counsel. This data is crosschecked and verified to the greatest extent possible at each year end to ensure the best
information is included within this report.

B.

Case Classifications
There are four major classifications of indigent defense services: (1) felony cases; (2)
juvenile cases (juvenile cases previously included only delinquency cases, however in FY
2008 the Board of Supervisors authorized the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public
Defender to also represent dually adjudicated youth in both their delinquency and
dependency cases.4); (3) misdemeanor cases; and (4) mental health cases.5, 6
Prior to reviewing the figures below, please review Appendix A entitled, “Where the
Numbers Came From and What They Represent” for a discussion about how the statistics are
kept, what they mean and how they may differ from the case statistics kept by the other
agencies.

2

It is important to note, that there is a very minimal screening process to determine the true financial eligibility of
individuals based on income and assets.
3
This process usually takes a complete business day.
4
Statutorily the Board of Supervisors may authorize local indigent defense offices to handle “All juvenile proceedings
other than delinquency and incorrigibility proceedings under subdivision (f), including serving as a guardian ad litem,
when appointed by the court pursuant to section 8-221, if the court appoints the public defender and the board of
supervisors has advised the presiding judge of the county that the public defender is authorized to accept the
appointment.” A.R.S. § 11-584(H).
5
In FY 10, the Board of Supervisors also approved the authorization to handle psychiatric security review, during the
November 16, 2009 meeting. Additional representational duties are authorized by statute, but such authorization along
with accompanying staffing has not occurred in Mohave County to date.
6
The Board of Supervisors approved the handling of Title 36 case appointments for both the Public and Legal
Defender offices in the 2nd quarter of FY 10 and these numbers will be included in the FY 10 annual report.
Additionally it is anticipated that responsibility for extended juvenile dependency representation will be sought
later in FY 11 along with representation for psychiatric security review board hearings.

7

Raw Caseload Counts FY 2010
PDO
Misdemeanor
Felony
Juvenile
PCR
Appeals
Probation Violations
Mental Health
Psychiatric Security Review
Sexually Violent Person
Witness Representation
Juvenile Dependency
Subtotal
LDO
Misdemeanor
Felony
Juvenile
PCR
Appeals
Probation Violations
Mental Health
Psychiatric Security Review
Sexually Violent Person
Witness Representation
Juvenile Dependency
Subtotal
Appellate Defender
PCR
Appeals
Subtotal
Private Contract
Misdemeanor
Felony
Juvenile
PCR
Appeals
Probation Violations
Mental Health
Psychiatric Security Review
Sexually Violent Person
Witness Representation
Juvenile Dependency
Subtotal
Total

1449
1526
264
8
380
35
1
1
1
16
3681
446
511
130

162
8

1257
61
46
107
69
256
97
7
5
93

527
5572

Table 1 – This table shows the raw caseloads assigned to each of the three respective delivery providers of
indigent defense for FY 2010. Raw case assignments are NOT used for calculating per case costs!
Weighted caseloads are utilized in order to make the number more meaningful.

8

1.

Felony Cases

A felony is a crime which carries a potential sentence of at least one year in prison. The first type of
felony case generally begins with an arrest. An arrested individual must appear before a magistrate
or justice of the peace within 24 hours for a determination as to whether there is sufficient reason to
believe the person committed an offense for which they can be lawfully arrested. This first hearing
is known as an initial appearance. These hearings currently are held without any counsel being
present. At the hearing, a decision is made regarding whether the individual should remain in
custody and if so what bond should be required for them to be released. If an individual requests
counsel during this first hearing, counsel is appointed to represent the individual. The physical
paperwork indicating that appointment is now forwarded by the court to the Office of Criminal
Justice Services for opening of a case file and initial conflict checking before being assigned to a
staffed office or contract counsel as appropriate. During FY 10, significant improvements in the
timeliness of paperwork transmittal were achieved through cooperative efforts with the courts and
the implementation of digital scanning technology. Initial paperwork is generally received between
1 to 12 hours after the initial appearance depending on the court. An individual who remains in
custody is entitled to a preliminary hearing7 within 10 days. An individual who is out of custody is
entitled to a preliminary hearing within 20 days.
For individuals that are appointed counsel by a court, the case assignment office conducts a conflict
check to identify any potential conflict of interests which would preclude representation by a
member of the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender. If there is a conflict, the case is
sent to either the Legal Defender, or a private contract attorney, depending on whether the Legal
Defender has a conflict or not. This process is to be complete within one business day of receiving a
new case within the case assignment office. If the case is assigned to the Law Offices of the Mohave
County Public Defender, or the Legal Defender’s Office, it is assigned internally within that office
pursuant to policy set by the department head for internal case assignments.
Felony cases are divided into two classifications in terms of internal administration. The first group
of cases is those which are filed in one of the five outlying Justice Courts8.
The second group of felony cases is known as original indictments. An original indictment is
generally a case in which an individual was not arrested and a complaint was never filed in a justice
court, but rather proceeds directly to Superior Court after the indictment is returned. If the grand
jury finds probable cause to believe an individual committed a criminal offense the grand jury
returns a signed Indictment. In general, these cases involve more complex factual issues which were
presented to the grand Jury for investigative or political reasons.
In FY 2010 there were a total of 2,293 felony cases to which an attorney was assigned (up from
2,207 in FY 09 for an increase of 3.9%). For fiscal year 2010, the Law Offices of the Mohave
County Public Defender averaged 19 attorneys; and the Legal Defender averaged 6 attorneys.
During FY 2010 the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender represented 1,526 (down
7

A preliminary hearing is a hearing at which a judge must make a determination as to whether there is probable
cause to believe that the individual has committed the offense that they are charged with. The hearing generally
consists of a law enforcement officer (who may, or may not, have been involved in the arrest and investigation of
the individual) detailing the arresting officers report to the court. The court must view any evidence presented by
the State in the light most favorable to sustaining a finding of probable cause.
8
Kingman, Cerbat, Bullhead City, Lake Havasu City and Moccasin are the 5 justice courts within Mohave County.

