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






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > CALIFORNIA > California Legal Help
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

California Legal Help Topics, Discussions and Information relating to Legal Information specific to the State of California. This information is *NOT PROFESSIONAL* and should always be fact-checked!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-18-2017, 08:38 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,272
Thanks: 1,417
Thanked 1,519 Times in 757 Posts
Default SB620 changes to the 10,20, life

S.B 260 An act to amend Sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 of the Penal Code, relating to firearms( proposed changes)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201720180SB620 (click on today's law as amended for the current version )
How the current section of the law reads that is in effect
Penal Code Section 12022.5 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...5.&lawCode=PEN

Penal Code Section12022.53
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...3.&lawCode=PEN
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help

Last edited by Patrickj; 05-18-2017 at 08:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-19-2017), qwerty (05-19-2017)
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 05-19-2017, 03:40 PM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 759
Thanks: 111
Thanked 309 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Very interesting. I read through it and looks like it would only be at time of sentencing or resentencing correct? So it wouldn't do anything for the ones already sentenced with a gun enhancement? Or am I reading it wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-19-2017, 05:11 PM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 759
Thanks: 111
Thanked 309 Times in 207 Posts
Default

It would remove it?? Omg.. I'm really trying not to get to excited over here haha.

Would it matter if they have a gang enhancement as well?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
Delete
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-19-2017, 05:18 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 8,003
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 13,387 Times in 5,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
It would remove it?? Omg.. I'm really trying not to get to excited over here haha.

Would it matter if they have a gang enhancement as well?
From what I can see this only pertains to newly sentenced or resentencing and changes the enhancement from a required enhancement to an allowable strike of the enhancement according to the courts discretion.

The court may, in the interest of justice and at the time of sentencing, strike an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by this section. The authority provided by this subdivision applies to any resentencing that may occur pursuant to any other law.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-19-2017, 05:23 PM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 759
Thanks: 111
Thanked 309 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
From what I can see this only pertains to newly sentenced or resentencing and changes the enhancement from a required enhancement to an allowable strike of the enhancement according to the courts discretion.

The court may, in the interest of justice and at the time of sentencing, strike an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by this section. The authority provided by this subdivision applies to any resentencing that may occur pursuant to any other law.
I saw that part too that's why I raised the question.

Man, I would hire a lawyer asap to attempt to get my husband resentenced (if that's even possible in his case lol) He received 20 years of enhancements on a 5 year charge. He is already on enhancement time so if we could knock one off that would be a hugeee blessing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2017, 05:33 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 8,003
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 13,387 Times in 5,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
I saw that part too that's why I raised the question.

Man, I would hire a lawyer asap to attempt to get my husband resentenced (if that's even possible in his case lol) He received 20 years of enhancements on a 5 year charge. He is already on enhancement time so if we could knock one off that would be a hugeee blessing.
It seems like it's opening the door but it's not made it clear what criteria would incentivize a judge to not use the ehancement.

We're in a similar boat-- 7 years on the primary charge, 30 years of enhancement (gang and gun). But, his charge is attempted murder based on a witness statement that he fired a gun (no gun found). If they remove the enhancement, they would have to question whether a gun was even present because the witness statement was the evidence. Wouldn't that upend the whole case? He's already done 15+ years on this.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
marie8899 (09-30-2017)
  #7  
Old 05-19-2017, 05:40 PM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 759
Thanks: 111
Thanked 309 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
It seems like it's opening the door but it's not made it clear what criteria would incentivize a judge to not use the ehancement.

We're in a similar boat-- 7 years on the primary charge, 30 years of enhancement (gang and gun). But, his charge is attempted murder based on a witness statement that he fired a gun (no gun found). If they remove the enhancement, they would have to question whether a gun was even present because the witness statement was the evidence. Wouldn't that upend the whole case? He's already done 15+ years on this.
It definitely opens the door. This is the ONLY real talk I've heard on tackling any kind of enhancement directly (rather than something like Prop 57 and the non-violent parole factors).

Yes, similar boat. Mine has been down 8 going on 9 (same enhancements-gang and gun) for a 211 (first strike and no special circumstances).

Definitely gives me hope.

Question, have you ever heard when more than one enhancement is applied (such our husbands cases) the judge can only apply one at 100% (10 years for example) and any other enhancement thereafter is only a percentage?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-19-2017, 06:07 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 8,003
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 13,387 Times in 5,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
Question, have you ever heard when more than one enhancement is applied (such our husbands cases) the judge can only apply one at 100% (10 years for example) and any other enhancement thereafter is only a percentage?
No, I haven't heard that. I have seen where enhancements have been challenged as inherent to the crime and therefor in excess of the charge. But that was a hard-fought win and not something that happens very often.

