Evidentiary Issues

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.

California Supreme Court Orders Lower Court to Review Scott Peterson Murder Conviction

Published on: October 29, 2020 | by Barhoma Law

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court reversed the death sentence Scott Peterson received after being convicted for the 2002 murder of his wife and unborn child. In more recent news, the state’s high court ordered a trial judge to review the merits of one of Peterson’s post-conviction claims.

Specifically, the high court was concerned about Peterson’s claim that one of the jurors on his case failed to disclose that she had once feared for her unborn child when her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend harassed her. Evidently, the juror had to take out a restraining order against the woman, who was charged based on the juror’s allegations and ultimately spent a week in jail.

The juror’s failure to disclose this pertinent information, Peterson argued, consisted of “prejudicial misconduct.” In Peterson’s court filings, he notes that the juror seemed as though she “wanted” to be on the jury so that she could convict Peterson for his alleged crimes. Peterson notes that the juror’s employer did not offer to pay her for the time she would be on the jury, and that she agreed to sit on the jury even though it would take several months.

California Court Reverses Murder Conviction Based on Lower Court’s Improper Evidentiary Ruling

Published on: September 8, 2020 | by Barhoma Law

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a California homicide case discussing the defendant’s challenge to the lower court’s decision not to admit certain evidence pertaining to the victim. Ultimately, the court agreed with the defendant, reversing his conviction for murder in the second degree.

In any California criminal trial, one of the many roles of the judge is to act as a gatekeeper of the evidence. Relying on the California Evidence Code, the court will determine which evidence is admissible.

In this case, the defendant was charged for murder related to the shooting death of another man. The evidence showed that the defendant and the victim each fired shots at each other. While the victim shot 15 shots, missing each time, the defendant shot twice, killing the victim.