PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

Similar documents
PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE. General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE. General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE PROJECT

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

Sample argument that Estrada retroactivity applies to SB 180

PRISON LAW OFFICE. General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

Proposition 57: Overview of the New Transfer Hearing Process

CALIFORNIA YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE HEARINGS SB 260

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLANT S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING BRIEF

Senate Bill 10 California Money Bail Reform Act of 2017 As Amended September 6, 2017

Using Proposition 47 to Reduce Convictions and Restore Rights (Updated March 2016)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SELF-HELP CENTER PETITION FOR DISMISSAL UNDER PENAL CODE 1210.

Certificates of Rehabilitation in Fresno County Filing Instructions

PRISON LAW OFFICE. General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

Families Against Mandatory Minimums 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT. Defendant COUNT 1

Restoration of Civil Rights

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, ANALYSIS TO: and

Secretary of the Senate. Chief Clerk of the Assembly. Private Secretary of the Governor

Test Bank for Criminal Evidence 8th Edition by Hails

Citation to New Authority (Vetoed Legislation)

Law Library for San Bernardino County (909)

DRC Population. Correctional Institution Inspection Committee

strike convictions are based on the same criminal act. This petition asks that I be

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin CA Telephone (510) Fax (510)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT. Defendant COUNT 1

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0094. Sponsored by: Joint Judiciary Interim Committee A BILL. for. AN ACT relating to criminal justice; amending provisions

Part 1 Rules for the Continued Delivery of Services in Non- Capital Criminal and Non-Criminal Cases at the Trial Level

MEMORANDUM. Al O'Connor, New York State Defenders Association

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE VEHICLE CODE MISDEMEANOR GUILTY PLEA FORM. 1. My true full name is

Clean Up Your Record. Where to find help. What will this process do for you? The Post Conviction Dismissal will:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Michigan s Parolable Lifers: The Cost of a Broken Process

**READ CAREFULLY** L.A County Sheriff s Civilian Oversight Commission Ordinance Petition Instructions

80th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Senate Bill 1007 SUMMARY

ASSEMBLY, No. 492 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 215th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2012 SESSION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

Let others know about the FREE legal resources available at LA Law Library. #ProBonoWeek #LALawLibrary

DETENTION PERIODS. This document is provided as general guidelines only.

Information Memorandum 98-11*

2012/2013 Human Rights First s Public Dialogues Series

Frequently Asked Questions: Sentencing Guidelines (6 th Edition & 6 th Edition, Revised) and General Sentencing Issues

AN ACT. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. Defendant I N F O R M A T I O N S U M M A R Y

A GUIDE TO ROCKEFELLER DRUG REFORM: UNDERSTANDING THE NEW LEGISLATION. By Alan Rosenthal

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. SENATE, No SENATE LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO. with committee amendments DATED: MARCH 12, 2015

Sentencing Factors that Limit Judicial Discretion and Influence Plea Bargaining

ONE YEAR LATER NEW YORK S EXPERIENCE WITH DRUG LAW REFORM

Proposition 57: November 8, 2016, General Election Analyzed by Garrick Byers, Statute Decoder November 9, 2016 Table of Contents

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Relevant Facts Penal Code Section (aka expungements ) Penal Code Section 17(b), reduction of felonies to misdemeanors Proposition 47 Prop 64

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY LEACH, HAYWOOD, HUGHES AND BLAKE, MAY 8, 2017 AN ACT

SEALING YOUR JUVENILE RECORDS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SELF-HELP CENTER

The non-scientific DNA talk: Today s topics

DESCHUTES COUNTY ADULT JAIL L. Shane Nelson, Sheriff Jail Operations Approved by: March 10, 2016 TIME COMPUTATION

F4 & F5 Offender Placement

Step 1- Develop an Idea for a Bill

ALAMEDA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Possibility Of Parole For A Conviction Of Conspiracy To Commit First Degree Murder]

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Missouri Legislative Academy

Florida Senate SB 170 By Senator Lynn

State Issue 1 The Neighborhood Safety, Drug Treatment, and Rehabilitation Amendment

Session of SENATE BILL No By Committee on Judiciary 2-1

7A Responsibilities of Office of Indigent Defense Services.

Colorado Legislative Council Staff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

All Those Propositions. Copyright 2018 First District Appellate Project. All rights reserved

CALIFORNIA BAIL REFORM MICA DOCTOROFF ACLU OF CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR ADVOCACY AND POLICY

JURISDICTION WAIVER RECENT SENTENCING AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

County Parole Board Report of the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury SUMMARY The Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) reviewed the County Parole Board, a

THE FIELD POLL. UCB Contact

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

ll1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION

Supreme Court of Florida

of Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069638, Filed Filed March March 28, 28, Haller: and Rules of Court, rule (c).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

FOUR EASY STEPS TO UNDERSTANDING DETERMINATE SENTENCING LAW

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT S.2371, AN ACT RELATIVE TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

Section 1 - Are You Eligible?

