For decades, California’s sentencing structure was shaped by “tough-on-crime” policies that stacked enhancement upon enhancement—firearm, gang, prior strike, and great-bodily-injury add-ons that could double or triple a prison term.

In 2021, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 81 (SB 81) to restore balance. Effective January 1, 2022, SB 81 requires courts to dismiss sentencing enhancements unless doing so would endanger public safety.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we use SB 81 both as a shield—to protect clients from excessive punishment—and as a sword—to reopen and reduce already-imposed sentences. This guide explains how the law works, who qualifies, and how defendants can use it to shorten time in custody or prevent enhancements altogether.

What Is SB 81?

Senate Bill 81 was authored by Senator Nancy Skinner and codified at California Penal Code § 1385(c).
It directs judges to dismiss enhancements when such dismissal serves “furtherance of justice,” creating a strong presumption in favor of striking enhancements unless retention is necessary for public safety.

Legislative Intent

The Legislature found that excessive enhancements disproportionately impacted people of color and contributed to mass incarceration without proven public-safety benefit. SB 81’s purpose is to:

• Rein in prosecutorial overuse of enhancements.
• Encourage individualized, equitable sentencing.
• Reduce California’s overcrowded prison population.

Codification Snapshot

Penal Code § 1385(c)(1): “The court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal is prohibited by any initiative statute.”

§ 1385(c)(2): Lists mitigating factors courts must consider and provides that dismissal is presumed to be in furtherance of justice unless the court finds dismissal would endanger public safety.

Historical Context: From Enhancement Era to Reform

Since the 1980s, California sentencing has layered dozens of enhancements—firearm use (§ 12022.5), gang participation (§ 186.22), prior prison terms (§ 667.5), serious felonies (§ 667(a))—often imposed cumulatively.

By 2018, lawmakers began reversing course:

• SB 620 (2017) made firearm enhancements discretionary.
• SB 136 (2019) repealed one-year prior-prison enhancements.
• AB 1509 (2021) targeted firearm “10-20-life” provisions.
  SB 81 unified this reform trend by instructing courts how to exercise discretion consistently.

Legal Framework: Breaking Down Penal Code § 1385(c)

1. Presumption in Favor of Dismissal

Courts must start from the presumption that dismissal of an enhancement is in the “furtherance of justice.” To rebut, the prosecution must show that dismissal would “endanger public safety,” defined narrowly as a likelihood of physical injury to others.

2. Mandatory Factors

Judges must consider, among others:

• Age under 26 at offense (§ 1385(c)(2)(E)).
• Childhood trauma or victimization (§ 1385(c)(2)(H)).
• Mental illness, substance abuse, or reduced culpability.
• Multiple enhancements for a single incident (§ 1385(c)(2)(B)).
• Overlapping or excessive sentencing exposure (§ 1385(c)(2)(C)).
• Plea offers and comparative sentencing outcomes.

3. Public-Safety Limitation

Even when factors favor dismissal, the court may retain an enhancement if striking it would endanger the public—a high threshold, supported by factual findings on the record.

How SB 81 Works in Practice

When It Applies

SB 81 applies:

1. At initial sentencing—the court must consider dismissal sua sponte.
2. At resentencing—if a case returns to court under AB 600 (Penal Code § 1172.1), recall provisions, or appellate remand.
3. Through post-conviction petitions—defense counsel may file a motion citing § 1385(c) requesting dismissal of one or more enhancements.

Retroactivity

While SB 81 is not explicitly retroactive, appellate courts have held it applies to non-final cases on appeal and to resentencing hearings under § 1172.1 or § 1172.6. Many trial courts likewise apply it in conjunction with People v. McKenzie (2020) 9 Cal.5th 40 and People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152 to ensure parity and fairness.

Procedure

A typical SB 81 motion includes:

• Sentencing transcript and abstract of judgment.
• Declaration outlining mitigating factors.
• Evidence of rehabilitation or trauma.
• Legal memorandum citing § 1385(c) and supporting case law.
  The prosecution may oppose; the judge must issue a reasoned decision on the record.

Who Qualifies Under SB 81

SB 81 applies to any defendant facing one or more sentencing enhancements, except where dismissal is barred by an initiative statute (e.g., Proposition 8 serious-felony enhancements under § 667(a)).

Strong Candidates

• Defendants with multiple overlapping enhancements.
• Young adults (under 26 at offense).
• Individuals with documented trauma, abuse, or mental-health history.
• Those demonstrating rehabilitation or reentry progress.
• Defendants serving disproportionately long terms due to stacked enhancements.

Limitations

• Courts cannot strike enhancements imposed by initiative statutes unless voters amend those laws.
• Dismissal cannot compromise public safety.
• Judges retain discretion; SB 81 does not mandate dismissal in every case.

How to Get SB 81 to Apply to Your Case

Even with favorable law, results depend on procedure, timing, and advocacy. Power Trial Lawyers routinely achieves SB 81 relief by pursuing multiple entry points:

1. Pre-Sentencing Advocacy

When the case is still pending:

• File a sentencing memorandum invoking § 1385(c).
• Present mitigation: youth, trauma, mental-health reports.
• Where appropriate, it is recommended to seek an expert who can provide the court with details about youth, trauma, mental-health, etc.
• Argue dismissal would not endanger public safety.
  Outcome: enhancements can be stricken before judgment.

2. Sentencing or Resentencing Motions

If judgment is entered but modifiable:

• Seek recall under AB 600 / Penal Code § 1172.1 (court-initiated or defense-requested).
• Include SB 81 analysis within resentencing brief.
• Request joint stipulation from prosecution where appropriate.

3. Pending Appeal

If the case is on direct appeal and not final:

• Raise SB 81 as an intervening ameliorative change (per In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740).
• Ask the Court of Appeal to remand for resentencing under current law.

4. Post-Conviction Petition

For final cases:

• File a motion for resentencing in the trial court invoking the court’s continuing jurisdiction under § 1172.1 or via local district attorney “resentencing unit.”
• Combine with other relief (e.g., AB 600, AB 256, or compassionate release).
• You should consult with a lawyer to ensure you understand the statutory framework for AB 600 or other post-conviction petitions. Limitations may apply.

5. Collaboration with Prosecutors

Some counties maintain post-conviction units that stipulate to SB 81 relief in appropriate cases. A persuasive defense packet demonstrating rehabilitation and low risk to public safety can trigger joint recommendations.

6. Habeas or Extraordinary Writ

If other avenues are exhausted, a limited writ of habeas corpus petition may be viable where failure to apply SB 81 results in an illegal or unauthorized sentence.

7. Early Preparation Matters

Judges favor credible documentation: therapy records, educational achievements, expert declarations, or community-support letters. The more complete the record, the stronger the SB 81 presumption becomes.

Case Law and Emerging Interpretation

Since SB 81 took effect, California courts have steadily clarified its reach. These decisions are the backbone of every effective motion under Penal Code § 1385 (c).

People v. Walker (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 386

Walker confirmed that § 1385 (c) creates a rebuttable presumption favoring dismissal of enhancements. A trial court that wishes to retain an enhancement must make express findings that dismissal would “endanger public safety.” Merely labeling an offense “serious” or “violent” is insufficient.

People v. Ortiz (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 635

The court held that SB 81 applies to any sentencing hearing held after January 1, 2022, even if the offense occurred earlier. Ortiz emphasized that judges must evaluate each enhancement individually, not simply accept the prosecution’s recommendation wholesale.

People v. Lipscomb (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 722

Lipscomb addressed defendants resentenced under AB 600 (Penal Code § 1172.1) and confirmed that § 1385 (c) factors apply during those proceedings. The opinion underscores the interplay between SB 81 and California’s broader resentencing framework.

People v. Andrade (2024) Cal.App. Unpub. — illustrative

Though unpublished, many trial courts cite Andrade for its step-by-step explanation of how to weigh cumulative enhancements and document “furtherance of justice” findings.

Together, these cases demonstrate that appellate courts expect reasoned discretion and record-based findings. A silent record invites remand for re-sentencing.

Practical Defense Strategies Under SB 81

1. Build a Robust Mitigation Record

• Youth and Brain Development: Use psychological or neuroscientific evaluations for clients under 26.
• Trauma Documentation: Certified therapy notes or expert declarations proving long-term abuse or PTSD.
• Rehabilitation Evidence: GED certificates, vocational completion, substance-abuse recovery, or commendations from CDCR.

2. Tie Every Fact to a Statutory Factor

For each enhancement challenged, cite the relevant subdivision:

Under § 1385 (c)(2)(B), multiple enhancements in a single incident should be dismissed to avoid cumulative punishment.

3. Highlight Comparative Sentencing

Show how similar defendants or co-participants received shorter terms. Courts weigh equity when determining “furtherance of justice.”

4. Demonstrate No Danger to Public Safety

Offer risk-assessment data, parole reports, or community letters to rebut any suggestion of ongoing threat. SB 81 defines danger narrowly—only physical risk to others qualifies.

5. Coordinate with Prosecutors

Many District Attorneys’ resentencing units will stipulate to dismissal when rehabilitation is verified. Collaboration accelerates relief.

6. Use SB 81 with Other Reform Statutes

Combine relief strategically:

• AB 600 (§ 1172.1): Opens the resentencing door.
• AB 256 (Racial Justice Act): Adds evidence of sentencing bias.
• SB 620 (§ 12022.5): Addresses firearm enhancements specifically.

A single petition can reference all three, giving judges multiple legal bases to strike or recall a sentence.

Practical Examples

Example 1 – Firearm Enhancement (§ 12022.5)

Before SB 81: 10-year add-on mandatory.
After SB 81: Judge must presume dismissal if the firearm was not discharged and no one was harmed, unless doing so endangers public safety.
Result: A 12-year sentence can drop to 2 years or probation.

