The measure was aimed to reduce prison overcrowding by reducing a number of felonies to misdemeanors, including certain theft crimes by raising the threshold from $400 to $950, as well as certain drug-related charges. Moreover, the Proposition provided that the money saved from incarceration will be funneled towards the funding of mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims.

A number of studies have demonstrated that the measure more or less achieved its aims, with a decline in recidivism, reduction of prison population, and savings of over 800 million dollars. Moreover, since the passage of Prop 47, the rate of violent crimes, burglary, or robbery, has not increased. However, opponents of the measure have continuously argued that Prop 47 is the reason for the uptick of retail theft during the COVID pandemic as well as the increase in homelessness in the state. An attempt to amend Prop 47 in 2020 failed at the ballot box.

This is year, however, there is a new initiative on the ballot, Proposition 36 (The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, And Theft Reduction Act). It aims at rolling back some of the changes made by Prop 47, by increasing the penalties for certain theft and drug crimes. Proposition 36 has wide support across the political spectrum, including endorsements by the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose, as well as a number of Democratic state legislators. More importantly, polls show that overwhelming majority of Californians support it and the measure is destined to become law.

Therefore, it is important to summarize the main changes that Proposition 36 will bring and how they might affect a person in the future:

• First, the initiative provides for a new “treatment-mandated felony.” This new type of crime would allow DAs to charge someone with a felony for a third drug-related offense. Under the new felony, if a person does not contest the charge, he or she would be given the chance to participate in a drug or mental health treatment and upon completion of the court-mandated treatment have the charge expunged from their record. However, if the person refuses or fails to complete treatment, they would get to serve up to three years in prison.
• Second, under Prop 36, judges will be obligated to warn all individuals convicted of distributing any amount of the so-called “deadly drugs” like fentanyl, heroine, cocaine, and methamphetamine, that if in the future they distribute such drugs to a person who later dies from them, that they could be charged with murder. This provision will make it easier to prosecute such a person for murder in the future and it will apply to anyone, including individuals who provide a friend with drugs.
• Third, the initiative adds fentanyl to the list of drugs that result in a felony charge if the person possesses any amount of the so-called “deadly drugs” and a loaded firearm, even if the person is in lawful possession of the firearm.
• Forth, Prop 36 would increase the criminal penalties for some theft crimes when the person has had two or more prior theft-related convictions. In such cases, the person can be charged with a felony for a subsequent theft crime regardless of the value of the stolen property. Furthermore, the initiative will give DAs discretion to add together multiple unrelated misdemeanor thefts in order to charge a person with a felony instead of misdemeanor petty theft.
• Finally, the measure provides for the addition of harsh mandatory sentencing enhancements. The initiative adds fentanyl to the mandatory sentencing enhancements for drug sale or possession. Moreover, it gives judges discretion to impose sentencing enhancements when a person steals, destroys, or damages any amount of property by acting jointly with two or more other people; or if the person acts alone but causes losses exceeding $50,000.

As already mentioned above, Proposition 36 is set to pass in November 2024 and become a law. The measure will have serious consequences and impact negatively countless people, especially minority and low-income communities.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, the highly skilled and reliable attorneys at the Justice Firm are here to help and answer any questions you might have. Our criminal defense attorneys have decades of experience representing individuals in all misdemeanor and felony cases and you can contact them today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

Following a conviction, the first avenue to seek relief is a direct appeal. Simply put, a direct appeal is a request for a review of the trial record to determine if any errors were committed during the trial. Appeals are very complex and the likelihood of success is very low. However, direct appeals are far from the only option to challenge a conviction or a sentence.

If your appeal has been unsuccessful and you are in either actual or constructive (parole or probation) custody, you can still seek post-conviction relief through a Habeas Corpus petition. The petition can be used to challenge a conviction, sentence, or the conditions of incarceration. Habeas petitions do not have the same strict timelines as a direct appeal and can be filed even years after a conviction. Furthermore, a Habeas petition allows for the introduction of new evidence or information that was not part of the trial record.

For people who are no longer in custody, having a conviction on the record can have a severe impact on their lives and can present a serious challenge to moving on and being able to build a decent life. Moreover, for non-citizens, even a minor or a very old conviction can lead to their removal from the country. Fortunately, in 2016, the state legislature passed SB 813, which allowed people who are no longer in custody to challenge the validity of their convictions and to seek post-conviction relief by filing a motion to vacate. A motion to vacate can be filed on three separate grounds including 1) if a prejudicial error had occurred, which damaged the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence; 2) if evidence of actual innocence had been discovered; and 3) if the conviction or sentence was based on a person’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.

