by
Bill
Bowerman, Chief Analyst
December 1998
Backlog/Delay Reduction Funding
Impact of Backlog/Delay Appropriation
Tables and Charts:
Figure 1. Court of Appeals Filings and Dispositions, 1984 Through 1997
Figure 2. Annual Dispositions in Court of Appeals By Opinion or Order
Table 1. Court of Appeals Caseload History, 1984 Through 1997
Table 2. Michigan Court of Appeals Guilty Plea Filings
Table 3. Michigan Court of
Appeals Case Age Statistics
This paper was written by Bill Bowerman, Chief Analyst of the General Government Unit, Senate Fiscal Agency. Word processing and graphics were performed by Pat Harper. The Senate Fiscal Agency would like to thank the Michigan Court of Appeals Clerk's Office for their assistance.
INTRODUCTION:
Public Act 189 of 1993 provided for a $2,000,000 annual allocation
from the State Court Fund to the Court of Appeals for four fiscal years
(FY 1993-94 through FY 1996-97). The Act stated that the purpose of the
four-year allocation was to "alleviate the backlog" in the Court of Appeals.
Nevertheless, the separate line item appropriation to the Court of Appeals
for backlog reduction was continued in FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-99 at a reduced
level of $1,500,000 funded from the State General Fund. This paper provides
a review of the impact that the special line item appropriation has had
on case processing, along with other factors that have affected the workload
of the Court of Appeals. It also attempts to answer the question of whether
the separate appropriation to deal with the backlog has in effect been
transformed into a continuing appropriation to maintain a certain level
of case dispositions.
BACKGROUND:
The appropriation for backlog reduction to the Court of Appeals began
at a time when statistics showed that annual filings were increasing at
a rapid pace. From 1984 to 1992 dispositions by the Court of Appeals increased
by 76.6%, from 6,605 to 11,662. During the same time period, however, case
filings in the Court of Appeals increased by 103.7%, from 6,554 to 13,352.
While the level of dispositions was increasing, it was not at a rate sufficient
to make up for the growing number of case filings in the Court of Appeals
(Figure 1).
Cases pending at year end from 1984 to 1992 increased by 143.3%, from
7,174 to 17,451. The clearance rate (ratio of total dispositions to new
cases filed) for the Court of Appeals demonstrated that the Court was not
keeping pace with increased filings. Table 1 shows the clearance
rate from 1984 through 1997.
The growing caseload was addressed in several ways. From FY 1990-91 through FY 1993-94 the Court of Appeals received Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Grant funds (75/25 Federal/State match). This funding was used mainly for reports and proposed opinions on drug-related guilty plea cases. In FY 1990-91, 8.0 full-time equated positions (FTEs) and $550,000 were added to the Court of Appeals for enhanced docket management. The funds were used to hire a staff of research attorneys assigned to visiting judges to reduce the backlog. Permanent measures have included increasing the number of judges on the Court of Appeals from 18 to 24 on January 1, 1989, and from 24 to 28 on January 1, 1995. Staff in the Court of Appeals also increases with the addition of judges. Each judge is assigned one secretary and one law clerk. Also, historically there has been a ratio of two research attorneys for each judge. In FY 1983-84 the authorized FTE level for the Court of Appeals was 158.7 FTEs. In FY 1991-92 the authorized FTEs for the Court of Appeals totaled 191.0. By FY 1997-98, the FTE authorization for the Court of Appeals totaled 245.5, representing a 54.7% increase over FY 1983-84. Other methods used by the Court of Appeals, and other intermediate appellate courts, to improve case production include disposing of a greater number of cases through orders instead of opinions, using central staff, limiting cases that include oral arguments, and using prehearing settlement conferences. Figure 2 compares cases disposed of by opinion or order. The number of cases disposed of by opinion has decreased from 57.2% of total dispositions in 1984 to 43.1% of total dispositions in 1997.
BACKLOG/DELAY
REDUCTION
FUNDING:
The $2,000,000 annual appropriation from the State Court Fund for FY
1993-94 through FY 1996-97 authorized an additional 23.0 FTEs for the Court
of Appeals. The funding was initially allocated for 16 research attorneys,
one assistant clerk, and three support staff. In FY 1997-98, when the restricted
funding for backlog reduction ended, the Legislature continued the program
with State General Fund support at a reduced level of $1,500,000. The line
item was changed to refer to "delay" reduction instead of "backlog" reduction.
While the number of authorized FTEs was reduced only by one (from 23.0
to 22.0), the funding reduction had the impact of reducing the number of
research attorneys by approximately 9.0 FTEs. The Court of Appeals handled
the $500,000 reduction by obtaining an increase of $425,000 contingent
upon legislation increasing filing and motion fees in the Court of Appeals.
The actual annual amount received by the Court from the fee increases is
approximately $350,000. This allowed the Court to partially offset the
reduction in the backlog/delay appropriation.
