Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > CALIFORNIA > California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes Do you have news relating to California's Prison or Ciminal Justice System and related efforts? Post them here! Also discuss 3 Strike laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-03-2016, 05:29 PM
UnhappyCamper UnhappyCamper is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: La California
Posts: 33
Thanks: 11
Thanked 43 Times in 21 Posts
Smile Third strike case - mandatory 5 year law

hey all so I'm trying to understand the Mando 5 year strike prior law, so my husband has been in the court limbo for a while now, 3rd strike case, has an offer for 12 with half time and 21 months in county.
the judge granted the Romero and is striking both of the prior strike but he woll give him 10 years mandatory because of his prior stikes, do judges have discretion over mandatory enhancements like this one?

I'm trying to figure out how much time he will have if he has to take that deal

thanks all
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 08-03-2016, 08:09 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

Well that's confusing.

The judge probably said minimum 10 because of the past history. But the judge only has discretion to accept or reject the plea bargain technically, and most of the time a plea deal is struck without input from the judge (unless it's an open plea, but that doesn't sound like what you're describing.)

The Romero Motions striking the priors mean that the strikes will not factor into sentencing, which is why they're able to offer 12 years at half. However, if they're offering 12 at half then it doesn't sound like the current offense is a strike.....

Could you please clarify? What is the charge(s) that he's facing?

If the strikes are stricken, the 5 year mandatory penalty would not apply to my knowledge since the strike allegations have to actually be found true for application of that enhancement.

If you know, break down how the sentence is structured. Is it a straight 12 years with half time? Or is it, say, 7 years for the charge and a 5 year enhancement? (Yes, this does matter, because if a strike comes into play he'll serve, under current law, at least 50% of the full sentence, and can only get 80 or 85% behavioral credit depending on what charge he is pleading to.)

-E
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Sarge57 (01-18-2017)
  #3  
Old 08-03-2016, 08:24 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

If I am reading it 100% correctly though, and I don't think I am because I feel like I'm reading 2-3 different questions......

12 years at half would be 6 years to serve IF he receives all conduct/work credits.

21 months in County, if that's ACTUAL time (as in, it is August 3rd, if it's a true 21 months then that means he's been in since November 3rd, 2014?) would be day-for-day unless there's some disciplinary factor you're not discussing (there usually isn't one factored in) in which case he'd get credit for the equivalent of 42 months (they'll probably give these credits in days, not months, so they'll count the total number of days since he's been in, then credit those and double.) However, if there is a strike involved, I don't know if this is possible (if the current offense does turn out to be a strike he'd get 21 months' worth of days and then 15% of that since the max credit he can get on a strike offense is 15%, so approximately an additional 3 months, roughly? So about 2 years of credits, give or take...don't quote me on that, I'm doing rough mental math.)

Now, if it's 12 at half and he's getting 42 months of credit roughly....42 months is 3 1/2 years. Now before you get excited and think "oh great, that means that he's only got 2 1/2 years to go until 50%!" Not so fast...that means he'll have a balance of 8 1/2 years to serve in actual time, since 12 years of sentencing minus 3 1/2 years of credit leaves 8 1/2 years remaining on the sentence.

Now, the good news is, CDCR can't touch those 3 1/2 years of credit*. They're his. Except in the case of the asterix, which is if there's a sentencing error and they determine he wasn't eligible for half-time or for all the credits, it can be modified later, so his attorneys should make sure that there's a full understanding of the legality of the sentence (this almost caused a serious setback for Dee and I, but we managed to work it out between the Public Defender and the District Attorney and actually gained about 70 days in the process....but that's a long story, the moral of it is, make sure the deal you sign is the deal you're actually going to get.)

He'd be left with 8 1/2 years to serve if I'm understanding the information correctly. Now, if he's minimum custody, he MIGHT be out in 33% of that, or under 3 years. However, unless he gets classified that way, (and it might take some time even if he does for him to get there) then anticipate day-for-day, so 4 years, 3 months (again, roughly.) 4 years 3 months times 2 is 8 1/2 years. There might also be milestones he qualifies for which, if completed, can take up to 6 additional weeks per year, though I'm told the ability to actually get the milestones is touch-and-go.

Anyway.....I wish you and him good luck in the sentencing process.

