AB 1071, signed into law in October 2025, builds on California’s existing Racial Justice Act (RJA), originally enacted in 2020 to prohibit the state from seeking or imposing criminal convictions or sentences based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. While the original Racial Justice Act provided an important foundation, courts and advocates identified gaps in how it was being applied. AB 1071 was drafted to clarify procedures, strengthen access to justice, and ensure that defendants truly have a meaningful opportunity to challenge discriminatory practices.

In essence, AB 1071 makes it easier for criminal defendants to raise claims of racial or national origin discrimination and gives courts clearer guidance on how to handle these claims. For criminal defendants, this law provides:

• More transparency into how decisions were made in their case and greater opportunity to challenge bias that may have affected their outcome. AB 1071 allows a defendant to request disclosure of evidence related to potential discrimination in charging, conviction, or sentencing. This can include relevant data, prosecutor practices, or other information that may reveal bias. This is crucial because, historically, many RJA claims stalled due to a lack of access to data or records that could prove systemic disparities. Now, defendants and their attorneys can seek out the information needed to build a strong case.

• Access to legal support in pursuing claims of discrimination. One of the most impactful aspects of AB 1071 is the clarification that courts must appoint counsel for indigent defendants who file claims alleging racial bias in their criminal proceedings under the Racial Justice Act. This change will level the playing field in complex post-conviction or bias litigation.

• Stronger judicial guidance on how to correct biased outcomes. Under AB 1071, courts are not only empowered but also expected to take meaningful action if racial discrimination is proven. Judges now have explicit authority to impose appropriate remedies, whether that means vacating a conviction, adjusting a sentence, or another lawful remedy. This is a significant change from earlier practice, where courts sometimes lacked clarity on how to respond even after finding bias.

Ultimately, AB 1071 aims to give defendants a more consistent and effective path to justice when racial or national-origin bias may have influenced their criminal case.

Navigating a claim under AB 1071 or the Racial Justice Act requires deep legal knowledge and strategic advocacy. A skilled criminal defense attorney can identify potential indicators of bias in your case; request the necessary evidence and records; prepare motions under AB 1071 or related statutes, and advocate for appropriate remedies in court.

If you believe racial bias played a role in your arrest, conviction, or sentencing, do not face this challenge alone. Legal counsel experienced in RJA and AB 1071 claims can be critical to achieving justice.

At the Justice Firm, our dedicated and experienced lawyers help clients navigate the complexities of the Racial Justice Act and other California sentencing laws. We believe in second chances and will fight to help you or your loved one make the most of this opportunity. If you would like to learn more about AB 1071 or other changes to California’s sentencing laws, contact our office today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our experienced attorneys.

California law defines a wide range of offenses as sex crimes, from misdemeanor indecent exposure to serious felonies like sexual assault or possession of child pornography. In addition, Section 290 of the Californian Penal Code requires anyone convicted of a qualifying offense to register with local law enforcement and under California’s tiered registration system offenders are classified into:
• Tier 1: Minimum 10 years of registration (e.g., misdemeanor offenses);
• Tier 2: 20 years (certain mid-level felonies); and
• Tier 3: Lifetime registration for the most serious crimes.

Failure to register is a felony in itself, and removal from the registry, though now possible for some, requires a formal petition and judicial review.

In addition, to the registration requirement, a conviction can severely limit career options. Many employers perform background checks that reveal both convictions and registry status. In addition, licensing boards for professions like nursing, law, and real estate, often deny or revoke credentials based on a sex crime conviction, regardless of rehabilitation. Even in private industries, stigma alone can prevent someone from finding stable work.

Furthermore, California law imposes residency restrictions on certain registrants, particularly those on parole. While blanket bans on living near schools or parks have been scaled back following court challenges, local ordinances and landlords still impose strict limitations. Many individuals find themselves excluded from rental markets or public housing programs, forcing them into unstable living situations. For families of registrants, these rules can cause relocation or separation, compounding the emotional toll.

Beyond the legal penalties lies profound social isolation. Registry information including names, addresses, and offenses, is available to the public under Megan’s Law. Once posted online, it can be copied, shared, or misused indefinitely. This exposure leads to harassment, threats, and employment discrimination. The resulting shame and anxiety often contribute to depression, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. Mental health professionals stress that rehabilitation requires community support, yet the public nature of these records can make reintegration nearly impossible.

Today, in an era when personal data is permanent, California registrants face unique privacy challenges. Even after completing registration terms, information may persist on third-party websites or search engines. While state law allows individuals to request removal from some databases, enforcement is inconsistent. The permanence of online data means a conviction can shadow someone for decades, even when they have met all legal obligations.

However, not all hope is lost for those facing these challenges. California now allows petitioning for removal from the registry after the required minimum term, if the person has remained offense-free and demonstrates rehabilitation. In some cases, convictions can be expunged or reduced under Penal Code § 1203.4, though expungement doesn’t erase registry requirements by itself.