In addition, as part of its ongoing criminal justice reform, the state legislature, recognizing the need for more equitable sentencing, enacted two seminal bills, SB 1437 and SB 775, which effectively eliminated the role of the natural and probable consequences doctrine in murder cases and dramatically limited who can be charged with murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder under the felony murder doctrine. Both bills are retroactive and allow people who have been convicted under the old rules to petition the courts to have their convictions vacated and sentences recalled.

Finally, in an effort to eliminate some of the harshest sentencing enhancements in California, which have added years to countless individuals’ sentences, the state lawmakers have passed several important bills that could serve as a basis to petition the court for resentencing. Some of those laws include, SB 81, AB 2942, SB 1393, and AB 256 among others.

At the Justice Firm, we fight zealously to protect our clients’ rights and we believe that everyone is entitled to the opportunity to build a better future. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, or needs assistance with a post-conviction relief, our highly skilled and compassionate attorneys are here to help and to answer any questions you might have. You can contact our experienced California Criminal and Immigration attorneys today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

Overwhelming evidence has demonstrated that sentencing enhancements have not been the successful deterrent to crime they were designed to be, but even more than that, they have failed to improve public safety and have resulted in unnecessarily long mass incarcerations and inequity. As a result, in the last several years, California’s leaders and legislatures have worked hard to correct the harm caused by unjust and disproportionately long sentences. Some of the most important laws that were enacted include SB 1393, AB 2942, and SB 81.

SB 1393 or The Fair and Just Sentencing Reform Act of 2018, reformed the law on one of the most commonly used sentencing enhancements in California, namely the 5-year enhancement given for each prior serious felony conviction when a person is currently charged with a serious felony. Prior to 2019, the law specifically prohibited judges from using their discretion to dismiss the 5-year enhancement for prior serious felony. That changed with the enactment of SB 1393. SB 1393 eliminated the mandatory application of the prior serious felony enhancement and allowed judges to use their discretion to strike the enhancement in furtherance of justice.

While SB 1393 is not retroactive, along that bill, the California legislature also passed AB 2942, which, just like SB 1393, went into effect on January 1, 2019. Prior to AB 2942, district attorneys had no way of revisiting sentences or recommending a sentence recall and reduction. However, the new law granted district attorneys the discretionary power to revisit cases and determine whether further incarceration is actually in the interest of justice. If a district attorney decides to make a recommendation, it is then within the discretionary power of the court to decide whether to grant a recall hearing. Under the law, the court has the authority to look at a wide range of factors, including post-conviction factors and any new laws that have been passed, including laws invalidating certain enhancements.

In addition, in 2021, the state legislature passed SB 81, which came into effect on January 1, 2022. This bill instructs courts to give great weight to mitigating evidence presented by a defendant, and to dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice. The bill specifically lists nine mitigating circumstances, which if present, should weigh heavily in favor of striking an enhancement. Moreover, the new law instructs judges that the list is not exhaustive, and that the courts retain the authority to strike an enhancement whenever it will be in the interest of justice. While SB 81 is not retroactive, courts can apply it in all cases that come before them for resentencing purposes.

At the Justice Firm we believe that it’s very important to work with a reliable and experienced attorney who specializes in post-conviction matters. We know that the attorney-client relationship is an important aspect of your legal journey and our highly skilled attorneys are here to help and answer any questions you might have.

If you or a loved one is serving a lengthy prison sentence and have questions about any of the above laws, or if you think that these or any other new laws could impact your case, contact our California appeals attorneys today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

One of the main principles of the criminal justice system is that the punishment has to fit the crime. Unfortunately, California’s hyper punitive policies enacted in the 1980s and 1990s, resulted in a serious distortion of one of the most basic legal standards of the criminal justice system. By the end of the 1990s, California’s legislature had managed to enact more than one hundred different enhancements, which have added years to the prison sentences of majority of inmates. The State’s aggressive sentencing enhancement laws have led to mass incarceration, overburdening of the state’s budget, and most importantly, have disproportionately affected marginalized and minority communities and their economies.