NEW YORK REENTRY ROUNDTABLE ADDRESSING THE ISSUES FACED BY THE FORMERLY INCARCERATED AS THEY RE-ENTER THE COMMUNITY

Transcription:

Director: Donald Specter PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964 Telephone (510) 280-2621 Fax (510) 280-2704 www.prisonlaw.com Your Responsibility When Using the Information Provided Below: When putting this material together, we did our best to give you useful and accurate information because we know that prisoners often have trouble getting legal information and we cannot give specific advice to all prisoners who ask for it. The laws change often and can be looked at in different ways. We do not always have the resources to make changes to this material every time the law changes. If you use this pamphlet, it is your responsibility to make sure that the law has not changed and still applies to your situation. Most of the materials you need should be available in your facility s law library. Proposed New Laws on Prior Serious Felony Conviction or Prior Felony Prison or Jail Term Enhancements (Senate Bill 1393; Senate Bill 1392) & Enacted New Laws on Gun Enhancements and Drug Enhancements (Senate Bill 620; Senate Bill 180) Managing Attorney: Sara Norman Staff Attorneys: Rana Anabtawi Steven Fama Alison Hardy Corene Kendrick Rita Lomio Margot Mendelson Millard Murphy Thomas Nosewicz Camille Woods Lynn Wu (July 2018) Over the past 18 months, the California Legislature has been considering proposals to change how courts add enhancements to people s sentences based on prior offenses or using a gun. This letter first discusses two proposed amendments to the laws on prior conviction enhancements; one of these has not yet been passed but is still being considered by the Legislature (SB 1393). The other one is no longer being considered by the Legislature (SB 1392). The letter then discusses new laws that did pass and went into effect on January 1, 2018 and which (1) give judges the authority to dismiss or strike enhancements for using a gun (SB 620) and (2) eliminate the recidivist enhancement for some types of prior drug offenses (SB 180). None of the new laws changing enhancements that are being proposed or that are in effect apply retroactively to criminal cases that are final before the new law takes effect. A case is final when the court has imposed the person s sentence and either the person did not appeal the case or the person s whole appeal process has been finished. Unfortunately, if your conviction is final, the new laws do not apply to you. A good source of information on pending criminal justice reform bills is The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, 1970 Broadway, Suite 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 or www.ellabakercenter.org/contact-us. Their recent information sheet is attached to this letter. Board of Directors Penelope Cooper, President Michele WalkinHawk, Vice President Marshall Krause, Treasurer Christiane Hipps Margaret Johns Cesar Lagleva Laura Magnani Michael Marcum Ruth Morgan Seth Morris

Prison Law Office Page 2 New Laws on Changes to the Laws Re: Enhancements July 2018 1. NOT IN EFFECT-- STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION Senate Bill 1393 The Fair and Just Sentencing Reform Act, Proposal to Grant Discretion for Judges to Strike Penal Code 667(a) Five-year Enhancements for Prior Serious Felony Convictions Penal Code 667(a) currently requires a sentencing court to add a five-year sentence enhancement to a person s sentence for each prior serious felony conviction that was charged and tried separately. Penal Code 1385 (b) states that courts do not have discretion to strike 667(a) enhancements. The Legislature is considering a proposal to change the law to give judges discretion to strike or dismiss 667(a) enhancements in the interests of justice. However, as of mid-july 2018, the proposal has not been approved by the Legislature and has not been the signed by the Governor. Even if the proposal continues to go forward, the Legislature may make big changes in how it is worded and who it covers. If the proposal does become law in the future, we will try to update this letter with the most recent information. 2. NOT IN EFFECT NO LONGER BEING CONSIDERED Senate Bill 1392 Repeal Ineffective Sentencing Enhancement (RISE) Act, Proposal to Eliminate Penal Code 667.5(b) One-year Enhancements for Prior Prison or Felony Jail Terms Penal Code 667.5(b) authorizes a one year sentence enhancement for a prior prison or county jail felony term, unless there has been a five-year washout period (meaning that the prior cannot be used if the person has since both been free of custody and did not commit a new felony offense during some five year period). In spring of 2018, the Legislature was considering a proposal to eliminate 667.5(b enhancements. However, the proposal failed to pass a Senate vote, and as of July 2018 it is no longer actively being considered. 3. IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Senate Bill 620 New Discretion for Judges to Strike Firearm Use Enhancements In the past, if the prosecutor proved that a person used a gun during a felony crime, a court was required to enhance the person s sentence under Penal Code 12022.5 or 12022.53. Depending on the circumstances, these enhancements could add at least several years or up to 25 years to life. Judges did not have the power to strike a firearm enhancement. Effective January 1, 2018, these laws have been changed so that sentencing courts can strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement if doing so is in the interests of justice. The new law does not apply retroactively to anyone whose criminal case is already final. A new criminal law decreasing punishment for a crime does not apply to final cases (unless the Legislature specifically says otherwise, which it did not do in SB 620). (Penal Code section 3; In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 319.) Your case is final when the time for you to file a direct appeal has passed, or when your appeal and any petition for review by the California Supreme Court were denied and your time to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court (90 days after denial of a petition for review) has expired.

Prison Law Office Page 2 New Laws on Changes to the Laws Re: Enhancements July 2018 Courts have held that the new law applies to anyone whose criminal case was not yet final when the new law took effect on January 1, 2018, and that non-final cases should be remanded to allow the sentencing judge to consider striking a gun enhancement unless the record shows that the sentencing court clearly would not have used its discretion to strike the enhancement. (People v. Robbins (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 660; People v. Woods (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1080; People v. Arredondo (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 493; People v. Watts (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 102; People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420; People v. Chavez (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 663; People v. Billingsley (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1076.) A criminal case is not yet final if a direct appeal is still pending in the court of appeal, a petition for review can still be filed or is pending in the California Supreme Court, or the 90-day timeline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court has not expired. If you have a 12022.5 or 12022.53 enhancement and your case was not final as of January 1, 2018, you may be eligible to have your case sent back to the superior court to see if the court will exercise discretion to strike your enhancement. The procedure for raising the issue will depend on what stage your case is at currently. You should contact the attorney who handled or is handling your sentencing or your direct appeal about whether and how this issue can be raised in your case. 4. IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Senate Bill 180 (Repeal Ineffective Sentencing Enhancement (RISE) Act) Elimination of Most Recidivist Drug Trafficking Offense Enhancements In the past, if a person was convicted of a drug trafficking offense, the sentence could be enhanced by consecutive terms of three years for each prior conviction of a wide range of drug trafficking offenses under Health and Safety Code 11370.2. Effective January 1, 2018, the law has been changed so that this type of enhancement can be added only if the prior conviction was for a violation or conspiracy to violate Health and Safety Code 11380 (using or employing a minor in the sale or possession for sale of specified controlled substances). The new law does not apply retroactively to anyone whose criminal case is already final. A new criminal law decreasing punishment for a crime does not apply to final cases (unless the Legislature specifically says otherwise, which it did not do in SB 180). (Penal Code section 3; In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745.) Your case became final if the time for you to file a notice of direct appeal has passed, or if your appeal and any petition for review by the California Supreme Court were denied and your time to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court (90 days after denial of a petition for review) has expired. Courts have held the new laws apply to anyone whose criminal case was not yet final when the new law took effect on January 1, 2018. See People v. Millan (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 102. A criminal case is not yet final if a direct appeal is still pending in the court of appeal, a petition for review can still be filed or is pending in the California Supreme Court, or the 90-day timeline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court has not expired. If you have one or more 11370.2 enhancements and your case was not final as of January 1, 2018, you may be eligible to have your enhancement(s) stricken. The procedure for raising the issue will depend on what stage your case is at currently. You should contact the attorney who handled or is handling your sentencing or your direct appeal about whether and how this issue can be raised in your case.

[This page intentionally blank]

July 10th, 2018 Greetings friends, I hope this letter finds you well. We are writing with an update on two sentencing enhancement reform bills that the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights has been co-sponsoring along with some updates on a few bills folks inside have been writing to us about. The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights is excited to be working on SB 1392 and SB 1393 with Senators Mitchell and Lara along with our co-sponsoring organizations: ACLU of California for Advocacy and Policy, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Drug Policy Alliance, Friends Committee on Legislation California, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Pillars of the Community, Tides Advocacy, and the Women s Foundation of California - Women s Policy Institute. First, we are disappointed to report that the Repeal Ineffective Sentence Enhancement Act 2018 also, known as SB 1392 by Senator Holly Mitchell, did not pass the Senate. As a reminder this bill would have amended Penal Code 667.5, removing the sentencing enhancement that adds an additional year of incarceration ( prison prior ) for each prior prison term or felony county jail term. To pass the Senate we need 21 votes and unfortunately during the vote on May 31st we only got 18 votes in support. We will be working with the authors office and the other cosponsors to figure out if we will reintroduce the bill in 2019. We are grateful to everyone who sent in letters of support for this bill. We will keep you posted. Second, we are excited to report that the Fair and Just Sentencing Reform of 2018 also known as SB 1393 by Senator Holly Mitchell did pass the Senate!! We are grateful to everyone who sent in letters of support for this bill, we were overwhelmed with the outpouring of support. This bill amends Penal Code Sections 667 and 1385 to restore the court s discretion, in the interest of justice and at the time of sentencing, to strike sentence enhancements ( nickel prior ) for prior serious felony convictions, when a person is currently charged with a serious felony. Allowing judicial discretion is consistent with other sentence enhancement laws and retains existing sanctions for serious crimes. On May 14th, 2018 the bill went in front of the Senate and received 23 votes, we then went in front of Assembly Public Safety on June 12th and passed that committee as well. The bill is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and we expect that it will go to the full

