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• SB 136 (2019) repealed one-year prior-prison enhancements.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

Facing a guilty verdict in California is one of the most overwhelming experiences a person and their family can endure. Whether the conviction came after a jury trial, court trial, open plea, or negotiated plea, the days and weeks immediately following sentencing are critical. This is the period during which defendants must protect their rights, preserve appellate issues, and make time-sensitive decisions—including whether to file a direct criminal appeal.

California law imposes strict, unforgiving deadlines. Most importantly:

You only have 60 days from the judgment to file a Notice of Appeal in a felony or misdemeanor case.

Miss this deadline, and you permanently lose the right to a direct appeal—no exceptions, no extensions, no second chances.

This article is written for defendants and family members across Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, the Bay Area, Sacramento, and all of California who are searching for clarity after a conviction. It is also designed to help individuals avoid the most common—and most damaging—post-verdict mistakes seen in criminal cases.

As a statewide California criminal appeals lawyer, Power Trial Lawyers handles felony and misdemeanor appeals from every Superior Court jurisdiction in the state. We prepared this guide to help you avoid the pitfalls that could cost you your appellate rights.

Mistake #1: Waiting Too Long to File the Notice of Appeal

The most devastating mistake people make after a guilty verdict is waiting. Many defendants think: “I’ll deal with this after sentencing” or “Let me get through prison intake first.” Even worse, California defendants think “my trial lawyer will file it for me” or “I have 90 days, right?” (Incorrect.)

California Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a), states that a defendant has 60 days from the date judgment is entered to file a Notice of Appeal.

Not 90 days.
Not “after intake.”
Not “whenever I’m ready.”

Exactly 60 days.

If the Notice of Appeal is not filed by Day 60, the right to a direct criminal appeal is lost forever. Even the Court of Appeal cannot grant relief after the deadline. There is no motion to extend time. There is no exception for hardship, confusion, jail transfers, or attorney error.

How to Avoid This Mistake

• Contact a California criminal appeals attorney immediately.
• File the Notice of Appeal as soon as possible—even before sentencing, if necessary.
• Allow your appellate lawyer to handle the filing, service, and confirmation.
• Confirm receipt of the Notice in the Superior Court docket.

The earlier the Notice is filed, the sooner transcripts can be requested and the record prepared, which accelerates the entire appellate process.

Mistake #2: Believing Your Trial Lawyer Will “Handle the Appeal”

Another common misconception is that the trial attorney automatically files the Notice of Appeal or continues representation into the appellate stage.

Reality:

Most trial lawyers do not file appeals, do not specialize in appeals, and do not continue representing clients once judgment has been entered.

Under California law:

• A trial attorney has no ongoing duty to pursue or file an appeal unless a separate agreement exists.
• The appellate process is fundamentally different from trial work and requires a specialized appeals lawyer.

Trial lawyers focus on jury selection, motions, negotiations, and sentencing. Appellate lawyers focus on legal error, constitutional violations, record analysis, issue identification, and briefing. These are completely different skill sets.

What Happens When Defendants Assume Their Lawyer Will File It?

• The 60-day appeal deadline passes.
• Family members assume the lawyer “took care of it.”
• Clients later discover no Notice was filed.
• The appeal is permanently barred.

How to Avoid This Mistake

• Do NOT assume your trial lawyer is filing anything.
• Ask explicitly: “Are you filing my Notice of Appeal?”
• Get it in writing.
• Ideally, retain a California criminal appeal attorney within days of the verdict.

Power Trial Lawyers routinely steps in immediately after sentencing to secure appellate rights statewide.

Mistake #3: Not Ordering (or Delaying) the Trial Transcripts

A criminal appeal in California is built entirely on the record of the case, which includes:

• Reporter’s transcripts (everything said in court)
• Clerk’s transcripts (motions, filings, exhibits, jury instructions, minute orders, verdict forms, etc.)

If transcripts are missing, incomplete, or delayed, the entire appeal stalls.

Why Transcripts Are Critical

Appellate courts review only what happened in the courtroom—not what happened outside of it. Appellate lawyers rely on the written record to identify:

• Evidentiary errors
• Constitutional violations
• Misconduct
• Bad jury instructions
• Sentencing errors
• Denials of motions (e.g., 995, 1538.5, 1118.1, new trial motions)
• Prosecutorial or judicial misconduct

If transcripts are not prepared promptly:

• The opening brief deadline cannot be set.
• The CDCR intake process may delay communication.
• Issues may become harder to identify.
• Witness recollections fade.
• The appeal timeline extends significantly.

California’s Process

After filing the Notice of Appeal:

• The court reporter must prepare the transcripts.
• The appellate division clerk assembles the clerk’s transcript.
• The Court of Appeal sends a notice confirming receipt of the record.

Delays on any of these steps slow the case.

How to Avoid This Mistake

• Have an appellate lawyer immediately file a Designation of Record.
• Follow up with court reporters (many are behind).
• Track transcript production deadlines.
• Ensure supplemental transcripts (e.g., sidebars, in camera hearings) are included.