9

from 1,537 in FY 09 for a decrease of 0.7%) felony defendants (66.6% of all felony filings), the
Legal Defender represented 511 (up from 387 in FY 09 for an increase of 32%) felony defendants
(22.3% of all felony filings) and contract attorneys represented 256 (down from 283 in FY 09 for a
decrease of 9.5%) felony defendants (11.2% of all felony filings). Since FY 08, the volume of
felony cases being sent to private contractors has been reduced from 875 to only 256. This
represents roughly half a million dollars in annual savings in the cost of legal services for
indigent defendants in Mohave County over that two year period.
The total of 2,293 felony cases represents an increase of 3.9% in total felony cases assigned in FY
10 versus FY 099. This follows a 23.6% reduction in felony filings in FY 09 from FY 08 and a 17%
reduction in felony filings in FY 08 from FY 07. Overall felony filings were at the lowest number
since FY 03. Overall felony filings have dropped from 3,490 in FY 07 to only 2,293 in FY 10. This
is a total reduction of almost 34.3%. This reduction in filings appears to be tracking reported
decreases in reported property crimes within the county during FY 10. As a result of this downward
trending in case filings, workload related layoffs were mandated for one public defender position
and one legal defender position. An additional public defender position has been left vacant as a
result of attrition pending additional data trending results. Case trends are reflected in Figure 1

Raw Cases - Counsel Appointed
FY 03- FY 10
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FY 03

FY 04

FY 05
Felony

FY 06

FY 07

Misdemeanor

FY 08

FY 09

FY 10

Juvenile

Figure 1 – Case appointment trends from Fiscal year 2003 through 2010 for criminal and delinquency cases.

2.

Juvenile Cases

Juvenile cases consist of juvenile delinquency cases (persons under the age of 18 charged with
crimes) and dependencies (see Section B below) if the child is dually adjudicated10. Legal services
are provided to children whom are charged with delinquent offenses and dependencies under
9

It is important to note that roughly 20% of all felony filings resulted in a low level dismissal, or non-filings of
charges. For purposes of weighting these cases, they are counted as misdemeanors rather than felony due to the
much lighter amount of work required to resolve.
10
The term “dually adjudicated” refers to a child who has both a pending delinquency and a dependency case
ongoing at the same time.

10

appropriate circumstances.
A. Delinquent and Incorrigible Juveniles
A “Delinquent Juvenile” is a juvenile who committed an act which if committed by an adult would
be a criminal or petty offense. An “Incorrigible Juvenile” is one who has been adjudicated to have
committed an offense which can only be committed by a juvenile, such as refusing to obey one’s
parents, truancy, runaway, etc.
The number of delinquencies cases to which counsel was appointed decreased slightly from 667 in
FY 2009 to 491 in FY 2010 (a 26.4% decrease). Overall juvenile delinquencies are down since FY
03, although FY 09 filings were right at the average annual filings for the period from FY 03 – FY
09. Case trends are reflected in Figure 1.
B. Dependencies
Legal representation for all parties to a juvenile dependency case is coordinated through the Courts.
The Court has separate contracts with private counsel which pays on different terms than those
contracts managed by the public defender’s office. In January of 2008, Board approval was given to
expand representation of staff attorneys to include the representation of juveniles who had both a
delinquency and a dependency case pending at the same time. These are referred to as dually
adjudicated juveniles. In FY 10, a total of 16 dually adjudicated youth were represented by staff
offices. This represents a increase from 9 in FY 09. While these numbers are currently small
enough to not significantly impact overall caseload figures they are included to establish a baseline
for future comparison. For FY 11, a new Office of Juvenile Representation has been formed to take
on the primary representation of children in dependency, adoption and guardianship cases. It is
anticipated that if case filings remain the same, this move will save Mohave County a minimum of
two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000 per year).
A "dependent child" is one who is:
1.

2.

3.

In need of proper and effective parental care and control and has no parent or
guardian, or the parent or guardian is not willing to exercise or incapable of
exercising care and control, or
a child who is destitute, or is not provided with the necessities of life, including
adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care, or where the home is "unfit" by
reason of abuse, neglect, cruelty or depravity by a parent, guardian or other person
having care or custody of the child, or
A child who is incompetent or not restorable to competency and who is alleged to
have committed a serious offense.

There is a high level of cross-over between juveniles accused of delinquent acts and those that the
State11 seeks to declare dependent.

11

Notably these cases are handled by the Attorney General’s Office, not the County Attorney’s.

11

3. Misdemeanor Cases
A misdemeanor is an offense for which a sentence to a term of incarceration other than to the
custody of the department of corrections is authorized by state law. Jurisdiction for adjudicating
these offenses lies with the Justice Courts of Mohave County. Total misdemeanor case assignments
during FY 2010 were 1964 as compared to 2751 in FY 2009, a decrease of 28.6 %. The highest
concentrations of cases in this area are driving under the influence and domestic violence related
cases. Case trends are reflected in Figure 1.