There have been numerous studies on enhancements that have shown that adding time to an already lengthy sentence has not been a successful deterrent to crime and has not had a positive impact on public safety. In line with these studies, the California legislature has been working hard to enact laws that will prevent the application of indiscriminate sentence enhancements while still allowing judges to impose harsh and lengthy sentences when the conduct demands it.

One of the most commonly used sentence enhancement has been the California Penal Code §667(a), which is a 5-year enhancement given for each prior serious felony conviction when a person is currently charged with a serious felony. Prior to 2019, courts were mandated to add the 5-year enhancement and they were prevented from considering the specifics of a case, the seriousness of the offense, or the defendant’s history and other mitigating circumstances.

Penal Code §1385 states that a judge may dismiss an action in furtherance of justice, which provides judges with a broad discretion to strike enhancements. This allows judges to tailor a sentence to a particular case and defendant, which can help ensure that the given sentence is proportional to the conduct in question and eliminates mandatory and arbitrary sentences, which can only lead to unjust and discriminatory results. However, prior to 2019, the law specifically prohibited judges from using their discretion under PC 1385, when it came to the application of the 5-year enhancement for prior serious felony.

That changed with SB 1393, which came into effect on January 1, 2019. SB 1393 eliminated the mandatory application of the 5-year prior serious felony enhancement, and allowed judges to use their discretion under Penal Code §1385 to strike such enhancements in furtherance of justice. As a result of the enactment of SB 1393, judges are now allowed to consider the specific facts and the conduct of the defendant, as well as any mitigating circumstances or factors.

While the Fair and Just Sentencing Reform Act is not retroactive, along SB 1393, the California legislature also passed AB 2942, which amended Penal Code Section 1172.1 and allowed courts to accept recommendations from the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, to recall and resentence a person.

At the Justice Firm we believe that it’s very important to work with a reliable and experienced attorney who specializes in post-conviction matters. We know that the attorney-client relationship is an important aspect of your legal journey and our highly skilled attorneys are here to help and answer any questions you might have.

If you or a loved one is serving a lengthy prison sentence and have questions about this law, or if you think that this or any other new law could impact your case, contact our California appeals attorneys today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

Needless to say, the end result of the STEP Act has been devastating and has caused an immeasurable damage to entire neighborhoods and communities. For defendants, a gang member designation can have a very negative impact through their entire interaction with the criminal system, including pretrial release, sentencing, incarceration, parole, reentry, and for non-citizens an almost guaranteed deportation.

In 2020, Governor Newsom commissioned the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to examine the California Penal Code and to issue recommendations for reform. According to the Committee’s 2020 report, the STEP Act has been applied inconsistently and has disproportionately affected communities of color. Furthermore, the report pointed out that while between 2011 and 2019 California reduced its prison population, during the same period, the number of inmates who were serving gang enhancements increased by approximately 40 percent. Moreover, according to the report, in Los Angeles, more than 98 percent of defendants with gang enhancements were people of color.

The report went further in pointing out that gang enhancement evidence are regularly grouped together with evidence of the underlying charges, which makes those evidence not only unreliable, but highly and unfairly prejudicial to a jury. In addition, because of the lax standards of proof, many people have unjustly been lumped into gang networks simply because of their families or communities. Finally, there have been no evidence to show that the wide imposition of gang enhancements has been an effective deterrent to gang related crimes or violence.

As a result of the report and other studies, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 333 or the STEP Forward Act of 2021, which came into effect on January 1, 2022. The purpose of AB 333 was to address the inequities caused by the STEP Act and its subsequent amendments by redefining certain terms and making the standards for applying gang enhancements more rigorous, so that they are used only when it is necessary and fair. The most important changes in the law include:

• Removing certain crimes from the list of crimes eligible for gang enhancement charge. The new law removes looting, felony vandalism, and certain identity fraud violations from the list of offenses that can be used to establish a “pattern of criminal gang activity.”
• Redefining a “pattern of criminal gang activity.” The new law requires that in order to form a pattern of criminal gang activity, the crimes committed must be shown to have commonly benefited a criminal street gang and that benefit has to be more than reputational, such as financial gain, retaliation, gang rival targeting, or intimidating witnesses.
• Moreover, AB 333 explicitly prohibits the use of the crime being prosecuted to prove a pattern of criminal activity.
• Finally, the STEP Forward Act added Section 1109 to the California Penal Code, which requires that, if requested by the defense, the underlying offense must be proven first, and only if there is a finding of guilt, there should be further and separate proceedings on the truth of the gang enhancement.