IMPACT OF
BACKLOG/DELAY
APPROPRIATION:
Filings in the Court of Appeals peaked in 1992. From 1992 through 1997
filings in the Court of Appeals decreased by 4,486 (33.6%). The separate
line item appropriation to the Court of Appeals for backlog reduction did
not result in increased dispositions. Dispositions by the Court of Appeals
peaked in 1993 at 13,037 (Table 1). By 1997 dispositions were down
to 10,242, which represents a decrease of 12.2% compared with 1992, when
dispositions totaled 11,662. Due to fewer filings, cases pending decreased
by 42.5%. If filings had remained constant since 1992, however, the backlog
actually would have increased by approximately 41.4%.(1) Decreased
case filings were responsible for the improved clearance rate and the elimination
of the backlog.
Why would dispositions decrease when increased appropriations were provided
to reduce the backlog in the Court of Appeals? The answer relates to variations
in caseload composition. Decreased filings are the result of a decline
in the number of routine cases that are disposed of in a short time period
compared to more complex cases. The Court is then left with more complex
cases, which results in a reduced level of dispositions. Direct evidence
of this is provided in Table 2, which shows a significant reduction
in guilty plea case filings since 1993. In 1990 there were 3,944 guilty
plea appeals filed, accounting for 31.9% of the 12,369 case filings in
that year. By 1992 guilty plea filings peaked at 4,456, accounting for
33.4% of new case filings in the Court of Appeals. In 1997 there were 1,152
guilty plea appeals representing 13.0% of 8,866 filings in that year. Research
attorneys in the Court of Appeals can complete guilty plea cases at a rate
of two per day compared with the rate of one case in five days for more
complex cases. Guilty plea filings have decreased as a result of the Proposal
B, the 1994 amendment to the State Constitution of 1963 which provides
that appeals by an accused who pleaded guilty or nolo contendere must be
by leave of the Court of Appeals, except when an appeal of right is provided
by law. Case law, People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993), also
had an impact on guilty plea appeals. That case allowed trial courts to
give preliminary estimates of the sentence to be imposed. Under Cobbs,
defendants who pleaded guilty with this advance information cannot obtain
appellate relief on the ground that the sentence is disproportionate.
DELAY
REDUCTION:
Table 1 clearly shows that the backlog problem in the Court
of Appeals has been eliminated. The clearance rate has exceeded 100.0 annually
since 1993. The issue that remains with the Court is the disposition of
cases within a certain time period, hence the change in the title of the
separate line item appropriation from backlog reduction to delay reduction.
Section 312 of Public Act 335 of 1998 (FY 1998-99 Judiciary Appropriation
Act) states a legislative intent that the Court of Appeals meet American
Bar Association (ABA) model standards on case processing including the
standard that 95% of all civil appellate cases be disposed of within 12
months of filing. Current Michigan Court Rules and time lines in the Court
of Appeals make meeting this standard improbable. Routine civil cases can
take 280 days from filing until briefs and the lower court records are
received. Subsequent to that, it takes the Court of Appeals approximately
133 days to prepare, submit, and resolve the appeal. This estimate assumes
that there will be no delays or complications in processing the case. ABA
numerical guidelines for case processing time in intermediate appellate
courts are reference models. A 1993 survey of intermediate appellate courts
showed that the majority of courts do not meet the ABA reference models.
Seventeen courts took over two years to resolve 95% of their appeals.
Table 3 shows caseload statistics provided by the Court of Appeals for case age (time since initial filing date) as of August 31, 1998.
The data indicate that 91.1% of the Court's pending caseload is less than 18 months old. There were 214 cases 25 months or older, which represented 2.9% of the pending caseload. Civil cases represented 57.9% of the pending cases. Of those cases, 93.4% were less than 18 months old. For the previous year, 258 pending cases were 25 or more months old, accounting for 3.4% of pending cases.
CONCLUSION:
The data provided by the Court of Appeals clearly show that currently
there is no backlog of any significance in the Court. The issue of reducing
the amount of time it takes for a case to be processed by the Court of
Appeals is a different matter. In some cases the amount of time to dispose
of a case cannot be controlled by the Court. The reduced number of filings
allows the Court to direct more resources to reducing the age of its pending
caseload. Data supplied by the Court indicate that the Court is making
progress in reducing the age of its pending caseload. The Court initially
concentrated additional resources on eliminating a backlog of routine cases.
Due to the significant reduction in filings, the Court can direct resources
toward meeting goals for case dispositions. The need for future appropriations
for "delay reduction" should be diminished, based on the data provided
by the Court of Appeals.
SOURCES:
The Michigan State Courts Annual Report, 1997, State Court Administrative
Office, 1998.
Time on Appeal, Roger A. Hanson, National Center for State Courts, 1996.
Examination of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Leslie Nacionales-Tafoya, Senate Fiscal Agency, 1994