4. Appeals and Post Conviction Relief Cases
This year there were 107 Appeals and Post Conviction Relief (PCR) cases filed as compared to 78 in
FY 2009. This is an increase of 37.2 %. An appeal is a case which occurs automatically after a trial
results in the conviction of a defendant. Exceptions occur at the sole choice of the defendant and are
predominantly limited to instances where the defendant is convicted of only a very minor charge and
does not wish to remain entangled in the court system any longer than necessary. Post Conviction
Relief cases are filed pursuant to Criminal Rule of Procedure 32 and are essentially a claim that the
quality of legal representation was below professional standards. While information is anecdotal,
there is an obvious connection between the workload an attorney has and the perceived performance
each particular client has of that attorney’s ability to work their cause. Higher per attorney caseloads
inevitably result in a greater percentage of post-conviction relief proceedings. When you consider
that the case weighting is 2 for a post-conviction relief case (Requires attorney to review everything
that was originally done, re-do everything that was originally done, and evaluate whether the
methodology falls below professional standards) it is certainly less expensive to do it right the first
time.
Overall case trends are reflected in Figure 2.

Raw Cases - Counsel Appointed
FY 03- FY 10
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Felony

Misdemeanor

Appeals and PCRs

Totals

FY 08

FY 09

FY10

Juvenile

Figure 2 – Case filing trends from Fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2010 by case type.

12

Part II - Indigent Defense Costs
The Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender was approximately 4 % under authorized
budget for FY 2009. The bulk of the savings were realized in three areas: 1) a reduction in the use
of outside counsel; 2) lower costs for health insurance; and 3) savings related to reduced attorney
turnover.

13

Public Defender General Fund FY `10

40110
40210
40230
40240
40260
41100
41140
41150
43115
43120
43177
43180
43210
43215
43216
43230
43310
43320
43325
43340
43510
43530
43730
43810
43910
43920

REGULAR SALARIES/WAGES
EMP.BENE.-FICA
CTY.HEALTH INS.
WORKERS COMP
STATE RETIRE.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
COPIES/DUPL. SUPPLIES
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
INVESTIGATION FEES
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
TRAINING COSTS
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE COMPUTER DATA
CELL PHONE CHARGES
POSTAGE
TRAVEL EXPENSES
MOTORPOOL CHGS
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
MOVING EXPENSES
PRINTING EXP'S
COPIER CONTRACT
WATER EXPENSE
LEASE COMPUTER (IT ONLY)
R&M AUTOMOTIVE
R&M OFFICE EQUIP
COURT COSTS/INVESTIGATIONS

47910
47930

DUES,
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP

GRAND TOTAL

ORIGINAL

REVISED

SPENT

% Used

1,651,707
126,356
259,904
2,364
155,260
9,362
2,964
3,011
4,939

1,651,707
126,356
259,904
2,364
155,260
4,762
4,089
3,141
2,779

1,622,795
123,699
237,175
2,414
150,968
4,273
3,872
1,861
1,762

98
98
91
102
97
90
95
59
63

65,752
47,000
2,950
23,304

65,752
47,000
2,950
28,234

65,752
27,358
2,950
28,325

100
58
100
100

3,909
1,950
3,450
3,248
25,045
9,384
11,000
1,503
4,149
360
19,000
315
579

3,909
1,181
4,457
4,248
28,645
9,384
11,000
858
4,149
420
19,000
154
579

3,909
866
4,478
3,685
28,607
9,384
0
446
4,150
440
19,000
0
408

100
73
101
87
100
100
0
52
100
105
100
0
70

6,500

2,350

2,068

88

8,740

9,373

9,373

100

2,454,005

2,454,005

2,360,015

96

Table 2 – This table lists the totality of expenditures under the primary General Fund account which comprises the
main budget for the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender.

The Legal Defender was approximately 5 % under authorized budget for FY 2010. The bulk of the
savings were realized in a staff vacancy imposed by the County mandated hiring freeze.
Legal Defender General Fund FY '10

40110
40150
40210
40210
40230

REGULAR SALARIES/WAGES
TRANSCRIPT PAY
EMP.BENE.-FICA
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FICA
CTY.HEALTH INS.

ORIGINAL

600,704
0
45,954
0
83,840

14

REVISED

600,704
0
45,954
0
83,840

ACTUAL

593,301
56
44,407
4
88,248

% Spent

99
100
97
100
105

40230
40240
40260
40260
41100
43120
43177
43210
43215
43216
-43230
43310
43320
43325
43340
43510
43530
43730
43810
43860
47910
47930
47990

COUNTY HEALTH INSURANCE
WORKERS COMP
STATE RETIRE.
STATE RETIREMENT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE COMPUTER DATA
CELL PHONE CHARGES
POSTAGE
TRAVEL EXPENSES
MOTORPOOL CHGS
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
MOVING EXPENSES
PRINTING EXP'S
COPIER CONTRACT
WATER EXPENSE
LEASE COMPUTER (IT ONLY)
BUILDING LEASES
COURT COSTS/INVESTIGATIONS
DUES, SUBSCRIP./MEMBERSHIP
MISCELLANEOUS OTHER

GRAND TOTAL

0
856
56,466
0
4,405
24,921
36,000
8,287

0
856
56,466
0
4,205
24,921
36,000
7,887

10
832
55,789
5
3,981
24,921
3,711
6,441

100
97
99
100
95
100
10
82

1,268
650
2,500
1,900
12,960
4,488
2,000
360
2,596
138
5,500
1,568

1,268
1,050
2,550
1,900
12,270
4,488
2,000
560
2,596
438
5,500
688

1,268
985
2,532
1,388
6,833
4,488
0
525
2,597
426
5,500
684

100
94
99
73
56
100
0
94
100
97
100
99

1,000
3,500
100

1,400
3,440
980

1,284
3,383
456

92
98
47

901,961

901,961

854,056

95

Table 3 - This table lists the totality of expenditures under the primary General Fund account which comprises the
main budget for the Mohave County Legal Defender.
Appellate Defender General Fund FY '10

