For decades, California’s criminal justice system sentenced young people to spend the rest of their lives in prison—often without ever asking the most important question:

Who are they now?

Many incarcerated individuals committed their crimes as teenagers or young adults, before their brains were fully developed, before trauma was treated, and before they had any real understanding of the permanent consequences of their actions. Yet the law treated them as if growth, maturity, and rehabilitation were impossible.

That is changing.

SB 672 California parole law represents the next major evolution in California’s youth offender parole framework. While the bill is not yet law, it signals a clear legislative intent: to expand parole eligibility, strengthen youth-focused review, and ensure that people who committed crimes at a young age receive a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we represent incarcerated individuals and families across California in parole hearings, youth offender parole matters, and post-conviction relief. We do not wait for laws to pass before preparing cases. The people who prepare early are the ones who win their freedom.

This guide explains SB 672 in full—what it is, who it would help, how it interacts with Penal Code 3051, and how to prepare now so you are ready the moment the law takes effect.

Important Update: Is SB 672 California Parole Law in Effect?

As of now, SB 672 California parole law has not yet been enacted. The bill has passed the California Senate but is still pending further legislative action, including approval by the Assembly and the Governor’s signature.

This distinction matters.

If SB 672 becomes law, there will be no grace period. The Board of Parole Hearings will immediately begin applying the new framework to eligible cases. Individuals and families who wait until the law is final will already be behind.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we are actively preparing parole cases under the anticipated SB 672 framework so our clients are positioned to succeed the moment eligibility opens.

Are You or a Loved One Impacted by SB 672 California Parole Law?

This law is not abstract. It was written for real people sitting in California prisons today.

You or your loved one may be impacted if:

• The offense occurred before age 26
• The sentence includes 15-to-life, 25-to-life, or life without parole
• A prior parole hearing was denied or never granted
• You were told there was “no chance” of release

Families contact us every week after decades of being told nothing could be done.

SB 672 California parole law challenges that assumption.

What Is SB 672 California Parole Law—and Why It Matters Even Before It Passes

California Senate Bill 672 is proposed legislation designed to expand and strengthen youth offender parole eligibility under California law.

In plain English, SB 672 California parole law would:

1. Expand parole eligibility for people who committed crimes as young adults
2. Strengthen how youth rehabilitation must be evaluated at parole hearings
3. Create broader review opportunities for individuals serving extreme sentences, including life without parole

The bill is grounded in:

• Modern neuroscience showing brain development continues into the mid-20s
• U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizing diminished culpability of youth
• California’s ongoing commitment to criminal justice reform

Even though SB 672 is not yet law, it reflects where parole law is going—and how the Board of Parole Hearings will be thinking when these cases are reviewed.

The Legal Foundation: Penal Code 3051 Explained

To understand SB 672 California parole law, you must understand Penal Code 3051, because SB 672 builds on it.

What Penal Code 3051 Does

Penal Code 3051 requires the Board of Parole Hearings to provide a youth offender parole hearing to individuals who committed a “controlling offense” before age 26, after serving a specified number of years.

At that hearing, the board must give great weight to:

• The diminished culpability of youth
• Subsequent growth and maturity
• Evidence of rehabilitation

Why Penal Code 3051 Was Not Enough

Despite its promise, PC 3051 left significant gaps:

• Confusing and inconsistent eligibility timelines
• Limited clarity for life without parole cases
• Parole boards often minimized youth factors
• Families were left uncertain about rights and dates

SB 672 California parole law is designed to close those gaps.

How SB 672 Would Change California Parole Law

If enacted, SB 672 California parole law would make several critical changes:

1. Clear Reinforcement of Age-Based Eligibility

The bill reinforces that individuals who committed crimes up to age 25 are entitled to youth-focused parole review, consistent with neuroscience and existing case law.

2. Expanded and Clarified Parole Timelines

SB 672 would strengthen parole eligibility benchmarks—commonly 15, 20, or 25 years—so eligible individuals receive timely and meaningful review.

