Enhancements

The Breakdown of California’s New Sentencing Enhancement Laws

Published on: September 21, 2021 | by Barhoma Law

Below are recent changes introduced by way of a Senate Bill:

Senate Bill 180

Effective: January 1, 2018.

State and Federal Writs for Habeas Corpus, Generally Explained by Leading Criminal Appeals Lawyer

Published on: July 22, 2021 | by Barhoma Law

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.

California Lawmaker Proposed Bill 1509

Published on: April 13, 2021 | by Barhoma Law

Earlier this year, Assembly Member Alex Lee (D-San Jose) introduced AB 1509, named the Anti-Racism Sentencing Reform Act.

How Do Sentencing Enhancements Work?

A sentencing enhancement is an increase in the maximum allowable punishment that is based on a certain fact. In the case of gun-sentencing enhancements, a person convicted of certain crimes will face a significantly longer sentence because they carried a gun when they committed the offense.

How Would AB 1509 Change Gun-Sentencing Enhancements?

If AB 1509 passes, it would reduce—not eliminate—the sentencing enhancements for those convicted of certain crimes while carrying or using a gun. Under the current framework, the sentencing enhancements are as follows:

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Case That May Impact California Defendants Sentenced Under the ACCA

Published on: February 10, 2021 | by Barhoma Law

The Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA, the “Act”) is a federal law that provides mandatory sentences for those convicted of possessing a gun after having previously been convicted of a violent felony offense. The ACCA was passed back in 1984, when gun violence was plaguing the country. Federal prosecutors in California regularly use the ACCA to obtain hefty sentences against defendants, even when the prior felony offenses occurred long in the past. Often, prosecutors will use a defendant’s potential exposure under the ACCA to coerce them into accepting a plea deal.

However, since the passage of the ACCA, courts across the country have been inundated with cases, asking them to flesh out the details of what constitutes a “predicate offense” under the Act. Much of the confusion stems from the fact that every state defines its criminal laws differently, and what may be commonly considered a “violent felony,” may not have actually involved any allegations of violence. The specific definition of a “violent felony,” under the ACCA is any crime that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a case in which the defendant was charged under the ACCA. Evidently, the defendant was arrested after police found a gun in his car during a traffic top. The defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession, and proceeded to sentencing. At sentencing, the prosecution claimed that the ACCA should apply, because the defendant was previously convicted of several “violent felonies” in Tennessee.