40110
40210
40230
40240
40260
43120
43180
43210
43215
43230
43810
47930

REGULAR SALARIES/WAGES
EMP.BENE.-FICA
CTY.HEALTH INS.
WORKERS COMP
STATE RETIRE.
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
TRAINING COSTS
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE COMPUTER DATA
POSTAGE
LEASE COMPUTER (IT ONLY)
DUES, SUBSCRIP./MEMBERSHIP

GRAND TOTAL

ORIGINAL

REVISED

ACTUAL

% Spent

160,722
12,295
16,768
224
15,108
7,108
2,500
4,599
423
1,200
2,000
930

160,722
12,295
16,768
224
15,108
7,108
2,400
4,599
423
1,549
2,000
781

157,670
11,846
14,733
172
14,843
7,108
2,400
1,284
423
1,549
2,000
771

98.1
96.3
87.9
76.8
98.2
100
100
27.9
100
100
100
98.7

223,877

223,977

214,799

95.9

Table 4 – This table lists the totality of expenditures under the primary General Fund account which comprises the
main budget for the Mohave County Appellate Defender.

15

Criminal Justice Services General Fund FY '10
34115
40110
40150-1100
40210
40210-1100
40230
40230-1100
40240
40260
40260-1100
41100
41140
41150
43110
43110-1203
43110-1204
43110-1206
43120
43155
43155-1202
43155-1204
43155-1205
43155-1206
43155-1207
43180
43210
43215
43216
43230
43310
43312
43430
43510
43530
43730
43810
43920
43948
47910
47910-1202
47910-1204
47910-1206
47910-1207
47910-1208
47930

ORIGINAL

FIDUCIARY FEES
SALARIES/WAGES
TRANSCRIPT PAY
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FICA
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FICA
COUNTY HEALTH INSURANCE
COUNTY HEALTH INSURANCE
WORKERS COMP
STATE RETIREMENT
STATE RETIREMENT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
COPIES DUPLICATING SUPPLIES
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
LEGAL SERVICES
LGL SVCS-DPNDNCY
LGL SVCS-DEATHPENALTY
LGL SVCS-TITLE 14&36
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXAMS
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXAMS (Appeals)
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXAMS (Death
Penalty)
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXAMS (Rule 11)
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXAMS (Title 14 & 36)
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXAMS (Pub Def)
TRAINING COSTS
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE COMPUTER DATA
CELL PHONE CHARGES
POSTAGE
TRAVEL EXPENSES
TRAVEL RECRUITING
JOB ADVERTISING
PRINTING EXPENSE
COPIER CONTRACT
WATER EXPENSE
LEASE COMPUTER (IT ONLY)
R&M OFFICE EQUIP
R&M SOFTWARE
COURT COSTS INVESTIGATIONS
COURT COSTS INVESTIGATIONS (Appeals)
COURT COSTS INVESTIGATIONS (Death Penalty)
COURT COSTS INVESTIGATIONS (Title 14 & 36)
COURT COSTS INVESTIGATIONS (Pub Def)
COURT COSTS INVESTIGATIONS (Legal Def)
MEMBERSHIP DUES SUBSCRIPTIONS

GRAND
TOTAL

REVISED

ACTUAL

PCT

0
281,778
0
21,556
0
41,920
0
414
26,487
0
1,638
480
489
799,721
0
0
0
8,885
198,000
0

0
285,596
131
21,556
10
48,875
15
414
26,487
12
1,443
480
1,039
413,333
622,549
237,732
15,524
8,885
4,342
2,075

-10,799
285,596
797
19,212
61
50,105
15
350
26,885
75
1,422
160
1,033
413,333
626,135
235,644
15,862
8,885
4,781
2,075

100
100
610.7
89.1
625
102.5
100
84.5
101.5
610.6
98.5
33.4
99.4
100
100.6
99.1
102.2
100
110.1
100

0
0
0
0
5,000
4,922
211
650
650
3,792
1,000
330
156
304
207
1,000
100
1,152
113,000
0
0
0
0
0
6,250

8,748
46,796
131,908
3,134
4,562
4,922
211
650
900
3,732
2,450
330
156
442
207
1,000
100
1,152
79,674
3,209
204,244
7,727
51,821
6,179
4,505

13,676
49,028
154,231
3,471
1,367
4,004
211
417
874
2,678
1,855
250
126
441
157
1,000
0
200
98,747
3,207
214,999
6,663
53,346
6,179
4,395

156.3
104.8
116.9
110.8
30
81.4
100
64.2
97.1
71.8
75.7
75.8
80.5
99.9
75.7
100
0
17.4
123.9
100
105.3
86.2
102.9
100
97.6

1,520,092

2,259,256

2,303,147

101.9

Table 5 - This table lists the totality of expenditures under the primary General Fund account which comprises the
main budget for the Office of Criminal Justice Services.

