<?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[SB 775 - The Justice Firm]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/tags/sb-775/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/tags/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[Post-Conviction Relief]]></title>
                <link>https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/post-conviction-relief/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/post-conviction-relief/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[The Justice Firm]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:33:47 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Criminal Conviction]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Felony murder]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB 1437]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Sentencing Enhancements]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[AB 256]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[AB 2942]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Appeal]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[changes in California law]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[criminal appeal]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[criminal conviction]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[habeas corpus petition]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[incarcerated]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[post-conviction relief]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[reduced prison sentence]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[resentencing]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB 1437]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB 775]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[sentencing]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[sentencing enhancements]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[writ of habeas corpus attorneys]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>There are different ways a person can challenge their conviction and seek post-conviction relief. In the past few years, the California legislature has made significant changes to the state’s sentencing laws in an effort to rectify the devastating results caused by the state’s tough on crime policies, which have led to harsh and excessively punitive&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p>There are different ways a person can challenge their conviction and seek post-conviction relief. In the past few years, the California legislature has made significant changes to the state’s sentencing laws in an effort to rectify the devastating results caused by the state’s tough on crime policies, which have led to harsh and excessively punitive sentences and have had an extremely harmful effect on poor and minority communities. Some of the most often used legal ways to challenge a conviction include direct appeals, Habeas Corpus petitions, and motions to vacate a conviction or a sentence among others.</p>


<p>Following a conviction, the first avenue to seek relief is a <a href="/practice-areas/criminal-defense/writs-and-appeals/criminal-appeals-in-california/">direct appeal</a>. 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.</p>


<p>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 <a href="/practice-areas/criminal-defense/writs-and-appeals/habeas-corpus-petition/">Habeas Corpus petition</a>. 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.</p>


<p>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 <a href="/practice-areas/criminal-defense/writs-and-appeals/motion-to-vacate-a-conviction-or-sentence/">motion to vacate</a>. 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 <a href="/blog/ab-256-everything-you-need-to-know-about-it/">race, ethnicity, or national origin</a>.</p>


<p>In addition, as part of its ongoing criminal justice reform, the state legislature, recognizing the need for more equitable sentencing, enacted two seminal bills, <a href="/practice-areas/criminal-defense/writs-and-appeals/sb-1437-and-sb-775-petition/">SB 1437 and SB 775</a>, 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.</p>


<p>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, <a href="/blog/explaining-sb-81-and-how-it-can-benefit-you/">SB 81</a>, <a href="/blog/ab-2942-everything-you-need-to-know-about-it-and-how-it-can-help-you/">AB 2942</a>, <a href="/blog/sb-1393-the-fair-and-just-sentencing-reform-act-of-2018/">SB 1393</a>, and <a href="/blog/ab-256-the-racial-justice-act-for-all/">AB 256</a> among others.</p>


<p>At the <a href="/">Justice Firm</a>, 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 <a href="/contact-us/">here</a>.</p>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[SB 1437 – Sentence Reduction For Felony Murder Convictions]]></title>
                <link>https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/sb-1437-sentence-reduction-for-felony-murder-convictions/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.justice-firm.com/blog/sb-1437-sentence-reduction-for-felony-murder-convictions/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[The Justice Firm]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2023 00:11:21 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Criminal Conviction]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Felony murder]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Murder]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB 1437]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[California felony murder rule]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[changes in California law]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Criminal Defense]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[felony murder]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Felony Murder Rule]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[incarcerated]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[resentencing]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB 1437]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB 775]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>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&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p>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.</p>


<p>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.</p>


<p>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 <u>and</u>:
</p>


<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>The person is the actual killer;</li>
<li>The person acted with the intent to kill, by, for example, aided, abetted, induced, or assisted the actual killer in killing the victim;</li>
<li>The person was a “major participant” in the felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life; or</li>
<li>The victim was a police officer who was killed on the job, and the defendant “knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties.”</li>
</ul>


<p>
Notably, SB 1437 is retroactive, which allows defendants that have been convicted under the old rule to petition the court to have their murder convictions vacated and their sentences recalled.</p>


<p>SB 1437 spells out in detail the procedure for petitioning and resentencing. According to the new law, a person is eligible to have their sentence reduced if he or she meets all three conditions below:
</p>


<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Defendant was prosecuted for murder under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine;</li>
<li>Defendant was convicted of first-degree or second-degree murder following a trial, or, accepted such charges as a plea offer; and</li>
<li>Defendant could not be convicted of murder under the new felony murder law.</li>
</ul>


<p>
In order to have their sentences reconsidered, defendants have to file a petition with the court that sentenced them and serve a copy of the petition on the district attorney, and on the counsel who represented them at trial. In addition to a detailed declaration 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 petitioner is requesting the appointment of counsel.</p>


<p>After the petition is filed, the court will hold a <em>prima facie</em> hearing. If the court finds that the petitioner meets the basic criteria for relief, the court will issue an order to show cause. At the <em>order to show cause</em> hearing, the burden of proof will shift to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of 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. If the prosecution is unable to meet its burden of proof, then the new law requires the court to vacate the prior conviction and any allegations and enhancements attached to it, and to resentence the defendant on the remaining charges.</p>


<p>Notably, during the hearing, the court is allowed to hear not only evidence previously admitted, but also new or additional evidence. Furthermore, if there was a prior determination by a judge or a jury that the petitioner did not act with reckless disregard for human life or was not a major participant in the underlying felony, then the court is required to vacate the conviction and resentence the petitioner without the need for a hearing.</p>


<p>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. However, in 2021, the California legislature rectified that problem by enacting <a href="/blog/sb-775-resentencing-for-prior-manslaughter-or-attempted-murder-convictions/">SB 775</a>, which came into effect on January 1, 2022, and provided for people who are serving sentences for attempted murder and manslaughter under felony murder theories to petition the court for sentence reduction.</p>


<p>A successful resentencing petition requires a diligent and skillful representation. 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 – 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>