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• SB 136 (2019) repealed one-year prior-prison enhancements.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

Understanding Youth Offender Parole: A Paradigm Shift in Juvenile Justice

Youth Offender Parole represents a paradigm shift in how the criminal justice system treats those who committed crimes before reaching full adulthood. Historically, the justice system has been criticized for imposing harsh sentences on young offenders without accounting for the significant psychological and neurological differences between adolescents and adults. Research shows that parts of the brain responsible for impulse control, decision-making, and understanding long-term consequences are not fully developed until the mid-20s. As a result, many young offenders were sentenced to life terms without a realistic possibility of parole, effectively condemning them for actions taken in the throes of youth.

California’s Youth Offender Parole law addresses these concerns by mandating that the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) give “great weight” to youth-related factors when determining parole suitability. These factors include:

• Age at the Time of the Crime: Recognizing that younger individuals have less impulse control and a diminished ability to understand the full consequences of their actions.
• Level of Maturity: Evaluating the offender’s maturity level at the time of the crime, including susceptibility to peer pressure and the influence of older co-defendants.
• Capacity for Change: Considering evidence of the offender’s growth and rehabilitation since their incarceration.

The BPH is required to place significant emphasis on these factors when making parole decisions, meaning that even those who committed serious offenses may now have an opportunity for early release if they can demonstrate substantial personal growth.

Legal Eligibility for Youth Offender Parole: Are You or Your Loved One Qualified?

Eligibility for Youth Offender Parole is determined by several specific criteria. Understanding these criteria is crucial for those seeking to navigate this legal avenue:

• Age at the Time of the Offense: The crime must have been committed before the offender turned 26 years old. This broad age range reflects the scientific understanding that brain development continues well into the mid-20s.
• Type of Sentence: The individual must be serving either a determinate sentence (a fixed number of years) or an indeterminate sentence (such as life with the possibility of parole) for a crime committed before age 26. Additionally, those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for crimes committed before age 18 may also be eligible.
• Exclusions: Certain categories of offenders are excluded from YOP hearings, such as those with “three strikes” sentences or “one strike” sex offense sentences. Additionally, if an individual commits a new crime after turning 26, particularly if it involves “malice aforethought” (e.g., first-degree murder, attempted murder), they may be excluded from YOP eligibility.

Navigating these eligibility criteria can be complex, especially when dealing with prior convictions or complicated sentencing structures. Consulting with an experienced Orange County Criminal Appeals and Defense Lawyer is essential to ensure that all potential avenues for parole are thoroughly explored.

Franklin Hearings: Building a Strong Case for Parole

A critical component of the Youth Offender Parole process is the Franklin hearing, named after the landmark case People v. Franklin (2016). This hearing allows offenders to establish a record of mitigating evidence related to their youth, which was not presented during the original sentencing. The importance of a Franklin hearing cannot be overstated—it provides an opportunity to document the offender’s immaturity at the time of the crime and their subsequent growth and rehabilitation.

During a Franklin hearing, the court will consider:

• Youth-Related Factors: The circumstances surrounding the offender’s life at the time of the crime, including family environment, education, and any history of abuse or neglect.
• Rehabilitative Efforts: Evidence of the offender’s efforts to reform, such as participation in educational programs, vocational training, and therapy while incarcerated.
• Expert Testimony: Psychological evaluations and expert testimony can be pivotal in establishing the ongoing development and rehabilitation of the offender, reinforcing the argument for early parole.

A well-prepared Franklin hearing can significantly enhance the chances of securing a favorable outcome at a Youth Offender Parole hearing. However, this requires meticulous preparation and a deep understanding of both the legal standards and the psychological principles involved. An experienced Orange County Criminal Appeals and Defense Attorney can play a crucial role in gathering the necessary evidence, presenting it effectively, and advocating on behalf of the offender.

The Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA): A Key Determinant of Parole Outcomes

One of the most critical elements of the Youth Offender Parole process is the Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA), a report prepared by a BPH psychologist or by an expert. This assessment evaluates the offender’s potential risk of reoffending if released on parole. The CRA considers factors such as the nature of the original crime, the offender’s behavior in prison, and any psychological issues that may influence future behavior.

Working with the right expert is instrumental to a strong and meaningful outcome. Consult with your lawyer to assess who the expert assigned to your case will be.

The CRA is a double-edged sword—it can either bolster or undermine an offender’s chances of securing parole. A high-risk assessment can lead to parole denial, often for several years. Conversely, a low-risk assessment can support the case for early release. Moreover, choosing the right expert is essential to a strong and comprehensive risk assessment. Preparing for the CRA involves:

• Reviewing Past Reports: Understanding past psychological evaluations and probation reports to anticipate the issues that may arise during the CRA.
• Addressing Deficiencies: Engaging in therapy or rehabilitation programs that target the specific areas of concern identified in previous assessments.
• Legal Guidance: Working closely with an attorney to prepare for the CRA, ensuring that all positive developments are clearly documented and communicated.

Given the weight the BPH places on the CRA, it is imperative that offenders and their attorneys approach this assessment with a strategic plan. A Criminal Defense Lawyer in Orange County with experience in Youth Offender Parole cases can provide the necessary guidance and support to navigate this critical phase.

Timing Is Everything: Understanding Your Parole Eligibility Date

The timing of your Youth Offender Parole hearing is determined by the length and type of your sentence. This timing is crucial because it dictates when you will be eligible for a hearing and, potentially, for release.

• Determinate Sentences: For those serving a determinate sentence, the parole eligibility date typically occurs after 14 years of incarceration.
• Indeterminate Sentences: For indeterminate sentences of less than 25 years to life, the eligibility date is after 19 years. For sentences of 25 years to life or more, or for those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes committed before age 18, the eligibility date is after 24 years.

Understanding these timelines is critical for strategic planning. Early preparation is key—engaging in rehabilitative programs, maintaining a spotless record, and consistently documenting your progress are all vital steps in building a strong case for parole. Moreover, your eligibility date can sometimes be adjusted based on factors like good behavior or participation in educational programs, making it even more essential to stay proactive throughout your incarceration.

The Strategic Advantage of Legal Representation

The complexity of the Youth Offender Parole process cannot be overstated. From determining eligibility to navigating Franklin hearings and preparing for the CRA, each step requires careful legal maneuvering and strategic decision-making. This is why the expertise of an Orange County Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer is not just beneficial—it is indispensable.

• Tailored Legal Strategies: A seasoned attorney will develop a personalized strategy that addresses the specific circumstances of your case. This includes identifying key legal arguments, gathering supporting evidence, and anticipating potential challenges.
• Expert Witness Coordination: Your attorney can bring in expert witnesses, such as psychologists or social workers, to provide testimony on your behalf, strengthening your case for parole.
• Continuous Support: The parole process is emotionally and mentally taxing. An experienced lawyer provides not only legal support but also guidance and reassurance throughout the process, helping you stay focused and prepared.

Why Contacting an Orange County Criminal Defense Law Firm is Crucial

The stakes in a Youth Offender Parole hearing are incredibly high. A favorable decision could mean early release and the opportunity to rebuild your life, while a denial could extend your incarceration for years. Given these high stakes, it is essential to have a legal team that understands the intricacies of the law, the psychology of rehabilitation, and the specific dynamics of the Orange County legal system.

• Local Expertise: An Orange County Criminal Defense Law Firm is well-versed in the local courts, judges, and parole board members. This local knowledge can provide a strategic advantage in preparing and presenting your case.
• Comprehensive Legal Support: From the initial consultation to post-hearing follow-up, a dedicated legal team will ensure that every aspect of your case is handled with the utmost care and professionalism.
• Proven Track Record: A law firm with a strong history of successful parole outcomes can provide the confidence and assurance that you are in capable hands.

If you or someone you care about is eligible for Youth Offender Parole, now is the time to act. The difference between a successful and unsuccessful parole hearing often comes down to the quality of legal representation. Don’t leave your future to chance—contact a reputable Orange County Criminal Defense Law Firm today to schedule a consultation. With the right legal strategy, you can present a compelling case for your release and take the first step toward rebuilding your life.

Every day counts in the preparation for your hearing. Reach out to an experienced attorney who can guide you through this complex process, advocate for your rights, and help you secure the best possible outcome. Your future may depend on it.

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.

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.

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.

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.