-E
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Sarge57 (01-18-2017)
  #4  
Old 08-04-2016, 12:07 PM
UnhappyCamper UnhappyCamper is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: La California
Posts: 33
Thanks: 11
Thanked 43 Times in 21 Posts
Default

thanks guys! ok let me explain a little better

when my husband was 20 he got an accessory to a 459 in the first degree charge and went to county November 2014, so he was trying to fight it cause he never went inside the building but because he had knowledge of it Boom, 25 to life because he had 2 prior strikes for the same thing when he was 18.. he never went to prison for the first two strikes but the judge said because he has them he gets a mando 10 years - 5 years per strike so the time went up to 35 to life.. it's been a little over a year and a half since he's been in county and they offered him a deal of 12 years, 2 years for the low term charge and a mando 10 years for the enhanced strike priors. he also said he will get a half time and he won't classify it as a violent offenses, my first question was since the judge granted the Romero how came they still count the strike priors and then my second question which thank you btw was how much actual time will he have left

thanks all, and thanks for the advice with talking to the lawyer about the prison time, she never wants to answer questions on prison things smh
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-04-2016, 12:55 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

This sounds like a PC 667.5 issue. I'd post up about it right now but a bit busy today. If nobody else talks about it before I can get a little more time I'll post it up. It is strange though that he would strike the strikes but then impose those enhancements and I'll explain why in a bit. But yes that is the time he would be looking at if it is indeed 50%....
-E
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-04-2016, 05:25 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnhappyCamper View Post
thanks guys! ok let me explain a little better

when my husband was 20 he got an accessory to a 459 in the first degree charge and went to county November 2014, so he was trying to fight it cause he never went inside the building but because he had knowledge of it Boom, 25 to life because he had 2 prior strikes for the same thing when he was 18.. he never went to prison for the first two strikes but the judge said because he has them he gets a mando 10 years - 5 years per strike so the time went up to 35 to life.. it's been a little over a year and a half since he's been in county and they offered him a deal of 12 years, 2 years for the low term charge and a mando 10 years for the enhanced strike priors. he also said he will get a half time and he won't classify it as a violent offenses, my first question was since the judge granted the Romero how came they still count the strike priors and then my second question which thank you btw was how much actual time will he have left

thanks all, and thanks for the advice with talking to the lawyer about the prison time, she never wants to answer questions on prison things smh
Okay, since I haven't seen anyone else answered....I'm still confused here about the sentencing. The part that's most confusing to me is why they would apply prison prior enhancements. If he did not actually serve time in a state prison (for example if he did County Jail and probation time) then I am unclear as to why he would get those enhancements now.

Here is a link to the penal code I am referring to, which I'm assuming comes into play here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=667.5

The other thing that might come into play here is if his first two strikes involve some sort of joint suspension and he's now facing those extra years due to unsuspension of those sentences.....

As for half time....the only way he can get half time is if the current charge is not a strike. As long as they aren't considering the current charge a strike, he'll get half time. Otherwise he's looking at 85%. Being an accessory to a first degree PC 459 is, to my knowledge, the same as actually committing it in the eyes of the law, and first degree PC 459 is a strike. So I'm confused as to how half time comes into play unless they're reducing his charge to something else or altering his charge to be second degree or something along those lines.

If it is a strike then he's got 21 months down, figure 15% of that means he'll get an extra 3ish months credit, leaves about 10 years to serve and he'll serve minimum 8 1/2 of those if it is, in fact, treated as a strike.

One of my friends thoughts she was getting a deal for 12 at 50% and it turned out to be 12 at 85%. Just brace yourself, because unless they're taking the 459 off the table and offering him a different charge (for example, grand theft,) that is a strike and even if he isn't getting doubled-up or otherwise enhanced, he will serve most of that time.

Good luck, please let us know how his sentencing goes.

-E
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Sarge57 (01-18-2017)
  #7  
Old 08-05-2016, 11:52 AM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

Okay, I stand a bit corrected. This article is a little old (Pre-Prop 36) but it explains the five year enhancement on new "serious" felonies.

Article is here: http://www.charlescarbone.com/pdf/Se...nt_Article.pdf

Page 2 is where this text appears:

"iv. How to avoid a three-strike sentence if you have a prior strike.
Courts have the power to “strike the strike.” This means they can choose to ignore prior strikes when they sentence for new crimes. (1385(a) and People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal. 4th 497 (1996).) Courts can ignore one prior strike, or they can ignore all prior strikes and sentence the defendant entirely outside of the three-strikes law. There is one exception though. The 5-year enhancement always applies to a serious felony if the defendant has a prior strike. (PC 1385(b).)"