At the Justice Firm, our highly skilled and experienced attorneys continuously follow the new developments in California’s laws and are always prepared to fight for our clients for lesser penalties, sentence reductions, and appeal of sentences or convictions.

We understand that the attorney-client relationship is an important aspect of your legal journey and our highly knowledgeable and compassionate attorneys are here to help and answer any questions you might have. If you or a loved one has questions about this law, or if you think that AB 333 could impact your case, contact our California criminal attorneys today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

In 1994, Californians voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 184 and enacted the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law, which was later codified by Penal Code §667. The goal of the new law was to increase public safety and to reduce the crime rate by giving repeat offenders harsher sentences. In its original version the law required that the sentence for any felony committed by a defendant with one prior serious or violent felony conviction be doubled, and imposed a sentence of 25 years to life to any person for any felony, if the person had two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies.

In the years since its inception, the Three Strikes law has had a devastating effect on thousands of defendants. The law has led to mass incarceration and has disproportionately affected people of color, as well as the mentally ill and physically disabled defendants. Moreover, while the financial cost to the taxpayers has been exorbitant, research has shown that the extreme sentences have had little to no effect on the reduction of crime rates.

Very early on, the severity of the new law was plainly visible in the landmark Romero case, where the defendant had two prior serious felonies and as a result faced a sentence of 25 years to life for simple possession of minor quantity of narcotics. In that case, the judge indicated that, if the defendant pled guilty, he would dismiss one of defendant’s prior strikes and sentence him to six years instead. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that trial court has the power to dismiss a strike prior “in furtherance of justice.”

California’s Three Strikes Law Today

It took more than a decade after the Romero decision, but fortunately, in 2012 California voters approved Proposition 36, which amended the Three Strikes law, and limited its harshest provisions to those whose third strike is a serious or a violent felony. As a result of the amendment, thousands of inmates who had been sentenced under the original law would no longer be considered as third strikers. The provisions of the amendment were made retroactive, so if a person’s third offense is not serious or violent, he or she can appeal their sentence and be resentenced under the amended law.

If you or a loved one has been sentenced under the original law, you can contact the experienced appeals attorneys at the Justice Firm today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

While Proposition 36 limited the number of defendants that would face the harshest penalties of the Three Strikes law, the law is still here and continues to affect people everyday. As it currently stands, the law calls for double the prison sentence for a current conviction for any felony, if the individual has one or two strikes prior (serious or violent felony convictions), and for 25 years to life sentence for those with two strikes prior, if the current offense is a serious or violent felony.

Some of the felonies that the law categorizes as violent or serious include murder or manslaughter; rape; any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on a person; oral copulation and sodomy by force; any robbery; attempted murder; arson; carjacking; kidnapping; burglary in the first degree; and the sale or attempt to sale or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug.

The above list is not exhaustive, and there are also exceptions where the third offense is not considered either violent or serious, but would still trigger the 25 years to life provision:

• If the third offense is a drug related offense involving a certain amount of a controlled substance;
• If the third offense is a felony sex offense and/or an offense that requires the registration as a sex offender;
• If during the commission of the third offense, the person used a firearm, intended to cause great bodily injury, or had a firearm or a deadly weapon;
• And if a prior strike was a particularly serious offense, including “sexually violent offenses,” murder, manslaughter, and sex offenses involving a child less than 14 years of age.

It is worth noting that, for purposes of the Three Strikes law, out of state convictions would be considered a “strike,” if the offense includes all the elements of a particular violent or serious felony as defined in the California Penal Code.

Finally, certain prior juvenile convictions would be considered a strike prior, if the defendant was 16 years or older at the time of the commission of the crime.

How To Fight the Consequences of the Three Strikes Law

The consequences of a charge under the Three Strikes Law can be draconian, however, there are several ways a defendant can fight the severe penalties triggered by the Three Strikes law.

First, as already mentioned above, if you have already been convicted and the third conviction is not for a serious or violent felony, you can appeal your sentence. In addition, you may be eligible for parole. In 2016, California passed Proposition 57, which amended the state’s Constitution and allowed defendants who were convicted of a nonviolent felony offense to apply for a parole consideration after completing the full term of their primary offense. In 2018, in the In re Edwards case, the California Court of Appeal confirmed that the amendment applies to “third strike” nonviolent offenders as well.