A sex crime conviction in California carries consequences that extend far beyond the courtroom. Registration, public exposure, employment and housing barriers, and enduring stigma can create what many call a “hidden sentence.” For those accused or convicted, experienced legal representation is essential, not only to fight the initial charges but also to navigate post-conviction relief and long-term planning. At the Justice Firm, we believe that justice includes accountability and the opportunity for rehabilitation. Understanding the full scope of these consequences is the first step toward rebuilding a future.

If you or someone you know has been accused or convicted of a sex crime in California, contact our office today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here to schedule a confidential consultation. We will review your case, explain your options, and fight to protect your future.

Under California Penal Code §§ 273.5 and 243(e)(1), domestic violence generally refers to abuse committed against 1) a spouse or former spouse; 2) a fiancé or former fiancé; 3) a current or former dating partner; 4) a cohabitant (someone you live with); or 5) the parent of your child. Furthermore, domestic violence doesn’t always mean physical harm. It can also include threats, intimidation, or emotional abuse if it is intended to control or harm another person.

If you have been accused of domestic violence there are a few crucial steps to take. First, do not contact the alleged victim under any circumstances. California courts often issue an emergency protective order (EPO) or temporary restraining order (TRO) immediately after an arrest. Violating this order is a separate crime and can lead to additional charges.

Second, remain silent until you have a lawyer. Many times, in cases of domestic violence, law enforcement may pressure you to “tell your side of the story.” Remember that anything you say can be used against you. Exercise your constitutional right to remain silent until you consult with an attorney.

Finally, seek legal help right away. A California criminal defense lawyer experienced in domestic violence cases can explain the charges, represent you in court, and work on your defense strategy from the very beginning.

The penalties for Domestic Violence in California and the consequences of a conviction vary depending on the charge.

1. Misdemeanor domestic battery (Penal Code § 243(e)(1)): Up to 1 year in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
2. Corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant (Penal Code § 273.5): This can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony, carrying up to 4 years in state prison if convicted as a felony.
3. Restraining orders: Courts often impose criminal protective orders preventing contact with the alleged victim.
4. Other consequences: Mandatory domestic violence counseling, loss of firearm rights under both California and federal law, and possible immigration consequences for non-citizens.

In California, anyone convicted of a domestic violence offense is typically required to complete a 52-week batterer intervention program as a condition of probation. This program involves weekly group counseling sessions and must be completed in full. Failing to finish the program can result in jail time or a probation violation.

For some first-time offenders, California courts may allow diversion programs or alternative sentencing in place of jail time. These options may include probation, community service, counseling, or other rehabilitative measures. Successfully completing these programs can sometimes reduce the long-term consequences of a conviction. Because eligibility for diversion depends on the specific charge and circumstances, having an experienced attorney is crucial. Your lawyer may be able to negotiate for alternatives that focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

An experienced defense attorney can also put forward defenses against domestic violence charges. False or exaggerated accusations happen, especially during contentious divorces or custody disputes. In California, a strong defense may involve showing inconsistencies or credibility issues in the accuser’s statements; presenting evidence such as text messages, social media posts, or witness testimony; arguing self-defense if you were protecting yourself or another person; and demonstrating that no physical injury occurred, or that the incident was accidental. An experienced defense attorney will know how to gather and present this evidence effectively in court.

Domestic violence charges in California can affect far more than your criminal record. They can impact your job, professional licenses, parental rights, and personal reputation. If convicted, clearing your record later can be difficult.

The best step you can take is to act quickly, comply with any court orders, and avoid any behavior that could be misinterpreted. Working with a skilled attorney gives you the best chance to reduce charges, negotiate alternatives such as probation or diversion programs, or even have your case dismissed.

Facing domestic violence accusations in California is overwhelming, but you do not have to face them alone. Remember: an accusation is not the same as a conviction, and you have the right to defend yourself. At the Justice Firm, our experienced lawyers have helped numerous clients navigate domestic violence accusations. If you or someone you know has been accused of domestic violence in California, contact our office today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here to schedule a confidential consultation. We will review your case, explain your options, and fight to protect your future.

Proposition 57 – Key Changes

First, Proposition 57 allowed for early parole for nonviolent offenders.  Before Proposition 57, parole eligibility rules were much stricter.  Now, individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies can be considered for parole after completing their primary sentence. This does not guarantee release.  The California Board of Parole Hearings still evaluates each case to determine whether the individual poses a current risk to public safety.

Second, Proposition 57 expanded good behavior and rehabilitation credits.  Proposition 57 allows inmates to earn more good conduct and rehabilitation program credits.  This means people who participate in education, job training, or substance abuse treatment programs can shorten their time in prison.  These credits can be significant for those committed to turning their lives around.

Third, Proposition 57 provided for juvenile court protections.  Under Proposition 57, judges, not prosecutors, now decide whether juveniles should be tried as an adult.  This change aims to give young people more opportunities for rehabilitation within the juvenile system.