3. Mandatory Youth Rehabilitation Analysis

The parole board would be required to explicitly analyze:

• Youthful immaturity at the time of the offense
• Psychological and emotional development
• Evidence of rehabilitation and insight

This analysis would not be optional.

Who Would Qualify Under SB 672 California Parole Law?

Eligibility depends on three key factors:

1. Age at the Time of the Controlling Offense

The offense driving the longest sentence must have occurred before age 26.

2. Sentence Type

If enacted, SB 672 would apply to:

• Determinate sentences
• Indeterminate life sentences
• 25-to-life sentences
• Certain life without parole cases

3. Statutory Exclusions

Some exclusions may apply, but many people assume they are excluded when they are not. Proper legal review is essential.

Life Without Parole and SB 672: A Path Many Don’t Realize Exists

Life without parole once meant exactly that.

That assumption is no longer absolute.

California courts and lawmakers now recognize that:

• Mandatory LWOP for youth raises constitutional concerns
• Youth offender parole principles may apply even to extreme sentences
• SB 672 would strengthen arguments for review in qualifying LWOP cases

Not every LWOP case qualifies—but many do, especially where:

• The sentence was imposed before modern youth jurisprudence
• The individual demonstrates extraordinary rehabilitation
• The law allows for parole board review

These cases require high-level legal strategy.

What Is a Youth Parole Eligible Date?

A youth parole eligible date (YPED) is the earliest date the Board of Parole Hearings must conduct a youth offender parole hearing.

It is calculated based on:

• Sentence structure
• Age at offense
• Applicable statutes (Penal Code 3051 and, if enacted, SB 672)

CDCR records are often incorrect. We routinely audit eligibility dates and force compliance with the law.

What Happens at a Youth Offender Parole Hearing?

A youth offender parole hearing is a formal, adversarial proceeding where release is decided.

The board evaluates:

• The commitment offense
• Disciplinary history
• Psychological evaluations
• Insight and accountability
• Parole plans and community support
• Victim input
• Attorney advocacy

Under youth offender law, the board must determine whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, with youth factors heavily weighted.

Psychological Evaluations: Often the Deciding Factor in Youth Offender Parole Cases

In youth offender parole hearings, including those governed by Penal Code 3051 and the proposed SB 672 California parole law, psychological evaluations are often the single most influential piece of evidence before the Board of Parole Hearings.

In practice, parole commissioners frequently rely on the psychological report as a summary judgment of risk—especially in serious or violent cases. A strong evaluation can neutralize decades-old facts. A weak or poorly framed evaluation can sink an otherwise well-prepared case.

This is why psychological evaluations are not an afterthought. They are strategic evidence.

What the Parole Board Is Really Looking For

Contrary to popular belief, the board is not asking whether the person has “changed” in an abstract sense. The board is assessing whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, taking into account youth-related mitigating factors.

A properly prepared psychological evaluation addresses this question directly.

Evaluators typically assess:

1. Risk of Recidivism

This is the board’s primary concern.

The evaluator analyzes:

• Static risk factors (age at offense, criminal history)
• Dynamic risk factors (current insight, coping skills, impulse control)
• Protective factors (education, programming, family support)

In youth offender cases, a skilled evaluator explains why static factors tied to youth carry less predictive weight over time, especially after decades of incarceration.

2. Emotional and Psychological Maturity

Under youth offender parole law, maturity is critical.

The evaluation should document:

• Cognitive development since the offense
• Improved decision-making capacity
• Ability to regulate emotions under stress
• Growth in empathy and accountability

The parole board is looking for measurable development, not vague claims of change.

3. Trauma History and Its Impact

Many incarcerated youth entered the system with:

• Childhood abuse or neglect
• Exposure to violence
• Untreated mental health conditions
• Substance abuse rooted in trauma

A competent psychological evaluation does not excuse the offense—but it contextualizes behavior in a way the law requires the board to consider.

