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.

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.

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.

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.

In 2020, Governor Newsom commissioned the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to thoroughly examine the California Penal Code and to issue recommendations for reform. When it came to sentence enhancements, overwhelming evidence was presented that their application has failed to improve public safety and has resulted in unnecessarily long incarcerations and inequity. Studies have shown that these enhancements, which are not elements of the crime and could result in double the time a person spends in prison, have been applied disproportionately to people of color and those suffering of mental illness. During testimony before the Committee, the former Governor Brown argued that California should abolish all enhancements or, at minimum, give judges better guidance on how and when they should be applied to avoid arbitrary use.

Prior to SB 81, while judges had the authority to dismiss sentence enhancements, they almost never did so, as the law provided them with no clear guidance. Even the California Supreme Court had noted that the standards used by judges are vague. As a result, based on the Committee’s findings and recommendations on the issue, SB 81 was passed and Governor Newsom signed it into law on October 8, 2021. SB 81 became effective on January 1, 2022. Senator Skinner, who introduced the bill, has said that “SB 81 sends a clear message to our courts: Let’s use sentence enhancements judiciously and only when necessary to protect the public.”

With SB 81 in effect, judges now have more clarity and guidance when deciding whether to dismiss an enhancement. The new bill requires that judges dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice. Specifically, the law requires that judges give great weight to evidence provided by the defendant showing the presence of certain mitigating circumstances, and instructs them that the presence of at least one of them, should weigh heavily in favor of the dismissal of an enhancement. There are nine circumstances listed in the bill:

• If more than one enhancement is alleged in a single case, a judge should dismiss all enhancements beyond a single one;
• An enhancement should be dismissed, if the court determines that it would result in an unjust racial impact;
• If the offense at issue was associated with a mental illness, then an enhancement should be dismissed;
• Similarly, the court should dismiss an enhancement, if the offense was related to childhood trauma or prior victimization of the defendant;
• An enhancement should also be dismissed if its application would result in a sentence exceeding 20 years;
• If the enhancement is based on a prior conviction that is at least 5 years old, then it shouldn’t be applied;
• Defendant’s age at the time the crime was committed should be taken into consideration. Judges are required to consider whether the defendant was a juvenile at the time or whether the enhancement was triggered by prior juvenile adjudication;
• Whether the offense was a non-violent offense or didn’t involve the use of firearm should be taken into account; and
• Finally, even if a firearm was used during the commission of the offense, whether it was unloaded or inoperable.

Notably, while the bill does specifically list the above-mentioned circumstances, it also states that the list is not exclusive and that judges retain the authority to dismiss or strike an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice, even if the specifically stated mitigating circumstances are not present.

While the new law requires judges to consider evidence showing mitigating circumstance, it also preserves the court’s authority, in the name of public safety, not to factor them in, if the court determines that there is a likelihood that not imposing the enhancement would result in physical harm or other serious risk to others.

At the Justice Firm, we understand that disclosing a childhood trauma, mental issues, or any other hardships can be challenging. This is why we believe that it’s very important to work with a reliable and experienced criminal attorney. 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 has questions about this law, or if you think that SB 81 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.