Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Recently, the California criminal defense and appeal lawyers at Barhoma Law, P.C. watched as a client who was formally sentenced to 35 years to life in prison walked free after serving only 20 years  of that sentence in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. This marks yet another inmate who was freed as a result of the dedicated work of the lawyers at Barhoma Law, P.C.

Mr. Jones’ Story

Mr. Jones was arrested and charged with three counts of robbery, which were classified as “serious felonies” under California Penal Code § 1192.7. At the time of the alleged offenses, Mr. Jones also had two prior convictions that qualified as “strikes” under California Penal Code § 667.5(b). This meant that Mr. Jones was looking at a third strike under the California Three Strikes law. 

In the ever-changing landscape that is the California criminal justice system, the concept of pretrial diversion stands as a means of getting all charges dismissed before trial. Pretrial diversion is a legal mechanism that allows certain individuals to bypass the traditional prosecutorial process in favor of rehabilitative programs. Often times, if completed successfully, a judicial officer can review the diversion and dismiss all charges against the accused.

Designed to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment, pretrial diversion recognizes that some who are caught up in the criminal justice system are best served by allowing a resolution that avoids incarceration or a criminal record. By completing specific court-approved programs and meeting predetermined conditions, individuals can have their charges dismissed, leaving them without a criminal record related to that incident. In this way, pretrial diversion not only provides a second chance for many but also underscores California’s broader push towards a more compassionate, rehabilitative justice system. 

What Is Pretrial Diversion?

California criminal law is known across the country for its use of sentencing enhancements, which first started to become law back in the 1990s. However, since then, critics of California’s sentencing enhancements have pointed out that they have led to over-incarceration, especially among racial minorities.

Among the most notorious of all enhancements are the firearm enhancements under California Penal Code § 12022.5(a) and § 12022.53(b). For example, recent data shows that 89 percent of the 37,237 inmates who received firearm enhancement were people of color.

In recent years, California lawmakers have shown a commitment to reducing the impact of sentencing enhancements. In large part, this is based on recent studies suggesting that every year of incarceration increases an inmate’s risk of recidivating by between 4 to 7 percent. Assembly Bill 1310 is one of the most recent criminal justice reform measures to make its way through the California Legislature. In this post, we will examine the impact that AB 1310 would have if passed into law, as well as discuss who would qualify for relief and what the framework would look like to obtain a resentencing hearing.

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.

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:

Mollie Tibbets’ alleged killer has been convicted of her murder by a jury. While the jury found him guilty, he took the stand in his own case, attesting there were others involved and he was under duress. At first, the testimony seemed strange. And ultimately, the jury did not buy it, when they convicted him of her murder.

During the sentencing phase, Mollie Tibberts’ alleged killer brings a Motion for a New Trial, which is a motion to bring about a new trial based on “new and additional evidence.”

In this video, California Criminal Appeals attorney, Matthew Barhoma, founder of Barhoma Law, P.C. breaks down analysis regarding the new evidence and outlines all the ways you can use this evidence. This analysis covers even how to use “new and additional evidence” in a Writ of Habeas Corpus setting and in other post-conviction and appellate procedures.

If you were under the age of 26 at the date of the offense giving rise to a criminal conviction, you may be eligible for a Franklin Hearing that would allow you to introduce mitigating factors of youthfulness, which can in turn lead to lighter sentencing and increased Parole Board hearings. In this article, California Criminal Appeals attorneys of Barhoma Law, P.C. explains:

1. What is a Franklin Petition is and What it Does;
2. Who is Eligible for a Franklin Petition;