This is especially important under SB 672 California parole law, which emphasizes understanding youth behavior through a developmental and rehabilitative lens.

4. Rehabilitation and Insight

The evaluator examines whether the individual:

• Accepts responsibility for the offense
• Understands the harm caused
• Can articulate internal change
• Has developed realistic relapse-prevention strategies

Superficial answers are easily detected and often fatal to parole chances. Insight must be deep, specific, and internally consistent.

Why the Choice of Psychologist Matters

Not all psychologists are qualified to conduct parole evaluations—and many who are licensed do not understand parole law.

This is a critical distinction.

A clinician unfamiliar with:

• The Board of Parole Hearings’ decision-making process
• Youth offender parole standards
• Penal Code 3051 requirements
• The anticipated SB 672 framework

may produce a report that is technically sound but legally ineffective.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we work with forensic psychologists who specialize in youth offender parole cases. These experts understand:

• How parole commissioners read reports
• What language raises red flags
• How to frame rehabilitation without minimizing responsibility
• How to integrate neuroscience, trauma, and risk assessment into a legally persuasive narrative

Common Mistakes That Destroy Parole Cases

We routinely see parole denials caused by avoidable psychological evaluation errors, including:

• Overreliance on static risk factors
• Minimizing the offense or appearing defensive
• Failing to address prior misconduct directly
• Using generic or boilerplate language
• Ignoring youth-specific legal standards

Once a negative evaluation is submitted, the damage is often irreversible until the next hearing cycle.

How We Use Psychological Evaluations Strategically

At Power Trial Lawyers, psychological evaluations are:

• Timed strategically—not rushed
• Coordinated with the overall parole narrative
• Integrated with programming records and family support
• Reviewed line-by-line before submission

We treat the evaluation as expert testimony in a freedom hearing, not as a formality.

Bottom Line

In youth offender parole cases—and especially those anticipated under SB 672 California parole law—a psychological evaluation can be the difference between:

• Release and another decade inside
• Recognition of rehabilitation and permanent denial

If this process is not handled correctly, everything else becomes irrelevant.

That is why this step must be guided by attorneys who understand both the law and the psychology of parole.

SB 672 vs. Penal Code 3051: Key Differences

Why Time Is Critical: Don’t Wait for SB 672 to Become Law

Waiting is the most common—and costly—mistake families make.

If SB 672 is enacted:

• There will be no delay before hearings begin
• Preparation takes months, not weeks
• The parole board will face overwhelming volume

Experienced parole counsel prepares before laws take effect.

SB 672 California Parole Law – Frequently Asked Questions

Talk to Power Trial Lawyers: Your Second Chance Starts Here

SB 672 California parole law is not yet in effect—but its impact is already real.

The law is moving. The parole board is watching. And preparation—not hope—is what determines outcomes.

Every year we see the same pattern: People who wait lose time. People who prepare gain leverage.

If you or a loved one may qualify under SB 672 California parole law, the most important step you can take right now is to speak with a lawyer who understands youth offender parole, life sentences, and the Board of Parole Hearings.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we do not treat parole as a formality. We treat it as freedom litigation.

Call Power Trial Lawyers at 888-808-2179 or Submit a confidential online inquiry today

You cannot change the past. But with the right strategy, you can fight for your future.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we believe that knowledge is power, especially when it comes to California sentencing law. We recognize that California’s sentencing laws are extraordinarily complex, and, adding to the difficulties, they frequently change. But at Power Trial Lawyers, that’s our job. We are passionate about achieving superior results for our clients in criminal defense and appeals cases. This article will cover Assembly Bill 600, California’s Racial Justice Act (AB 256), Penal Code 1172.1, Penal Code 1170(d) (People v. Heard), Penal Code 1385, and Assembly Bill 333.

1. Assembly Bill 600 – Judge Initiated Resentencing

Passed in 2023, Assembly Bill 600 (“AB 600”) aims to address sentencing disparities and offers relief to inmates who may have been unfairly sentenced. The bill, which is now codified as part of California Penal Code § 1172.1, gives courts the ability to recall and resentence inmates if their original sentence was longer than it would be under current laws. This helps address disparities in sentencing laws, especially if that disparity is due to race or culture. Or even more, if the client is particularly eligible and has suffered an unfair sentence. This new resentencing initiative gives judges the ability to recall sentences, placing them directly on the court’s calendar without any necessary recommendation from the district attorney’s office or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”). 

Eligible candidates include those whose sentences were enhanced due to factors that are no longer considered or no longer considered in the same way, such as certain prior convictions. The key eligibility criteria involve proving that the original sentence would be shorter if imposed under the current legal framework.

2. Racial Justice Act (AB 256)

The Racial Justice Act, enacted through Assembly Bill 256 (“AB 256”), aims to ensure fairness and equality within the judicial system by addressing systemic racism. More specifically, this law recognizes the fact that race has historically played a very real role in criminal sentencing and seeks to rectify the impact of racial discrimination throughout the criminal trial process. The Racial Justice Act allows individuals to challenge their sentences if they can demonstrate that racial bias played a role in their prosecution, sentencing, or in the prosecution’s ability to obtain a conviction. Often, this racial disparity can be seen right in the transcripts where such a racial bias is clear. In other cases, this disparity is demonstrated through the sentence administered to an inmate’s case versus the common norm for others with similar or like case factors. This second approach is much more difficult and may require unique arguments to demonstrate. 

To be eligible, an inmate must provide substantial evidence of racial discrimination, such as biased statements made by prosecutors or statistical data showing racial disparities in sentencing patterns at the time the inmate was sentenced. If you believe you may have a good case meeting the Racial Justice Act, do not fight it alone. You should consult with an attorney to determine the best steps moving forward. 

3. Penal Code 1172.1

Penal Code § 1172.1 provides the mechanism for resentencing in cases where the original sentence is no longer in the interest of justice or was disproportionately harsh. It empowers the court to recall a sentence and resentence an inmate if it finds that the original sentencing was excessive. Historically, a judge had only 120 days to recall a sentence, but under AB 600, that 120-day limitation no longer applies, and a judge can order a resentencing hearing at any time. The CDCR or the District Attorney’s office for the county where the inmate was convicted can also recommend that an inmate be resentenced. 

Eligibility under § 1172.1 often requires a review of the circumstances surrounding the case, including the inmate’s behavior in prison, especially their rehabilitative efforts. There is no requirement to retain an attorney if you wish to pursue this form of resentencing. However, resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 1172.1 takes great sophistication and skill, and it can be quite complex. It is recommended to consult with an experienced criminal defense and appeals lawyer if you wish to pursue resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 1172.1. 

4. Penal Code 1170(d) Resentencing (People v. Heard)

In the case People v. Heard, a California court held that a juvenile who was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole should be able to rely on Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) when seeking a resentencing. The court held that failure to allow such a petition would violate the inmate’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, to be eligible for a Heard Petition, an inmate must have been sentenced to the “functional equivalent” of life without the possibility of parole, spent at least 15 years incarcerated, and committed the offense before they were 18 years old. 

People v. Heard provides a strong path forward for offenders who were convicted under the age of 18, and who otherwise meet the criteria. This form of resentencing can be quite complex, and may require much negotiations and legal arguments. While an attorney is not required, it is highly recommended to consult with a California Criminal Defense and appeals lawyer to determine the best arguments pursuant to People v. Heard.

5. California Penal Code 1385

Penal Code § 1385 grants judges the discretion to dismiss charges or strike sentencing enhancements when doing so is in the interest of justice. This provision can be particularly useful in cases where sentencing enhancements would resulted in disproportionately long sentences. Moreover, when used with other laws, this penal code section can be a defendant’s strongest argument in any sentencing setting.

To be eligible, an inmate must typically show that the dismissal of certain charges or enhancements would serve justice better than their enforcement. This code is often invoked in sentencing hearings where there could be a harshly disproportionate enhancement or sentence.

6. Assembly Bill 333

Assembly Bill 333 (“AB 333”) focuses on gang-related sentencing enhancements. AB 333 raised the bar for prosecutors to use gang enhancements as well as provide relief for those who are serving sentences comprised in part by a gang enhancement. For example, AB 333 limits prosecutors’ ability to obtain a gang enhancement by requiring more stringent proof that the crime was committed for the benefit of a gang. The law also provides relief to those who were given enhanced sentences based on allegations of gang involvement without substantial evidence. To qualify for resentencing under AB 333, an inmate must demonstrate that their original sentencing was based on insufficient evidence of gang activity or that their actions did not directly benefit a gang. It is important to note this bill has limited retroactive application, and whether it may apply to your case is a fact-specific analysis.

If you or a loved one believes AB 333 may impact their case, it is recommended to consult with a California Criminal Defense and Appeals attorney.

How a Lawyer Can Help

Understanding these resentencing options can provide a pathway to a reduced sentence. However, each option has specific eligibility criteria, and determining eligibility can be very challenging. Not only that, but pursuing the wrong type of relief (or the right type of relief at the wrong time or in the wrong manner) can have long-lasting effects on the future of your case.

An experienced criminal defense and appeals lawyer can advise you on all your options to ensure that you pursue the resentencing options that are best suited for your case. An attorney can also assist with the preparation of your petition, ensuring that the judge is presented with every reason why you are deserving of a resentencing hearing. For example, many of these resentencing options either depend on or are strengthened by strong evidence of rehabilitation. A post-conviction attorney will know how to obtain the necessary evidence to establish that you’ve been rehabilitated and how to present it in the most compelling way possible.

Consult with a Criminal Defense and Appeals Law Firm

If you believe that you or a loved one may qualify for relief under any of these provisions, reach out to the respected California Criminal Defense and A

ppeals lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers for assistance. We offer free consultations, during which we will answer your questions, outline your options, and explain what we will do to help you obtain a resentencing hearing. You can reach our California Criminal Defense and Appeals lawyers by calling (888) 808-2179. You can also connect with us through our secure online contact form. 

**The content in this article was written in July of 2024 and may be subject to change. If you believe you qualify for resentencing or are facing a sentencing hearing, consult with an attorney for up-to-date information in regard to your specific case.**

What is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus?

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is a legal action that allows individuals to challenge their unlawful imprisonment or restraint. This legal remedy is available to anyone in custody under the authority of California state or local officials, including those in prison, county jail, juvenile detention, or state hospital commitments under Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) or Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) laws. The broad scope of habeas corpus petitions in California encompasses both criminal law issues and prison or parole law issues and can be based on state or federal law.

Who Can File a State Habeas Corpus Petition?

Any person “in custody” can file a state habeas corpus petition. This includes individuals in prison, county jail, juvenile detention, state hospitals, or on parole, post-release community supervision (PRCS), mandatory supervision, or probation. Even those physically in another state or federal facility may qualify if their custody is authorized by California. However, individuals no longer “in custody” for the conviction they wish to challenge are not eligible to file a state habeas corpus petition.

The Importance of Exhausting Administrative Remedies

For those challenging prison or parole conditions, actions, or policies, it is generally required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition. This means filing and pursuing relevant administrative appeals, such as the CDCR Form 602, to the highest level. Exceptions to this requirement may be made in cases where no administrative remedy is available, the administrative appeal process is inadequate, or where pursuing an administrative remedy would be futile or cause unreasonable risk of harm.