Enhancements border on unconstitutional in my opinion. But that's been argued and failed, as well. Guess we'll have to watch this one closely.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
trueblue310 (05-19-2017)
  #9  
Old 05-19-2017, 06:56 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 388
Thanks: 659
Thanked 750 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Quick thoughts as I'm on my cellphone and all thumbs.

Wording says strike the enhancement in the interest of Justice. The judge would have that power and have to defend it on that basis. Incumbent on the accused to give the judge that ammunition. I doubt judges will be cavalier about doing this.

And not retroactive but applies to a resentencing. Need to find a legal reason to get that hearing. That will be a challenge. Something to give hard thought to. How to make the case for a resentencing hearing???
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (05-19-2017)
  #10  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:10 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 8,003
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 13,387 Times in 5,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Quick thoughts as I'm on my cellphone and all thumbs.

Wording says strike the enhancement in the interest of Justice. The judge would have that power and have to defend it on that basis. Incumbent on the accused to give the judge that ammunition. I doubt judges will be cavalier about doing this.

And not retroactive but applies to a resentencing. Need to find a legal reason to get that hearing. That will be a challenge. Something to give hard thought to. How to make the case for a resentencing hearing???
My thoughts, exactly. It seems on par with the movement toward less blanketed approaches in the future (a la 57 expansion of opportunity, no guarantee but the option to pursue based on rehab efforts). In our case, I think we would be hard pressed to pursue resentencing. In California, in particular, the gang affiliation feels like the final straw that validates the rest of his charges. Outside of the witness, his affiliation was hammered harder than anything else. He can't change that-- criminal act or no.

We're still looking better under SB261 than anything else brought forward thus far. And we're grateful. But this is an interesting shift and I do hope it goes in a positive direction.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:18 PM
rnsgaig rnsgaig is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: California
Posts: 366
Thanks: 522
Thanked 520 Times in 236 Posts
Default

The harsh gun enhancement has never made sense to me. My LO got 2 years for 211, 10 years for the gun enhancement. If he had used a knife, he would have gotten a 1 year enhancement. I don't think the difference between a gun and a knife should be 9 years. But trying to look at it objectively, 2 years seems insufficient for 211, even a first offense. Giving judges too much discretion usually ends up with huge racial disparities in sentencing so I have no idea what the answer is. Maybe eliminating the enhancement and increasing the sentence for certain crimes.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-21-2017, 08:15 AM
Nica's Avatar
Nica Nica is offline
Soy Su Mil~Colores ❤️
 

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: His❤️
Posts: 2,188
Thanks: 25
Thanked 1,222 Times in 759 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
S.B 260 An act to amend Sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 of the Penal Code, relating to firearms( proposed changes)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201720180SB620 (click on today's law as amended for the current version )
How the current section of the law reads that is in effect
Penal Code Section 12022.5 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...5.&lawCode=PEN

Penal Code Section12022.53
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...3.&lawCode=PEN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
Delete

Please forgive me if it's been answered. I'm trying to figure out the interpretation. If you were charged and the Judge imposed a gun enhancement of 10, at the time of sentencing, this bill may eliminate that?. .
__________________
WE never stop Believin' as long as we have God, Hope, Faith, & each other...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-21-2017, 12:35 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 8,003
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 13,387 Times in 5,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nica View Post
Please forgive me if it's been answered. I'm trying to figure out the interpretation. If you were charged and the Judge imposed a gun enhancement of 10, at the time of sentencing, this bill may eliminate that?. .
I think it just gives the court, in future and resentencing of cases, the option to not impose an enhancement rather than a requirement.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-22-2017), Patrickj (05-21-2017)
  #14  
Old 05-21-2017, 01:36 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,272
Thanks: 1,417
Thanked 1,519 Times in 757 Posts
Default

If this bill should it pass and become law the judge will have the say if 10,20,life will be applied. !0, 20, life is usually also applied with other enhancements
I don't see a judge giving out the Street Terrorist Act then not applying the 10,20 life also
As far as getting any help for those already sentenced by 10,20, life. Not many will be helped unless they can find legal reason to challenge their present sentencing other then 10,20,life issues. Remember this bill still must go to the Assembly for approval before it reaches the Governor, to sign.
According to sources this Bill in the Assembly may be amended or another section from another Bill added.
This Bill may get approved, but watch out the get tough on crime people are going to fight this Bill even as small as the changes maybe. Next year is election year. The tough on crime people will be raising there heads to fight any thing that pertains to sentencing reform.
Prop 47, has up set a lot of the tough on crime people. We are seeing what Prop. 47 is doing now. Most people do not like what is happening with the out come of Prop.47. If a certain party can get there crap together and grab seats in the Assembly, and the State Senate. Tough on crime will be back in play once again. Bottom line is if we get a little reform we could loose more then we gain come election time Just my
__________________
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:
gvalliant (05-22-2017), miamac (05-21-2017)
  #15  
Old 05-21-2017, 07:28 PM
Nica's Avatar
Nica Nica is offline
Soy Su Mil~Colores ❤️
 