16

Cost per Case Analysis
The average cost per weighted case for an appointed attorney from the Law Offices of the Mohave
County Public Defender was $ 1,050.28 during FY 2010. This is up about $ 170.95 (19.4%) per
case from FY 2009, and up $ 211.62 (25.2%) per case from FY 2008. By comparison, the average
cost per case for an appointed attorney from the Legal Defender’s Office was $ 1,088.32 for FY
2010, down $ 171.27 (13.6%) per case from FY 2009 and down $ 51.53 (4.5%) per case from FY
2008. The average cost per case for a contracted case was $ 1,287.68, an increase of $ 352.65
(37.7%) from FY 2009, and an increase of $ 314.35 (32.3%) from FY 2008. The significant jump in
the average cost of cases for the Public and Legal Defender offices from FY 2008 to FY 2010 was
due primarily to an increase in staffing in FY 08 that was overdue, but predicated on old case trends
that did not continue during the 08-10 period. This has been remedied by a reduction in staffing
achieved by moving one FTE to a newly created Appellate Defender’s Office to reduce outside
contractor costs for appeals and post-conviction relief proceedings and a reduction in force of two
professional staff members (one at Legal Defender and one at Public Defender) at the end of FY 10.
The increase in outside contract costs per case is due to better tracking of costs associated with
those cases. Previously the non-legal fee costs of those cases (experts and investigation) were
tracked in the court budget, but are now consolidated within the new Office of Criminal Justice
Services. The total number of cases which were required to be sent to contract counsel was reduced
by 54.5% from 1271 in FY 2008 to 578 in FY 2009 and by an additional 4% in FY 2010 (527 total
cases). The chart in Figure 3 shows the comparative costs of the three delivery methods for FY
2010. The chart in Figure 4 shows an eight year comparison of the costs of the three delivery
systems and the eight year average for all three systems. The chart in Figure 5 shows the change in
the raw number of cases handled through each delivery method over a six year period (FY 20032010). Table 6 shows the distribution of funding to the major service providers for FY 10.
Indigent Defense Provider Cost per Weighted Case FY
'10
Average
Contract
ADO
LDO
PDO
$0.00
Figure 3 - This

$200.00 $400.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,000.0 $1,200.0 $1,400.0
0
0
0

Chart illustrates the average cost per case for all four forms of legal service
17

providers, as well as the average for all services for fiscal year 2010.

Indigent Defense Provider Cost Per
Weighted Case FY 03 - FY 10
$1,400.00
$1,200.00

PDO
LDO

$1,000.00
$800.00

ADO

$600.00

Contract

$400.00

Average

$200.00
$0.00
03
Figure 4 - This

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

Chart shows an annual comparison for all four indigent defense provider systems
and the average for the county provided service.

Raw Cases Handled by Fiscal Year
6000
5000
PDO Raw
LDO Raw
ADO Raw
Contract Raw

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
03
Figure 5 - This

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

chart shows the volume of raw cases handled by the respective service provider
systems within Mohave County.

18

Agency
PDO
LDO
ADO
Contract

FY 2003
59.3
24.3
16.4

Percentage of Funding by Provider Agency
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
65.2
65.1
54.6
56.1
55.1
22.3
24
21.8
19.8
21.5
12.5

10.8

23.6

24.1

23.3

FY 2009
66.6%
21.6%
11.8%

FY 2010
59.2%
21.4%
5.4%
14.0%

Table 6 – This table shows the percentage of total indigent defense expenditures for Mohave
County that were attributable to each of the three delivery providers. It is reasonable to
expect roughly 60% of all funding to be through the PDO, 15% to be to contracts, 5% to
appeals and 20% to LDO in an average year.

It is important to comment briefly on the structure of the conflict contracts. Under the contract, a
private attorney can either accept, or decline an offered case. If they accept the case, the price is
established as a flat rate for the first 25 hours of work. There are minor exceptions which can reduce
the flat rate if the case resolves quickly. However, if the case exceeds 25 hours, the attorney simply
asks the court to order the contract administrator (now within the Office of Criminal Justice
Services) to pay an hourly rate for all work beyond the 25th hour. Such converted hourly cases are
generally a very small percentage, but when they occur (generally in complex cases) the result is an
extreme deviation to the average cost.
The cost per case calculation is a little more complex than may first appear due to the fact that the
actual number of cases is derived based upon a weighted average. The reason for this is consistency.
Different types of cases as set forth in the introduction require differing amounts of effort to perform
an effective job of representing accused persons. The contract system is set up to recognize this
difference by paying more for more complex cases and less for simpler ones. Similarly two
similarly paid staff attorneys can handle significantly different caseloads based on the complexity.
Therefore the cases are “weighted” to standardize the average work required per case and this
weighted figure is used to determine the average case cost. This use of weighted case counts
provides a more accurate picture of case costs than using raw figures, but there remains significant
room for improvement in the reporting and analysis of case weights and counts. Another caveat is
that both Public and Legal Defender costs are based on general fund budget expenditures for the
fiscal year and do NOT include facility operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the fiscal year.
Much of the apparent increase in average costs for FY 10 is actually attributable to an increased
ability to track the total costs associated with cases. Previously expert and investigative costs were
paid through a court budget and were not tracked to the case of origin. Under the re-organization
model approved in late FY 09, all costs are now tracked with a Criminal Justice Services budget and
can be accurately attributed to the case they are associated to. In essence prior reports underreported the true costs by not being able to include these expenses.
The numbers speak for themselves. It cost the County more tax dollars, per case, to retain a contract
attorney than it does for a staff attorney to handle a case “in-house.” The reasons for this include 1)
economies of scale; 2) fixed salaried employees versus the variable cost of contract attorneys; 3)
centralized management; 4) improved record keeping; 5) organized division of labor; 6) a
centralized databank and 7) increased amount of state and federal funding. The costs for the Law
Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender are the lowest primarily because of economies of
scale that enable an organizational structure which provides a heightened level of efficiency, and
therefore, slightly higher caseloads per attorney without an accompanying increase in the time
19

required to provide effective representation. Over the course of eight fiscal years (03-10) the
average cost per case has been Six Hundred Sixty Three dollars and Thirty Three cents ($ 663.33)
for the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender, Eight Hundred Ninety Five dollars and
Thirty Five cents ($ 895.35) for the Mohave County Legal Defender’s Office and Nine Hundred
Twelve dollars and Five cents ($ 912.05) for private contractors. Figure 6 illustrates shows an eight
year cost averaging by provider.
8 Year (FY 03-10) Average Provider Cost
$1,000.00

