In this case the murder of the victim occurred in an area commonly known as one where drug crimes and other violent activity took place, the block referred to as “Mead Street” in West Oakland which runs between Market Street and San Pablo Avenue. Reports claim that while drug dealers would operate at various locations on Mead, the main site where drug activity took place was at a corner liquor store. McDaniels was convicted of one count each of first-degree murder and felon in possession of a firearm.

The jury in the case determined that McDaniels intentionally and personally discharged a firearm that resulted in the victim’s death, and concluded three firearm enhancements along with the murder count were true. He was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder along with 25 years to life for the discharge of a firearm causing death to be served consecutively, a total of 50 years to life behind bars. In the two additional firearm enhancements, 20- and 10-year terms were stayed. McDaniels was 29 at the time he was charged with the murder; Charles Fuller was also charged in the crime.

In October of 2017 Senate Bill 620 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown and took effect in January of this year. This law essentially takes the power to add firearm enhancements away from prosecutors, instead leaving the decision as to whether firearm enhancements should be added to sentencing to the judge. Prior to the passing of SB 620 gun enhancement penalties often added years or even decades to the amount of prison time a convicted offender would serve.

On April 17 of this year a San Francisco appeals court upheld McDaniels’ murder conviction, however a three-judge panel ordered further consideration of his sentence. The appeals court found that in light of SB 620 which applies retroactively, the sentencing court is given the discretion to dismiss or strike firearm enhancements. The matter was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the firearm enhancements, and whether they will be dismissed.

While the murder conviction stands, McDaniels’ sentence will be further considered by the trial court. Whether the firearm enhancements will remain or be dismissed is a question we will hopefully have an answer to in the near future.

Bradford said in a statement that “No one disputes that crimes involving firearms must be taken seriously, but California should not continue forcing judges to dole out extreme and overly punitive sentences that don’t fit the crime.” Bradford feels that judges should be afforded the same discretion at sentencing that prosecutors are afforded when filing criminal charges, and that California’s “overly punitive” sentencing laws disproportionately affected people of color.

Prior to signing Senate Bill 620 into law, judges were prohibited from dismissing or striking a firearm sentence enhancement for offenders who committed felony offenses involving firearms. If an individual was arrested for a criminal offense involving a gun, certain enhancements were added to the charges which were mandatory. Ultimately, this meant someone convicted of the charges could face a substantially longer prison term, sometimes decades longer. This new law gives judges the power to determine punishment, taking away prosecutors’ power to determine enhancements.

Police have also entered into the debate surrounding this new law; according to Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, state lawmakers don’t realize the impact this new law has on communities in California. Dyer claims “certain” individuals are out of touch with local communities, and these same individuals are creating laws that contribute to a weakened criminal justice system.

Prior to Senate Bill 620 being signed into law judges had no power when it came to firearms sentencing enhancements which could mean an additional 10 or 20 years in prison, or even life. Under the new law, judges will be awarded the opportunity to review the facts of a case in order to make certain the punishment a convicted offender receives is suitable according to the defendant’s involvement in the crime and the severity/nature of the offense. However, the new law does not do away with firearm sentence enhancements, and according to Legislative Advocate Lizze Buchen of the ACLU of California is a vital step toward a justice system in California that is more fair and equitable. Buchen states that people of color have been subject to extreme sentencing enhancements for far too long, and that this harsh sentencing has not been successful in deterring crime, but has fueled “mass incarceration” or overcrowding of prisons.

It’s clear that there are very differing opinions when it comes to the new firearms enhancement law, what do you think?