Example 2 – Gang Enhancement (§ 186.22)

Revised gang laws plus SB 81 allow dismissal when the offense stems from environment or coercion rather than organized crime.
Result: Potential reduction of 10 years.

Example 3 – Multiple Enhancements

Two enhancements for the same incident—say, a firearm and a GBI—trigger § 1385 (c)(2)(B)’s directive to dismiss one.
Result: 3–10 years off the total term.

Policy Impact and Broader Significance

SB 81 is not merely a sentencing tool—it is a policy statement about justice and proportionality.
By instructing courts to view dismissal as the default, the Legislature recognized:

• Public safety is not measured by sentence length alone.
• Individualized justice reduces recidivism.
• Racial disparities shrink when enhancements are scrutinized rather than rubber-stamped.

Preliminary data from California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office show downward trends in average sentence lengths and prison overcrowding since 2022, particularly for firearm and prior-prison enhancements.

Future of SB 81

Reform momentum continues. 2025 legislative proposals may expand § 1385(c) to explicitly cover enhancements imposed by initiative statutes or to require appellate courts to apply the same presumption on review.

Courts are also exploring whether youthful-offender parole eligibility (Penal Code § 3051) and SB 81 dismissals can overlap to further shorten confinement.

Why Choose Power Trial Lawyers

SB 81 is powerful only when properly executed. At Power Trial Lawyers:

• We file targeted motions to seek to dismiss enhancements under § 1385(c).
• We integrate AB 600 resentencing and post-conviction strategies for maximum relief, where applicable.
• We maintain relationships with DA units statewide to secure stipulations that expedite release.

If you or a loved one is serving a sentence inflated by enhancements, contact Power Trial Lawyers for a confidential review at (888) 808-2179 or through our online intake form.

Frequently Asked Questions about SB 81

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.

In this landmark decision, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, ruled that Vehicle Code §23640(a) bars mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 in any case involving a DUI offense — even if the defendant also faces unrelated charges in the same proceeding.

For defendants and defense attorneys across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Ventura Counties, this case draws a hard line:
If there’s a DUI charge in your case, you cannot qualify for mental health diversion, even for non-DUI counts, if they stem from the same incident or course of conduct.

Understanding Mental Health Diversion Under Penal Code §1001.36

Penal Code §1001.36 was created to give individuals suffering from qualifying mental disorders a chance to receive treatment instead of incarceration.

If successful, diversion allows for dismissal of charges once the defendant completes treatment.

Eligibility Requirements Include:

1. The defendant suffers from a diagnosed mental disorder.
2. The mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.
3. The defendant agrees to treatment.
4. The court believes the defendant will benefit from treatment and does not pose an unreasonable danger to public safety.

However — and this is the critical point emphasized in People v. Garcia — Vehicle Code §23640(a) acts as a statutory wall against diversion in any case involving DUI charges.

The Legislative Purpose Behind VC §23640(a)

Vehicle Code §23640(a) states:

“In any case in which a person is charged with a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, prior to acquittal or conviction, the court shall neither suspend nor stay the proceedings for the purpose of allowing the accused person to attend or participate in any education, training, or treatment program…”

In simple terms, if you’re charged with a DUI, California law prohibits the court from halting your case for treatment diversion.

This includes mental health diversion, veterans’ diversion, and any other pretrial diversion programs. The legislative intent is clear: To prevent DUI offenders — regardless of underlying causes like mental illness or substance dependency — from avoiding criminal prosecution through diversion programs.

Can You Get Mental Health Diversion for DUI in Los Angeles?

Case Summary: People v. Garcia (2025)

In People v. Garcia (B335902), the defendant, Yvette Renee Garcia, faced:

• Assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code §245(a)(1))
• Driving under the influence (VC §23152(a))
• Driving with a BAC of .08% or higher (VC §23152(b))

Garcia, while intoxicated, deliberately rammed another vehicle during a dispute.
Her defense team sought mental health diversion, arguing that her mental illness contributed to the assault and that diversion should still apply to the non-DUI count.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.
It ruled that because all charges arose from a single course of conduct — a DUI incident that included the assault — VC 23640(a) made her ineligible for diversion on any of the counts.

This holding builds upon earlier cases such as:

• Tellez v. Superior Court (2020) — establishing DUI exclusion from diversion.
• Moore v. Superior Court (2020) — reaffirming that DUI statutes override general diversion laws.
• People v. Ortiz (2022) — confirming no diversion under new programs when DUI is involved.
• People v. Espeso (2021) — applying DUI exclusion to misdemeanor-level diversions.

How VC 23640(a) Impacts DUI Defense Strategy

The phrase “in any case” in VC §23640(a) was central to the court’s analysis.

The defense argued that Garcia’s assault charge was separate from her DUI charges and should qualify for diversion. However, the court emphasized that a “case” is defined as the entire proceeding, not individual counts.

That means:

• If one of the charges in your case is a DUI,
• And that DUI arose from the same incident or same course of conduct,
• Then you are ineligible for mental health diversion on any count in that case.

This interpretation aligns with the policy of keeping DUI cases outside California’s growing diversion programs.

Example Application in Southern California:

If a driver in Los Angeles County is arrested after:

• Driving under the influence, and
• Striking another driver intentionally or accidentally,

Then both the DUI charge and any assault or reckless driving charge will be considered part of one “case.”
Under People v. Garcia, the defendant cannot seek mental health diversion for either offense.

Understanding People v. Garcia (2025) and VC §23640(a)

The appellate opinion in People v. Garcia (2025) serves as one of the clearest and most consequential interpretations of VC 23640(a) in California history. The decision not only reinforces the long-standing legislative intent to exclude DUI cases from diversion programs but also closes the door on attempts to “split” cases where both DUI and non-DUI offenses arise from the same incident.

Let’s unpack the reasoning — and the broader implications — for defendants, attorneys, and trial courts across Southern California.

1. The Legal Issue Before the Court

The question before the Court of Appeal was straightforward:

“Is a defendant eligible for mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 when the case involves both DUI and non-DUI charges arising from a single course of conduct?”

Garcia argued that Vehicle Code §23640(a) should only apply to her DUI counts, not to her separate assault with a deadly weapon charge.
Her defense team claimed that the diversion statute (PC §1001.36) is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed to allow mental health treatment for crimes not directly related to DUI conduct.

However, the appellate court held that this interpretation conflicted with both the plain language and legislative intent of VC §23640(a).

2. Statutory Language: “In Any Case” Is Comprehensive

The statute’s critical phrase — “In any case in which a person is charged with a violation of Section 23152 or 23153…” — was the court’s focus.

The court interpreted “any case” to mean the entire criminal proceeding, not individual counts.
Thus, if a defendant faces a DUI charge under VC §23152 or VC §23153, that entire case is excluded from diversion eligibility.

Supporting Case Law:

• Tellez v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 439 — held that DUI defendants are categorically ineligible for mental health diversion.
• Moore v. Superior Court (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 561 — confirmed that VC §23640’s bar extends to newly created diversion statutes.
• People v. Ortiz (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 851 — reiterated that the legislative purpose of VC §23640(a) is to maintain DUI prosecution integrity.
• People v. Espeso (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1 — rejected attempts to apply misdemeanor diversion to DUI cases.
• People v. Saxton (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 428 — clarified that probation determinations are based on the “case as a whole,” echoing the same logic used in Garcia.

These precedents built a consistent judicial framework that the Garcia court followed precisely.

3. Single Course of Conduct = Single Case

A key factor in People v. Garcia was the “single course of conduct” doctrine.

The court emphasized that when multiple offenses — DUI, assault, hit and run, etc. — stem from the same event, they are considered part of the same “case” for diversion purposes.

This means:

• You cannot isolate one count from another to seek diversion.
• If all the conduct is interwoven (for example, assaulting another driver while intoxicated), the entire proceeding falls under the DUI exclusion rule.

Court’s Exact Reasoning (Summarized):

“Both in ordinary usage and in California criminal law, the term ‘case’ refers to a single proceeding against a defendant, which may include one or more charges.”

Therefore, Garcia’s assault charge, even though non-DUI, could not be diverted because it occurred during and as part of her DUI-related behavior.

4. Equal Protection and Constitutional Claims Rejected

Garcia’s defense also raised an Equal Protection argument under the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming it was unfair to deny diversion for someone like her when another defendant — charged with a DUI and assault in separate cases — might qualify for diversion on the non-DUI count.

The court dismissed this argument.

Citing People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, the justices explained that as long as there is a rational basis for the legislative classification, Equal Protection is not violated. The Legislature’s rationale — preventing DUI offenders from delaying or avoiding prosecution — was both rational and consistent with California’s public safety policy.

The opinion emphasized:

“The Legislature could have rationally determined that to achieve its purpose of barring DUI offenders from diversion, it was necessary to treat offenses committed in conjunction with a DUI in the same way.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter if the reasoning isn’t elegant — only that it’s rational under the law.

5. The Rule of Lenity Argument Also Fails

Garcia’s counsel attempted a rule of lenity argument, asserting that any ambiguity in VC §23640(a) should be resolved in the defendant’s favor.

The appellate panel rejected this claim, finding no ambiguity. The court held that the statute’s language is plain and unmistakable: diversion is barred “in any case” where a DUI charge exists.

This leaves no interpretive wiggle room for defense attorneys attempting to carve out exceptions.

6. The Practical Consequences for California Defendants

The Garcia ruling has far-reaching practical consequences for defendants across Southern California:

A. Defendants with Mixed Charges

If a defendant faces DUI and non-DUI charges arising from the same event — such as:

• DUI + Vehicular Assault
• DUI + Domestic Violence
• DUI + Child Endangerment
• DUI + Reckless Evading

— then mental health diversion is categorically unavailable.

