Justia Lawyer Rating
American Board of Trial Advocates
CACJ
The State Bar of California
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Los Angeles County Bar Association
AV Preeminent
Super Lawyers

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.

Bullying has been a major problem for a long time and hundreds of thousands of children experience some form of bullying every single day. While public awareness of the prevalence of bullying is at all time high, the problem not only has not been eradicated, but in the era of social media, it has become more serious than ever.

Bullying can take many shapes or forms, and victims can be targeted due to their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or for a variety of other reasons. It is a form of violence, which can be physical; verbal, including making threats or inappropriate sexual comments; or social, including spreading rumors or disseminating hurtful material. In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive, repetitive, and there has to be an imbalance of power.

While a significant part of society considers bullying a normal part of growing up, the reality is that it can have devastating consequences and lasting impact on children and teens. Some of the more serious effects of bullying include depression, anxiety, poor school performance, eating disorders, substance use, anger, isolation, and self-injury. More importantly, too many times, bullying has served as a catalyst for suicide, violence towards others, as well as homicidal ideas or actions.

Non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, can experience profound immigration consequences for even minor or very old criminal convictions. Prior to 2017, California law only allowed defendants to challenge their conviction while they were in actual or constructive custody, i.e. parole or probation. As a result, countless people were left with no recourse and way of challenging their convictions. This gap has had a particularly devastating impact on the state’s immigrant community.

Throughout the years, many immigrants in California have entered a plea or have been convicted at trial, without being properly informed of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. And for most non-citizens, the immigration consequences of a conviction only come to light when they find themselves in immigration court facing deportation, which, in many instances, can be years after they had completed their criminal sentence. In most of those cases, the only way for a non-citizen to avoid deportation and to remain in the United States is to challenge their criminal conviction. However, because California law did not provide a post-conviction relief for people who were no longer in custody, many people have been unjustly deported, or at best, have been stuck in the backlogged immigration system for years.

Recognizing that there are a large number of immigrants in California who have already finished serving their sentences, but who have not received the proper legal advice about the impact their convictions could have on their immigration status, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill 813, which was codified as PC 1473.7, and became effective on January 1, 2017. Essentially, the new law gave people who were no longer in custody the ability to challenge their criminal convictions and vacate their judgments. Initially, the law was limited to convictions that were the result of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. However, in 2021, the state legislature passed AB 1259, which amended PC 1473.7. As a result, as of January 1, 2022, the law now also provides a post-conviction relief for non-citizens who were convicted at trial.

Until 2019, countless of inmates in California had been serving unjustly long sentences for murder convictions, even though they never killed, attempted to kill, or intended for a person to die. Fortunately, as part of the ongoing criminal justice reform in California, in 2017, the state legislature acknowledged the need for more equitable sentencing of offenders and determined that reform in the laws is necessary to reflect one of the basic principles of the law and of equity, that a person should be punished for his o her actions based on their own level of individual culpability.

As a result of their findings, the California Legislature concluded that the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, have to be amended, and on September 30, 2018, the former California Governor Jerry Brown, signed into law SB 1437, which was codified as Penal Code §1170.95. In short, SB 1437 changes Penal Code §§188 and 189 by limiting the number of people that can be convicted of felony murder, and by effectively eliminating the role of the natural and probable consequences doctrine in murder cases.

Prior to SB 1437, a person could have been convicted of felony murder if he or she participated in or aided in the commission of a felony and a victim died during or as a result of the felony. Under the new law, in order for someone to be convicted of felony murder, he or she has to participate or attempt to participate in a felony in which a death occurs and:

On September 30, 2020, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 3234, which was codified as Penal Code §§1001.95-1001.97, and became effective on January 1, 2021. AB 3234 is a product of the continuing criminal justice reforms in California. The Court Initiated Misdemeanor Diversion is essentially a “get out of jail free card” as it provides an alternative to criminal prosecution and aims at preventing the creation of repeated offenders by keeping non-violent offenders out of jail by giving individuals a second chance and a clean slate.

In essence, AB 3234 gives judges the power to grant a diversion to a defendant in a misdemeanor case and to postpone the case for up to 24 months. Importantly, under this law, a judge has the power to “divert” a case, even if the prosecuting attorney objects. The offer of a diversion is entirely within a judge’s discretion, which means that the defendant has to show good reasons for why he or she is worthy of being granted a diversion. In considering whether to grant judicial diversion, judges would take into account defendant’s history, character, background, and the specific facts of the case and every diversion will be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case and the crime charged.

A defendant would be deemed to have successfully completed the judicial diversion program when they complete all court-ordered terms, conditions, and programs, which can include community services, treatment programs, anger management or domestic violence classes among others. In addition, during the duration of the program a defendant has to comply with any court-ordered protective or stay-away orders, or orders prohibiting firearm possession. Finally, a defendant has to make full restitution to the victim. However, the law specifically states that a defendant’s inability to pay restitution due to indigence cannot be grounds for denial of diversion or a finding of failure to comply with the terms of the diversion.