$895.35

$912.05

Average Case Cost

$900.00
$800.00
$663.33

$700.00
$600.00
$500.00
$400.00
$300.00
$200.00
$100.00
$0.00

LDO

CONTRACTS

PDO

Figure 6 – This Figure illustrates the eight year average cost of handling a case between the three
major legal service providers.

It is important to note that a significant portion of the increased internal per case cost for FY 2010 is
attributable to the unexpected decrease in overall case filings. An eight year trending of case
appointments is shown in Figure 7. Once the trend in reduced filings was confirmed a reduction in
force was conducted to lower employee salary costs. A combined savings of over two hundred
thousand dollars in salary savings is anticipated for FY 11 to help offset the reductions in case
filings.

20

Total Cases Assigned to Indigent Defense System
8000
7000
6000
5000

Raw Cases
Weighted Cases

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 7 - This figure represents the trending of total and weighted case appointments for Mohave County over the
past eight fiscal years. It is notable that the significant increase in appointments from 2003-2007 has been reversed
in the period 2007-2010.

FY 10 represented the first year in which no professional staff positions were filled by unlicensed
law school graduates awaiting bar results. While this is an enviable position relative to prior years,
it is also creating a log jam of movement. There is an identified concern over staff departures when
the national and state economy begins to recover. If the County does not reflect salary adjustments
commensurate with similar professional opportunities at the time the economy begins to recover,
there is a significant loss of losing trained professional staff to urban areas offering higher pay.
Future recruiting efforts should include a strong mix of out of state experienced lawyers along with
new law school graduates. There is a risk of alienating younger attorneys in creating too high a ratio
of experienced attorneys and creating the impression that there are limited career growth
opportunities in the office.

Part III - FY 2010 Highlights and Achievements
During FY 2010, technology invested in during FY 2002 was expanded upon. Automation played a
huge part in the ability to hold costs low while providing quality representation. Forty Two
Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Six (42,636) documents were created through an automated document
assembly system which retrieved data from the case management database. This is an increase of
roughly 47% from FY 2009. However, relative to the decrease in cases handled during FY 09, there
was a significant increase in the average number of automated documents per case. Each of these
documents was created with a time savings of 30-120 seconds. Individually this seems like a small
amount, but collectively this is a time savings of 355 to 1,421 FTE hours!
FY 2010 was a banner year with respect to personnel. The year began with a virtually full staff of
licensed attorneys and not a single attorney left employment, other than the two who left as a result
in a reduction in workforce.
Subsequent to the approval of the Loan Repayment and Relocation Assistance Programs by the
21

Board of Supervisors in January of 2006, interest in positions with the Law Offices of the Mohave
County Public defender has grown phenomenally. In previous years an average annual total of
applications would be roughly two dozen. By contrast since the implementation of these programs,
the number of applications from 3rd year law students has been at or above 200 each successive year.
Of the employees who were hired with the incentive of future participation in the Loan Repayment
Program, all remain employed (except for the two who were involuntarily separated as a result of a
reduction in workforce). The total cost of the Loan Repayment program for Indigent Defense offices
in FY 10 was Thirty One Thousand Sixty Nine dollars ($31,069). Relative to the amount spent on
outside contractors during periods of personnel shortages and staffing of individuals awaiting bar
results, this is a significantly lower amount. This is the equivalent of sending roughly 40 cases to a
private contractor. Considering the use of outside contractors has been reduced by over 400 cases
annually since full staffing has been attained, this equates to a projected savings of over Two
Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars ($250,000). It is strongly recommended that the Board of
Supervisors adopt the Loan Repayment incentive program as a permanent part of the County’s long
term budgeting approach.
Appropriate caseloads and staffing have a definite role in the level of stress and accompanying job
satisfaction felt by employees. In FY 2010 the professional staff of the Law Offices of the Mohave
County Public Defender handled 2500 felony equivalent cases (Weighted Cases). Pursuant to Joe
U. Smith standards, this should have been handled by 17 attorneys; however the load was borne by
an average of 19 attorneys over the course of the fiscal year. As a result of the trend in reduced case
appointments, one attorney was involuntarily separated through a reduction in workforce and a
second position has been left vacant pending additional data collection and analysis. Going into FY
11, staffing levels at the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender more accurately reflect
proper staffing levels for the reduced case assignment trends. No cases were sent to contract on an
overflow basis during FY 2010. In FY 2010 the professional staff at the Legal Defender’s Office
handled 840 felony equivalent cases (Weighted Cases). Pursuant to Joe U. Smith standards, this
should have been handled by slightly less than 6 attorneys. As a result of the trend in reduced case
appointments, one attorney was involuntarily separated through a reduction in workforce at the end
of the fiscal year to achieve staffing levels more reflective of proper staffing ratios.
Continuing losses in general fund revenue as well as a strong desire to implement better controls on
outside contract costs motivated the development of a plan to re-organize indigent defense within
Mohave County. This plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors in April of 2009 and became
fully effective on July 1, 2009. The results and analysis of this re-organization will not be fully
known until the second phase in which an Office of Juvenile representation was formed in July of
2010.