B. Separate Cases Still May Qualify

However, if the DUI and non-DUI offenses occur in separate incidents and are charged separately, diversion may still be possible for the non-DUI case.
For instance:

If a defendant has a DUI charge in Pasadena (VC 23152) and a week later commits a vandalism offense in Pomona (PC 594), the vandalism case could still qualify for mental health diversion because it’s a separate “case.”

This distinction is vital for defense lawyers strategizing plea negotiations or case severance motions.

7. Southern California Defense Practice: Key Strategy Points

In the wake of People v. Garcia (2025), defense attorneys in Los Angeles County, Riverside County, Orange County, and beyond must adjust their approach:

• Early Case Analysis: Determine whether all alleged conduct occurred in a single “course of conduct.” If so, diversion arguments are likely futile.
• Case Severance Motions: Where possible, request that non-DUI counts be charged or prosecuted separately.
• Mental Health Mitigation at Sentencing: Even if diversion is off the table, present strong mitigation evidence under Penal Code §1170(b)(6) to reduce custody exposure.
• Alternative Sentencing Programs: Explore community-based treatment options, probationary terms, or collaborative courts that consider mental health conditions outside diversion programs.

8. Why the Court’s Decision Matters for Public Policy

At its core, People v. Garcia underscores California’s zero-tolerance policy for DUIs — even when mental illness or substance abuse is involved.

The court reaffirmed that public safety and accountability remain paramount. Allowing diversion in DUI cases could create unequal treatment and undermine the deterrent purpose of DUI laws.

However, the ruling also highlights a growing policy tension:

• California wants to expand treatment options for mentally ill offenders (through PC §1001.36),
• Yet DUI law remains rigid and exclusionary under VC §23640(a).

This tension may prompt future legislative reform efforts, but as of now, the rule is clear:
If your case involves a DUI, mental health diversion is not an option — regardless of other charges.

What To Do If You’re Denied Diversion in California

Being denied mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 or Vehicle Code §23640(a) doesn’t mean your case is over — but it does mean your defense strategy needs to pivot fast. In California DUI and criminal cases, what you do immediately after a diversion denial can have a lasting impact on your record, sentencing, and ability to seek treatment instead of incarceration.

1. File a Motion for Reconsideration or Record Your Objection

If the court misapplied the law or overlooked qualifying mental health evidence, your attorney can file a motion for reconsideration or ensure your objection is preserved for appeal. Documenting the denial is critical for future review by a higher court, especially if case law evolves.

2. Shift Focus to Sentencing Mitigation Under PC §1170(b)(6)

Even without diversion, California’s sentencing reform laws allow judges to consider mental health as a mitigating factor. Under Penal Code §1170(b)(6), courts can reduce custody time or impose probation when a mental disorder significantly contributed to the offense. A strong psychiatric report or treatment record can help your lawyer secure a reduced sentence.

3. Explore Mental Health or Collaborative Courts

Several counties — including Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange — operate specialized mental health courts and collaborative justice programs. While technically separate from §1001.36 diversion, these courts still emphasize treatment, therapy, and accountability rather than incarceration. Your defense attorney can petition to transfer your case to one of these divisions.

4. Negotiate Alternative Pleas or Deferred Sentencing

A creative defense strategy can sometimes achieve diversion-like outcomes without invoking the statute. Your attorney may negotiate a plea to a lesser offense (for example, reckless driving instead of DUI) or request deferred entry of judgment conditions that include counseling or rehabilitation — keeping your record cleaner and your options open.

5. Begin Voluntary Treatment Immediately

Courts and prosecutors take note of proactive rehabilitation. Enrolling in therapy, substance abuse programs, or psychiatric treatment before sentencing shows responsibility and remorse. Judges often view early engagement as a compelling reason to grant probation or suspended sentences.

6. Consider a Post-Conviction Petition or Appeal

If your diversion request was denied in error, your attorney may file a writ of mandate or appeal. While appellate relief is limited under People v. Garcia (2025), an appeal can preserve your rights and position you for future relief if the Legislature modifies VC §23640(a) or expands diversion eligibility.

Take Action Now — Protect Your Rights and Your Future

If your request for mental health diversion or DUI diversion was denied, don’t wait. Early legal intervention is critical to secure alternative sentencing and preserve your treatment options.
Call Power Trial Lawyers at (888) 808-2179 or contact us online for a free consultation. We represent clients throughout Los Angeles, Orange County, and across Southern California in complex criminal and DUI cases involving mental health defenses.

Practical Implications for Southern California Defendants and Attorneys

The People v. Garcia (2025) decision carries immense weight for Southern California criminal courts — especially in Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties. These are regions where DUI-related offenses frequently overlap with assault, domestic violence, or property damage cases.

Under this new interpretation, VC 23640(a) mental health diversion DUI California law now firmly prohibits mental health diversion in any combined DUI case, no matter how sympathetic the defendant’s mental health background might be.

1. How Southern California Courts Will Apply People v. Garcia

Since Garcia was certified for publication in 2025, it is binding precedent throughout California. This means every trial court — from Van Nuys to Riverside Hall of Justice — must follow it when applying Penal Code §1001.36 and Vehicle Code §23640(a).

Example Application:

If a defendant in Riverside County is arrested for:

• DUI (VC §23152(a))
• Hit-and-run causing injury (VC §20001)

— and the evidence shows both charges arose from the same crash, the entire case is barred from diversion. The defense cannot isolate the hit-and-run count and request mental health diversion only for that charge.

This precedent standardizes practice across counties and closes the loophole that once allowed judges to exercise discretion differently.

2. The “Single Course of Conduct” Test in Action

One of the most important lessons from Garcia is understanding how courts determine whether multiple charges arise from the same course of conduct.

Courts Look At:

• Timing and location of the conduct;
• Whether the defendant’s acts were continuous or interdependent;
• Whether the offenses were motivated by a single intent or objective;
• Whether separating the acts would distort the factual reality of the case.

In Garcia’s situation, her DUI and assault were inseparable — both occurred in one continuous episode involving her intoxicated use of a vehicle to intentionally ram another driver.

If these factors are present, the entire case is tainted by the DUI charge, making diversion impossible under VC §23640(a).

3. Case Severance as a Defense Strategy

For defense attorneys practicing in Southern California, one critical takeaway is to examine early opportunities to separate charges.

If the prosecution can be persuaded (or ordered by the court) to file the non-DUI counts in a separate case, those offenses may remain eligible for Penal Code §1001.36 mental health diversion.

Strategic Motion Example:

A defense lawyer might argue that:

• The DUI occurred on one date in Los Angeles,
• But the unrelated assault occurred a week later in Pasadena.

If so, these are not part of a single course of conduct, and the assault case should still be eligible for mental health diversion. This argument must be raised early in the pretrial phase to prevent consolidation under the “same case” rule established by Garcia.

4. Implications for Clients with Documented Mental Illness

Many defendants charged under VC 23152 also have co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. Before People v. Garcia (2025), defense attorneys could sometimes argue that mental illness justified diversion even in DUI-related cases.

Now, under the firm reading of VC 23640(a) mental health diversion DUI California, that pathway is closed — but all is not lost.

Alternative Defense Approaches:

• Mitigation at Sentencing: Use psychiatric evaluations to argue for probation under PC §1170(b)(6) or reduced custody time.
• Collaborative or Mental Health Courts: Some Southern California counties have treatment-oriented courts outside the formal diversion system.
• Therapeutic Probation Terms: Courts may still impose treatment conditions as part of probation even if diversion isn’t available.

This is where skilled legal advocacy makes the difference between jail time and treatment-based outcomes.

5. Policy Debate: The Tension Between Rehabilitation and Public Safety

The Garcia decision highlights a deep policy debate in California law:
Can we reconcile public safety goals in DUI law with the rehabilitative intent behind diversion statutes?

Legislative Context:

• Penal Code §1001.36 was enacted to divert defendants with mental illness into treatment rather than incarceration.
• Vehicle Code §23640(a), however, was designed to ensure strict DUI enforcement and public deterrence.

By reaffirming the primacy of VC 23640(a), the Garcia court effectively decided that DUI cases occupy a special category — one immune to the broader push toward mental health treatment.

Critics argue this creates inconsistency: defendants with mental illness can obtain diversion for serious felonies like burglary or assault, but not for a misdemeanor DUI.

Nonetheless, until the Legislature amends §23640(a), courts are bound by this interpretation.

FAQ — VC 23640(a) Mental Health Diversion DUI California

What People v. Garcia (2025) Means for You

The People v. Garcia decision cemented one clear rule:
If your case involves a DUI, mental health diversion is not an option under VC 23640(a) — no matter how compelling your mental health story may be.

However, the case also provides guidance for attorneys and clients alike:

• Separate incidents may still qualify for diversion.
• Mitigation and mental health treatment can still play a major role in sentencing.
• Early legal intervention can make the difference between a harsh outcome and a manageable resolution.

The bottom line?
This decision doesn’t erase compassion from the courtroom — it just requires smarter advocacy and deeper knowledge of how to present mental health within California’s DUI framework.

Final Call to Action: Get Help with Your DUI or Mental Health Case Today

If you or a loved one were charged with DUI and denied diversion under VC 23640(a), don’t lose hope. Our Southern California DUI defense attorneys understand how to navigate this complex area of law. We’ve helped clients secure treatment, reduce charges, and rebuild their lives even after a diversion denial.

Call us today for a free confidential consultation at 888-808-2179 or visit California Courts Opinion – People v. Garcia (2025) to read the official decision that’s shaping DUI law statewide.