Furthermore, some of the recent reforms to the California criminal justice system have given additional options to defendants to have their sentences reduced. One such option is for defendants to petition the district attorneys to revisit and re-evaluate their sentences and, in the interest of justice, to recommend a sentence recall and reduction under AB 2942.

Finally, if you are currently facing a charge that could put you under the realm of the Three Strikes law, you can take advantage of a Romero motion and ask the judge to dismiss a strike prior. Furthermore, PC §667 requires that a district attorney has to prove the strike allegations, i.e. has to prove that you actually have the strike priors. This requirement opens the door for a defense attorney to argue and challenge whether an alleged strike is actually a strike.

At the Justice Firm, we know that the attorney-client relationship is an important aspect of your legal journey and our highly skilled and experienced attorneys are here to help and answer any questions you might have. If you or a loved one is currently serving a sentence under the Three Strikes law or is facing a charge under it, contact our California attorneys today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

Fortunately, in 1996, in the landmark case of People v. Superior Court (Romero), the California Supreme Court gave defendants a glimpse of hope when it held that a trial court, pursuant to section 1385(a) of the California Penal Code, may, on its own, and “in furtherance of justice” strike or vacate an allegation that a defendant has been previously convicted of a serious and/or violent felony.

In that case, the defendant, Jesus Romero, was charged with possession of 0.13 grams of cocaine. The offense by itself would have resulted in up to 3 years in prison. However, the prosecutor in the case also alleged that Romero had two prior “strike” convictions for residential burglary and for an attempted residential burglary, and under the new Three Strikes law, he was facing 25 years-to-life prison sentence for simple possession of narcotics.

The trial judge in the Romero case considered such a sentence as too severe and offered to dismiss one of his strikes priors by exercising his discretion under PC 1385 to dismiss an action “in furtherance of justice.” In the end, in exchange for Romero pleading guilty, the trial judge dismissed one of his prior serious felony convictions and sentenced him to six years. Following an appeal by the prosecution, the California Supreme Court sided with the trial judge and held that the power to dismiss an action granted to a judge by PC 1385, includes the lesser power to strike an allegation or to vacate a finding relevant to sentencing that a defendant has prior felony convictions.

At the time, the California Supreme Court did stress that the court’s power to strike a prior felony conviction, while broad, is not absolute, but rather it is limited and a subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Two years after the Romero case, in People v. Williams, the California Supreme Court clarified the standards that should govern the trial court’s discretion in dismissing a strike. According to the Williams decision, when considering whether to dismiss a strike allegation a trial court should abide by the following guidelines:

• The court should consider and balance the defendant’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment with society’s legitimate interests in public safety and the fair prosecution of crimes;
• A court should not dismiss a strike allegation solely to accommodate judicial convenience or court congestion;
• Similarly, a court should not dismiss a strike allegation simply because a defendant pleads guilty;
• Furthermore, the dismissal should be for a reason(s) that would motivate a “reasonable judge”;
• In addition, a court should not dismiss a strike allegation solely because of the court’s personal dislike for the harsh effect that the three strikes law would have on the defendant without considering the defendant’s background, the nature of the current offense, and other “individualized considerations”;
• And a court should also consider whether, given the nature and circumstances of the present felony and past convictions, as well as the defendant’s background, character, and prospects, the defendant could be regarded to be “outside the scheme’s [three strikes law] spirit.

In addition to the above guidelines, the trial court must enter the reasons for the dismissal in an order entered on the “minutes” of the court proceedings, which basically means that the trial court has to state the reasons for dismissal in open court.

Procedurally, while a Romero Motion is usually filed after the preliminary hearing, in reality, this type of motion could be submitted at any point during the criminal proceedings, up to and at the time of a sentencing hearing. While a successful Romero motion could keep a defendant from spending life in prison, it is important to note that a judge’s dismissal of a prior “strike” felony for purposes of sentencing for a current conviction, does not make the prior felony conviction(s) disappear from a defendant’s criminal record. Therefore, if a defendant is convicted of a subsequent felony, the prior “stricken” conviction can be used to enhance a future sentence.

Still, the Romero Motion is a vital and significant tool for defendants and criminal attorneys that can be used to avoid an unjust punishment and an excessive prison term under the California Three Strikes law.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a second or third strike offense, our experienced Criminal Attorneys are here to help. At the Justice Firm, we understand the value of a solid attorney-client relationship, and are ready to work with you or your loved ones to achieve the best outcome possible.

