<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[impact of SB 775 - The Justice Firm]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/tags/impact-of-sb-775/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/tags/impact-of-sb-775/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[The Justice Firm's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:26:40 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[SB 775 – Resentencing for Prior Manslaughter or Attempted Murder Convictions]]></title>
                <link>https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/sb-775-resentencing-for-prior-manslaughter-or-attempted-murder-convictions/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/sb-775-resentencing-for-prior-manslaughter-or-attempted-murder-convictions/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[The Justice Firm]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:15:03 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[changes in California law]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[impact of SB 775]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[incarcerated]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[resentencing]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB 775]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>Thousands of people in California have been serving unjustly long sentences because they have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder, even though they never killed, attempted to kill, or intended for a person to die. Until January 2019, that was the reality for countless of inmates who had been convicted of murder under&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p>Thousands of people in California have been serving unjustly long sentences because they have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder, even though they never killed, attempted to kill, or intended for a person to die. Until January 2019, that was the reality for countless of inmates who had been convicted of murder under the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences theory for simply participating in certain crimes that had resulted in the death of a person.</p>


<p>In 2018, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1437, which amended the felony murder rule and allowed inmates convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences theory to petition the court to have their murder sentences recalled and to obtain resentencing for the underlying offense only. While advocates of criminal justice reform in California welcomed SB 1437, the law overlooked a substantial number of inmates, who had been convicted of manslaughter or attempted murder under the old theories and who were left ineligible to petition for resentencing under SB 1437.</p>


<p>Thankfully, the California legislature corrected this colossal oversight, and on October 5, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 775, which came into effect on January 1, 2022. By giving inmates convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter under the old doctrines the life-changing opportunity to petition the court for recall and resenting, SB 775 closed the gap that SB 1437 had left open.</p>


<p>Under SB 775, a defendant who had been convicted of manslaughter under the old felony murder or the natural and probable consequences theories, or of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, is eligible for resentencing, if the defendant can demonstrate that he or she would not have been convicted of manslaughter or attempted murder under the new law because malice can no longer be imputed on a person solely because of their participation in a certain crime.</p>


<p>SB 775 spells out the procedure for petitioning and resentencing. Under the new law, in order to have their sentences reconsidered, inmates are responsible for filing a petition with the court that sentenced them and for serving a copy of the petition on the district attorney. Under SB 775, the defendant has to establish a prima facie case for relief in their petition. In addition to a detailed declaration by the defendant spelling out the reason for eligibility of relief under the new law, the petition has to include the case number and the year of conviction, and whether the defendant is requesting the appointment of counsel.</p>


<p>Following the successful filing of a petition, the burden of proof will shift to the prosecution, which has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the inmate is guilty of manslaughter or attempted murder under the revised laws, i.e. that during the commission of a crime, the person intended to kill or was a major participant and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Notably, during the hearing, the court is allowed to hear not only evidence previously admitted, but also new or additional evidence. Finally, the new law specifically states that a conclusion that there is “substantial evidence to support a conviction…is insufficient to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing.” If the prosecution is unable to meet its burden of proof, then the new law requires the court to vacate any prior convictions, allegations, and enhancements, and to resentence the defendant for the original crime.</p>


<p>While SB 775 provides for a court appointed counsel, when filing a petition under the new law, you should consider the life-changing ramifications of a sentence recall and should work with an experienced post-conviction attorney who can present the strongest petition possible that clearly demonstrates to the court your eligibility for resentencing. At the <a href="/">Justice Firm</a>, 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.</p>


<p>If you believe you are eligible, or want to know whether you could potentially qualify to have your murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter charges vacated, our highly skilled and reliable attorneys are here to help and to answer any questions you might have. If you or a loved one has questions about this law, or other post-conviction matters, 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 <a href="/contact-us/">here</a>.</p>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[SB 775 Explained]]></title>
                <link>https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/sb-775-explained/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/sb-775-explained/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[The Justice Firm]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:01:30 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Difference Between SB 775 and SB 1437]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[impact of SB 775]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB 775]]></category>
                
                
                
