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.

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.

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.

A PC 1473.7 motion to vacate can be filed on two grounds: (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, or (2) if evidence of actual innocence had been discovered. Notably, the prejudicial error ground for filing a successful motion to vacate does not require a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreover, in order to establish prejudice, the moving party does not have to prove that he or she would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error.

PC 1473.7 includes a timing requirement that such motions be filed with “reasonable diligence” after receiving a notice to appear in immigration court, other notice from immigration authorities, or after a notice of final removal order, whichever is later.

All PC 1473.7 motions are entitled to a hearing, and if the moving party successfully establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is entitled to a relief, the motion will be granted, and the conviction will be vacated and erased from the person’s criminal record. However, that does not guarantee that the case will be dismissed. The case will only be dismissed, if the prosecution agrees to dismiss it. In the alternative, the prosecution may offer a different plea, and if not, the case will proceed to trial.

If an individual has a criminal record, obtaining a permanent legal status or citizenship is extremely difficult, if not impossible. 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.

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.

Second, in line with section 1016.3 of the California Penal Code, which requires that in all plea negotiations, the prosecution has to consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences as a factor in reaching a resolution, the new directive makes clear that “it is in the interest of justice to endeavor to avoid or mitigate immigration consequences of criminal convictions whenever possible.” Accordingly, the new directive lays out a comprehensive plan for plea bargaining, including:

• Allowing for flexibility in sentencing, including splitting sentences across counts, as well as flexibility in sentencing for a probation violation; and
• Avoiding sentence enhancements that would turn a neutral offense into an immigration damaging one.

Furthermore, the new directive lays out the Office’s policy on post-conviction relief. In 2016, the California legislature passed section 1473.7 of the California Penal Code, which created a vehicle for noncitizens, who are no longer in criminal custody, to seek post-conviction relief by allowing them to move to vacate prior convictions when there is a “prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.” In accordance with this, the new immigration policy directs prosecutors to concede without delay all motions to vacate, where it is clear from the record that a defendant was not able to comprehend, defend against, or knowingly accept the immigration consequences of a plea or a sentence.

Moreover, the new policy lists several type of cases in which it can be expected that a motion to vacate would not be opposed by prosecutors. These cases include:

• Motions to bring a sentence down from 365 to 364 days;
• Proposition 36 cases, where the defendant has completed the drug treatment diversion program;
• Post-plea deferred entry of judgment cases;
• Marijuana cases, which have been dismissed as part of the mass cannabis record clearance;
• As well as cases where the defendant has been in the military and has been honorably discharged.

In general, the new policy makes clear, that regardless of the type of case, in all motions to vacate based on immigration consequences, prosecutors should consider all mitigating factors, including whether the defendant was a juvenile; how old the conviction is; the severity of the crime and the facts of the case; as well as the defendant’s character, including family history, work history, and contributions to the community. And, in cases where it is determined that a different resolution would have been reached, if the adverse immigration consequences had been raised initially, the prosecution should stipulate to a motion to vacate.

At the Justice Firm, we know that the attorney-client relationship is an important aspect of your legal journey and we work hard for all of our clients to achieve the best outcome possible.

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, or is seeking post-conviction relief, or needs help with any criminal matter, our highly skilled and reliable attorneys are here to help and to answer any questions you might have. You can contact our experienced California Criminal 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 effects of a criminal conviction do not end once an individual has served their sentence. In fact, the consequences of a criminal conviction can last forever and can impede the rest of a person’s life. Fortunately, the California Constitution gives the governor the power to grant clemency in the form of a sentence commutation or a pardon. While a commutation is directed at people who are still serving a sentence, a pardon is designed to reward people who have shown that they have been fully rehabilitated after serving their sentence for a criminal conviction.

In general, anyone who had been convicted and has completed his or her probation or parole for a California state criminal offense can apply for a Governor’s pardon. The only exceptions are for individuals who have been impeached, as well as those convicted for crimes in other jurisdictions or for federal crimes.

There are many reasons a person who had been convicted of a California state crime should consider applying for a gubernatorial pardon. One of the most important benefits of a pardon is the restoration of certain civil rights, including:

• The right to own or possess firearms;
• The right to serve on a jury;
• The right to become a probation or a parole officer;
• The right to obtain certain professional licenses;
• And, if convicted of a sex crime, a relief from the duty to register as a sex offender.

Moreover, if you are a lawfully present non-citizen, a pardon can be used as a defense to deportation or to eliminate bars to obtaining citizenship.