If you want to know more about a Romero Motion or California’s Three Strikes law, or need help with any criminal manner, our highly skilled and reliable attorneys are here to help and to answer any questions you might have. You can contact our experienced California Criminal attorneys today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

In November 2016, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 57 (64% to 35%) to enhance public safety, stop the revolving door of crime by emphasizing rehabilitation, and prevent Federal Courts from releasing inmates.

Under Prop 57, CDCR incentivizes inmates to take responsibility for their own rehabilitation with credit-earning opportunities for sustained good behavior, as well as in-prison program and activities participation. Prop 57 also moves up parole consideration of non-violent offenders who have served the full-term of the sentence for their primary offense and who demonstrate that their release to the community would not pose an unreasonable risk of violence to the community. These changes will lead to improved inmate behavior and a safer prison environment for inmates and staff alike, and give inmates skills and tools to be more productive members of society once they complete their incarceration and transition to supervision.

Lastly, Prop 57 allows Judges, not Prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in Court. Prop 57 sought to restore Juvenile Court Judges’ authority over juvenile offenders by allowing Juvenile Court Judges to determine whether or not juveniles aged fourteen and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as an adult, repealing California Proposition 21, which was passed in March 2000.

What Does Prop 57 Mean For Existing Sentences and Parole Eligibility?

There are three main provisions under Prop 57, two relating to adults and one to juveniles:

Adults:

1. Parole Eligibility Changes

2. Credit Awards Changes

Juveniles:

3. Direct Filing Eliminated

Offenders who commit multiple crimes against multiple victims will be eligible for release at the same time as offenders who only committed a single crime against a single victim.

• Repeat offenders will be eligible for release after the same period of incarceration as first time offenders.
• Offenders whose sentence was enhanced for especially egregious conduct will be eligible for release at the same time as those who did not engage in the egregious conduct.
• CDCR will have unlimited authority to award credits to all inmates, in excess of the current 15%, 20% and 50% conduct credit limitations.
• Juvenile offenders who commit violent crimes like murder, rape and carjacking cannot be filed on as adults. They must be filed on in Juvenile Court and can only be found unfit by a Judge.

What Will Happen To My Conviction And Sentence Under Prop 57?

Prop 57 allows for parole consideration to any person convicted of a non-violent felony offense and sentenced to state prison after completing the full term for his or her primary offense. The full term for the primary offense means the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the Court for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence. This can mean drastically reduced eligibility periods for those facing long consecutive sentences.

Under Prop 57, inmates who comply with the rules, avoid violence, and perform duties assigned to them, are eligible to earn Good Conduct Credits. Inmates who participate in approved rehabilitative and educational programs shall be eligible to earn Milestone Completion Credits, Rehabilitative Achievement Credits, or Educational Merit Credits. Inmates who perform a heroic act in a lifethreatening situation may be eligible to receive the Extraordinary Conduct Credits.

What will the expanded credit-earning opportunities do for inmates? Credits earned for good conduct and rehabilitative and educational achievements can advance an inmate’s release date if sentenced to a determinate term, or advance an inmate’s initial parole hearing date if sentenced to an indeterminate term with the possibility of parole. Credit-earning opportunities are available to all inmates. What Do I Do Now?

If you or a relative or friend is currently in custody or served a sentence or consecutive sentences for a non-violent felony offense including theft, grand theft, grand theft auto, grand theft firearm, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, possession of a controlled substance, you may be eligible for relief; even if you have been denied parole. It is critical you consult with an experienced and qualified Criminal Defense Lawyer. Our California team has years of experience researching and preparing strategies for parole under Prop 57. Contact us now for a Free Consultation.

In this case the murder of the victim occurred in an area commonly known as one where drug crimes and other violent activity took place, the block referred to as “Mead Street” in West Oakland which runs between Market Street and San Pablo Avenue. Reports claim that while drug dealers would operate at various locations on Mead, the main site where drug activity took place was at a corner liquor store. McDaniels was convicted of one count each of first-degree murder and felon in possession of a firearm.

The jury in the case determined that McDaniels intentionally and personally discharged a firearm that resulted in the victim’s death, and concluded three firearm enhancements along with the murder count were true. He was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder along with 25 years to life for the discharge of a firearm causing death to be served consecutively, a total of 50 years to life behind bars. In the two additional firearm enhancements, 20- and 10-year terms were stayed. McDaniels was 29 at the time he was charged with the murder; Charles Fuller was also charged in the crime.