In this segment, Mr. Barhoma broke down how sentencing works in such serious cases under California law, where punishment can often mean decades behind bars. The discussion highlighted the balance judges must strike between aggravating circumstances, mitigating factors, and the statutory sentencing guidelines.

You can watch the full feature here:

Criminal Defense and Sentencing in California

Second-degree murder in California carries a sentence of 15 years to life in state prison, but circumstances can extend or reduce exposure depending on the facts and arguments presented. The CourtTV feature explored how discretion comes into play—whether the court leans toward the statutory minimum or imposes harsher consequences based on aggravating factors.

Attorney Barhoma explained that strong defense advocacy is critical in these moments. From presenting mitigating evidence to challenging prosecutorial arguments, defense counsel has the power to influence sentencing outcomes dramatically.

Criminal Defense Representation Across Southern California

What played out on national television reflects the same battles defendants face in courtrooms across Southern California every day. At Power Trial Lawyers, we represent clients charged with serious felonies and misdemeanors in all regional courts, including:

• Los Angeles County – Clara Shortridge Foltz (CCB), LAX, Van Nuys, Compton, and more
• Orange County – Central Justice Center (Santa Ana), West Justice Center (Westminster), and additional branches
• San Diego County – Downtown, South, North, and East County courthouses
• Riverside County – Riverside Hall of Justice, Southwest (Murrieta), Indio Larson Justice Center
• San Bernardino County – San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, Victorville
• Ventura County – Ventura Hall of Justice
• Santa Barbara County – Santa Barbara and Santa Maria courthouses
• Kern County – Bakersfield and surrounding courts

Wherever your case is filed, our team is experienced in navigating both the law and the local courtroom dynamics.

Trusted by the Media. Trusted by Clients.

CourtTV sought out Attorney Barhoma for his perspective on one of the most serious crimes under California law. That same knowledge and insight is what we bring into every case we defend.

When you or a loved one is facing charges—whether it’s domestic violence, DUI, firearms, fraud, or serious and violent offenses—you need a defense team that understands how to fight for your future.

Contact Power Trial Lawyers

If you are under investigation or facing charges in Southern California, time is critical. Contact us today to discuss your case.

Call 888-808-2179 or reach out online for a confidential consultation.

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.**

Introduction to Direct Appeals

Any person convicted of a crime in California has the right to a direct appeal from the final judgment, typically the commitment to prison or other sentencing orders. Direct appeals are also available to those who have been civilly committed as Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDOs) or Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs). The appeals process is an essential legal mechanism, allowing higher courts to review potential legal errors made during the trial or sentencing that could have affected the outcome.

Filing a Notice of Appeal

The first step in the appeals process is filing a notice of appeal. This notice must be filed within 60 days after the final judgment or order being appealed. The notice can be signed by the defendant or their attorney and must identify the case name, number, and the judgment being appealed. For those challenging the validity of a guilty or no contest plea, a request for a certificate of probable cause must also be filed.

Constructive Filing of a Late Notice of Appeal

In certain circumstances, individuals may be allowed to file a late notice of appeal under the principle of “constructive filing.” This can apply if, for example, the notice was timely delivered to prison staff for mailing but delayed, or if the defendant relied on assurances from their attorney that were not fulfilled. Constructive filing requires a motion with the court of appeal or a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Issues Raised on Appeal After a Trial

Various legal issues can be raised on appeal, including violations of constitutional rights or state laws. However, the appeal must be based on evidence and proceedings recorded in the superior court. If the issue was not raised during the trial, the court of appeal may consider it forfeited unless it’s of constitutional importance or an objection in the superior court would have been futile.

Issues Raised on Appeal After a Guilty or No Contest Plea

Appeals following a guilty or no contest plea are more limited. Issues that can be raised include challenges to the denial of a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence or claims that the court or prosecutor violated the plea bargain. Some appeals require a certificate of probable cause, such as those challenging the plea’s validity.

Appellate Counsel and Court Transcripts

Indigent appellants are entitled to appointed counsel and court transcripts provided at state expense. Appellate attorneys review trial records to identify potential appealable issues and prepare necessary briefs.

Record Correction and Augmentation

Appellate attorneys ensure the record is complete and may file motions to augment the record if additional documents or transcripts are needed. This ensures that all relevant materials are available for the court of appeal’s review.

Appellate Briefing

The appeals process involves multiple rounds of briefing. The appellant files an opening brief outlining the legal errors and desired remedies. The respondent, represented by the state, files a counter-brief, followed by the appellant’s reply brief. Supplemental briefs may be filed if new issues arise.

Oral Argument and Decision

The court of appeal may schedule oral arguments where attorneys can address the judges’ questions. Following the arguments, the court issues its decision, which could affirm, reverse, or modify the original judgment. The court might also remand the case for further proceedings.

Petition for Rehearing and Review

If dissatisfied with the court of appeal’s decision, parties can file a petition for rehearing or seek review by the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviews cases of significant legal importance but grants review in only a small fraction of cases.

How a California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer Can Help

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

• Evaluate Eligibility: Assessing whether there are valid grounds for an appeal.
• Preparing and Filing Appeals: Ensuring all procedural requirements are met and presenting compelling arguments.
• Representation in Court: Advocating on behalf of the appellant during oral arguments and hearings.
• Post-Appeal Actions: Filing petitions for rehearing or seeking review by higher courts if necessary.

If you believe you or a loved one may have grounds for an appeal, contact our law firm today. You can consult with our attorney team by calling (888) 808-2179. Our California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyers are dedicated to providing the guidance and representation needed to navigate this complex process. Call us or submit a contact form to schedule a consultation and learn how we can help you achieve a fair and just outcome.

Background on Penal Code § 1172.1

Penal Code § 1172.1, formerly known as § 1170(d)(1) and § 1170.03, allows for the recall of a sentence and resentencing by a court at any point after the original sentencing. This provision is significant because it enables courts to modify sentences even after the appeals process has concluded. Recent legislative changes, including Assembly Bill 600 signed in October 2023, further expand the potential for resentencing under this statute, effective January 1, 2024.

The resentencing process can be initiated through various channels, including recommendations from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), district attorneys, and other law enforcement officials. Additionally, starting in 2024, pursuant to Assembly Bill 600, courts can independently initiate resentencing under certain circumstances, making the role of a knowledgeable attorney crucial in navigating these options. A detailed discussion of AB 600 can be found here.

Pathways to Resentencing: CDCR Recommendations

The CDCR plays a pivotal role in identifying candidates for resentencing. There are four primary scenarios where the CDCR might recommend an inmate for resentencing:

1. Sentencing Errors or Discrepancies: If there is a clear sentencing error or if new legislation renders the original sentence unlawful, CDCR staff can initiate a recommendation for resentencing.
2. Changes in Sentencing Laws: In cases where new laws could result in a reduced sentence, the CDCR reviews the individual’s records to determine eligibility. Specific criteria must be met, including a minimum of five years served and no serious rule violations within the past year.
3. Exceptional Conduct: Inmates demonstrating exemplary behavior and participation in rehabilitation programs over a significant period can be considered for resentencing. This requires a minimum of ten years served and no serious rule violations in the last five years.
4. Requests from Law Enforcement or Judicial Officials: In certain situations, such as assisting in a criminal investigation, recommendations for resentencing can be made by law enforcement or judicial officers.

The Role of District Attorneys

Each county district attorney’s office in California has discretion over which cases they will recommend for resentencing. While some DA offices actively pursue resentencing in specific case types, others may not engage in this process at all. Therefore, individuals seeking resentencing should consult with their county’s public defender or their original defense attorney for guidance.

Court-Initiated Resentencing

Effective January 1, 2024, courts in California can initiate resentencing on their own motion if there have been changes in the applicable sentencing laws or new case law. Although individuals cannot petition directly for court-initiated resentencing, they can present their cases to CDCR, the DA, or other relevant authorities to seek a recommendation. If unsuccessful, it is advisable to seek the assistance of a public defender or a private criminal defense attorney.

What to Expect During the Resentencing Process

If a court agrees to consider resentencing, the process involves several critical steps:

1. Appointment of Counsel: The court will appoint an attorney to represent the individual being considered for resentencing.
2. Status Conference: A status conference is set within 30 days of the recommendation.
3. Submission of Briefs: Both the defense and prosecution submit briefs presenting arguments for or against resentencing.
4. Hearing: A hearing is conducted where both sides can present testimony and arguments. The court must provide reasons for its decision to grant or deny resentencing.

Key Factors in Resentencing Decisions

The court considers various factors when deciding on resentencing, including:

• Psychological, Physical, or Childhood Trauma: Evidence that such factors contributed to the original crime.
• Post-Conviction Conduct: The individual’s disciplinary record, rehabilitation efforts, and current risk of violence.
• Changes in the Law: Any new laws that reduce sentences or offer judicial discretion for lesser penalties.
• Interest of Justice: Overall considerations of justice and fairness, including any new evidence that may undermine the original conviction.

How a Lawyer Can Help

Navigating the complexities of Penal Code § 1172.1 requires the expertise of a seasoned California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer. An experienced attorney can:

• Evaluate Eligibility: Assess whether the case meets the criteria for resentencing.
• Prepare Recommendations: Work with CDCR staff, the DA, or other authorities to secure a recommendation for resentencing.
• Advocate in Court: Present compelling arguments and evidence in court to support the resentencing request.
• Appeal Decisions: If resentencing is denied, an attorney can assist in filing an appeal and representing the case at the appellate level.

If you believe you or a loved one may be eligible for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.1, contact our law firm today by calling (888) 808-2179 or submitting a contact submission. Our team of dedicated attorneys is here to provide the guidance and representation needed to navigate this legal process. Call us or submit a contact form to schedule a consultation and learn more about how we can help you achieve a fair and just outcome.

