Sentencing Enhancements

Recent Changes To Sentencing Enhancements In California

November 30, 2023 | by The Justice Firm

One of the main principles of our criminal justice system is that the punishment has to fit the crime. However, in the 1990s, California’s leaders pursued very actively tough on crime policies and during that time more than a hundred different sentencing enhancements were enacted. Throughout the past three decades, these enhancements have added many years to the prison terms of majority of inmates. As a result, currently, California hosts the second largest prison population behind Texas.

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.

Continue Reading →

SB 1393 – The Fair and Just Sentencing Reform Act of 2018

September 18, 2023 | by The Justice Firm

Despite the ongoing efforts by California’s leaders to improve the State’s criminal justice system and to make it fairer, California still has some of the most severe sentence enhancements in the United States.

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.

Continue Reading →

Gang Enhancements in California: How AB 333 Changed The Old Law

June 2, 2023 | by The Justice Firm

In 1987, California passed the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP Act). The California legislature’s goal was to address the increasing criminal activities by street gangs and through the STEP Act it imposed a three-year sentencing enhancement for gang related crimes. Proponents of the law claimed that it would be applied narrowly and only in cases of serious and violent crimes and where the prosecution has clearly demonstrated a pattern of criminal activity. However, since its enactment, through legislation and court rulings, the severity of the STEP Act gang enhancements increased and their application broadened exponentially. The reality is that these enhancements have resulted in overly punitive and mandatory sentences for non-violent crimes and even misdemeanors, and in many cases have led to life sentences.

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.

Continue Reading →

Overview Of California’s Three Strikes Law And How You Can Fight It

October 5, 2022 | by The Justice Firm

History of California’s Three Strikes Law

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.

Continue Reading →

ROMERO MOTION EXPLAINED

September 28, 2022 | by The Justice Firm

In 1994, through Proposition 184, California enacted the unduly harsh Three Strikes law, which was later codified by Penal Code 667. Under the Three Strikes law, a so-called repeat offender with one or more prior violent and/or serious felonies, would receive a harsher prison sentence for a subsequent qualifying felony conviction, with a defendant with two or more such prior convictions, receiving a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. While the Three Strikes law has been widely criticized for leading to mass incarceration and for disproportionately affecting minorities and people of color, as well as for not having a significant impact on public safety, the law is still in effect and continues to have a severe impact on the lives of thousands of defendants.

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.

Continue Reading →

Here’s How SB 81 Will Reform Sentencing in California

December 10, 2021 | by The Justice Firm

Empty Prison Cell
It’s no secret that many elements of the criminal justice system have imposed unfair prison sentences, especially enhancements that can add decades to the total time served in prison. This has led to overcrowded prisons, disproportionately affecting people of color and those suffering from mental illnesses.

Sentence enhancements are not related to the original crime, rather, they are add-ons based on how the crime was committed and the nature of the circumstances involving the crime. For example, using a firearm to commit a robbery can add anywhere between 10 and 20 years, while any association with organized crime could result in two to 10 more years in prison. The latter depends on the severity of the offense.

Like many aspects of the criminal justice system, there is a large degree of variation in how certain crimes are interpreted. For example, it is alleged that California’s current sentencing enhancement laws disproportionately affect people of color and those with mental illnesses. It is worth mentioning that judges have the legal ability to dismiss sentence enhancements, but they rarely do so.

Continue Reading →

Facts About Prop 57: “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act” of 2016

October 21, 2020 | by The Justice Firm

Facts About Prop 57: “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act” of 2016

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.

Continue Reading →

McDaniels’ First-Degree Murder Conviction Upheld by San Francisco State Appeals Court, Firearm Enhancements Sentencing Remanded to Trial Court

May 22, 2018 | by The Justice Firm

In 2016 Alpacino McDaniels was found guilty of the July 2013 murder of 23-year-old Teric Traylor by an Alameda County Superior Court jury. McDaniels allegedly killed Traylor during a street fight in West Oakland, although McDaniels claimed that he was not the one who shot the victim. McDaniels had prior convictions including two for possessing cocaine base for sale, one for evading police and another for selling a controlled substance.

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.

Continue Reading →

Is SB620 Retroactive?

March 15, 2018 | by The Justice Firm

Many people in California have wondered whether SB620 or Senate Bill 620 is retroactive. Ultimately, prior to the passage of this bill local judges did not have discretion when it came to dismissing sentencing enhancements decided by prosecutors in regards to felony cases involving the use of firearms. Since the passage of SB620 in October of last year, judges are now able to determine or decide whether the sentencing enhancement given an offender who is convicted of a felony crime involving a firearm is proper or fitting to the case at hand. However, this still doesn’t meet many individuals’ definitions of equality.

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.

Continue Reading →

California Law and How Senate Bill 620 Changes Things When it Comes to Sentencing Enhancements

October 19, 2017 | by The Justice Firm

On October 11 California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill sponsored by the ACLU of California into law that will impact sentencing for felons convicted of crimes in which a firearm was used. Is the new law a good thing or a bad thing? It really depends on your own opinion. According to some reports law enforcement leaders feel Senate Bill 620 will only result in additional gun violence, however Senator Steve Bradford, author of the bill, says it’s really about justice.

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.

Continue Reading →