Part IV – Human Resources / Participation in Loan Repayment and Relocation
Assistance Programs
Human Resources –
FY 2010 was a banner year with respect to personnel. The year began with a virtually full staff of
licensed attorneys and not a single attorney left employment, other than the two who left as a result
22

in a reduction in workforce.
Subsequent to the approval of the Loan Repayment and Relocation Assistance Programs by the
Board of Supervisors in January of 2006, interest in positions with the Law Offices of the Mohave
County Public defender has grown phenomenally. In previous years an average annual total of
applications would be roughly two dozen. By contrast since the implementation of these programs,
the number of applications from 3rd year law students has been at or above 200 each successive year.
Of the employees who were hired with the incentive of future participation in the Loan Repayment
Program, all remain employed (except for the two who were involuntarily separated as a result of a
reduction in workforce). The total cost of the Loan Repayment program for Indigent Defense offices
in FY 10 was Thirty One Thousand Sixty Nine dollars ($31,069). Relative to the amount spent on
outside contractors during periods of personnel shortages and staffing of individuals awaiting bar
results, this is a significantly lower amount. This is the equivalent of sending roughly 40 cases to a
private contractor. Considering the use of outside contractors has been reduced by over 400 cases
annually since full staffing has been attained, this equates to a projected savings of over Two
Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars ($250,000). It is strongly recommended that the Board of
Supervisors adopt the Loan Repayment incentive program as a permanent part of the County’s long
term budgeting approach. An extension of the LRAP and relocation programs for 5 years was
granted to carry the program through June of 2013 in order to allow for sufficient program
participation to evaluate whether it will have the desired impact on retention.

Part V – Conclusion (Challenges and Trends for the Future)
Systemically the Indigent Defense Offices of Mohave County are light years ahead of where they
were in FY 2001. Organizational structure and technological advances have been put in place which
can allow near optimal human efficiencies. The lack and delay of providing appropriate physical
facilities caused a significant delay in the advancement of the organization as one which can become
self-sustaining. However the occupation of the renovated former health department facility has been
instrumental in assisting in a significant advancing that goal.
It remains imperative to avoid a knee-jerk reaction to simply hire “bodies” to fill chairs and create
additional problems down the line and it is therefore imperative that caseloads be maintained with
professional standards. This will require that cases which can not be absorbed by remaining staff
due to numbers or experience be sent to outside private contract counsel. Without the recruiting and
retention of appropriate licensed staff to handle the incoming cases while maintaining ethical
caseload/workload limits, it will be necessary to revert to reliance on outside contract counsel. In
order to not exacerbate the use of private counsel at higher cost, it will be imperative to retain the
ability to recruit for any vacancies under an exemption to any general hiring freezes which may be in
place. It is important to note that if the County knowingly fails to provide effective counsel by
maintaining a system which is known to be ineffective, the county can be held civilly liable for
under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 (See, Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.
1037, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1353 (9th Cir.(Nev.) (Feb 03, 2003), certiorari denied by Clark
County, NV v. Hernandez Miranda, 540 U.S. 814, 124 S.Ct. 64, 157 L.Ed.2d 28, 71 USLW 3724, 72
USLW 3206, 72 USLW 3235 (U.S. Oct 06, 2003) and Powers v. Hamilton County Public Defender
Comm., 2004 FED App. 0288P (6th Cir.) (August 29, 2007).
23

If the positive aspects of the issues raised and addressed in this report can be enhanced and pursued,
the future looks bright for all of the citizenry of Mohave County to know that the justice system in
Mohave County will be fair and that they can have faith in the integrity of the results of that system.
Failure to follow through is likely to result in continued depletion of quality attorneys in the
government defense offices which will result in a significantly lower quality of representation at a
higher cost. Lower quality representation as discussed will result in additional costs beyond the
initial contract cost of representation due to the potential for an increase in post-conviction relief
cases and civil liability.
All in all FY 2010 was one of the most efficient and successful years for indigent defense in Mohave
County. Long term planning and the development of innovative programs such as the Loan
Repayment Assistance program and enhanced physical and technological support has positioned
indigent defense for an ongoing sustainment of the high levels achieved in FY 10. If a commitment
to continuing the positive changes can be maintained, Mohave County will be well on its way to
having an Indigent Defense system which will ensure that every citizen of Mohave County can view
the justice system with confidence and pride.