I guess striking the strike does not necessarily eliminate the ability of the judge to still impose the 5 year enhancement. Reading the article though what I am not clear on is if it's 5 years per count or 5 years total (sex offenders it's clear that it's per count.). This is something his attorney is going to have to answer.

Also I am not sure that he can truly be sentenced to half time. A serious felony is still a strike, so unless there's another provision of law I am missing (possible, but in 5+ years I have never heard of it,) he's going to serve 85%, not half time. 459 in the first degree, even as an accessory, is a strike count.

Good luck. When is his next court date?

-E
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas

Last edited by missingdee; 08-05-2016 at 11:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (08-05-2016), Sarge57 (01-18-2017)
  #8  
Old 08-05-2016, 01:33 PM
UnhappyCamper UnhappyCamper is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: La California
Posts: 33
Thanks: 11
Thanked 43 Times in 21 Posts
Default thanks!!!

you guys are Life Savers man!!

ok i get it now, its interesting the judge has discretion but can't touch enhancements, but you explained it better then the lawyer. his next court date is September 2nd and he's probably going to take a deal because his judge is retiring that week and he's kinda nervous with getting a new one on this almost two year old case

we were told 12 with half and another strike is the lowest possible because of the enhancements. although serious, none of his strikes were violent, his age and his history were the grounds that they granted the Romero motion on, give him half time.

so it looks like sentencing time is coming up and he's just ready to get it over with but I'm glad I asked. he was saying 50% is 33% now but I don't think he will be a low custody inmate..

once again thank u!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-05-2016, 04:39 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,334
Thanks: 1,545
Thanked 1,644 Times in 810 Posts
Default

Your husband has two prior convictions for 459 P.C The prosecutor has filed a 667 charge on to his current charge. Even through the strikes have been removed the conviction that stand are for a serous felonies I will put section 667 P.C below with sections in bold to help you see what is going on . Any other questions feel free to ask

TITLE 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS [654 - 678] ( Title 16 enacted 1872. )
667. (a) (1) In compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 1385, any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively.

(2) This subdivision shall not be applied when the punishment imposed under other provisions of law would result in a longer term of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or commitment for this subdivision to apply.

(3) The Legislature may increase the length of the enhancement of sentence provided in this subdivision by a statute passed by majority vote of each house thereof.

(4) As used in this subdivision, “serious felony” means a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(5) This subdivision shall not apply to a person convicted of selling, furnishing, administering, or giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any methamphetamine-related drug or any precursors of methamphetamine unless the prior conviction was for a serious felony described in subparagraph (24) of subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felony offenses.

(c) Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following:

(1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction.

(2) Probation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense.


(3) The length of time between the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction and the current felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of sentence.


(4) There shall not be a commitment to any other facility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 3050) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(5) The total amount of credits awarded pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison.

(6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to subdivision (e).

(7) If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.

(8) Any sentence imposed pursuant to subdivision (e) will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law.

(d) Notwithstanding any other law and for the purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, a prior conviction of a serious and/or violent felony shall be defined as:

(1) Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior felony conviction for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction and is not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the following dispositions shall affect the determination that a prior conviction is a prior felony for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive:

(A) The suspension of imposition of judgment or sentence.

(B) The stay of execution of sentence.

(C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony.

(D) The commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison.

(2) A prior conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison shall constitute a prior conviction of a particular serious and/or violent felony if the prior conviction in the other jurisdiction is for an offense that includes all of the elements of a particular violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or serious felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if:

(A) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time he or she committed the prior offense.

(B) The prior offense is listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or described in paragraph (1) or (2) as a serious and/or violent felony.

(C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law.

(D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court within the meaning of Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because the person committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(e) For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has one or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions:

(1) If a defendant has one prior serious and/or violent felony conviction as defined in subdivision (d) that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction.

(2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), if a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greatest of:

(i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions.

(ii) Imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years.

(iii) The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046.

(B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison.

(C) If a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 that have been pled and proved, and the current offense is not a serious or violent felony as defined in subdivision (d), the defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) unless the prosecution pleads and proves any of the following:

(i) The current offense is a controlled substance charge, in which an allegation under Section 11370.4 or 11379.8 of the Health and Safety Code was admitted or found true.