Assembly Bill 256 (AB 256) and the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) represent significant legislative efforts to address racial bias and discrimination within the California criminal justice system. This FAQ aims to provide comprehensive answers to common questions about these laws, focusing on their implications for criminal defense and sentencing.

1. What is the California Racial Justice Act (RJA)?

The Racial Justice Act (RJA), enacted through Assembly Bill 2542 in 2020, allows individuals charged with or convicted of crimes to challenge racial bias and discrimination in their cases. The RJA prohibits seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or imposing a sentence based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. It aims to address both explicit and implicit bias in the criminal justice system​​.

2. What changes did Assembly Bill 256 introduce?

AB 256, also known as the “Racial Justice for All Act,” extends the RJA’s protections retroactively. This means that individuals sentenced before January 1, 2021, can now seek relief under the RJA. The retroactive application will be implemented in stages from January 1, 2023, to January 1, 2026​​​​.

3. Who is eligible to seek relief under AB 256?

Eligibility under AB 256 is phased as follows:

• January 1, 2023: Individuals sentenced to death or facing immigration consequences.
• January 1, 2024: Individuals currently incarcerated in state prison, county jail, or the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
• January 1, 2025: Individuals no longer incarcerated but with a felony conviction or a juvenile case resulting in DJJ commitment post-2015.
• January 1, 2026: Anyone with a felony conviction or a juvenile case resulting in DJJ commitment, regardless of the date​​​​.

4. What types of bias or discrimination does the RJA address?

The RJA covers bias or discrimination in charging, conviction, and sentencing based on a defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. Violations can also be based on the victim’s race, ethnicity, or national origin​​​​.

5. What are the four pathways to proving an RJA violation?

1. Bias outside the courtroom: Racist or biased statements or conduct by a judge, attorney, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror outside of court proceedings.
2. Bias within the courtroom: Racist or biased statements or conduct by these individuals during court proceedings.
3. Disparities in charging or conviction: Evidence that people of one race are charged or convicted of more serious offenses than those of other races for similar conduct.
4. Disparities in sentencing: Evidence that people of one race receive harsher sentences or that sentencing is influenced by the race of the victim​​​​.

6. How can an individual file a claim under the RJA or AB 256?

Individuals can file a motion in the trial court or a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The specific procedures depend on whether the individual is currently incarcerated or facing other legal consequences. Detailed procedural steps and required evidence are specified under California Penal Code Section 745 and related sections​​​​.

7. What evidence is needed to prove an RJA violation?

Evidence can include statistical data, aggregate data, expert testimony, and credible witness testimony. The court will consider the totality of evidence, including systemic and institutional racial bias. Reliable, statistical evidence, and aggregated data are admissible for determining whether a violation occurred​​​​​ (CCAP)​.

8. What remedies are available if an RJA violation is proven?

Remedies depend on the nature of the violation:

• Before judgment: Declaring a mistrial, discharging the jury, dismissing enhancements, or reducing charges.
• After judgment: Vacating the conviction or sentence, ordering new proceedings, or resentencing​​​​.

9. Does an individual need to show that the bias affected the outcome of their case?

For claims under Pathways 1 and 2, relief is granted unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the bias did not affect the outcome. For Pathways 3 and 4, no proof of prejudice is required​​​​​ (CCAP)​.

10. What should individuals do if they believe there was an RJA violation in their case?

Individuals should contact their trial or appellate attorney and explain why they believe there was a violation. They can also wait for the appropriate eligibility date to file a habeas corpus petition. It is advisable to avoid filing pro per petitions without legal counsel as it may limit future legal options​​​​.

11. What steps should be taken if an individual is facing immigration consequences and suspects an RJA violation?

Individuals should contact an immigration attorney or their trial attorney. If they cannot secure representation, they might consider filing a habeas corpus petition, especially if facing imminent deportation​​​​.

12. Can an attorney guarantee eligibility for RJA relief earlier than the specified dates?

No attorney can expedite eligibility for RJA relief earlier than the law allows. Individuals should be cautious of any claims to the contrary and seek references for any attorney they consider hiring​​​​.

13. Are there any special considerations for individuals sentenced to death under the RJA?

Individuals sentenced to death should speak with their appointed attorney or contact the California Appellate Project attorney assigned to them. Filing a pro per petition is not recommended as it may limit future legal options​​​​.

14. How does the RJA address systemic and institutional racial bias?

The RJA requires courts to consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution contributed to observed disparities​​​​​ (CCAP)​.

15. Where can individuals find more information about the RJA and AB 256?

The RJA is codified in California Penal Code Section 745, and relevant amendments are in Sections 1473 and 1473.7. Individuals can also consult legal resources or contact a criminal defense attorney for more information. More detailed insights and recent case summaries can be found on specialized legal websites such as CCAP.

How an Attorney Can Help

This FAQ aims to provide a thorough understanding of AB 256 and the RJA, highlighting their importance in ensuring fairness and justice in the California criminal justice system. For legal advice specific to individual cases, consulting with a qualified attorney is recommended.

Navigating the complexities of the Racial Justice Act and Assembly Bill 256 can be daunting. A skilled criminal defense attorney can provide invaluable assistance in several key areas:

1. Case Evaluation: Assessing the specifics of your case to determine eligibility for relief under the RJA and AB 256.
2. Evidence Gathering: Collecting and presenting evidence to demonstrate racial bias or discrimination.
3. Filing Petitions: Ensuring all motions and petitions are accurately prepared and timely filed.
4. Legal Representation: Advocating on your behalf in court to achieve the best possible outcome.

If you believe your case may involve racial bias or discrimination, contact our office today. Call us at (888) 808-2179 or submit a contact form to schedule a consultation. Let us help you ensure justice and fairness in your legal proceedings.

California’s legal landscape is ever-evolving, and recent changes to firearms enhancement laws significantly impact defendants facing charges involving firearm use. Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 outline mandatory sentence enhancements for felonies committed with a firearm, adding years to a defendant’s sentence. However, recent amendments now grant judges discretion to strike these enhancements in the interest of justice. This article explores the implications of these changes, detailing applicable convictions, the exercise of judicial discretion, and the broader impacts on sentencing. For the most updated information, you should consult with a California Criminal Defense attorney.

This article will cover the following topics:

1. Applicable Convictions
   • Overview of Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53.
   • Application to crimes committed before and after the amendment date.
   • Impact on cases involving plea agreements and juvenile adjudications.
2. Exercise of Judicial Discretion
   • Timing and scope of discretion under section 1385.
   • Factors considered by courts in striking enhancements.
   • Case law examples illustrating the application of discretion.
3. Effect on Sentencing and Custody
   • Changes in custody duration, probation eligibility, and custody credits.
   • Specific impacts on different types of crimes.
4. Cases on Appeal and Remand
   • Guidelines for remand in non-final cases.
   • Circumstances under which remand may not be necessary.
   • The nature of hearings on remand.
5. Importance of Legal Representation
   • The critical role of a California Criminal Defense Attorney.

1. Applicable Convictions

Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 impose sentence enhancements for felonies involving firearm use. Section 12022.5 adds 3, 4, or 10 years for using a firearm, with higher penalties for assault weapons. Section 12022.53 is stricter, imposing 10, 20, or 25 years to life depending on the severity of firearm use and resulting injuries. These enhancements apply to both principals and accomplices in gang-related offenses. A further discussion of Assembly Bill 333 may be useful regarding gang-enhancements.

The critical change brought by Senate Bill 620, effective January 1, 2018, allows judges to strike or dismiss these enhancements in the interest of justice. This discretion applies retroactively to cases not yet final as of the amendment date. Thus, defendants whose cases were ongoing or on appeal could benefit from potential sentence reductions.

2. Exercise of Judicial Discretion

The amended sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 now permit judges to exercise discretion at sentencing or any resentencing proceeding. The timing of this discretion is crucial; it must be exercised “at the time of sentencing” or during any subsequent resentencing. Factors influencing judicial discretion include the nature of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and specific circumstances surrounding the crime.

For example, in People v. Pearson, the court considered factors like the crime’s violence, the defendant’s use of a weapon, and the victim’s vulnerability. Similarly, People v. Yanaga highlighted the importance of considering post-conviction behavior and circumstances that arise after the initial sentencing.

3. Effect on Sentencing and Custody

Striking a firearms enhancement can significantly alter a defendant’s sentence. If the enhancement is struck entirely before conviction, the defendant faces standard penalties for the base crime, retains normal custody credits, and remains eligible for probation based on the base term. However, if the enhancement is struck post-conviction, while the enhanced custody time is removed, the crime might still count as a serious or violent felony in future proceedings.

Importantly, striking only the punishment while maintaining the enhancement can still restrict probation eligibility and limit custody credits. The complexity of these impacts underscores the necessity for careful judicial consideration and the potential benefits of legal representation.

4. Cases on Appeal and Remand

For cases on appeal, remand is generally necessary to allow trial courts to exercise their newfound discretion. Courts must determine whether striking the enhancement is appropriate, often involving detailed hearings and evaluations of the case’s specifics.

In some instances, if the record clearly indicates that the trial court would not have struck the enhancement even if it had the discretion, remand may be deemed unnecessary. This was seen in cases like People v. Johnson, where strong judicial statements against striking enhancements led to remand being avoided to prevent unnecessary judicial processes.

5. Let us Fight the Prosecution for You

Navigating the complexities of California’s firearms enhancement laws and their amendments requires specialized knowledge and expertise. A skilled California Criminal Defense Attorney is essential in advocating for the defendant’s rights, ensuring fair application of judicial discretion, and potentially achieving sentence reductions. Legal representation can make a critical difference, particularly in presenting compelling arguments and evidence for striking enhancements.