Detailed Steps for Exhausting Administrative Remedies

1. Identifying the Appropriate Form: Depending on the issue, individuals may need to use CDCR Form 602, Form 602-HC for healthcare grievances, or Form 1824 for disability accommodations.
2. Filing the Appeal: The initial appeal must be filed at the facility level, usually within 30 days of the incident.
3. Second-Level Review: If the initial appeal is denied, the individual can request a second-level review by the institution’s appeals coordinator.
4. Third-Level Review: If the second-level appeal is also denied, the final step is to request a third-level review by the CDCR Office of Appeals.

It’s important to keep copies of all documents and responses at each stage of the process. Filing appeals promptly and following the correct procedures can significantly impact the success of a habeas corpus petition.

Grounds for Filing a Habeas Corpus Petition

Habeas corpus petitions can be used to address a variety of issues, including:

• Challenging Criminal Convictions or Sentences: Although habeas corpus cannot substitute for a direct appeal, it can be used to raise issues not presented during the original court proceedings, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary pleas, or newly discovered evidence.
• Challenging Prison or Parole Conditions: Issues like improper disciplinary actions, denial of parole, or unlawful parole conditions can be addressed through a habeas corpus petition.
• Addressing Civil Commitments: Individuals committed under SVP or MDO laws can challenge their commitments via habeas corpus.

Filing the Petition

To file a state habeas corpus petition, individuals must use the official Judicial Council Form HC-001, which should be filled out completely and clearly. The petition should include detailed information about the grounds for relief, supporting facts, and relevant legal authorities. Supporting documents, such as court transcripts, declarations, and evidence, should be attached to strengthen the petition.

Step-by-Step Guide to Filling Out Form HC-001

1. Personal Information: Include your name, address, and CDCR number at the top left corner of the form.
2. Court Information: Write the name of the court where the petition is being filed (e.g., “Fresno County Superior Court”) and your name as the petitioner.
3. Grounds for Relief: Clearly state the reasons for filing the petition. For example, “My conviction should be overturned due to ineffective assistance of counsel during my trial.”
4. Supporting Facts: Detail the events and facts that support your grounds for relief. Attach any relevant documents, such as trial transcripts or declarations from witnesses.
5. Legal Authorities: Cite the laws, regulations, and court cases that support your petition. This could include state laws, federal laws, or previous court rulings.
6. Previous Court Actions: List any previous appeals or petitions related to the case and their outcomes.
7. Sign and Date: Sign and date the petition before submitting it to the court.

Court Procedures

Upon receiving a habeas corpus petition, the superior court has several options:

1. Summary Denial: The court can summarily deny the petition if it does not show adequate grounds for relief.
2. Informal Response: The court can request an informal response from the respondent to gather more information.
3. Order to Show Cause: If the petition makes a strong case, the court issues an order to show cause, requiring the respondent to file a formal return justifying the original decision.

Understanding the Order to Show Cause

An order to show cause is a crucial step in the habeas corpus process. It signifies that the court believes the petition raises substantial questions that merit further examination. The respondent, usually the warden or another prison official, must then provide a detailed response, called a “return,” explaining why the relief requested in the petition should not be granted.

How a California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer Can Help

Navigating the complexities of the habeas corpus process requires the expertise of a seasoned California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer. An experienced attorney can:

• Assess Eligibility: Evaluating whether there are valid grounds for filing a habeas corpus petition.
• Prepare and File the Petition: Ensuring the petition is well-documented and meets all legal requirements.
• Provide Legal Representation: Representing the petitioner during court proceedings and advocating on their behalf.
• Handle Appeals and Further Actions: If the petition is denied, the lawyer can assist in filing appeals or pursuing other legal remedies.

If you or a loved one may be in need for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, consult with a lawyer promptly. You can consult with one of our lawyers at (888) 808-2179. You can additionally submit a contact submission. The legal procedures required for a Writ of Habeas Corpus can be daunting. Do not feel obliged to do it alone. You should consult with a lawyer promptly.