(ii) The current offense is a felony sex offense, defined in subdivision (d) of Section 261.5 or Section 262, or any felony offense that results in mandatory registration as a sex offender pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290 except for violations of Sections 266 and 285, paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (e) of Section 286, paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (e) of Section 288a, Section 311.11, and Section 314.

(iii) During the commission of the current offense, the defendant used a firearm, was armed with a firearm or deadly weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person.

(iv) The defendant suffered a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction, as defined in subdivision (d) of this section, for any of the following felonies:

(I) A “sexually violent offense” as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(II) Oral copulation with a child who is under 14 years of age, and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she as defined by Section 288a, sodomy with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than he or she as defined by Section 286, or sexual penetration with another person who is under 14 years of age, and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she, as defined by Section 289.

(III) A lewd or lascivious act involving a child under 14 years of age, in violation of Section 288.

(IV) Any homicide offense, including any attempted homicide offense, defined in Sections 187 to 191.5, inclusive.

(V) Solicitation to commit murder as defined in Section 653f.

(VI) Assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or firefighter, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 245.

(VII) Possession of a weapon of mass destruction, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 11418.

(VIII) Any serious and/or violent felony offense punishable in California by life imprisonment or death.

(f) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has one or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior serious and/or violent felony conviction except as provided in paragraph (2).

(2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation. Nothing in this section shall be read to alter a court’s authority under Section 1385.

(g) Prior serious and/or violent felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7. The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior felony serious and/or violent convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).

(h) All references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, are to statutes as they existed on November 7, 2012.

(i) If any provision of subdivisions (b) to (h), inclusive, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable.

(j) The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.
(Amended November 6, 2012, by initiative Proposition 36, Sec. 2. Note: This section was added on June 8, 1982, by initiative Prop. 8.)
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
missingdee (08-06-2016), Sarge57 (01-18-2017)
  #10  
Old 08-05-2016, 04:47 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,334
Thanks: 1,545
Thanked 1,644 Times in 810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missingdee View Post
Okay, I stand a bit corrected. This article is a little old (Pre-Prop 36) but it explains the five year enhancement on new "serious" felonies.

Article is here: http://www.charlescarbone.com/pdf/Se...nt_Article.pdf

Page 2 is where this text appears:

"iv. How to avoid a three-strike sentence if you have a prior strike.
Courts have the power to “strike the strike.” This means they can choose to ignore prior strikes when they sentence for new crimes. (1385(a) and People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal. 4th 497 (1996).) Courts can ignore one prior strike, or they can ignore all prior strikes and sentence the defendant entirely outside of the three-strikes law. There is one exception though. The 5-year enhancement always applies to a serious felony if the defendant has a prior strike. (PC 1385(b).)"

I guess striking the strike does not necessarily eliminate the ability of the judge to still impose the 5 year enhancement. Reading the article though what I am not clear on is if it's 5 years per count or 5 years total (sex offenders it's clear that it's per count.). This is something his attorney is going to have to answer.

Also I am not sure that he can truly be sentenced to half time. A serious felony is still a strike, so unless there's another provision of law I am missing (possible, but in 5+ years I have never heard of it,) he's going to serve 85%, not half time. 459 in the first degree, even as an accessory, is a strike count.

Good luck. When is his next court date?

-E

You link is very good reading material. Written where the average person can understand what is going on not a bunch of lawyer talk thanks
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help

Last edited by Patrickj; 08-05-2016 at 05:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
missingdee (08-06-2016), Sarge57 (01-18-2017)
  #11  
Old 08-06-2016, 03:38 PM
UnhappyCamper UnhappyCamper is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: La California
Posts: 33
Thanks: 11
Thanked 43 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
You link is very good reading material. Written where the average person can understand what is going on not a bunch of lawyer talk thanks
I agree. Very helpful.

& these laws are unreal.... but I understand what's going on and it seems like 12 is the best that it's going to be, the faster he pleas the faster he can get out of county.

does anyone know if the prop 57 proposal will effect and of the three strikers?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to UnhappyCamper For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (08-06-2016)
  #12  
Old 08-07-2016, 04:53 AM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnhappyCamper View Post
I agree. Very helpful.