The amendments to Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 reflect a shift towards more judicial discretion and potentially fairer sentencing practices. However, the process of striking firearms enhancements involves nuanced legal arguments and a thorough understanding of case law. Consulting with a California Criminal Defense Attorney is crucial for defendants seeking to navigate these changes effectively and achieve the best possible outcomes in their cases.

The Case of Karen Read and the Death of Officer John O’Keefe

Background and Charges

Karen Read stands accused of the murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. The case emerged after O’Keefe was discovered unresponsive in a snowbank outside a Canton residence in January 2022. The prosecution alleges that Read, following an argument, struck O’Keefe with her SUV and left him to perish in the cold. 

Prosecution’s Standpoint

Prosecutors argue that after a night of drinking, Read drove O’Keefe to the house where he was later found dead. Their case heavily relies on surveillance footage from the bars they visited and witness testimonies, particularly from Canton Paramedic and Firefighter Katie McLaughlin. McLaughlin testified that Read admitted to hitting O’Keefe, a statement the defense contests as inconsistent. Attorney Matthew Barhoma joins CourtTV as a guest legal analyst to discuss the case:

Defense’s Argument

The defense posits that Read is being framed and suggests that O’Keefe succumbed to injuries from a physical altercation inside the house. They allege a cover-up involving local law enforcement. Key testimonies from the Albert family, who were present at the scene, have provided conflicting accounts of the night’s events. Chris Albert, for instance, testified that Read did not appear visibly impaired, bolstering the defense’s argument that she was capable of driving safely.

The trial has been marked by intense cross-examinations, with the defense highlighting discrepancies in witness statements and potential biases due to connections between witnesses and law enforcement officers.

Legal Insights

As Los Angeles and Orange County criminal defense lawyers, we recognize the significance of scrutinizing witness credibility and investigative procedures in such cases. Inconsistencies in testimonies and potential law enforcement biases are critical aspects that can sway the outcome of a trial. Defense strategies often involve meticulous examination of evidence and robust cross-examination to uncover the truth.

Young Thug (Jeffery Williams) and the RICO Trial

Background and Charges

Jeffery Williams, widely known as Young Thug, is facing charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The trial, which began in 2022, centers around allegations that Williams and members of his YSL (Young Slime Life)  collective engaged in criminal activities, including drug trafficking, illegal firearm possession, and violent acts such as murder and assault. Our Los Angeles and Criminal Defense team joined CourtTV as a legal analyst to discuss the case:

Prosecution’s Standpoint

Prosecutors contend that YSL operates as a criminal street gang, with Williams playing a pivotal role. Their evidence includes social media posts, song lyrics, and witness testimonies, which they argue demonstrate the criminal nature of the group’s activities.

Defense’s Argument

Williams and his defense team vehemently deny the allegations, asserting that YSL is a legitimate record label and cultural movement, not a criminal enterprise. They argue that the prosecution is misinterpreting artistic expression, with song lyrics and social media content being used out of context to unfairly target Williams.

Legal Insights

For Los Angeles and Orange County criminal defense lawyers, cases involving the RICO Act require a sophisticated understanding of both criminal law and the nuances of artistic expression. The defense must navigate the fine line between artistic freedom and perceived criminal intent, challenging the prosecution’s interpretation of evidence. The high-profile nature of such cases also necessitates careful management of media portrayal and public perception.

Conclusion

These cases highlight the complex and multifaceted nature of criminal defense work. As Los Angeles and Orange County criminal defense lawyers, our approach is to meticulously analyze every piece of evidence, challenge inconsistencies, and provide a robust defense for our clients. If you or a loved one are being investigated, charged, or facing criminal prosecution, it is crucial to seek the expertise of a skilled criminal defense lawyer. Contact us today to consult with our criminal defense attorneys at (888) 808-2179 to ensure your rights are protected and to receive the comprehensive defense you deserve.

These hearings, often referred to as “lifer hearings,” are absolutely critical for anyone serving an indeterminate life sentence. Read on to learn more about the BPH, the factors the Board considers during lifer hearings, and why it is important to work with a renowned Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyer throughout the BPH process. 

Who Is Eligible for a Parole Suitability Hearing?

There are four categories of inmates who may be eligible for a parole suitability hearing. However, 

1. Inmates sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence, such as “life in prison with the possibility of parole” or “20 years to life”;
2. Inmates sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole under an alternate sentencing scheme, such as the California Three Strikes Rule; 
3. Inmates whose committing offense occurred before they reached the age of 26; and
4. Inmates who are 50 or older and have served 20 years of continuous incarceration.

Notably, the time at which each group obtains parole eligibility is different and may depend on the sentence received. For example, a Youthful Offender Parole Hearing is available to inmates after 15, 20, or 25 years of continuous incarceration, depending on the nature of the committing offense. 

How do Parole Suitability Hearings Work?

Parole suitability hearings are an opportunity for the BPH to hear an inmate’s claim that they are ready to be released back into society through the parole process. Parole is a conditional release from prison, allowing an inmate to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community under BPH supervision.

At a parole hearing, an inmate will present their case to the BPH, usually with the help of a California lawyer who has extensive experience handling BPH hearings. While parole Suitability Hearings vary to some extent, they typically follow the same process:

Inmate Preparation

Inmates eligible for parole are scheduled for a suitability hearing. Prior to the hearing, they are entitled to legal counsel. Inmates and their attorneys can review their files and prepare for the hearing, gathering documents, testimonials, and other evidence to support their case for release. Inmates may be asked to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to the hearing date. 

The BPH Panel

The hearing is conducted by a panel typically consisting of two or three commissioners from the BPH. These commissioners have the authority to make decisions regarding the inmate’s suitability for parole.

The Hearing 

During the hearing, the panel reviews the inmate’s file, which includes the committing offense as well as their prior criminal history, prison behavior, rehabilitative efforts, and psychological assessments. The inmate is given the opportunity to speak, answer the commissioners’ questions, and present evidence and witnesses in their favor.

An assistant district attorney from the county of conviction will also be present and, in most cases, will contest the inmate’s claim for release. Unlike at a trial, however, the district attorney will not question or cross-examine the inmate. Thus, the district attorney’s argument against granting parole is typically based on their belief that the inmate has not yet been rehabilitated or poses a danger to the community. District attorneys will occasionally refuse to consider parole for especially serious offenses, although this position is not usually part of an official office-wide policy. 

Victim Impact Statements

Victims of the crime or their representatives have a legal right to attend the hearing and make a statement; however, they are under no legal obligation to do so. Victims and their families can express how the crime affected them and their opinion on the inmate’s potential release.

The Board’s Decision

After hearing all testimony and reviewing the evidence, the panel deliberates in private. To grant parole, the panel must find that the inmate no longer poses an unreasonable risk to public safety and has been rehabilitated. Factors the Board considers include the severity of the crime, the inmate’s behavior in prison, efforts at rehabilitation, as well as their support network outside prison.

The panel’s decision is announced at the end of the hearing. If parole is granted, the inmate may be released after a review period. However, in cases involving murder or other serious convictions, the Governor of California has the authority to review the BPH’s decision to grant parole and can reverse, modify, or affirm the decision. If parole is denied, the panel sets the date for the next hearing, typically within one to fifteen years, depending on the circumstances. Unlike a conviction, an adverse decision denying parole is not appealable. 

What Questions Should an Inmate Be Prepared to Answer at a Parole Suitability Hearing?

During a Parole Suitability Hearing, BPH will ask various questions to assess an inmate’s readiness for release and reintegration into society. While  the exact questions will vary depending on the inmate and the crime, some common questions include:

Questions About the Commitment Offense

• What were the circumstances leading up to the crime?
• What was your role in the crime?
• What were your thoughts and feelings at the time of the offense?

Questions Regarding Insight and Remorse

• What have you learned about the impact of your crime on the victims and their families?
• How do you feel about your crime now?
• What steps have you taken to ensure you do not commit a similar offense in the future?

Questions About an Inmate’s Behavior in Prison

• Have you had any disciplinary actions against you while in prison? If so, what were they for?
• Can you discuss your participation in educational or vocational programs?
• Have you been involved in self-help or therapy groups? What have you learned from them?

Questions Regarding an Inmate’s Plans for Parole

• Where will you live if granted parole?
• Do you have a support network (family, friends, community resources) to help you upon release?
• What are your employment plans or career goals after release?

Questions Concerning an Inmate’s Coping Strategies

• What do you see as your risk factors for reoffending?
• What coping mechanisms have you developed to deal with stress or conflict?
• How will you handle situations that previously led to criminal behavior?

These questions are designed to gauge the inmate’s understanding of their crime, their ability to express genuine remorse and demonstrate they’ve been rehabilitated, and present a solid plan for their reintegration into society.

Being on Parole and Revocation Hearings

If parole is granted, an inmate (now referred to as a parolee) must follow certain conditions and meet certain requirements as outlined by their parole officer or parole agent. If an inmate violates the terms of their parole, their parole agent may initiate a parole revocation hearing, which is a proceeding that determines whether a parolee has violated the conditions of their parole and, if so, whether their parole should be revoked. 

Parole revocation hearings are usually conducted by a deputy commissioner of the BPH. Before the hearing, the parolee receives a written notice detailing the alleged violations. The parolee has the right to legal representation, can present evidence, and can call witnesses to testify on their behalf.

During the parole revocation hearing, evidence is presented regarding the alleged violations. The parole officer will often testify about the parolee’s conduct and the circumstances of the alleged violation. The parolee, usually through their attorney, can challenge the evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present their own evidence and witnesses.

The standard of proof in parole revocation hearings is “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the deputy commissioner must find it more likely than not that the parolee violated the terms of parole. This is a lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials.