A seasoned California criminal appeals attorney knows how to push transcript production forward and resolve missing-record issues quickly. Contact us today to consult with a California Criminal Appeals Lawyer at 888-808-2179.

Mistake #4: Misunderstanding What an Appeal Actually Does

One of the most damaging misunderstandings after a guilty verdict is the belief that a criminal appeal is a second trial. Families often assume the appellate court will hear new evidence, new testimony, or revisit the factual disputes that occurred during trial. In reality, a California criminal appeal is a highly specialized legal review of what happened in the Superior Court, not a re-litigation of the underlying case. The Court of Appeal examines the trial record for legal errors or constitutional violations that may have affected the fairness of the proceedings or the validity of the judgment.

Some defendants mistakenly think they cannot appeal because they “lost fair and square,” or because the jury “just believed the other side.” Others believe they can present new facts or bring forward witnesses who were not called. These misunderstandings lead to delays, missed deadlines, and lost opportunities. The appellate process is strictly limited to reviewing what occurred below. If the trial judge made errors, if counsel failed to object, if improper evidence was admitted, or if the jury received flawed instructions, those issues may form the basis of a reversible error. But none of this is possible unless the appeal is filed on time.

To avoid this mistake, it is essential to speak with a California criminal appeals attorney immediately after the verdict. A proper consultation clarifies what an appeal can and cannot do, explains timelines, and identifies whether there are viable issues for appellate review. Many defendants initially think their situation is hopeless, only to later learn that a strong appeal exists once the record is examined. Understanding the true function of a direct appeal allows you to make informed decisions early—precisely when timing matters most.

Mistake #5: Assuming a Plea Deal Cannot Be Appealed

Even a guilty plea can be appealed. A surprising number of people believe that entering a plea—especially a negotiated plea—eliminates any right to appeal. While it is true that guilty pleas limit the types of issues a defendant may raise, they absolutely do not eliminate the ability to file a direct appeal. Under California law, a defendant may still challenge matters such as jurisdictional defects, constitutional violations, sentencing errors, ineffective assistance of counsel that impacted the voluntariness of the plea, and any issue expressly preserved through a certificate of probable cause.

The misunderstanding often stems from confusing trial rights with appellate rights. A defendant who pleads guilty waives many trial rights, but does not waive the right to challenge the legality of the proceedings or the sentence imposed. This mistake is especially costly because defendants who enter pleas are often rushed through sentencing and transferred to custody quickly, making the 60-day deadline even more critical.

Avoiding this mistake requires early intervention. A qualified criminal appeal attorney in California will evaluate whether the plea was lawfully entered, whether the court properly advised the defendant, whether counsel explained the consequences, and whether the sentencing judge exceeded statutory authority. Many plea-based appeals ultimately lead to resentencing, withdrawals of pleas, or other significant relief. The key is to act quickly, because the right to appeal still expires exactly 60 days after judgment, regardless of whether the conviction was by plea or trial.

Mistake #6: Failing to Preserve Sentencing Issues

Sentencing is often treated as an afterthought, especially when the verdict has already been delivered. However, the sentencing hearing is one of the most important stages for preserving appellate arguments. In California, issues not raised in the trial court are frequently deemed forfeited on appeal, meaning the Court of Appeal will not consider them. This includes improper enhancements, incorrect term calculations, unauthorized sentences, misapplications of mandatory mitigation statutes such as Penal Code section 1170(b), or violations involving aggravating factor findings.

Many defendants assume the trial lawyer will raise every necessary objection. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Sentencing hearings move quickly, and defense counsel is often overwhelmed with last-minute reports, probation recommendations, and amendment requests from the prosecution. When objections are not made clearly and specifically, valuable issues are lost.

To avoid this mistake, a defendant should engage an appellate lawyer immediately after conviction so that sentencing issues can be identified and communicated to trial counsel before the hearing. An experienced California felony appeal lawyer understands which errors most often lead to reversals or resentencing and can ensure the record is properly preserved. Even if sentencing has already occurred, an appellate review may still uncover unauthorized or improperly calculated terms that an appellate court has the authority to correct.

Mistake #7: Waiting Until Prison Intake Before Seeking Help

One of the most common phrases we hear from families is, “Let’s wait until he gets processed into CDCR before dealing with the appeal.” This is a dangerous misconception and often results in the loss of critical rights. The intake process can take weeks. Transfers between county jail, Wasco, Chino, or CIW often disrupt communication completely. During this time, defendants may not have access to phones, mail, or their legal paperwork. Meanwhile, the appellate deadline continues running.

Families understandably feel overwhelmed after sentencing and want a moment to breathe. But the appellate courts do not pause the clock to accommodate that emotional processing period. The countdown to the Notice of Appeal deadline begins immediately, regardless of where the defendant is housed or whether CDCR has completed reception.

Avoiding this mistake requires recognizing that the period immediately after sentencing is the most important window for contacting a statewide California criminal appeals lawyer. The appellate attorney can file the Notice of Appeal even before intake is completed and can begin initiating the record designation process so that transcripts are not delayed. Waiting until after reception creates unnecessary risks and often leaves only days or hours before the deadline.