& these laws are unreal.... but I understand what's going on and it seems like 12 is the best that it's going to be, the faster he pleas the faster he can get out of county.

does anyone know if the prop 57 proposal will effect and of the three strikers?
Still waiting to see the finalized ballot text, but a preliminary read indicates that when 100% of the base sentence is served that parole may be considered (enhancements would not typically count as being a part of the base sentence.).

What I am not as clear on is whether or not this particular enhancement qualifies, or if it does, whether the base term is considered served when he takes his sentence and gets his 21 months plus credits which would put him right around 2 years, or if that 2 year base for the purposes of the proposition would start when he enters the state prison system.

I am also not confident that 57 will pass. There are some things about it I am a little frightened by (it's an attempt to remove federal oversight which is one of the very few checks in place against CDCR, it would give CDCR almost unlimited power to set rules about credits which could be as potentially negative as it would seem to be potentially positive, and I think it is ridiculous that they attached it to a, frankly, unrelated juvenile bill....). Haven't seen polls on it yet, but whereas a lot of my friends were enthusiastic about passing Prop 47, far fewer feel that way about 57. So I honestly wouldn't count on 57 just yet.....we'll see closer to the election how things break, but I highly suspect the tough on crime crowd is going to be a little more adamantly against this after 47 passed.....

-E
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-11-2016, 02:11 PM
sarita88 sarita88 is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 106
Thanks: 1
Thanked 59 Times in 44 Posts
Default

The five year priors (Penal Code section 667(a)) are mandatory meaning the judge cannot strike them. The judge has the discretion to strike the strike allegations under Romero. It sounds like he is being offered a good deal.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sarita88 For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (08-11-2016)
  #14  
Old 08-15-2016, 03:01 AM
UnhappyCamper UnhappyCamper is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: La California
Posts: 33
Thanks: 11
Thanked 43 Times in 21 Posts
Default

hey sarita! so we r thinking this is the best it's going to get too and at this point knowing a release date brings more peace than going through this court date, waiting process. people on this site can be more helpful on the laws then ppl in the court room.

& MissingDee Man! these props always have me happy at first then as it gets closer to election im just as Leary. so I was familiar with prop 57 before it had a prop number, it still was like the California rehabilitation act or something like that and I've been following it for the past 2 years almost and I still have no idea what the actual prop will include cause they have changed it so many times so far, that would be great if the enhancements are not mandatory just because more time doesn't fix a thing... but this prob worries me now that you mention cdcr gaining full control.
hopefully they are still on this empty the prisons bidge and this works out for some families... but we will see in a few months by that time my husband will be sentenced and probably in reception.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to UnhappyCamper For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (08-15-2016)
  #15  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:07 PM
UnhappyCamper UnhappyCamper is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: La California
Posts: 33
Thanks: 11
Thanked 43 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Hey guys to update! Still waiting for sentencing, The judge waited until after the elections to have him sentenced.. but I'm pretty sure prop 57 applies to him! Not sure if he has to go to prison in order for it to take effect or if at sentencing it will come up.. he's served his time already any extra time he has is enchancements for a NV. (I voted for 57 im happy it passed..!!) any other strikers coming home?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-24-2016, 07:33 PM
stupidcool's Avatar
stupidcool stupidcool is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: IN USA
Posts: 34
Thanks: 10
Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
Default

It's looking good for my 3x guy!!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-2016, 10:32 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnhappyCamper View Post
Hey guys to update! Still waiting for sentencing, The judge waited until after the elections to have him sentenced.. but I'm pretty sure prop 57 applies to him! Not sure if he has to go to prison in order for it to take effect or if at sentencing it will come up.. he's served his time already any extra time he has is enchancements for a NV. (I voted for 57 im happy it passed..!!) any other strikers coming home?
Unless they elect to drop the enhancements at sentencing he will still go to prison. The parole board will need to review his case to determine eligibility. A LOT of things about 57 are undecided and undetermined, including the criteria for parole release. The judge cannot declare him released solely based on 57 passing. He is parole-eligible if the base sentence is served, but chances are he will have to go to reception, at minimum, and even then the parole board may say he's eligible to be released early but give criteria he would have to meet in order to obtain release.

Long story short...we just don't know. A lot of people have hope. How realistic that hope is....probably won't be known for some time still.