24

Appendix A - Where the Numbers Come From and What They Represent
In order to best analyze the caseload statistics, it is important to understand where the numbers came from and
what the numbers represent.
The caseload/crime statistics contained in this report were compiled from the Public Defender case
management database known as Justware. This database was implemented in 2001 and was designed to
track caseload information at several different levels. Because many crimes are unreported and because many
crimes are not solved, the numbers compiled in this report in no way reflect the crime rate in Mohave County.
Those figures should be obtained from law enforcement agencies. Similarly, not every reported crime, or
arrest becomes a case, so the internal case data is unlikely to directly reflect local law enforcement data.
In addition, the figures represent the number of individuals charged with a crime, not necessarily the number
of cases filed in the Superior Court. For example, when a crime is committed by multiple defendants our
office records the number of defendants. This is because each defendant will need a lawyer. The Superior
Court and the County Attorney, on the other hand, may record that case as a single filing. For this reason, our
statistics may differ from those of the Superior Court and the County Attorney.
It is also helpful to understand that the type of crimes recorded represent the crimes as charged (ie: assault,
theft, etc.), and not the ultimate disposition (not the crime of which the defendant was found guilty, pled to, or
was acquitted of). Many defendants plead to lesser offenses. Sometimes felonies are reduced to
misdemeanors or dismissed outright. Sometimes defendants are found not guilty by a jury. For the purpose
of staffing, management and planning analysis it is important to know what a defendant is charged with
initially. It is the initial charge which determines whether counsel is appointed and how much the County
must ultimately spend for the defense.
In addition, the crime figures mentioned in this report reflect only the main crime charged. Many defendants
are charged with multiple offenses arising out of a single act. For example, a defendant may be charged with
Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Sell, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and
Underage Drinking. The following statistics would reflect only the main charge, to wit, Possession with
Intent to Sell. If we counted all of the multiple charges which the prosecutor decided to file, analysis would
prove meaningless, because indigent defense attorneys are not compensated based upon the number of
charges filed.
Finally, our statistics reflect only charges filed against indigent defendants. We estimate that 95% of all
persons charged with felony and juvenile offenses are found to be indigent and are provided counsel through
the Law Offices of the Mohave County Public Defender.

25

Appendix B - Breakdown of Most Prevalent Crimes for FY 2010 By Charge
Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia
Probation Violation/Petition to Revoke
Possession of Marijuana
Aggravated Assault
Disorderly Conduct (Fighting or Disruptive)
DUI (Impaired to the Slightest Degree)
Possession or Use of Dangerous Drugs
Burglary In The Third Degree
Disorderly Conduct By D.V.
Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content of .08% or More
Theft
Possess or Use Marijuana (Less than 2 lbs)
Drive W/dl Susp For Fta/ftp
Assault; Intentional Harm
Shoplifting
Drive W/dl Susp/rev/canceled
Agg DUI
Burglary In The Second Degree
Forgery
Extreme DUI

1,437
644
391
388
373
327
288
277
268
264
224
187
184
180
167
163
160
156
142
139

Table 7 – This table is solely based on the number of charges filed. It is possible for a single case to
contain multiple charges, and therefore the numbers can NOT be used to calculate caseloads.

26

Top 20 Charges filed in Mohave County FY 2010
Forgery

Extreme DUI

Burglary In The Second Degree
Agg DUI
Drive W/dl Susp/rev/canceled
Shoplifting

Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia

Assault; Intentional Harm
Drive W/dl Susp For Fta/ftp
Possess or Use Marijuana (Less than 2 lbs)
Theft
Dependent Children

Probation Violation/Petition to Revoke

Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content of .08%
or More
Possession of Marijuana
Disorderly Conduct By D.V.

Burglary In The Third Degree

Aggravated Assault

Possession or Use of Dangerous Drugs

DUI (Impaired to the Slightest Degree)

Disorderly Conduct (Fighting or Disruptive)

27

Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia
21.8%
Probation Violation/Petition to Revoke
9.8%
Possession of Marijuana
5.9%
Aggravated Assault
5.9%
Disorderly Conduct (Fighting or Disruptive)
5.7%
DUI (Impaired to the Slightest Degree)
5.0%
Possession or Use of Dangerous Drugs
4.4%
Burglary In The Third Degree
4.2%
Disorderly Conduct By D.V.
4.1%
Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content of .08% or More
4.0%
Dependent Children
3.5%
Theft
3.4%
Possess or Use Marijuana (Less than 2 lbs)
2.8%
Drive W/dl Susp For Fta/ftp
2.8%
Assault; Intentional Harm
2.7%
Shoplifting
2.5%
Drive W/dl Susp/rev/canceled
2.5%
Agg DUI
2.4%
Burglary In The Second Degree
2.4%
Forgery
2.2%
Extreme DUI
2.1%
Total:
100.0%

Appendix C – Cost per Case Analysis using Weighting Factors
Caseload Counts FY 2010
Raw Number

Conversion
Factor

Weighted Cases

FY '10 Budget

Per case Weighted Cost

(Actual Expenditures)

PDO
Misdemeanor

1854

0.375

695.25

Felony
Juvenile

1121

1

1121

264

0.75

198

PCR

2

Appeals

8

6

48

Prob Violations

380

0.375

142.5

Mental Health

35

0.5

17.5

Psych Rev

1

1

1

SVP

1

1

1

Witness Rep

1

0.375

0.375

Juvenile Dep

16

1.4

22.4

Subtotal

2247

3681

$2,360,014.95

$1,050.28

$854,055.95

$1,088.32

LDO
Misdemeanor

524

Felony

426

1

564

Juvenile

130

0.75

55.5

0

2

0

PCR
Appeals
Prob Violations
Mental Health

0.375

0

6

0

162

0.375

70.875

8

0.5

Psych Rev

1

SVP

1

Witness Rep

0.375

Juvenile Dep

1.4

Subtotal

144

4

784.75

1250

Appellate Defender
PCR
Appeals

61
46

Subtotal

107

2
6

122
276
398

$214,799.07

$539.70

Private Contract
Misdemeanor

69

0.375

25.875

Felony

256

1

256

Juvenile

97

0.75

72.75

PCR

7

2

14

Appeals

5

6

30

0.375

34.875

Prob Violations

93

Mental Health

0.5

Psych Rev

1

SVP

Subtotal
Total

1

Witness Rep

0.375

Juvenile Dep

1.4
527

433.5

$558,209.12

$1,287.68

5458

3465.275

$3,987,079.09

$1,150.58

28

29