In October of 2017 Senate Bill 620 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown and took effect in January of this year. This law essentially takes the power to add firearm enhancements away from prosecutors, instead leaving the decision as to whether firearm enhancements should be added to sentencing to the judge. Prior to the passing of SB 620 gun enhancement penalties often added years or even decades to the amount of prison time a convicted offender would serve.

On April 17 of this year a San Francisco appeals court upheld McDaniels’ murder conviction, however a three-judge panel ordered further consideration of his sentence. The appeals court found that in light of SB 620 which applies retroactively, the sentencing court is given the discretion to dismiss or strike firearm enhancements. The matter was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the firearm enhancements, and whether they will be dismissed.

While the murder conviction stands, McDaniels’ sentence will be further considered by the trial court. Whether the firearm enhancements will remain or be dismissed is a question we will hopefully have an answer to in the near future.

Enhancements in these types of cases meant those convicted may be sentenced to an additional ten or 20 years in prison, or even a life term depending on the circumstances of the case. While the new law does not give judges permission to completely do away with enhancements altogether, it does give judges at the local level the discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the enhancement given an individual should be shorter or longer depending on the circumstances and facts of the crime. In simple terms, a judge may make the decision as to whether an offender who was given a 20 year sentence enhancement should have perhaps been given a ten year enhancement instead, or even life in prison in extremely serious felony cases involving the use of a firearm.

So is SB620 retroactive, meaning those who have received sentencing enhancements for felony crimes involving a firearm prior to the passage of this bill are eligible to have their enhancements reexamined? Yes, in situations where an offender’s sentence is enhanced by 20 years or a life term. While you may be eligible for less harsh sentencing enhancement, resentencing is generally reserved for those who have committed what are considered less serious felony offenses such as drug possession or low level theft. Not everyone has the opportunity to reduce an enhanced sentence, particularly those who have been found guilty of what are considered extremely serious or heinous crimes. Do all felons have access to equal protection? This is a question many criminal defense attorneys have pondered, and one that may be vigorously contested in the future.

While SB620 is retroactive, many offenders and families of offenders wonder about the future. Could a convicted felon possibly have his or her rights to own a firearm restored following a ten year enhancement? Does Prop 47 which allows some felony convictions to be reclassified as misdemeanors play a role? There are many questions still to be considered when it comes to SB620 and sentencing enhancements. The most important step you can take is to consult with an experienced and qualified Los Angeles criminal defense attorney.

Bradford said in a statement that “No one disputes that crimes involving firearms must be taken seriously, but California should not continue forcing judges to dole out extreme and overly punitive sentences that don’t fit the crime.” Bradford feels that judges should be afforded the same discretion at sentencing that prosecutors are afforded when filing criminal charges, and that California’s “overly punitive” sentencing laws disproportionately affected people of color.

Prior to signing Senate Bill 620 into law, judges were prohibited from dismissing or striking a firearm sentence enhancement for offenders who committed felony offenses involving firearms. If an individual was arrested for a criminal offense involving a gun, certain enhancements were added to the charges which were mandatory. Ultimately, this meant someone convicted of the charges could face a substantially longer prison term, sometimes decades longer. This new law gives judges the power to determine punishment, taking away prosecutors’ power to determine enhancements.

Police have also entered into the debate surrounding this new law; according to Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, state lawmakers don’t realize the impact this new law has on communities in California. Dyer claims “certain” individuals are out of touch with local communities, and these same individuals are creating laws that contribute to a weakened criminal justice system.

Prior to Senate Bill 620 being signed into law judges had no power when it came to firearms sentencing enhancements which could mean an additional 10 or 20 years in prison, or even life. Under the new law, judges will be awarded the opportunity to review the facts of a case in order to make certain the punishment a convicted offender receives is suitable according to the defendant’s involvement in the crime and the severity/nature of the offense. However, the new law does not do away with firearm sentence enhancements, and according to Legislative Advocate Lizze Buchen of the ACLU of California is a vital step toward a justice system in California that is more fair and equitable. Buchen states that people of color have been subject to extreme sentencing enhancements for far too long, and that this harsh sentencing has not been successful in deterring crime, but has fueled “mass incarceration” or overcrowding of prisons.

It’s clear that there are very differing opinions when it comes to the new firearms enhancement law, what do you think?