If the deputy commissioner determines that the parolee violated parole conditions, they can impose various sanctions. The consequences may range from adding new conditions to the parolee’s release terms to requiring participation in specific rehabilitation programs, to revoking parole and returning the parolee to prison. The severity of the sanction usually depends on the nature of the violation and the parolee’s history.

Parolees have the right to appeal the decision if they believe the hearing was unfair or the decision was not supported by the facts. The appeal process involves a review by the BPH and, if the parolee is unsuccessful, the courts.

Speak with a Highly Experienced Los Angeles Criminal Appeals Lawyer to Learn About the BPH Process

If you or a loved one is serving an indeterminate life sentence and will soon be eligible for parole, it is essential that you have a firm grasp of the BPH process and what you can do to maximize your chances of success. At Power Trial Lawyers, our respected Los Angeles criminal appeals attorneys have experience successfully handling cases and securing the release of inmates sentenced to lengthy prison sentences. We are intimately familiar with the Board of Parole Hearings process and know what it takes to convince the Board that you’re ready to be released on parole. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation today, call Power Trial Lawyers at (888) 808-2179. You can also reach us through our secure online contact form. 

Understanding AB 600: An Evolution in Resentencing

AB 600 stands as a pioneering California law designed to augment judges’ discretion in ordering resentencing hearings for inmates serving extended sentences for serious crimes. To grasp the nuances of AB 600, it is crucial to contrast its provisions with the previous legal landscape.

Pre-AB 600 Resentencing Procedures: A Rigorous Path

Before AB 600, judges could only order resentencing hearings under specific circumstances, primarily relying on recommendations from the district attorney or the Board of Parole Hearings. However, the limitations imposed by Penal Code § 1172.1 often rendered this mechanism ineffective, given its narrow timeframe of 120 days post-commitment to state prison.

Furthermore, the discretionary nature of district attorneys and the Board of Parole in responding to § 1172.1 petitions led to instances where meticulously prepared petitions were filed away without due consideration. This incongruity with the intended legislative purpose necessitated the emergence of AB 600.

AB 600: Liberating Judges’ Discretion

The pivotal feature of AB 600 lies in its elimination of the requirement for district attorney or Attorney General concurrence with the resentencing court’s decision. Post AB 600, inmates seeking resentencing hearings are no longer beholden to the discretion of these entities and can directly present their petitions to the court.

In the drafting of AB 600, the California Legislature explicitly stated its intent for courts to have complete discretion in resentencing proceedings, especially concerning prior strike decisions. The Legislature emphasized that factors considered in People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) should not be exhaustive, urging courts to consider various aspects, including Penal Code Section 1385 and post-conviction factors.

Criteria for a Resentencing Hearing Under AB 600

AB 600 mandates judges to consider “post-conviction factors” when reviewing resentencing petitions. These factors include an inmate’s disciplinary record, record of rehabilitation, reduced risk of future violence, and evidence suggesting that the defendant’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Examples illustrating a defendant’s potential eligibility for resentencing under AB 600 encompass changes in the law favoring the inmate, constitutional rights violations during trial, evidence undermining conviction or sentence integrity, and experiences of psychological, physical, or childhood trauma.

Maximizing AB 600’s Impact: The Role of Legal Representation

With AB 600 poised to usher in a surge of resentencing petitions, ensuring the exceptional quality of petitions through proper procedural channels becomes imperative. Los Angeles Criminal Appeals Lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. and Orange County Sentencing Lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. boast a track record of successfully seeking resentencing hearings for clients. While AB 600 establishes a mechanism for resentencing, its utilization may not be a routine occurrence initiated by judges. Its efficacy becomes pronounced in situations where judges may have previously expressed an inclination toward imposing a more lenient sentence but found themselves bound by the legal constraints in place at the time. Moreover, a sufficient overview of an inmate’s central file may be relevant for a judicial officer to exercise their discretion under AB 600.

For those seeking insights into the ramifications of AB 600 and its potential impact on prior sentences, Power Trial Lawyers stands ready to provide assistance. Our focus in criminal appeals and writs of habeas corpus positions us as uniquely suited lawyer  in the intricacies of post-conviction proceedings. If you or someone you know is inquisitive about the implications of AB 600, our dedicated team is at your service.

To delve deeper into AB 600 and assess its potential impact on your sentence, reach out to Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. at (888) 808-2179. Alternatively, connect with us through our secure online contact form to schedule a free consultation with our experienced legal team. At Power Trial Lawyers, we stand ready to navigate the complexities of AB 600 for the benefit of our clients.

Senate Bill 256 is a bill introduced by State Assemblymember Ash Kalra of the 27^th Assembly District. The bill builds upon a prior law, the California Racial Justice Act, which precludes the government from making any prosecutorial or sentencing decisions based on the race, ethnicity or national origin of the accused. While the Racial Justice Act, which was also presented by Assemblymember Kalra, took significant steps to remedy an unfair criminal justice system, it only applied to convictions on or after January 1, 2021. Thus, those who were serving sentences based on decades-old convictions were beyond the scope of the Act, meaning they were left without a remedy.

Assembly Bill 256 changes this by extending the protections of the Racial Justice Act to those who were convicted of a crime before January 1, 2021. Thus, under the newly passed AB 256, anyone, regardless of when they were convicted, can pursue relief under the California Racial Justice Act. Not only that, but the bill would also require any judge whose conduct was challenged in an inmate’s petition to recuse themselves. Practically speaking, this means that many inmates will be able to present their petition to a judge other than the one who convicted or sentenced them.

What Do You Need To Prove in an AB 256 Petition?

To obtain relief under AB 256, an inmate must show that their prosecution, conviction or sentence was impermissibly motivated by the inmate’s race, national origin or ethnicity. The legislative summary of AB 256 provides a few examples of what grounds are appropriate for relief, such as:

• A defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious crime than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins;
• A defendant received a longer or more severe sentence, and the evidence suggests that prosecutors sought harsher sentences against those of the defendant’s race; or
• Longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed on defendants of a particular race, ethnicity or national origin.

Under previous law, judges were only permitted to consider statistical evidence when reviewing an inmate’s claim. However, AB 256 permits a judge to consider non-statistical evidence and requires them to view the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding the case. For example, the bill requires courts “consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall.” In other words, the bill requires judges to consider the fact that longstanding racial bias contributes to the body of existing data.

What Relief Is Available Through AB 256?

The relief available through AB 256 depends on the nature of the violation. For example, if the judge determines a conviction was sought or obtained on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, it must vacate the conviction. However, if a judge determines that an inmate was charged with a more serious crime based on his race, national origin or ethnicity, the judge may modify the judgment to a lesser offense.

Writ of Habeas Corpus

AB 256 is clear: an accused individual can bring about their AB 256 claim by way of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in a court with competent jurisdiction. Penal Code § 745(b) specifically provides:

A defendant may file a motion in the trial court or, if judgment has been imposed, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7 in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). If the motion is based in whole or in part on conduct or statements by the judge, the judge shall disqualify themselves from any further proceedings under this section.

Consult with a Criminal Appeals Lawyer

You can consult with a Criminal Appeals lawyer by calling (888) 808-2179. You can also reach us through our online contact form.

The article highlights a recent success for Power Trial Lawyers, P.C., where the Firm successfully reduced a client’s sentence just mere 9 months after retaining the Firm. Our client, Mr. Earl Snoddy, spent the last 27-years behind bars for a crime he likely did not commit. The Firm filed a conviction integrity request. In addition, Mr. Snoddy, through his counsel, sought to recall and renegotiate on the sentence by submitting an AB 2942 / Penal Code § 1170(d)(1) petition. The matter had deep implications among the California Three Strike laws and various enhancements, as discussed by the ABC7 article and coverage on the matter.

Family Reunited

The ABC7 Article specifically highlights the relief felt throughout the family of those involved. Specifically, the article states, Snoddy’s sister, Charlene Bickham, says she’s overjoyed with the news of her brother’s time served. “I’m trying to hold back the tears about my little brother and I love him to death,” Bickham said. “We’re grateful, we’re thankful. I mean, there is justice here in this world and beyond measures, thank God for just putting good people in place. It was due to Power Trial Lawyers, P.C.”

Speak with A California Post-Conviction Lawyer About Your Case

You can consult with a California Criminal Appeals lawyer by calling us at (888) 808-2179. You can also submit a contact submission.

To learn more, contact Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. at (888) 808-2179. You can also reach the firm through its online contact form.

https://abc7.com/earl-snoddy-da-matthew-barhoma-served/11546403/

https://abc7.com/earl-snoddy-da-matthew-barhoma-served/11546403/

https://abc7.com/earl-snoddy-da-matthew-barhoma-served/11546403/

Recently, Attorney Matthew Barhoma, appeared on Court TV to discuss several of the nation’s highest-profile criminal cases.

 Ahmaud Arbery

Earlier this year, three White men who were previously convicted for the February 2020 murder of Ahmaud Arbery were sentenced by a Georgia judge. Shortly after the sentencing, California criminal appeals attorney Matthew Barhoma appeared on Court TV to discuss the court’s sentencing decision in which one defendant was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after ten years and the other two to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

This case presented some all-too-common concerns in cases involving White defendants who are charged with crimes against People of Color. The commentator notes that it took three DAs from a different part of Georgia to even prosecute the case.

When asked about the case, Attorney Barhoma explained that “the system got it right here” and that he was impressed by the judge’s handling of the case from beginning to end, “he was very fair and very calculated.” Barhoma continues, “Here, he did what was right,” noting that although the “judge looks a lot like the defendants … he handed down a very fair sentence, despite complexion, despite any kind of racism or anything implicated in this case. He focused on the facts.”