Who Qualifies for Early Parole?

It’s important to note that Proposition 57 applies only to individuals convicted of crimes that are classified as nonviolent under California law.  However, “nonviolent” under California law does not always match the everyday meaning of the term.  Some offenses that many might consider violent are still labeled “nonviolent” for parole purposes. Because of this, legal advice is essential to determine eligibility.  Additionally, those serving time for violent felonies, repeat sex offenses, or certain serious crimes are not eligible under the parole provisions of Proposition 57.

How the Process Works

If you believe you or a loved one qualifies you need to 1) review the sentence, including checking the conviction type and sentence length; 2) track good time credits by keeping records of program participation, work assignments, and positive behavior; 3) Parole Board Review is the third step in the process. The California Board of Parole Hearings will assess whether the person poses a safety risk before granting early release.  The process can be complex, and documentation is critical.  Having an attorney involved can ensure deadlines are met, paperwork is complete, and eligibility arguments are presented effectively.

Why Proposition 57 Matters

For many incarcerated individuals, Proposition 57 is a second chance, not just for earlier release, but for genuine rehabilitation.  By rewarding education, treatment, and good conduct, the law encourages positive change.  For families, it can mean reunification sooner than expected.

If you think Proposition 57 might apply to your case, the sooner you take action, the better.  Understanding eligibility rules, tracking earned credits, and preparing a strong parole case can make a real difference.

At the Justice Firm, we help clients navigate the complexities of Proposition 57 and other California sentencing laws.  We believe in second chances and will fight to help you or your loved one make the most of this opportunity.  If you would like to learn more about Proposition 57 or other changes to California’s sentencing laws, contact our office today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our experienced attorneys.

But there’s good news: California law provides a legal tool called a motion to vacate, which can help eliminate or reverse the impact of a prior conviction. For many, it’s a second chance — and potentially the only way to stay in the United States.

What Is a Motion to Vacate?

A motion to vacate a conviction is a legal request asking the court to withdraw a guilty plea or set aside a conviction. Under California Penal Code §1473.7, noncitizens can ask the court to vacate a conviction if they did not fully understand the immigration consequences of their plea — such as possible deportation or denial of legal status.

This law doesn’t require you to be in custody and can be used even years after the conviction, making it especially powerful for immigrants trying to fix past mistakes that now threaten their future.

Why It Matters Now More Than Ever

The Trump administration’s immigration policies focus heavily on enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizes deporting individuals with criminal convictions, regardless of how long they had lived in the U.S. or how minor the offense was.

As a result, many noncitizens suddenly find themselves facing removal proceedings and deportation because of convictions they had pleaded to years ago — often without realizing those convictions could cost them their green card, visa, or asylum eligibility.

During this time, motions to vacate are becoming a lifeline for many people seeking to avoid deportation and preserve their family, career, and future in the U.S.

If you or a loved one is facing immigration consequences because of a past conviction, you still have options. Courts continue to grant motions to vacate where there is evidence that a person wasn’t properly informed of the immigration consequences of a plea. Successfully vacating a conviction can mean the difference between staying in the U.S. or being forced to leave.

Talk to a California Immigration and Criminal Defense Attorney

The intersection of immigration and criminal law is complex, and the stakes are incredibly high. If you have a past conviction and are concerned about your immigration status, don’t wait. A motion to vacate could give you a second chance — but the process requires skill, evidence, and strategy.

Contact our office today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here to schedule a confidential consultation and find out if a motion to vacate is right for you.

Telly served over 26 years with the Stockton Police Department, rising to the rank of lieutenant.  He worked in high-impact units including the gang task force and was even assigned to a federal joint task force for six years.  But while his resume reflected leadership, his arrest also raises valid concerns about his tenure and begs the question whether red flags went unnoticed or unaddressed during his years on the force.

In early 2025, Telly was briefly appointed chief of staff to a San Joaquin County Supervisor, only to resign within weeks after being arrested in a high-profile raid. According to state prosecutors, Telly allegedly tried to solicit an informant to commit an assault, and sold a firearm without using a licensed dealer, both serious felonies under California law.

The case has opened a wider discussion about post-service accountability, especially for retired officers who retain community connections, influence, and, in some cases, access to firearms.  When public servants are granted authority, that authority must be balanced with transparency.  The Telly case highlights how difficult it can be to investigate and prosecute former law enforcement, particularly when they understand the legal system from the inside out.

For anyone facing criminal allegations, especially those involving weapons or misuse of power, experienced legal defense is critical.  At the Justice Firm, we understand how prosecutors build these cases, and more importantly, how to defend against them, whether you’re a civilian or someone with a law enforcement background.

