Response says
Disagrees, citing participant notice and written/Inmate Request appeal routes under Section 1203.016(d)(2).
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding SHERIFF2605-F7
F7: Lack of notice of appeal rights to the last known attorney of record of a participant limits the participant’s opportunity for effective representation in the appeal of the CAF denial or removal.
What should residents consider about Finding SHERIFF2605-F7: F7: Lack of notice of appeal rights to the last known attorney of record of a participant limits the participant’s opportunity for effective representation in the appeal of the CAF denial or removal., and the County’s response?
Contra Costa County Sheriff-CoronerAudit assessment: Partially addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
Concrete appeal mechanisms do not squarely answer the effect of missing attorney notice on effective representation. Reasons for rejecting that proposition are incomplete.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
3/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 1/2
5/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 1/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
Concrete appeal mechanisms do not squarely answer the effect of missing attorney notice on effective representation. Reasons for rejecting that proposition are incomplete.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Review the underlying documents
Public participation
Discuss the finding and response
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.
Loading the Pol.is conversation...