Mistake #8: Hiring a Lawyer Who Does Not Specialize in Criminal Appeals

Many people panic after a guilty verdict and hire the first lawyer who promises results. But an attorney who excels at trials, negotiations, or pretrial motions may not be equipped to handle an appeal. Trial work is fast, reactive, and focused on witnesses and courtroom performance. Appellate work is methodical, analytical, and grounded in constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and written advocacy.

A criminal appeal in California requires the ability to dissect thousands of pages of transcripts, identify legal error, craft sophisticated arguments, and anticipate how appellate justices will view the case. A trial lawyer who is not trained in appeals may miss issues, misunderstand standards of review, or fail to structure briefs in a persuasive and legally precise manner. Worse, some non-appellate lawyers file Notices of Appeal without understanding the steps that follow, leaving clients confused, unrepresented, and at risk of missing record designations or briefing deadlines.

Choosing the right attorney is essential. A California criminal appeals lawyer should be able to show prior appellate decisions, sample briefs, published or unpublished victories, and experience appearing before the Court of Appeal. You should feel confident that your appellate lawyer understands not just legal argumentation, but also the nuance of appellate procedure and the expectations of appellate courts statewide.

When a conviction has the power to alter a person’s life forever, the appeal should not be trusted to someone who does not practice full-time in this field. Specialized skill matters.

Mistake #9: Ignoring Post-Trial Motions That Strengthen the Appeal

After a guilty verdict, many defendants believe the only remaining step is the sentencing hearing. But California law allows for several post-trial motions that, if filed properly and on time, can significantly strengthen a later direct appeal. Among these are:

• Motion for new trial (Penal Code § 1181)
• Romero motion or other strike-dismissal motions
• Sentencing memoranda that preserve objections
• Motions addressing juror misconduct or judicial error

When a motion for new trial is made, it forces the trial judge to address alleged errors directly. Even if denied, the motion creates a valuable appellate record because the Court of Appeal can review not only the error itself, but also the judge’s rationale for rejecting the defense argument.

Unfortunately, defendants frequently miss the opportunity to file such motions because they assume they are unnecessary or because trial counsel is too drained after trial to put forward robust post-trial litigation. Others simply do not realize these motions exist.

Avoiding this mistake requires immediate communication with an appellate attorney who can identify which post-trial motions should be filed before judgment is pronounced. These motions often lay the foundation for appellate success. Without them, key arguments may be harder to raise or may be deemed forfeited.

Mistake #10: Losing Hope and Failing to Take Action

Perhaps the most heartbreaking mistake is the emotional paralysis that follows a guilty verdict. People often feel defeated, hopeless, or overwhelmed. Families withdraw. Defendants retreat inward. And because the appellate deadline continues ticking regardless of human emotion, time is lost.

A criminal conviction in California is not the end of the road. Many cases win relief on appeal, sometimes through reversal, sometimes through remand for resentencing, sometimes through striking enhancements, and sometimes through reversal of specific findings that change the entire structure of the sentence. Even when a full reversal is not possible, the appellate courts regularly correct sentencing errors, apply new laws retroactively, or remand cases based on procedural irregularities.

Taking action is the single most important step a defendant or family member can take. Filing the Notice of Appeal costs nothing, preserves all rights, and keeps the possibility of justice alive. Once the appeal is filed, a California felony appeal lawyer can assess the record methodically and present the strongest arguments available under the law.

Hope is not naïve—it is procedural. It is strategic. And it is necessary.

Protecting Your Future Starts Now

The days and weeks following a guilty verdict or sentencing hearing are some of the most critical in the entire lifespan of a criminal case. Mistakes made during this period can permanently eliminate appellate rights or weaken arguments that would otherwise lead to relief. The California criminal appeals system is unforgiving in its timelines and highly technical in its requirements. Yet it offers powerful remedies for those who act quickly and strategically.

If you or your loved one has been convicted anywhere in California—Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, the Bay Area, or any other jurisdiction—your appellate rights may already be running. Understanding the top mistakes and how to avoid them is essential, but guidance from a seasoned appellate lawyer is even more critical.

Power Trial Lawyers represents criminal appeals clients statewide, handling direct appeals in every California Court of Appeal district. Our role is to protect your rights, identify the strongest appellate issues, and provide a clear path forward at a time when clarity matters most.

Your time to act is short. Your rights remain powerful. And your future is still worth fighting for.

Consult With a California Appeals Lawyer Today

If you or your family member was recently convicted or sentenced in California, contact Power Trial Lawyers immediately. Your appellate deadline may already be approaching, and waiting even a few days could jeopardize your right to challenge the conviction.

Call today: 888-808-2179
Statewide California Criminal Appeals Representation
Direct Appeals • Felony Appeals • Sentencing Errors • Constitutional Violations

Your appeal starts with one step: preserving your rights before it’s too late.

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Relief Is Available Through AB 256?

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

Writ of Habeas Corpus

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

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

Consult with a Criminal Appeals Lawyer

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

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.