For far too long transgender, gender-nonconforming, and intersex people have been subjected to various forms of discrimination and victimization. This has been particularly prevalent for those who have been incarcerated. Even the United States Supreme Court has recognized that transgender people are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and harassment.

Fortunately, in addition to being at the forefront of Criminal Justice Reform in general, by passing the historic SB 132 or the Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act, the California legislature has finally decided to act in addressing the issues that transgender, gender-nonconforming, and intersex people face while incarcerated. SB 132 was signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 26, 2020, and came into effect on January 1, 2021. The law was designed to ensure that transgender, gender-nonconforming, and intersex people are provided with a safe, humane, and dignified environment while incarcerated.

According to the findings in the bill, the rate of sexual assault in California’s prisons is 13 times higher for transgender women than for men in the same prisons. Moreover, another survey showed that, nationwide, 40 percent of incarcerated transgender individuals reported experiencing sexual victimization, compared to 4 percent for other incarcerated people. Furthermore, another survey showed that 38 percent of transgender women reported being harassed by correctional officers or staff.

The term “civil rights” encompasses a very broad variety of rights. Some of those rights are enshrined in the Constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process, and the right to equal protection under the law. In addition to the Constitution, many civil rights have been and continue to be addressed and protected in greater detail by federal and state laws. Some of the most prominent examples include:

  • The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex;
  • The Americans with Disabilities Act; and

We live in a civilized society and being imprisoned does not mean giving up basic human rights. While, as a result of incarceration, inmates do have some of their rights limited and prisons are allowed to curtail certain rights based on safety and security, there are certain basic fundamental human rights that cannot be taken away from an individual, even when they have been incarcerated in prison or county jail.

The Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, inmates are entitled to be housed in humane conditions. Furthermore, inmates are entitled to adequate mental and medical care, which for women include the right to prenatal and other necessary medical care, if they are pregnant, as well as postpartum care. Furthermore, female inmates have the right to refuse sterilization or any other birth control if they do not want it. Moreover, incarcerated individuals are entitled to freedom from discrimination, sexual harassment, the use of excessive force and assault, which includes sexual assault.

In 2003 the Prison Rape Elimination Act established a zero-tolerance policy for rape in any United States prison, which includes state as well as federal prisons. Unfortunately, sexual assault and rape in prisons across the United States continues to be a prevalent problem and countless inmates suffer as a result.

A criminal conviction can have a life changing and potentially devastating impact on anyone. However, under federal law, certain offenses are considered deportable, including controlled substance offenses, crimes of moral turpitude, and aggravated felonies. So, for noncitizens, a criminal conviction brings with it potentially very grave collateral immigration consequences. In many instances, the individuals who are convicted of qualifying offenses, have spent their entire adulthood in the United States, have build their lives and have families here, and have no other place they would call home. Yet, following a criminal conviction, noncitizens face the threat of ending up in immigration court to face a potential removal and deportation to a strange country and permanent separation from their families.

Fortunately, in light of the adverse immigration consequences noncitizens face, some district attorneys are starting to adjust their offices’ immigration-related policies, including the Los Angeles District Attorney, George Gascon. On December 6, 2022, Mr. Gascon issued a new special directive outlining the new immigration policies of the LA District Attorney’s Office, which, among other things, is aiming to address the overly punitive consequences accused noncitizens could face.

First, according to the new policy, prior to when a charging decision is made, any person who is under investigation or their attorney, can present information demonstrating the potential adverse immigration consequences that could follow. In such cases, all charging determinations by the DA office should be made with the goal of avoiding or mitigating any adverse consequences a charge could have, and if there are possible alternatives to charges being filed, the DA office should pursue those alternatives. In addition, the new policy encourages prosecutors to expand the use of pretrial diversion programs that do not require an admission of guilt.

Various factors have contributed to childhood sexual abuse being one of the most underreported crimes, including the fact that over ninety percent of all childhood sexual assaults are perpetrated by a person personally known to the child or their family. And while the underreporting prevents us from knowing exactly how prevalent these heinous crimes are, most studies show that almost 10 percent of all children have been the victims of sexual assault.

Following some very high profile child sexual abuse scandals, including the Penn State scandal, as well as the USA Gymnastics and the Boy Scouts of America sex abuse scandals, many states, including California, took a second look at their laws and made significant changes. In California, the state legislature passed the California Child Victims Act, which came into effect on January 1, 2020. The new law makes it easier for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to hold perpetrators and organizations responsible for the abuse by extending the time victims have to file a claim. Moreover, the new law expands the definition from “childhood sexual abuse” to “childhood sexual assault,” which has broadened the scope of behaviors that could be actionable.

By law, children cannot consent to any type of sexual activity and any sexual interaction with a minor can be considered sexual assault. As a result, childhood sexual assault can take many forms and can be both physical, where there is a direct sexual contact with a child, as well as non-physical, where the perpetrator does not actually touch the victim.

Contact Information