Telly’s case is ongoing, and he has maintained his innocence. However, for communities affected by over-policing or inconsistent accountability, his case definitely reopens old wounds.  Yet, it is essential that due process be observed, both to protect the rights of the accused and to restore public trust in the justice system.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges, especially those involving firearms, conspiracy, or misuse of authority, contact our firm today for a confidential consultation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

One such law is Assembly Bill 2942, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, and was codified in Penal Code Section 1172.1. The new law granted district attorneys the discretionary power to revisit cases and determine whether further incarceration is actually in the interest of justice, and if it is not, the district attorneys now have the right to make a recommendation to the court for resentencing.

Under PC 1172.1, once a district attorney makes a recommendation, the court has discretionary power to determine whether to grant a recall hearing. The law instructs the courts to consider the disciplinary and rehabilitation records of defendants; evidence of age, physical condition and time served to determine whether the risk of future violence has been reduced; evidence of changed circumstances that would render a continued incarceration a miscarriage of justice; and finally, the court can consider new laws passed that would result in a shorter sentence, including the invalidation of certain enhancements.    

If you have questions about AB 2942 and your eligibility, 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.

In the past few months, the district attorneys’ discretionary power under PC 1172.1, has been in the public eye more than ever due to the renewed legal battle by the Menendez Brothers to be resentenced.  In May 2023, the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition based on a couple of pieces of new evidence. In early October 2024, the now-former Los Angeles District Attorney, George Gascon, announced that the Los Angeles DA’s office is reviewing the brothers’ petition.

A few weeks later, Gascon announced that he would recommend to the court to resentence the Menendez Brothers to 50 years to life in lieu of the life sentence without the possibility of parole they are currently serving. This would have made the brothers eligible for parole under the Youth Offender Parole provisions as they were under the age of 26 when they committed the crimes.

Gascon based his decision on a number of factors, including the brothers well-documented rehabilitation efforts in prison, with the brothers obtaining educational degrees and being involved in both community and prison programs; the history of abuse and trauma that contributed to the crime; as well as their age at the time of committing the crime.

In November 2024, Californians voted George Gascon out of office, and chose Nathan Hochman as the new Los Angeles Country District Attorney.  Mr. Hochman immediately stated that he would review all the facts before making his own determination. On March 10, 2025, just a couple of weeks prior to the brothers’ next hearing, the new LA County DA announced that his office has filed a request to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by his predecessor.

With that announcement, Mr. Hochman basically set the new standard under which his office would judge potential requests for resentencing. While the new District Attorney acknowledged that there are many factors justifying resentencing, these factors are not sufficient enough to warrant a recall and resentencing recommendation, unless the brothers also shows full insight and completely, sincerely, and unequivocally accept responsibility for their criminal actions.

Mr. Hochman cited governor Newsom’s decision and reasoning of denying parole to Sirhan Sirhan, who is in prison for the killing of Robert F. Kennedy, as a benchmark and a precedent that courts and district attorneys should consider when deciding whether to grant a resentencing hearing. In the Sirhan case, the governor, while acknowledging the rehabilitation efforts and achievements of Mr. Sirhan, still denied parole because Sirhan’s failure to exhibit insight and accept responsibility made him an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.   

There are a number of alternatives to direct appeal, and AB 2942 provides a way to reduce your original sentence.  And while Californians’ attitude towards criminal justice reform remains positive and is a bright light for people serving excessive sentences, the new Los Angeles County DA’s decision in the Menendez brothers case is proof that the burden of showing that a resentencing in a given case is in the interest of justice has been raised. 

Given the huge impact that a potential resentencing hearing could have on a defendant’s life, it is vital that you hire an experienced appeals attorney who specializes in post-conviction matters.  At the Justice Firm, we work hard for all of our clients, and hiring the right attorney ensures that your case is presented in the most convincing way possible and will show why a resentencing in your case would serve the interests of justice.

If you have questions about recent developments in resentencing and your eligibility, 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  

The Los Angeles Fires, especially the Palisades and the Eaton Fires, have given rise to myriad of lawsuits against companies, particularly Southern California Edison, and other parties whose actions may have contributed to the devastations caused by the infernos.

If you have been impacted by the recent wildfires fires in Los Angeles, contact the experienced lawyers at the Justice Firm today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here to received a free case evaluation.

There are several ways victims of the fires can obtain recovery and our law firm is here to assist and pursue claims for different types of losses, including:

• Total or partial damage to your property;
• Lost income;
• Commercial losses as a result of the destruction of your business or temporary interruptions to your business operations;
• Relocation and evacuation expenses;
• Medical bills;
• Smoke damage; whether to your health or property
• Personal property damages, including vehicle damages; and
• Non-economic damages, including emotional distress.

If you are victim of the wildfires that ravaged Los Angeles, you may qualify for compensation several different ways, including filing an insurance claim; suing a wrongdoer like Southern California Edison or an insurance company; or joining a class action lawsuit.

The first step for most people who have suffered losses as a result of the wildfires in Los Angeles is filing an insurance claim. Dealing with insurance companies can be overwhelming under the best of circumstances. Filing a claim after going through the traumatic experience of evacuation and loss of livelihood is unimaginable. Importantly, you don’t have to go through this alone.

The Justice Firm is here to help you in filing an insurance claim by assessing properly all losses suffered, including property damage and economic losses; gathering of evidence and all the necessary documentation; and most importantly analyzing your insurance policy to determine the precise coverage you have and what losses the insurance company is legally required to compensate.

In addition, our experienced attorneys can assist you in pursuing further claims against bad actors, including utility companies, manufacturing companies, and the government. Our attorneys may also be able to assist you in linking you to a settlement.

At the Justice Firm, we believe that if you or your loved ones have suffered any damages at all as a result of the Los Angeles wildfires, you deserve to be compensated fairly and our experienced and empathetic attorneys are here to help you through this ordeal. You can reach them by calling today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

In the past decade, the California legislature has passed numerous bills that have provided incarcerated individuals with the opportunity to ask courts to have their sentences recalled and reduced. Some of these ameliorative statutes include AB 2942 – Recall of Sentence and Resentencing, which grants district attorneys the ability to make resentencing referrals; the RISE Act (SB 483); and SB 775/SB 1437, which effectively eliminated the role of the natural and probable consequences doctrine in murder cases and dramatically limited who can be charged under the felony murder doctrine.

Those and other legislation have provided an opportunity for countless people to petition the courts to have their sentences reduced. The new laws have given defendants hope that the tough-on-crime policies of the past would not result in them serving unjust and draconian sentences. Unfortunately, many of the new laws have failed to provide clear guidelines for either the courts or practitioners.

The new bill would require courts to institute a plan for a “fair and efficient” handling of all postconviction matters. Moreover, AB 2483 provides certain rules that should apply in all future postconviction proceedings, unless the ameliorative statute at issue provides more specific rules. The rules provided for in the statute include:

• If an unrepresented defendant initiates a postconviction proceeding authorized by the law, the court at that time should consider whether to appoint counsel, which the court can decide at any point in the proceedings;
• The new legislature gives courts the power to modify every aspect of a sentence, even if it was imposed after a guilty plea. Moreover, courts are required to consider all applicable circumstances that have taken place since the initial sentence was imposed, which could arguably include post-conviction factors as well as any new sentencing laws;
• The new legislation prohibits prosecutors or the courts to use the resentencing based on changes in the laws as a basis to rescind a plea agreement;
• The new law requires courts to put on the record the reasons for granting or denying the initiation of resentencing proceedings and to inform the defendant of the court’s decision and to advise the defendant of their right to appeal;
• The parties can waive a hearing and the court can proceed directly to the resentencing. In addition, the defendant would have the right to waive their personal presence and appear remotely; and
• The law also allows for victims of a crime to be heard if they wish to be heard pursuant to the provisions of Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution, or pursuant to any other provision of law applicable to the hearing and courts should provide them with the opportunity to do so.

As highlighted above, currently, there are a number of ameliorative statutes that could be used by defendants to petition courts for resentencing. 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 currently available ameliorative statutes or any other avenues potentially available for resentencing that 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.

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.

• The information provided to the government was not known to the defendant until more than one year after sentencing;
• The information was given within one year of sentencing, but the information that was provided did not become useful to the government until more than a year after sentencing; or
• The usefulness of the information provided could not have been reasonably anticipated by the defendant until more than a year after sentencing and the information was provided promptly after its usefulness became apparent to the defendant.

Courts have held that, generally, the government is under no obligation to file a substantial assistance motion regardless of how useful the information provided was. However, there are a couple of important limits to the government’s discretion, where a refusal to file a motion can be reviewed by the court:

• The first exception is if the government has obligated itself to bring such a motion under the terms of its plea agreement with the defendant; or
• The government’s refusal to file a substantial assistance motion is based on an unconstitutional motive like race or religion.

That is why it is important to work with an experienced criminal defense attorney who can protect your interests and make sure that the substantial assistance you provide works to benefit you. The attorneys at the Justice Firm have decades of experience and will work not only to ensure that the assistance you provide benefits you, but will work to ensure that you and your family are protected from retaliation or further criminal exposure.

One important part of Rule 35(b) is that, once the government files a substantial assistance motion and recommends a sentence reduction, courts are not bound by the government’s recommendation. Under Rule 35(b), courts have broad discretion in determining the new sentence, which allows them to reduce a sentence even below the statutory minimum sentence for the crime.

When deciding a Rule 35(b) motion, courts employ a two-step analysis. First, a judge will determine whether the defendant has indeed provided substantial assistance. The assistance cannot be minimal, it has to be substantial and more importantly the government has to consider it to be substantial. The second part of the court’s analysis is deciding the extent to which an assisting defendant’s sentence should be reduced.

In exercising their discretion, courts consider non-assistance factors in determining the extent of sentence reduction. Such factors include defendant’s character prior to sentencing, any presentence cooperation, the post-conviction record, and current health condition among others.

