Articles Posted in Criminal Appeals

Published on: | by

Another Power Trial Lawyers, 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 Power Trial Lawyers, P.C., sparing him from an illegitimate sentence. The San Bernardino Superior resentencing Court issued Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. a new Abstract of Judgment amending our client’s sentence.

pastedGraphic.png
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)).

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

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

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

California Criminal Appeals Lawyer Comments on Recent Criminal Justice Headlines

Recently, Attorney Matthew Barhoma, appeared on Court TV to discuss several of the nation’s highest-profile criminal cases.

 Ahmaud Arbery

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Power Trial Lawyers, P.C., client, Earl Snoddy, is resentenced by the state court, making him a free man just 9 months after retaining Power Trial Lawyers, P.C., the leading California Appeals and Post-Conviction law firm.

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.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

While California is on the cutting-edge of criminal justice reform, in large part, this is due to the extremely harsh sentencing laws enacted in decades past. Most notably, California’s three strikes law, codified in Penal Code § 667, provides for increasingly harsh sentences for those who have been convicted of certain felony crimes. In some cases, the California three strikes law can result in an additional 25-year to life sentence on top of the sentence for the most recent conviction.

The History of the California Three Strikes Law

Back in 1994, during the height of the war on drugs and while many California cities were plagued by the highest rate of violent crime in history, Governor Wilson signed AB 971 into law. AB 971 was known as the “Three Strike and You’re Out” law or, more commonly, as the “Three Strikes Law.”

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The effects of a felony conviction are severe and remain with you for life. However, by obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation, inmates can regain many of the liberties they’ve been deprived of due to their conviction. While certificates of rehabilitation are not new, by any means, they are underutilized, in large part, because they are misunderstood. Read on to learn more about certificates of rehabilitation and how to obtain one.

What Is a Certificates of Rehabilitation?

A certificate of rehabilitation is a court determination that a former inmate has been fully rehabilitated. In this way, a certificate of rehabilitation does not help currently incarcerated inmates; however, it can help formerly incarcerated inmates on their journey to rebuild their lives and become contributing members of society.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Senate Bill 775 passed the senate and the assembly this month, on September 10, 2021. It has been passed off to Governor Newsom for final signature. If signed, this bill will help reduce the sentence of those convicted of attempted murder and manslaughter, if they meet the SB 775 criteria.

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.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The writ of habeas corpus, or the “Great Writ” as it is also known, is a powerful tool. The writ of habeas corpus calls for the review of an individual’s incarceration, requiring the government to justify why it is holding someone in custody. When properly used, a writ of habeas corpus can compel the release of an inmate. However, as powerful as the Great Writ is, it is also commonly misunderstood. These misunderstandings can often result in inmates improperly filing for habeas relief, possibly risking proper review in the future. In the post, leading California criminal appeals lawyer explains: (1) what a Writ of Habeas Corpus is; (2) the differences between state and federal writs of Habeas Corpus, and (3) the requirements of Exhausting your state legal remedies.

What Is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?

Simply put, a writ of habeas corpus calls into question the continued incarceration of an individual. Thus, aside from direct appeal relief, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is another important way for inmates to challenge their conviction or sentence. However, unlike an appeal, a writ of habeas corpus does not give a petitioner the chance to relitigate their case. Writs of habeas corpus are limited to situations in which someone is incarcerated due to an incorrect application of law or newly present circumstances justifying their release.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A Franklin hearing is a procedural mechanism that allows a person convicted of a serious crime to present evidence of their youthfulness, not to excuse their actions but to put them into context.

Franklin hearings arose out of a 2016 case involving a 16-year-old boy who shot and killed another teenager. At trial, Tyris Lamar Franklin was sentenced to a total term of 50 years to life. On appeal, Franklin argued that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. Previously, the California Supreme Court determined that juveniles found guilty of non-homicide offenses could not be sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. Franklin argued that his 50-plus year sentence qualified as such, and sought relief.

The court denied Franklin the relief he was seeking, noting that subsequent changes to California law allowed Franklin a parole hearing after 25 years. However, under existing state law, at Franklin’s eventual parole hearing, the parole board must “give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity.” Because Franklin was sentenced before these changes went into effect, he did not have an opportunity to put this evidence on the record.

Continue Reading ›
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
835 Wilshire Blvd 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 800-7664
695 Town Center Dr #1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (213) 800-7664
We serve clients throughout California, including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Los Angeles County including Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Bellflower, Burbank, Calabasas, Carson, Compton, Downey, East Los Angeles, El Monte, Glendale, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lakewood, Lancaster, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Lynwood, Norwalk, Palmdale, Pasadena, Pomona, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, South Gate, Torrance, West Covina, and Whittier. View More
Attorney Advertisement: Prior successes does not guarantee similar or like success on future matters.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Power Trial Lawyers, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design