Los Angeles Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer Blog

Felony Sentencing Guidelines in California: a general breakdown

Published on: January 23, 2023 | by Barhoma Law

California’s felony sentencing guidelines are established by the California Penal Code and the California Rules of Court.

The California Penal Code (Section 1170) sets forth the basic framework for felony sentencing in the state, including the three strikes law, determinate sentencing, and alternative sentencing options such as drug treatment programs and community service.
The California Rules of Court (Rule 4.408) provides more detailed information on the sentencing process, including the procedures for imposing and challenging a sentence, the calculation of good conduct credits, and the rules governing parole and probation.

Barhoma Law Achieves Success for Client Before the California Court of Appeals

Published on: December 6, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

California Court of Appeals rules for Barhoma Law client after the firm successfully brought a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Appellate Court remnded the case back to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing.

Barhoma Law, P.C. successfully argued a client’s case in the California Appellate Court, Second District, forcing the case back to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing.

On December 1, 2022, after nearly 20 months of review, the California Appellate Court, Second District issued an order in a Barhoma Law, P.C., case that involved a client who was deprived of their right to effective counsel. Even worse, at the trial level, the Client’s former attorney did not properly object to the admission of contents of the client’s cell phone that was obtained from a warrantless search pursuant to Penal Code § 1538.5 and Riley v. California (2014) 573 U.S. 373.

Home for The Holidays! Another Barhoma Law, P.C. Client is Free after Resentencing by Reaching Stipulation with the District Attorney’s Office

Published on: November 23, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

Barhoma Law, P.C. entered into a stipulation with the Los Angeles District Attorneys office to resentence client. Client will be home for the holidays.

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

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

Assembly Bill 256

Published on: October 25, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

What Is AB 256?

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.

SB 1437 & Life Without the Possibility of Parole — People v. Strong

Published on: August 9, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

On August 8, 2022, the California Supreme Court decided a long-awaited case that affects SB 1437 Petitions for individuals convicted of Special Circumstance Murder when they ruled in the case of People v. Christopher Strong. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that some special circumstance findings do not automatically preclude defendants from SB 1437 relief.

Background Regarding SB 1437

dreamstime_xl_15103637-750x422-1-300x169 In 2019, SB 1437 was enacted, amending Penal Code § 188 and § 189 and creating Penal Code § 1170.95. Pursuant to SB 1437, accomplice liability for felony murder and murder by way of the natural and probable consequence doctrine was substantially changed, allowing individuals convicted to seek to vacate their murder convictions and obtain resentencing relief. Resentencing is available for individuals convicted of murder, attempted murder, and/or manslaughter if they demonstrate:

Barhoma Law Client is Granted Commutation; Barhoma Law Represented Client Before Parole Board

Published on: July 3, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

Another Barhoma Law, P.C. Client is spared from his sentence, when Governor Newsom granted his Application for Commutation of Sentence. His family and friends were elated to hear that the Barhoma Law, P.C. client was sparred from his Life Without the Possibility of Parole sentence. Barhoma Law, P.C. represented the client through the Clemency process, where we advocated for his rights before the Parole Board.

In granting the Application for Commutation of Sentence, Governor Newsom indicated the following about Barhoma Law, P.C.’s client:

In 1986, Jose Garcia and his crime partners kidnapped two victims who owed them money, held them for ransom, and beat them. On April 26, 1988, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, sentenced Mr. Garcia to life without the possibility of parole for kidnapping for ransom, five years for kidnapping, plus four years of sentence enhancements.

U.S. Supreme Court Makes it Harder for Inmates to Find a Forum Through the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus

Published on: June 20, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus has long been the safety net that ensures the United States criminal justice system remains a fair one. However, over recent years, both lawmakers and judges have restricted access to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In large part, this is due to the pervasive belief that judges and juries “got it right” the first time and that giving inmates a second bite at the apple opens to door to frivolous litigation. However, the Great Writ’s protections are instrumental in ensuring fairness and equality in what is now understood to be an imperfect system. In this article, leading California Appeals lawyers of Barhoma Law, P.C. discuss recent changes to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Over the past 50 years, the United State Supreme Court has implemented a wide range of restrictions on inmates’ access to the writ of habeas corpus. For example, over the past few decades, the U.S. Supreme court has held that Fourth Amendment violations cannot be relitigated through a writ of habeas corpus. The Court has also determined that the Great Writ can only be used to enforce existing constitutional rights and that federal courts cannot hear claims through a habeas petition unless the inmate presented (and exhausted) those claims in state court.

However, perhaps the most significant law affecting the writ of habeas corpus over the last century was the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, or AEDPA. Under AEDPA, inmates have just one year to file a federal habeas petition after exhausting their state-court remedies. AEDPA also imposes a strict requirement that an inmate includes all their claims in a single filing, meaning a second or successive writ of habeas corpus is frequently summarily denied unless it raises new and compelling evidence.

Another Barhoma Law, P.C. Client Is Resentenced Pursuant to SB 483 and Penal Code § 1170.03 | San Bernardino County

Published on: May 2, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

Another Barhoma Law, P.C. client is fortunate to be successfully resentenced out of Riverside County pursuant to Senate Bill 483 and Penal Code § 1170.03.

On April 15, 2022, after nearly 9-months of review, the California Superior Court of Rancho Cucamonga successfully resentenced a Barhoma Law, P.C., sparing him from an illegitimate sentence. The San Bernardino Superior resentencing Court issued Barhoma Law, P.C. a new Abstract of Judgment amending our client’s sentence.

In 2012, the client was initially charged with three (3) counts of robbery (Penal Code1 § 211), each with allegations of the robberies being committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (e)(1)). He was also charged with a single count of being a prohibited person (i.e., felon or addict) in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)) with a criminal street gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). Further, it was alleged that he had suffered a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

Barhoma Law, P.C. Appears on CourtTV to Discuss Clemency and Parole Board Hearings in California

Published on: February 24, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

Recently, California criminal appeals attorney Matthew Barhoma appeared on CourtTV to discuss Governor Newsome’s recent decision not to sign for the release of Leslie Van Houten, despite the parole board’s decision that she should be released on parole. Now 72 years old, Leslie Van Houten was given a life sentence for helping Charles Manson carry out the infamous LaBianca murders back in August 1969. At the time, Van Houten was 19 years old.

In 2020, Van Houten obtained a recommendation from the parole board that she should be released from prison. The board found that she “does not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety” and that she has shown remorse for her actions. However, Governor Newsome refused to sign off on Van Houten’s release, finding that, in his opinion, she posed an unreasonable danger if released. This marks the fifth time the parole board has found Van Houten should be released on parole, and the fifth time the sitting governor reversed the parole board’s decision.

Governors in every state have broad power to grant clemency to an inmate at their discretion. However, California is unique in that it is one of just a few states that allows the governor to reverse a parole board’s decision regarding any inmate who was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole. Attorney Barhoma notes, “Ultimately, the governor is exercising his discretion. I think that he is looking at the criteria quite frankly. There may be public hysteria. She possibly poses a further threat. The way she describes her admiration for Mason maybe really hasn’t changed. So, here are a lot of twists and turns in this.” Here is the interview with Attorney Matthew Barhoma, California Appellate attorney:

Another Barhoma Law, P.C. Client Resentenced; ABC7 and Other News Outlets Closely Follow His Release

Published on: February 8, 2022 | by Barhoma Law

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 Barhoma Law, 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