As already mentioned, while the government has broad discretion and is under no obligation to bring a substantial assistance motion, an experienced criminal defense attorney can negotiate the cooperation on behalf of the client. If you would like to explore the prospects of reducing your sentence or have information that can be useful to the government, you should speak to one of our highly skilled and compassionate federal criminal defense attorneys at the Justice Firm, who understand how to best protect their clients’ interests and make sure the government utilizes the information provided.

If you or a loved one is facing criminal sentencing or has been sentenced already, you can contact our criminal defense attorneys today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

AB 600 was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2023, and came into effect on January 1, 2024. The new law provides changes to PC 1172.1 and expands the authority of judges to initiate resentencing. Prior to the enactment of AB 600, courts’ authority to recall a sentence was limited to 120 days following the date of commitment to state prison or county jail or with the recommendation of the district attorney or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

Now, AB 600 allows courts to recall a sentence and initiate resentencing at any point in time, if the sentencing laws applicable at the time of sentencing have subsequently changed, including sentencing enhancement laws, strike laws, or any other sentencing rules.

In addition to allowing judges to initiate resentencing when the applicable laws have changed, AB 600 mandates judges to consider post-conviction factors, including the defendant’s disciplinary and rehabilitation record while incarcerated; the defendant’s age and time served; and whether the circumstances have changed to the point that continuous incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Moreover, the law requires courts to assess whether the defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated and to determine whether the defendant had experienced physical, psychological, or childhood trauma, or if the defendant was a youth at the time of the offense, and whether any of these factors contributed to the commission of the offense.

In addition, during resentencing proceedings, AB 600 gives courts full discretion to reconsider the imposition of prior strikes. According to the legislature, courts should not only consider the Romero factors, but also PC 1385 as amended by SB 81.

Finally, AB 600 mandates presumption in favor of resentencing, which can be refuted only if the court determines that the defendant poses “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” Absent this, the legislature mandates that, if a court concludes that resentencing is appropriate, such resentencing should result in a “meaningful modification.”

Given the huge impact that a resentencing hearing could have on a defendant’s life, it is vital that you hire an experienced appeals attorney who specializes in post-conviction matters. At the Justice Firm, we understand 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 have questions about AB 600 or any other post-conviction relief options, 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.

In 1987, in McClesky v. Kemp, the U.S. Supreme Court limited courts’ ability to address systemic discrimination by requiring defendants to prove purposeful discrimination by more than statistical disparities. Unfortunately, the Court failed to recognize the reality that most systemic biases are unintentional and throughout the years have been more damaging than occurrences of outright racism. As a result, the decision by the Court left thousands of defendants without recourse.

Fortunately, as part of the ongoing effort to rectify the troubling and devastating effects that California’s laws and policies have had on minority communities and to redress the McClesky decision, in 2020, the State legislature passed AB 2542, which prohibited the state from seeking a conviction or a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Recognizing that AB 2542 did not go far enough, in 2022, the California legislature passed AB 256 or the Racial Justice Act for All. The new bill provided a staggered timeline for defendants with cases in which final judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, to seek relief. Moreover, AB 256 expands the type of evidence that defendants can present and requires courts to consider the totality of the evidence and not only statistical evidence.

According to the timeline provided in AB 256, starting on January 1, 2024, any person who is currently serving a sentence in state prison or county jail can file a habeas corpus petition based on a claim under AB 256, which was codified under Penal Code section 745. Moreover, AB 256 amended Penal Code section 1473, not only to allow for habeas corpus petitions based on racial discrimination claims, but to also allow defendants with pending petitions to amend their existing petitions with a claim that their conviction or sentence was the result of a violation of the new Penal Code section 745(a).

The process of challenging a conviction or a sentence under AB 256 is going to be a complex one. Starting on January 1, 2024, defendants who are currently in custody will be able to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In order to obtain a hearing, a defendant is required to make a prima facie showing that there was a violation of PC 745(a). This means that the petition has to put forward facts that, if true, would establish a substantial likelihood that a PC 745(a) violation had occurred.

At the evidentiary hearing, the burden of proof will be on the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation had occurred. However, the defendant will not be required to prove intentional discrimination. Furthermore, if the defendant shares an ethnicity, race, or national origin with more than one group, then he or she can produce aggregate evidence to prove that there was a violation. If the court finds that a violation had indeed occurred, the court is mandated to impose a remedy. While the exact remedy is going to be within the discretion of the court, the possible post-judgment remedies include vacating the conviction or sentence and ordering new proceedings; modifying the judgment to a lesser offense; or vacating the sentence and imposing a new one, which cannot be greater than the one previously imposed.

AB 256 provides an additional avenue for defendants to seek post-conviction relief. The experienced and compassionate post-conviction attorneys at the Justice Firm are ready to answer your questions and evaluate your case to determine if you qualify for post-conviction relief under this or any other law. If you or a loved one wants to know more about this law, or if you think that AB 256 impacts 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.

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.

