Articles Posted in Legal Developments

Navigating the complexities of the California criminal justice system, especially when it comes to sentencing and resentencing, can be daunting. If you or a loved one is serving a lengthy prison sentence, it is important to fully understand all possible options for relief. In this post, our Los Angeles and Orange County Criminal Defense and Appeals lawyers will discuss several recent changes to the law that provide various ways to pursue sentencing and resentencing relief.

California Resentencing Laws--an overview

California Resentencing Laws–an overview

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.

Navigating the criminal justice system can be a daunting task, especially when it comes to the intricacies of the appeals process. For those convicted of crimes in California, understanding the rights and procedures related to direct appeals is crucial. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the appeals process. This guide is particularly valuable for individuals seeking the expertise of a California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer.

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.

Resentencing can be a complex and pivotal aspect of the criminal justice process, particularly in California where recent legislative changes have opened new avenues for inmates to seek sentence reductions. Penal Code § 1172.1 provides a structured framework for recalling and resentencing individuals, but the pathway to achieving this relief requires a nuanced understanding of the law and its application. This article delves into the intricacies of California Penal Code § 1172.1, offering a comprehensive analysis for prospective clients, particularly those seeking the expertise of a California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer.

Background on Penal Code § 1172.1

California Resentencing Penal Code 1172.1

California Resentencing Penal Code 1172.1

Introduction

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.

Assembly Bill 256 - the Racial Justice Act

Assembly Bill 256 – the Racial Justice Act

Introduction

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:

As experienced Los Angeles and Orange County criminal defense lawyers, we are keenly aware of the profound impact that high-profile homicide cases have on those accused and their families. Our goal is to provide a nuanced understanding of these cases, offering legal insights that prospective clients might find invaluable. This article delves into the intricate details of two prominent trials currently capturing public attention: the case of Karen Read and the trial of Young Thug, also known as Jeffery Williams. Our attorneys joined CourtTV to discuss the prominent cases on live television. 

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

Background and Charges

The California Board of Parole Hearings, commonly known as the Board of Parole or BPH, is the division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that is responsible for determining parole suitability for inmates in California. The Board holds hearings for inmates who are serving indeterminate sentences, such as life in prison with the possibility of parole or 25 years to life in prison. The BPH conducts hearings where inmates can present their cases for release, and victims or their families can also provide input. This Board’s role is to assess whether inmates are ready to be released back into society based on factors like their behavior in prison, rehabilitation efforts, and the nature of their crimes. The Board’s decisions are influenced by various factors, including public safety, the inmate’s own insight into their crimes, and their plans for reintegration into the community. 

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

Who Is Eligible for a Parole Suitability Hearing?

On October 8, 2023, California took a significant stride in criminal justice reform with the enactment of Assembly Bill 600, widely referred to as “AB 600”. This legislative development, approved by Governor Newsome, marks a paradigm shift in the state’s approach to resentencing hearings for inmates, introducing the concept of Judicial Initiated Sentencing. In this article, we will discuss AB 600, how it came about, how it works, and what applicants may anticipate if filing for an AB 600 “judicial initiated” resentencing.

Understanding AB 600: An Evolution in Resentencing

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

What Is AB 256?

Senate Bill 256 is a bill introduced by State Assemblymember Ash Kalra of the 27th 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.

ABC7 publishes an article covering California Criminal Appeals attorney, Matthew Barhoma’s work in a re-sentencing of his client pursuant to Penal Code 1170(d)(1) and AB 2942.

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

IMG_9362-300x168
Family Reunited

Justia Lawyer Rating
LACBA
AVVO
State Bar of California
The National Trial Lawyers Top 40 under 40
The National Trial Lawyers, Top 100 trial lawyers
Best Lawyers
Lawyers of Distinction
Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Contact Information