While a pardon is an official acknowledgement of the positive growth and the full rehabilitation of a person and restores many rights, it does not eliminate a criminal conviction from public records. More specifically, it does not seal an arrest record, nor it expunges a criminal record. Furthermore, there are instances where by law, people convicted of a felony involving the use of a dangerous weapon, cannot have their gun rights restored. In addition, in case of a subsequent offense, a pardoned conviction would still count as a prior.

A gubernatorial pardon is very hard to obtain, as it is considered an honor that the applicant has to demonstrate that they have earned. Depending on the crime, in order to be considered for a pardon, a person has to complete a certain period of rehabilitation following parole or probation. In general, absent exceptional and compelling circumstances, an application for pardon would not be considered, unless the applicant has been discharged from probation or parole for at least 10 years without further criminal activity during that period.

There are two possible routes in applying for a governor’ pardon: a petition for a Certificate of Rehabilitation and a direct pardon application with the governor’s office. In both cases, the applicant is required to notify the district attorney in the county of conviction of his or her intention to apply.

Certificate of Rehabilitation

A Certificate of Rehabilitation is a court order declaring rehabilitation after a conviction. If granted, the court will forward it to the governor’s office where the order will automatically become an application for a pardon. However, a Certificate of Rehabilitation is not a guarantee that a pardon will be granted.

There are a number of eligibility requirements that an individual has to meet in order to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Generally, it is available to people who have a prior conviction for:

• A felony and were sentenced to prison or another California state penal institution; or
• A felony and were sentenced to probation and the conviction has been expunged; or
• A misdemeanor sex offense listed in Penal Code 290 and the conviction has been expunged.

In addition, you have to show that you have not been incarcerated since completion or dismissal of your sentence, and that you are not currently on probation for a felony.

Moreover, the applicant has to be able to prove a “satisfactory period of rehabilitation.” This period includes:

• California residency for at least 5 years prior to filing a petition for a Certificate of Rehabilitation, AND
• Additional two to five years, depending on the crime for which the applicant was convicted.

Usually, the “satisfactory period of rehabilitation” is the absolute minimum period that has to pass before one can receive a Certificate of Rehabilitation. However, it is important to note that judges do have the authority to waive the rehabilitation period and to grant a certificate earlier, if it would be in the interest of justice.

If you are interested in obtaining a Certificate of Rehabilitation, you can contact our California attorneys at the Justice Firm today for a case evaluation and eligibility determination locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here. Direct Pardon

Individuals that do not meet the residency requirement for a Certificate of Rehabilitation, are ineligible for other reasons, or have had their application for a certificate denied, may apply for a pardon directly to the governor. Once the governor receives the application, he or she has the option of requesting more facts from the judge or the district attorney. In addition, the governor may request an investigation by the California Board of Parole Hearings.

Regardless of which route a person takes, the decision whether to grant or deny an application for a pardon is entirely within the governor’s discretion. The only exception being for people convicted of two or more felonies, in which case, the governor has to seek and obtain the consent of majority of the California Supreme Court.

It is important to note that obtaining a pardon is not an easy achievement and for both, a pardon and a Certificate of Rehabilitation, the applicant has to show that they have lived an honest and upstanding life, have obeyed the law, and exhibit a good moral character.

Therefore, before applying, the applicant should assemble documents and records proving that, since their conviction, the applicant has been a law-abiding citizen and an outstanding individual. There are a number of factors that would be considered in an application for a pardon, including records of alcohol or drug treatment, records of work and education history, volunteer work, as well as letters of recommendation from pastors, priests, community leaders, employers, and family, and anything else that would establish good moral character, eligibility, and rehabilitation. And for those facing a deportation, a detailed explanation of how a pardon would help should be included with the application.

The process of applying for a pardon and preparing a strong case can be daunting, so the help of an experienced post-conviction attorney can be crucial in showing that the applicant has led an exemplary life following their conviction. If you want to know more about the pardon application process and how you can restore your rights after a criminal conviction, the highly skilled and experienced appeals attorneys at the Justice Firm are ready to help and answer any questions you might have.

If you or someone you know, needs legal assistance in applying for a pardon or another post-conviction relief, you can contact our California attorneys today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

For the past few decades, California has been known for its tough-on-crime policies and its extremely harsh sentences. Fortunately, the California Constitution gives an individual the right to seek a commutation of sentence. Commutation is a form of clemency that the governor has the authority to grant and is an important form of post-conviction relief. In short, commutation is a reduction or a termination of a sentence.

Almost anyone who has been convicted of a state criminal offense can apply to have their sentence commuted, with the only exception being for individuals that have been impeached. Notably, commutation applies only to state crimes, and the governor lacks the power to commute sentences for convictions in another state or country, or for federal or military offenses.

The main benefit of a commutation is the ability of an individual to leave prison or jail immediately, to become eligible for parole or to accelerate individual’s parole hearing, or to change a death sentence to a life sentence. In addition, a commutation can be used to reduce or eliminate a fine or another penalty ordered by a court.

It is important to note, that a commutation does not change or reverse the finding of guilt, and unlike a certificate of rehabilitation or a pardon, it does not restore civil rights.

Factors to be considered for Commutation

For the most part, the governor has an almost absolute authority when it comes to commutations. And while there are no set criteria in deciding whether commutation would be granted, there are a number of factors that the Governor’s office would look at and consider, including:

• The severity of the offense and the harm caused to victims;
• The applicant’s age at the time of the crime and the time already served;
• The applicant’s behavior while incarcerated, as well as whether the applicant has obtained any certificates or education while incarcerated, and if the applicant sought treatment or participated in rehabilitative programs;
• Evidence of remorse for the committed offenses as well as evidence of victim restitution or efforts to remedy the impact the offense had on the victims;
• The applicant’s age at the time of the application and the need for commutation;
• The potential impact on the community, if the applicant is released, mainly the effect on public safety, and whether a commutation will be in the interest of justice;
• Public opinion, the opinion of victims, and/or the District Attorney;
• Whether the applicant has been rehabilitated and can be re-integrated into society;
• The applicant’s plans for re-entering society, including plans for employment and housing upon release.

In addition, the governor would look at any other factors that may act as indicators as to whether a commutation is warranted or not, like the applicant’s criminal history or whether the applicant is suffering from a terminal illness or a disability.

Commutations are not easy to obtain, and the help of an experienced post-conviction attorney can be crucial. If you or a loved one are considering applying for commutation, you can contact the experienced appeals attorneys at the Justice Firm today for a case evaluation locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here. Procedure

Before submitting an application for commutation, the applicant has to notify the district attorney in the county where he or she was convicted by submitting a notice of intent to apply for clemency. In most cases, the notice has to be given ten days before filing the application. After receipt of the notice, the district attorney has the option of submitting written recommendation, and will also notify the victims, who may submit their own recommendations.

Ten days after notification, the applicant can submit his or hers application for commutation. Although not required, submitting evidence in favor of a commutation could be vital for a successful application. These evidence should include information and documents demonstrating treatment, post-conviction rehabilitation efforts, including education, training, or other self-improvement activities, as well as letters of support, and if the application is based on a chronic or terminal illness, the applicant must submit an authorization for release of medical information. All applications for commutation have to be notarized.

After submitting the application, it is up to the governor to decide what to do. There are no time limits for the governor to act on an application, although, individuals facing deportation or have some other urgent need, could receive an expedited consideration. The governor is not required to grant a commutation. Moreover, the governor does not have to even consider the application and can deny it without any further investigation. However, if the governor decides to consider the application, while not obliged to do so, he or she would most likely refer the application to the Board of Parole Hearings, which would conduct an investigation and would make recommendations to the governor.

If the governor decides to act on an application, the only real limitation comes in cases where the applicant has two or more felony convictions. In those cases, if the governor decides to grant commutation, he or she is required to submit the application to the California Supreme Court and to obtain consent by a majority of the court.

An individual is allowed to apply for commutation once every three years. During the three-year period between applications, the applicant can file a Reapplication for Clemency and request that the governor reconsiders the decision to deny or not act on the application. During the reapplication, no additional evidence that were not included with the original application can be submitted. The reapplication is simply a renewed request for the governor to take a second look at the application.

Generally, approval of an application for commutation is hard to obtain. Most often, commutation of a sentence is granted when there is a demonstration of good behavior, post-conviction education and rehabilitation, and/or to reduce an unfairly harsh sentence. For purposes of a commutation, a sentence would be considered unduly harsh because the laws at the time of sentencing were harsher, or the applicant was very young when he or she committed the offense, or if the applicant can demonstrate evidence of “intimate partner battering” or other abuse.

Applying for commutation or any other post-conviction relief can be a long and complicated process, which requires deep knowledge of the law and extensive experience in the process.

At the Justice Firm, our highly skilled and experienced appeals attorneys are ready to help and answer any questions you might have and if you or a loved one is currently serving a sentence for a state crime in California that you believe is overly punitive and/or disproportionate and would like to apply for commutation or another post-conviction relief, you can contact our California attorneys today locally at (310) 914-2444 or at our Toll-Free number at (866) 695-6714, or click here.

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

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

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

California’s Three Strikes Law Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How To Fight the Consequences of the Three Strikes Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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