Ethan Crumley

Attorney Barhoma was also asked to appear on Court TV to discuss the case of Ethan Crumley. Mr. Crumley was arrested at 15 years old for the 2021 Oxford High School shooting in Michigan. Attorney Barhoma was asked about Mr. Crumley’s decision to waive his preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is the initial examination of the prosecution’s case by a judge. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial or if the case—or specific charges— must be dismissed for lack of evidence.

Attorney Barhoma explained that while the decision to waive a preliminary hearing is a very strategic one, he was not surprised by Mr. Crumley’s decision. “There is a lot that you can benefit from having the prelim but sometimes, in absolutely notorious cases, where there is a massive amount of evidence, you actually to get ahead of that and start to litigate in limine to be able to control what goes into evidence if this goes to trial.”

When asked about the possibility of a plea deal, Attorney Barhoma explained that the fact that his parents are involved increased the likelihood. Additionally, “he was very youthful, and he was impressioned upon by his family, and so there may be some mitigating circumstances that would lead to a plea deal. However, something you need to remember is that this was quite gruesome, and you’ve got four dead victims, so there is a lot to rectify.”

Chandler Michael Halderson

Finally, Attorney Barhoma also recently appeared on Court TV to discuss Chandler Michael Halderson, who was arrested for murdering and dismembering his parents. Specifically, Attorney Barhoma was asked to comment on the judge’s decision to publish photos to the jury in a pamphlet that jurors were able to refer to throughout the trial. Barhoma explains that such a decision was “very prejudicial towards the defendant because the jury members can sit there observe it and really take it in. They are taking in all kinds of information about this that is much more than the momentary instance of observing the photos once in court. Certainly, it definitely resonates more with the jury.

However, Attorney Barhoma also raises the possibility that the pamphlets are “overly prejudicial” and that it could turn into an appealable issue. While Attorney Barhoma raised concerns about the judge’s decision to allow the pamphlets, he also noted that the other evidence against Mr. Harrison seemed to be overwhelming and that an appellate court would likely find that the pamphlets did not unduly influence the jury in the event Mr. Halderson was found guilty.

Speak with a California Post-Conviction Lawyer About Your Case

You can contact us to consult with a California criminal appeals lawyers by calling (888) 808-2179.

To learn more, contact Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. at (888) 808-2179. You can also reach the firm through its online contact form.

Mr. Earl Snoddy spent 27-years behind bars. Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. successfully recalled his sentence pursuant to Penal Code § 1170(d)(1)/AB 2942. Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. reached a joint-stipulation with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s as to Mr. Earl Snoddy’s new sentence. Due to this case, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office has hired a Re-entry specialist with demonstrated decades of experience. Attorney Matthew Barhoma and Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. team members worked alongside the re-entry specialist to enroll Mr. Snoddy in a re-entry program, where he will learn to become reintegrated into everyday society.

Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. additionally worked closely with attorneys within the DA’s office, who felt passionate about the merits of this conviction.

How Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. Can Help?

If you or a loved one believe you qualify for a petition to recall your sentence pursuant to AB 2942 and/or Penal Code § 1170(d)(1), or to speak with attorney Matthew Barhoma to assess your matter, call Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. at (888) 808-2179. You can also submit a contact submission here.

What Is a Certificates of Rehabilitation?

A certificate of rehabilitation is a court determination that a former inmate has been fully rehabilitated. In this way, a certificate of rehabilitation does not help currently incarcerated inmates; however, it can help formerly incarcerated inmates on their journey to rebuild their lives and become contributing members of society.

For example, obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation will restore all of an inmate’s civil rights, with the exception of the 2^nd Amendment right to own a firearm. A certificate of rehabilitation can also make getting a job easier because obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation prevents employers and licensing boards from basing a decision on an applicant’s prior felony once they’ve received a certificate of rehabilitation. Successfully obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation may also remove the registration requirements for those convicted of certain sex offenses.

Finally, a certificate of rehabilitation is official proof that an inmate has been rehabilitated to the full satisfaction of the criminal justice system. Along these lines, obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation will result in the automatic referral to the Governor for a pardon.

Who Qualifies for a Certificate of Rehabilitation?

Not everyone with a prior conviction qualifies for a certificate of rehabilitation; however, many will. To a large degree, it depends on the crime for which you were convicted.

To qualify based on a past felony conviction resulting in a jail sentence, you must meet the following criteria:

• You have not been incarcerated for another offense since your release;
• You are not on probation for a felony;
• You have lived in California for the five years before submitting your application; and
• You have sufficient proof establishing you have been rehabilitated.

To qualify based on a past sex offense under Penal Code § 290, you must meet the above criteria, as well as have obtained an expungement for the underlying offense. The same goes for a felony conviction resulting in a sentence of probation.

In addition, certain offenses are automatically ineligible for a certificate of rehabilitation. These include certain sex offenses committed against children under the age of 14.

Below are additional facts that result in ineligibility:

• You are serving mandatory life parole;
• You were sentenced to death; or
• You are in the military.

Once you’ve determined you are eligible for a certificate of rehabilitation; the next step is to figure out how long you need to wait before applying. This is referred to as the “period of rehabilitation.” The period of rehabilitation is at least two years from the date you completed probation or parole and can be as long as five years. This is in addition to the five-year residency requirement. Thus, to calculate the total waiting period, you must add the five-year residency requirement to the additional waiting period. In other words, the total waiting period before you can file for a certificate of rehabilitation is between seven and ten years from the termination of your probation or parole.

Those eligible for a certificate of rehabilitation should consider reaching out to a California post-conviction lawyer for assistance.

How to Get Help Obtaining a Certificate of Rehabilitation

If you or a loved one is seeking a Motion for a New Trial, a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a direct appeal, and/or other post-conviction remedies, contact a Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. attorney today to determine your likelihood of success. You can contact California Criminal Appeals attorneys with us by calling (888) 808-2179 or submitting a contact submission here.

Senate Bill 180

Effective: January 1, 2018.

Notable Changes: Previously, if you were convicted of a drug trafficking offense, the judge could impose consecutive three-year enhancements for each prior drug trafficking offense. Under SB 180, only those prior offenses for using a minor to sell or possess certain types of drugs will be used to add these three-year enhancements.

Senate Bill 620

Effective: January 1, 2018

Notable Changes: Previously, if you were convicted of a crime and the prosecution proved that you used a gun, there were mandatory sentencing enhancements under Penal Code §§ 12022.5 and 12022.53. These were some of the most severe enhancements, ranging up to 25 years in some cases. SB 620 enables sentencing judges to use their discretion to strike enhancements under §§ 12022.5 and 12022.53 when doing so is in the “interest of justice.”

 Senate Bill 1393

Effective: January 1, 2019

Notable Changes: SB 1393 gives a sentencing judge the discretion to strike five-year enhancements for prior felony convictions under Penal Code § 667(1). Previously, these enhancements were mandatory.

Senate Bill 136

Effective: January 1, 2020

Notable Changes: Penal Code § 667.5(b) previously allowed a sentencing judge to add a one-year enhancement if you had previously been convicted of a crime resulting in a prison sentence. SB 136 eliminates all one-year prior prison term enhancements except for those convicted of sexually violent offenses as described in Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600(b).

Who Can Benefit from the New California Sentencing Enhancement Laws?

Each of the new laws only applies to those cases that were not final at the time the law went into effect. Determining when a conviction is “final,” however, is not always straightforward. However, as a general rule, if your case is still pending on appeal, or you are within the window of time where you can still file an appeal, a conviction is not yet final.

How to Benefit From the Recent Changes

The manner in which you can pursue relief under the new sentencing enhancement laws depends on where your case is in the process. If you have not yet filed an appeal, you can raise these issues on direct appeal in the California Court of Appeals.

Options for Those with “Final” Convictions

While none of these laws technically apply to anyone whose case was final at the time the law went into effect, there may still be remedies available. Penal Code § 1170(d)(1) allows you to petition the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the district attorney’s office to recommend to the court that your sentence be reduced. While neither the CDCR nor the district attorneys’ offices are required to make such a recommendation, they have indicated a willingness to do so when a change in the law would have resulted in a shorter sentence.

Contact a California Criminal Appeals Lawyer

You can contact a criminal appeals firm at (888) 808-2179. You can also contact us through our online form.

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.

Historically, juveniles were frequently charged as adults. It wasn’t until relatively recently that the juvenile justice system came into existence. The juvenile justice system has a primary focus on rehabilitation. Minors can also “age out” of the juvenile justice system, limiting the length of time they are subject to incarceration or supervision. Thus, whenever possible, juveniles benefit from staying in the juvenile justice system.

For the most part, juveniles who are charged as adults face the same punishments that adults do. There are two important exceptions: the death penalty and life in prison without the possibility of parole (JLWOP). In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death. Subsequently, the Court determined that, while juveniles can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, a trial court must follow strict procedures that allow proper consideration of the defendant’s age.

In the Court’s most recent opinion involving JLWOP, the Court was tasked with determining whether Mississippi’s JLWOP statute was constitutionally sufficient given recent legal developments.

In that case, the defendant was charged with the murder of his grandfather. At the time of the offense, the defendant was 15 years old. A jury convicted the defendant, and a judge sentenced him to LWOP. After the Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered the defendant was eligible for a resentencing.

At the defendant’s resentencing, the judge again sentenced him to LWOP, finding that it remained the appropriate sentence. The defendant filed a post-conviction petition, claiming that the resentencing judge failed to consider whether he was “permanently incorrigible.” The defendant maintained that this was a necessary finding to resentence a juvenile to LWOP.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument. The Court explained that the resentencing court need only consider “an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics” before resentencing. The Court held that there was no requirement that a court finds the defendant to be permanently incorrigible and that as long as a state’s sentencing structure provided for the consideration of the defendant’s youth and the impact it had on the commission of the offense, it was constitutionally sound.