Background Regarding SB 1437

In 2019, SB 1437 was enacted, amending Penal Code § 188 and § 189 and creating Penal Code § 1170.95. Pursuant to SB 1437, accomplice liability for felony murder and murder by way of the natural and probable consequence doctrine was substantially changed, allowing individuals convicted to seek to vacate their murder convictions and obtain resentencing relief. Resentencing is available for individuals convicted of murder, attempted murder, and/or manslaughter if they demonstrate:

1. The defendant was not a substantial actor in leading to homicide; and
2. The defendant did not “act with reckless indifferent to human life.”

To determine whether an accused was a substantial actor or whether they acted with reckless indifferent to human life, courts look to the non-exhaustive factors set out in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark). These two cases list several factors (i.e., use of or knowledge of weapons, physical presence at the scene of the crime, opportunity to restraining codefendants or aid victims, knowledge of the threats that codefendants may possess, etc.) that courts use to determine whether someone meets the SB 1437 standard. As such, SB 1437 created a mechanism and a procedure for those convicted under the former law to retroactively see relief from the law, as highlighted in Pen. Code, § 1172.6; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.

Special Circumstance Murder & The People v. Strong Case

Once SB 1437, individuals started to petition the court, seeking relief. However, quickly, those convicted of “special circumstance” felony murder quickly saw some of their petitions denied or stayed due to the special circumstance addition.

Christopher Strong filed, alleging all the requirements for relief pursuant to SB 1437. However, the District Attorney’s office opposed Strong, citing that strong could not bring a petition for relief because his 2014 conviction for special circumstance felony murder established that he was either an actual killer, had directly aided and abetted murder with the intent to kill, or was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The trial court agreed and denied Strong’s SB 1437 Petition.

Once Strong appealed the case, the Appellate Court ruled against him also. However, they did note that there was a sharp split among courts whether special circumstance murder precludes SB 1437 relief. The Appellate court ultimately sided against Strong.

The Supreme Court of California weighed in on the issue, ruling in favor of Strong, ruling that “findings issued by a jury before Banks and Clark do not preclude a defendant from making out a prima facie case for relief under Senate Bill 1437. This is true even if the trial evidence would have been sufficient to support the findings under Banks and Clark.”

In other words, the Supreme Court is drawing a distinction among special circumstance felony murder cases. If the defendant was convicted before Banks and Clark, there is no automatic bar precluding defendants from seeking SB 1437 relief to vacate their conviction and get resentenced.

How an SB 1437 Lawyer Can Help

Consult with an appellate and post-conviction firm in California by submitting a contact form or by direct call to our firm at (888) 808-2179.

What Is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?

Simply put, a writ of habeas corpus calls into question the continued incarceration of an individual. Thus, aside from direct appeal relief, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is another important way for inmates to challenge their conviction or sentence. However, unlike an appeal, a writ of habeas corpus does not give a petitioner the chance to relitigate their case. Writs of habeas corpus are limited to situations in which someone is incarcerated due to an incorrect application of law or newly present circumstances justifying their release.

The Difference Between State and Federal Writs of Habeas Corpus

Writs of habeas corpus can be filed in state or federal court. A state-court writ of habeas corpus is brought pursuant to California law, whereas a federal writ is brought under prevailing federal law.

To bring an application for a California writ of habeas corpus, an individual must meet the following criteria:

• They must be in custody, on probation or parole, released on bail, or on house arrest;
• They must have exhausted their other remedies, such as a direct appeal; and
• The issues raised in the applicant cannot have been already resolved on appeal.

It is important to remember that a writ of habeas corpus is not another appeal. It is an entirely different proceeding that takes place after an appeal. In California, there is no strict timeline requiring when an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed; however, the law requires a petitioner to bring all claims in a “timely” manner.

Federal writs of habeas corpus are quite different in several ways. The United States Constitution provides states significant rights in handling their own affairs. This includes creating and enforcing criminal laws and developing appellate procedures.  Thus, federal courts will generally defer to states on issues involving state law. However, federal law sets a “floor” in terms of individual rights, and a state cannot provide citizens fewer rights than conferred by the federal government.

Federal writs of habeas corpus can be filed in various situations. However, the most commonly filed writ is one challenging a state judgment. Given that the federal government defers to states for the most part, a federal court will only grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus in certain “extraordinary” circumstances. There are two situations in which a federal court will grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a state court judgment:

1. The state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
2. The state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.

Thus, only claims arising under federal law or the U.S. Constitution can be brought in a federal habeas petition. However, alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment (i.e., motions to suppress evidence or statements) are not cognizable claims in a federal habeas petition.

The “Exhaustion” Requirement

Before a federal court will consider an applicant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, the applicant must exhaust their state remedies. This goes back to the deference federal court afford to state courts; if the state court wasn’t given the opportunity to weigh in on the applicant’s issues, the federal court will not intervene for fear of infringing on the state’s rights. Requiring an applicant pursue their state remedies first also results in a more developed factual record for the federal court to review.

Exhausting state remedies requires an inmate “fairly present” each of their claims to the state court, either on appeal or through an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed in state court. More specifically, an applicant must explain both the facts and the legal basis of each claim. Additionally, to fully exhaust state court remedies, an applicant needs to pursue all levels of appeal or post-conviction relief, up to the state supreme court. Finally, an inmate must exhaust each claim in a federal habeas petition, otherwise, the court will dismiss the entire petition—even those claims which were exhausted.

Not only must an applicant exhaust their state remedies before seeking federal review through an application for a writ of habeas corpus, but they must also bring their federal application within the applicable statute of limitations. Under current law, an applicant has just one year to file their federal habeas petition from the date they exhausted their state-court remedies. While there are exceptions to this general rule, most cases must be brought within this timeframe. However, determining when the statute of limitations to file a federal writ begins is challenging, and, in practice, applicants walk a fine line between filing premature applications and untimely ones.

Learn More About Federal Writs of Habeas Corpus and How to Use Them Effectively

If you are currently serving a lengthy sentence of incarceration, contact Power Trial Lawyers to discuss your case with an experienced California criminal appeals lawyer. Attorney Matthew Barhoma, the founder of Power Trial Lawyers, has successfully secured the release of several clients through various means of post-conviction relief, including applications for writs of habeas corpus. Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. will review records and determine best stratgies, including arguments set for on Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. To learn more about federal and/or state writs of habeas corpus and to schedule a free consultation with an attorney with Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. call us at (888) 808-2179.

Franklin hearings arose out of a 2016 case involving a 16-year-old boy who shot and killed another teenager. At trial, Tyris Lamar Franklin was sentenced to a total term of 50 years to life. On appeal, Franklin argued that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. Previously, the California Supreme Court determined that juveniles found guilty of non-homicide offenses could not be sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. Franklin argued that his 50-plus year sentence qualified as such, and sought relief.

The court denied Franklin the relief he was seeking, noting that subsequent changes to California law allowed Franklin a parole hearing after 25 years. However, under existing state law, at Franklin’s eventual parole hearing, the parole board must “give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity.” Because Franklin was sentenced before these changes went into effect, he did not have an opportunity to put this evidence on the record.

Thus, the court ordered Franklin was entitled to a hearing at which he could place all “youth-related mitigating factors” on the record so that the parole board would be able to afford them meaningful consideration. This hearing has come to be known as a Franklin hearing.

Generally, a Franklin hearing is appropriate for anyone who was convicted of a serious crime at 26 years old or younger and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. However, there are additional factors. If you believe you may be entitled, consult with an attorney. A qualifying petitioner may also file on their own and the court may appoint an attorney. The process by which courts conduct Franklin hearings varies throughout the state. The goal is to gather compelling evidence that the inmate’s youthful characteristics played a role in the commission of the offense and that they are capable of rehabilitation. And a record is made to the extent those items may exist.