57 is a bit deceptive in terms of how the parole process will work since what has been passed is parole consideration, not automatic eligibility. We have been discussing it here.
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
miamac (11-24-2016), Sarianna (11-25-2016)
  #18  
Old 11-24-2016, 10:46 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupidcool View Post
It's looking good for my 3x guy!!
Actually, that's disputable. Remember that those convicted of violent offenses are not eligible for early parole under 57. Here's the issue, even if his third strike was not violent, the only reference we have as to what counts as a "violent felony" is classified under California Penal Code 667.5(c)

Line 7 reads:

(7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life.

Since a third strike is punishable in the state prison by a period of 25 to life, it could be argued that regardless of whether the third strike is violent or not, it is excluded under 667.5(c).

I linked to the thread where we're talking about 57 in my previous post if you'd like to see what is actually being discussed. There's a lot of rumors and mis-information about the proposition. The reality is, we won't know if it helps non-violent third strikers until CDCR starts revealing their intended rules and the public comments on it. Even at that, pre-existing laws like the Three Strikes Law, which remain unchanged by 57, are considered existing law which 57 in and of itself cannot change as far as we can tell.

I don't discourage optimism and hope. But I also encourage trying to not expect too much until CDCR actually says what they're going to do as far as early release. It's in their hands right now, and a public commentary period will follow once they reveal what their intentions are. That said, 57 passing does not repeal the Three Strikes Law and third strikers might not wind up benefitting from it. Time will tell....
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Sarianna (11-25-2016)
  #19  
Old 11-25-2016, 04:02 AM
UnhappyCamper UnhappyCamper is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: La California
Posts: 33
Thanks: 11
Thanked 43 Times in 21 Posts
Default

I don't worry about the qualifications... I'm sure he will quality cause he is nvo and stays outta drama and has been in edu programs in country the whole 2 years so I doubt he would switch up if given an opportunity to get out sooner..
He plead out to a bs 459 he wasn't present someone other than his prints were found but he Because of association charges he plead out, because of his age and because he graduated programs in county his judge struck 2 strikes under a Romero and said he didn't think it was just giving him 35 to life given the circumstancese, how ever due to the mandatory laws he couldn't give him any less time than 2 years + enchancements. He scheduled his next court date for Feb.
Last time we went to court was in Sept when he told the lawyer he would accept the plea
We assume reception is after the last court date unless county jail is taken into consideration..
either way he has a job when he comes home he has a home and our kids to come home too, if anything I want to get ready for the next stages, during county he has 4 years time seved, 2 actual (he got sentenced to 2 years any additional is enchancents)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-27-2016, 12:30 AM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 2,953
Thanked 3,924 Times in 1,661 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnhappyCamper View Post
I don't worry about the qualifications... I'm sure he will quality cause he is nvo and stays outta drama and has been in edu programs in country the whole 2 years so I doubt he would switch up if given an opportunity to get out sooner..
He plead out to a bs 459 he wasn't present someone other than his prints were found but he Because of association charges he plead out, because of his age and because he graduated programs in county his judge struck 2 strikes under a Romero and said he didn't think it was just giving him 35 to life given the circumstancese, how ever due to the mandatory laws he couldn't give him any less time than 2 years + enchancements. He scheduled his next court date for Feb.
Last time we went to court was in Sept when he told the lawyer he would accept the plea
We assume reception is after the last court date unless county jail is taken into consideration..
either way he has a job when he comes home he has a home and our kids to come home too, if anything I want to get ready for the next stages, during county he has 4 years time seved, 2 actual (he got sentenced to 2 years any additional is enchancents)
Reception occurs at the state prison.

Nothing in 57 will actually stop him from going to prison. 57 MIGHT make him eligible for parole after he arrives there. However the board will have to approve him.

I hope for his sake that 57 will benefit him and allow him to get home very soon. However, there is a lot of misinformation and one of those things is that enhancements are eliminated. This is not exactly true.
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Sarge57 (01-18-2017), Sarianna (11-27-2016)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help on DV case against BF with prev Strike in CA!! LaurieMRJ California Legal Help 2 04-30-2016 06:41 PM
Looking for chico states law professors who will look at a 3 strike case savagebreed Prison & Criminal Legal Help! 3 07-28-2010 11:07 PM
Pam Martinez: 3 Strike Law Case (CA Attorney General's 2M Price Tag) Kathy California General Prison Talk 4 03-20-2004 12:51 PM
Hearing delayed in third-strike case sunkissed California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes 0 12-22-2003 11:22 AM
case manger is saying mandatory neischellef PTO Lounge 2 09-26-2003 06:01 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:35 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics