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• SB 136 (2019) repealed one-year prior-prison enhancements.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

1. What is the People v. Heard case about?

Answer: The People v. Heard case is pivotal in California juvenile sentencing law. It involves a juvenile offender, Frank Heard, sentenced to 23 years plus 80 years to life for crimes committed at ages 15 and 16. Heard filed a petition under Penal Code §1170(d)(1), which allows juveniles sentenced to life without parole to seek resentencing after serving 15 years. The Court of Appeal ruled that juveniles given the “functional equivalent” of life without parole could also request resentencing, ensuring equal protection under California law. This case is crucial for California criminal defense attorneys handling juvenile cases.

2. Who is eligible to file a petition under Penal Code §1170(d)(1)?

Answer: Eligibility for filing a petition under Penal Code §1170(d)(1) requires:

• Conviction for a crime committed before turning 18.
• A sentence equivalent to life without parole.
• Demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation.
• No prior juvenile adjudications for serious crimes before the offense.
• The crime must not involve torturing the victim or offenses against law enforcement or firefighters. For detailed guidance, consult a California criminal defense lawyer experienced in juvenile resentencing.

3. What factors must a judge consider during a resentencing hearing?

Answer: During a resentencing hearing, the judge considers:

• Whether the offense involved an adult co-defendant.
• The offender’s prior lack of adult support or supervision.
• Any psychological or physical trauma experienced by the offender.
• The offender’s potential for rehabilitation, including participation in rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs.
• Evidence of remorse and maintenance of family ties or positive connections.
• Any disciplinary actions in the last five years and efforts to distance themselves from criminal influences. California criminal defense attorneys play a vital role in presenting these factors to the court.

4. How can the new law under People v. Heard help eligible individuals?

Answer: The law under People v. Heard can help in several ways:

• Juvenile offenders under 16 at the time of the crime may have their cases transferred back to juvenile court.
• Offenders aged 16-17 at the time of the offense may benefit from a new transfer hearing.
• Judges can lower the sentence, transfer the case to juvenile court, or maintain the current sentence. They cannot increase the sentence. For personalized advice, contact a knowledgeable California criminal defense lawyer.

5. What should be included in the petition for recall and resentencing?

Answer: The petition must include:

• Age at the time of the crime.
• Detailed sentence information.
• Confirmation of having served at least 15 years.
• Statements of remorse and evidence of rehabilitation.
• Information about not having committed certain serious offenses.
• Proof of mailing copies to the district attorney and the original defense attorney or public defender. California criminal defense attorneys can assist in preparing a comprehensive petition.

6. Are behavioral credits included in determining eligibility for filing a petition?

Answer: No, behavioral credits are not included in calculating the 15-year incarceration requirement. The individual must have physically served 15 years before filing a petition. For clarification, consult a California criminal defense attorney.

7. What is Senate Bill 1391 and how does it relate to juvenile offenders?

Answer: Senate Bill 1391, passed in 2019, amends Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 to prohibit transferring cases to adult court for offenders who were 14 or 15 years old at the time of the crime. Now, only individuals who were at least 16 years old can be transferred to adult court. This bill significantly impacts juvenile defense cases in California. For more information, contact a California criminal defense lawyer.

8. Can someone eligible for relief under Senate Bill 1437 or Senate Bill 775 file a petition under Penal Code §1170(d)(1)?

Answer: Yes, but individuals must be extremely careful and should consult a California criminal defense attorney before filing, as statements made in one petition can affect other petitions. Senate Bill 1437 and 775 allow resentencing for certain murder convictions, but filing for relief under both laws can have legal implications.

9. What happens if the court rejects my petition?

Answer: If a petition is rejected, the individual should resubmit another petition, addressing any issues highlighted by the court. If the reasons for rejection are unclear, consulting a California criminal defense attorney is advised.

10. Can I appeal the judge’s decision if my petition is denied?

Answer: Yes, if the petition to recall the sentence is denied, the decision can be appealed. Similarly, if the judge resentences the individual to the functional equivalent of life without parole, this decision can also be appealed. The notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of the judge’s decision. For assistance with appeals, contact a California criminal defense lawyer.

How a California Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help

This FAQ aims to provide comprehensive information for individuals seeking to understand and navigate the complexities of Penal Code §1170(d)(1) in the context of juvenile sentencing and the People v. Heard case. For personalized legal advice, consulting with a California criminal defense attorney is recommended. You can consult with one of our lawyers by calling (888) 808-2179 or submitting a contact submission here.

The Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. attorneys and staff are celebrating another major win for their client! Another Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. Client is resentenced and will be home for the holidays after the firm successfully reached a stipulation with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office pursuant to Penal Code § 1172.6. The Los Angeles County Court reviewed the joint stipulation and signed off on it by vacating the client’s conviction.

The case revolved around Penal Code § 1172.6, which modified the law regarding murder and attempted murder. The client’s case was reviewed and it was determined his case qualified under SB 775 and Penal Code § 1172.6. Once a petition was brought, the firm’s attorneys were able to establish a Prima Facie showing that the client is entitled to resentencing. Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. attorneys represented the client in court. They argued that not only is he entitled to resentencing, but that the conviction should be vacated in its entirety, as the conviction cannot be upheld under current laws. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office ultimately agreed and entered into a joint stipulation with Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. to resentence the client and to vacate his conviction.

Specifically, pursuant to Penal Code § 1172.6(d)(2),

The parties may waive a resentencing hearing and stipulate that the petitioner is eligible to have the murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter conviction vacated and to be resentenced. If there was a prior finding by a court or jury that the petitioner did not act with reckless indifference to human life or was not a major participant in the felony, the court shall vacate the petitioner’s conviction and resentence the petitioner.

In summary, the attorneys argued that the client had no intent to cause any attempted murder or murder, nor did he act with reckless indifference to human life, despite still being convicted of attempted murder. Under the new sentence, the client is made free and will be home for the holidays.

How an Appeals and Post-Conviction Lawyer Can Help

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

Background Regarding SB 1437

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

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

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

Special Circumstance Murder & The People v. Strong Case

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

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

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

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

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

How an SB 1437 Lawyer Can Help

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

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.

SB 775 is retroactive, meaning, a petitioner can apply this new law to a case, despite it being final. Previously, SB 1437 changed the felony murder rule. Under SB 1437, those convicted per “the natural and probable consequences doctrine” were able to petition the court to re-examine their case. More specifically, per SB 1437, if an accused did not: (1) act with reckless indifference to human life, or (2) was not a major participant to homicide, they were able to petition for re-sentencing.

However, SB 1437 formally applied to those convicted of homicide. Formally, the law did not apply to those convicted of lesser offenses, such as attempted murder or manslaughter. The SB 1437 criteria left out those who were facing homicide charges, but decided to comply with the District Attorney’s office during their prosecution by accepting a plea deal for a lesser offense. Now, under SB 775, qualifying individuals may apply.

Does a Petitioner Need an Attorney

No. If a petitioner wishes to file on their own, they may. If a petition is appropriately filed, the court will appoint an attorney.

Ways to Win under SB 775 and How a Renowned Criminal Appeals Team can Help

If you feel you may have case that meets the criteria of SB 775, you should consult with an attorney. You can contact one of our Los Angeles Criminal Appeals attorneys by calling (888) 808-2179 or by submitting a contact form here.