                    <media:thumbnail url="https://justice-firm-com.justia.site/wp-content/uploads/sites/1015/2022/02/Courtroom.jpg" />
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>SB 775 is a bill signed into law on October 5, 2021, and reforms SB 1437 laws about the conviction of aiders and abettors for murder. Inmates with murder convictions under the previous laws could be charged with murder even though they had nothing to do with it. Bill 775 allows a defendant convicted of&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p>SB 775 is a bill signed into law on October 5, 2021, and reforms SB 1437 laws about the conviction of aiders and abettors for murder. Inmates with murder convictions under the previous laws could be charged with murder even though they had nothing to do with it.</p>


<p>Bill 775 allows a defendant convicted of murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder to appeal for resentencing.
</p>


<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong><strong>The Impact of SB 775</strong></strong></h2>


<p>
The bill allows a defendant charged with murder, but did not aid or abet in the crime, to petition the court for a resentencing.</p>


<p>It reforms the Felony Murder Rule that allows District Attorneys to charge all individuals with murder if a death took place while another felony was being committed – despite the minimal involvement of others.</p>


<p>Why is this important? Because charging an individual with first-degree murder is not an act of justice if they did not intend to kill or had nothing to do with it.
</p>


<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong><strong>A Hypothetical Example of How the Old California Law Works  </strong></strong></h2>


<p>
Suppose Albert and John robbed a Walmart store. John uses a gun to intimidate the store employees while forcing them to place items in the bag. One employee tries to wrestle the gun away from John. During the ensuing struggle, the employee is shot and killed.</p>


<p>If the old California law was applied, both Albert and John would be charged with murder and face life in prison. But how does it make sense to charge Albert with murder if he did not even possess a weapon?</p>


<p>This act of injustice is being reformed by bill 775 in an effort to course-correct the criminal justice system, requiring prosecutors to consider mitigating circumstances carefully.
</p>


<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong><strong>How SB 775 Makes Modifications to the Criminal Justice System?</strong></strong></h2>


<p>
SB 775 expands upon SB 1437, making it applicable to crimes of manslaughter and attempted murder, as well any murder based on that person’s involvement in the felony, as well as both first- and second-degree murders.</p>


<p>People whose non-final cases fall under the modifications proposed by SB 775 could file petitions to reduce their sentencing.</p>


<p>Furthermore, SB 775 will expand eligibility for resentencing and recall to include convicts found guilty of all murders based on participation, as well as attempted murder and manslaughter convictions that were made under the natural and probable consequences doctrine of liability or theory of felony murder.</p>


<p>In other words, people will be eligible for resentencing if:
</p>


<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>The person was convicted of murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder solely because they participated in a felony</li>
<li>The person was not the true killer (i.e. did not pull the trigger or drive the knife into the victim), did not have the deliberate intent to kill an individual, and was not a ‘major participant’ in the crime, among others</li>
</ul>


<p>
Various factors are considered when deciding if a person was a major participant in a murder, including:
</p>


<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>The role of the person in planning the activity that resulted in death or attempted death</li>
<li>The role of the person in supplying lethal weapons</li>
<li>Whether the person was present at the scene where the victim was killed, whether they were in a position to prevent the death or attempted death, and if their actions may have influenced the death</li>
<li>The defendant’s response after the use of lethal force</li>
<li>If the prosecutor fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant is entitled to be resentenced</li>
</ul>


<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong><strong>What is the Difference Between SB 775 and SB 1437</strong></strong></h2>


<p>
SB 1437 was passed to prevent District Attorneys from applying first or second-degree murder sentences for felony murder if the person accused wasn’t the actual killer.</p>


<p>The major difference between both bills is that SB 1437 only applied to murder, while SB 775 also applies to persons convicted of attempted murder and manslaughter. This process requires a careful understanding of both bills to secure resentencing.</p>


<p>Contact our criminal appeals lawyer in California at <a href="/contact-us/"><u>Justice-Firm</u></a> for a detailed case evaluation and more information on how SB 775 could provide you or someone you love with relief. Individuals will have to provide facts and legal arguments, along with new pieces of evidence in their petition.</p>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>