In California, an individual’s criminal record is kept until a person reaches 100 years of age, even though most people with a criminal record had long paid their debt to society. The effects of a criminal record have always been enormous, but this is truer then ever in today’s world where the use of background checks is more widespread than ever. As a result, a quarter of the state’s population is facing numerous barriers to building and having a decent life. The presence of a criminal record prevents people from entering certain careers, obtaining housing, long-term employment, and participating fully in civic life. Most notably, the consequences of a criminal record have historically affected minority communities disproportionately and have been a leading driver of recidivism and perpetual poverty.

For years now, California has been at the forefront of Criminal Justice Reform and has been adopting numerous measures in an attempt to rectify the effects of the tough on crime policies of the past. As part of the ongoing efforts to reform that the California policymakers have embarked on, and recognizing the devastating consequences a criminal record can have on a person’s ability to reintegrate into society, they passed SB 731. Governor Newsom signed the bill into law on September 29, 2022, and the bill became effective on July 1, 2023.

Prior to SB 731 coming into effect, the state’s laws allowed for people to apply for expungement of certain misdemeanor and felony convictions. Not only was expungement limited in its application, but also, the conviction was not entirely erased from a person’s record. SB 731 is a landmark law that completely changes the approach to conviction sealing in California and is the most expansive conviction sealing law in the country.

Under SB 731, the California Department of Justice is required to review their databases on a monthly basis and clear all records of eligible individuals automatically. Eligibility varies depending on the type of arrest or conviction. Generally, all misdemeanor and felony charges that are dismissed have to be cleared immediately after dismissal. With regards to arrests and convictions, the automatic relief eligibility varies:

• For misdemeanor arrests where no charges are brought, the automatic record clearance is one year after the arrest, whereas for felony arrests with no charges brought, three years after the arrest.
• For misdemeanor convictions where probation is granted, a person is eligible for automatic record clearance immediately after completion of probation. And if no probation is granted, one year after completion of the case.
• For felony convictions, where probation is granted, immediately after probation is completed. For all other non-violent, non-serious, non-registerable felony convictions, a person will be eligible to have their record automatically cleared 4 years after sentence completion, if there have been no additional felony convictions in the 4-year period.

Additionally, any individual with a felony conviction is eligible to discretionary relief and can petition the court to withdraw their plea and have their case dismissed after completion of their sentence and if certain other conditions are met. If the felony conviction resulted in a sentence to state prison, the relief is available only if the conviction did not result in a requirement to register as a sex offender.

Finally, it is worth noting that nothing in SB 731 restores an individual’s gun rights that were taken away due to a felony conviction or a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. Despite SB 731, the only way to regain your rights to own or possess firearms is through a gubernatorial pardon.

While under SB 731 most criminal records are supposed to be automatically cleared when they become eligible, there are still instances where a person will have to petition the court in order to have their record cleared. At the Justice Firm we fight zealously to protect our clients’ rights and we believe that everyone is entitled to have 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 the experienced California Criminal 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.

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.

The mass incarceration in California has not only caused prison overcrowding, but has also had a devastating impact on the State’s budget, as the annual cost per prisoner is over $100,000. The tough on crime policies of the 1990s have not only led to overcrowding of California’s prisons and a strain on the State’s budget, but they have also proved counterproductive and have had a detrimental impact on countless of inmates and their families, and have disproportionately affected marginal and minority communities.

Fortunately, in the last several years, California’s leaders have recognized than many of the State’s sentencing laws have not only failed to effectively serve their intended purpose of increasing public safety, but more than that, they have led to excessively punitive sentences, unnecessarily long incarcerations, and overall inequities.

One of the main principles of the criminal justice system is that the punishment has to fit the crime. As part of the ongoing effort to course-correct the State’s policies, California’s lawmakers have been enacting legislation designed to alleviate the unintended detrimental consequence of existing laws and to make the State’s criminal justice system more fair and just. One such criminal justice reform measure is SB 567, which was signed by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2021, and came into effect on January 1, 2022.

Enacted in 1977, California’s determinate sentencing law allowed judges to impose one of three sentences – a low term, a middle term, or a high term and until 2007, the law required that judges impose the middle term, unless there were aggravating or mitigating circumstance that justified the imposition of the upper or lower terms. The decision rested entirely within the discretion of the court. In 2007, in Cunningham v. California, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State’s determinate sentencing law was unconstitutional because it violated a person’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a jury by allowing judges to impose an upper term based on aggravating facts, which were never presented to a jury.

In light of the ruling, in 2007, California’s legislature adopted a temporary law, SB 40, allowing judges to impose the upper term without aggravating facts being presented to the jury, if, in his or her discretion, a judge determines that the upper term best serves the interests of justice and the judge sets forth on the record the reasons for imposing the term. The temporary law implemented at the time was set to expire on January 1, 2022.