Assembly in early August. To pass the Assembly we need 41 votes. We have enclosed a list of target Assembly Members, a list of address for their district offices and some sample text for you to help us pass the Fair and Just Sentencing Reform of 2018. We are excited to report that we got a lot of support from Editorial Boards across the State that supported the bill including: Daily Breeze Torrance, Daily KOS, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, LA Daily News, LA Times, Long Beach Press-Telegram, Orange County Register, Pasadena Star- News, Press Enterprise Riverside, Redland Daily Facts, San Bernardino Sun, San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Whittier Daily News. We have included a copy of the LA Times editorial for you to check out. To help pass the Fair and Just Sentencing Reform Act, we are working on a new social media story collection project. We d love to include your story about the 5-year sentence enhancement. You can call us via Global Tel Link at 909-717-8520 and we will record your statement. The best times to call are Monday or Fridays between 12 pm-2 pm. You can also send us your story and a photo to be included in the project [1970 Broadway, Suite 1125, Oakland CA 94612]. We will include excerpts from the stories on our social media as we continue to organize. Let us know if you have other ideas as well. Thank you so much for your support. Finally, we ve received a few letters asking about some updates on some other bills that the Ella Baker Center has been supporting: SB 1437 (Skinner) Accomplice Liability for Felony Murder - a bill that would bring reform to accomplice liability and give much needed relief to people who are serving disproportionately long sentences for a homicide that person did not commit. This bill made it out of the Senate with 26 votes and is now in the Assembly. SB 1279 (Bradford) Sentencing: Double the Base Term - This bill would, with exceptions, as specified, limit the maximum term of imprisonment to twice the number of years imposed by the trial court as the base term. This bill passed the Senate with 22 votes and is now in the Assembly. SB 1138 (Skinner) Food Options: Plant-Based Meals - This bill would provide plantbased meals to people in prison who request them. This bill passed the Senate with 39 votes and is now in the Assembly. AB 2533 (Stone) Inmate Indigence - This bill would require that a person in prison who has maintained an inmate trust account with $25 or less for 30 consecutive days be deemed indigent. This bill made it out of the Assembly with 56 votes and is now in the Senate. AB 2942 (Ting) Criminal Procedure: Recall of Sentencing - This bill would allow the court to also recall and resentence upon the recommendation of the district attorney of the county in which a defendant was sentenced. This bill passed the Assembly with 45 votes and is now in the Senate. None of these proposed bills will become law until they make it all the way through the legislature and are signed into law by Governor Brown. The last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills this year will be September 30th.

In Solidarity, Emily Harris Senior Campaigner If you or your family is from any of these key districts we encourage you to write a letter of support asking them to vote for SB 1393. We anticipate this vote will take place in early August. Assemblymember Gonzalez-Fletcher, 1350 Front Street, Suite 6022, San Diego, CA 92101 Assemblymember Calderon, 13181 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 160, City of Industry, CA 91746 Assemblymember Gipson, 205 South Willowbrook Ave., Compton, CA 90220 Assemblymember Santiago, 320 West Fourth Street, Room 1050, Los Angeles, CA 90013 Assemblymember Steinorth, 10350 Commerce Center Drive, Suite A-200, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Assemblymember Grayson - 2151 Salvio Street, Suite P, Concord, CA 94520 Date EXAMPLE LETTER OF SUPPORT: Address Re: Support for SB 1393 (Mitchell) Fair and Just Sentencing Reform of 2018 Dear Assemblymember XXX, I write in strong support of SB 1393, the Fair and Just Sentencing Reform Act. SB 1393 (Mitchell) amends Penal Code Sections 667 and 1385 by restoring the court s discretion, in the interest of justice, to strike a five-year sentence enhancement for each prior serious felony conviction on a person s record, when a person is currently convicted of a serious felony. Allowing judicial discretion is consistent with other sentence enhancement laws and retains existing penalties for serious crimes. [FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOUR NARRATIVE IF AFFECTED!!] Nearly every sentence enhancement in California can be dismissed if the judge believes they are unjust in a specific case. But for people with current and prior serious felonies, for which people receive a mandatory five extra years for each prior, judges are forbidden from tailoring a sentence to an individual s case and culpability. This has resulted in mandatory terms for thousands of individuals incarcerated throughout California s prisons. This rigid and arbitrary system has meted out punishments that are disproportionate to the offense and do not serve

the interests of justice, public safety, or communities. I ask you to please support SB 1393 when it is voted on in the Assembly. Respectfully, YOUR NAME SIGNATURE