SB 567 was the sentencing reform bill that the California’s legislature enacted to replace SB 40. SB 567 creates a presumption of sentencing judgment that does not exceed the middle term, unless there are aggravating circumstances justifying the imposition of a high term. Under the new law, the aggravating facts supporting imposition of a high-term sentence have to be either stipulated by the defendant or found to be true beyond reasonable doubt at a trial by a jury or a judge in a bench trial.

Moreover, unless the aggravating facts and evidence are admissible to prove or defend against the charged offense or enhancement, or are otherwise authorized by law, a defendant has the right to request that the trial on the aggravating circumstances be separated from the trial of charges and enhancements. The new law does allow judges to consider a defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting it to the jury. Finally, SB 567 clarifies that, at the time of sentencing, a judge is required to put on the record the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence that they are imposing.

SB 567 is not retroactive in the traditional sense. However, the law does provide the possibility of retroactive relief for defendants who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and were under the age of 18 at the time they committed the crime. In addition to being required to serve at least 15 years of their sentence prior to petitioning the court, there are additional requirements that such individuals have to meet.

If you want to know more about this new law or want to learn if you qualify, our post-conviction attorneys are here to help. The post-conviction attorneys at the Justice Firm are ready to answer your questions and evaluate your case to determine if you qualify for post-conviction relief under this or any other laws.

While SB 567 is silent on its retroactivity other than as stated above, there is certainly interplay between this sentencing law and other recently enacted criminal justice reform measures including AB 2942.

SB 567 is part of a whole host of new measures that give additional opportunities for people to seek post-conviction relief. If you or a loved one is serving a lengthy prison sentence and have questions about this law or any other law, 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.

Given the enormous impact that a resentencing hearing could have on a defendant’s life, it is vital that you hire an experienced appeals attorney who specializes in post-conviction matters. At the Justice Firm, we work hard for all of our clients, and hiring the right attorney ensures that your case is presented in the most convincing way possible and will show why a resentencing in your case would serve the interests of justice.

As part of the ongoing effort to fight the biases and racial discrimination that have been prevalent in our criminal legal system, in 2020, the California legislature passed AB 2542, or the Racial Justice Act, which came into effect on January 1, 2021. The law prohibited the state from obtaining or seeking to obtain a criminal conviction or imposing a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. The landmark law was a step in the right direction and was welcomed by criminal justice reform advocates.

Prior to the passing of AB 2542, proving racial biases was almost impossible. In the 1987 decision McClesky v. Kemp, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed an unreasonably high burden on defendants to prove racism in criminal cases. In short, the Court required defendants to prove intentional discrimination and held that statistical disparities are not enough to show a constitutional violation.

Unfortunately, for all the good AB 2542 aimed to do, it still left thousands of people behind, as it applied only to prospective cases. That issue was rectified with the passing of AB 256, which Governor Newsom signed into law on September 29, 2022. The new Racial Justice Act for All extended the protections of AB 2542 to people, who had been impacted by unfair, biased, and discriminatory convictions or sentences prior to January 1, 2021, and it applies to juvenile convictions as well.

AB 256 gives a new opportunity for people to seek post-conviction relief. If you want to know more about this new law or want to learn if you qualify, our post-conviction attorneys are here to help. The post-conviction attorneys at the Justice Firm are ready to answer your questions and evaluate your case to determine if you qualify for post-conviction relief under this or any other laws.

AB 256 came into effect on January 1, 2023. However, the new law does not apply to everyone immediately, but rather, it creates a phased-in timeline for defendants to seek post-conviction relief:

• January 1, 2023 – defendants who have been sentenced to death or individuals facing deportation;
• January 1, 2024 – defendants who are incarcerated for a felony;
• January 1, 2025 – other individuals who have felony convictions, which were entered after 2015;
• January 1, 2026 – all other individuals with a felony conviction.

The new Racial Justice Act for All not only will extend protections and provide an avenue of relief for countless of people, but it also broadens the type of evidence that a defendant can present. Under the original act, in order for a defendant to establish that a conviction or a sentence was unlawfully imposed on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity, he or she was required to provide statistical evidence or aggregate data. AB 256 now allows a defendant to present nonstatistical evidence and the new law requires judges to consider the totality of the evidence.

In order to prove a violation under the new law, upon making a prima facie case of a violation under the law, a defendant is entitled to hearing where he or she has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that either:

• “The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin” or
• During the course of the defendant’s trial, one of the above listed persons “used racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful” or
• The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than similarly situated individuals of a different race, ethnicity, or national origin and prosecutors in the county “more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin” or
• A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than on similarly situated individuals and “longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins.”

Explicit and implicit systemic racial biases, inequality, and discrimination have been present in our criminal justice system since its inception. The Racial Justice Act for All brings us one step closer to rectifying the injustices and the significant racial disparities that exist in California’s convictions and sentencing history.

The process of challenging a conviction or a sentence under AB 256 is complex and it is important to work with experienced and compassionate attorneys. At the Justice Firm, we know that the attorney-client relationship is an important aspect of your legal journey and our highly skilled and reliable 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 256 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.