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: His❤️
Posts: 2,188
Thanks: 25
Thanked 1,222 Times in 759 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
I think it just gives the court, in future and resentencing of cases, the option to not impose an enhancement rather than a requirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
If this bill should it pass and become law the judge will have the say if 10,20,life will be applied. !0, 20, life is usually also applied with other enhancements
I don't see a judge giving out the Street Terrorist Act then not applying the 10,20 life also
As far as getting any help for those already sentenced by 10,20, life. Not many will be helped unless they can find legal reason to challenge their present sentencing other then 10,20,life issues. Remember this bill still must go to the Assembly for approval before it reaches the Governor, to sign.
According to sources this Bill in the Assembly may be amended or another section from another Bill added.
This Bill may get approved, but watch out the get tough on crime people are going to fight this Bill even as small as the changes maybe. Next year is election year. The tough on crime people will be raising there heads to fight any thing that pertains to sentencing reform.
Prop 47, has up set a lot of the tough on crime people. We are seeing what Prop. 47 is doing now. Most people do not like what is happening with the out come of Prop.47. If a certain party can get there crap together and grab seats in the Assembly, and the State Senate. Tough on crime will be back in play once again. Bottom line is if we get a little reform we could loose more then we gain come election time Just my

THANK YOU BOTH! for the clarification.
__________________
WE never stop Believin' as long as we have God, Hope, Faith, & each other...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Nica For This Useful Post:
miamac (05-21-2017)
  #16  
Old 05-22-2017, 08:52 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 388
Thanks: 659
Thanked 750 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
As far as getting any help for those already sentenced by 10,20, life. Not many will be helped unless they can find legal reason to challenge their present sentencing other then 10,20,life issues.
100% agree with that. Potential it has is to primarily benefit new cases.

The author deliberately added this statement:

"The authority provided by this subdivision applies to any resentencing that may occur pursuant to any other law."

That means if you are already sentenced with the enhancement and request a resentencing hearing based on this law, the answer unfortunately is no.

You must find other law that provides a legal basis and win a resentencing hearing on that basis. If you can successfully do that, this law might help. It does not eliminate anything for anybody. Once in court it provides opportunity to convince the judge it is in the subjective "interest of justice" to strike the enhancement.

It at least transfers some authority from a DA to a judge.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (05-22-2017), Patrickj (09-16-2017)
  #17  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:59 AM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 759
Thanks: 111
Thanked 309 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Looks like SB 620 has been amended again and now added "dismiss" to the wording. it still says time of resentencing but my husband said he was in the law library and heard they are trying to make it apply to inmates already incarcerated for gun enhancements.

As we all know "heard" is not the best source of information but with the added word of "dismiss" I have a little hope.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to trueblue310 For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (06-23-2017)
  #18  
Old 06-23-2017, 02:02 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,272
Thanks: 1,417
Thanked 1,519 Times in 757 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
Looks like SB 620 has been amended again and now added "dismiss" to the wording. it still says time of resentencing but my husband said he was in the law library and heard they are trying to make it apply to inmates already incarcerated for gun enhancements.

As we all know "heard" is not the best source of information but with the added word of "dismiss" I have a little hope.
The word "Dismiss is written this way in the law this way no new changes

court may, in the interest of justice pursuant to Section 1385 and at the time of sentencing, strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by this section. The authority provided by this subdivision applies to any resentencing that may occur pursuant to any other law.

You can go here
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201720180SB620 then click Today's law as amended to get any changes in the law
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (06-23-2017)
  #19  
Old 06-23-2017, 02:24 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 388
Thanks: 659
Thanked 750 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
Looks like SB 620 has been amended again and now added "dismiss" to the wording. it still says time of resentencing but my husband said he was in the law library and heard they are trying to make it apply to inmates already incarcerated for gun enhancements.

As we all know "heard" is not the best source of information but with the added word of "dismiss" I have a little hope.
Thanks.

It would be nice if that happened. If it is limited to re-sentencing I hope that is an easier task than obtaining new trial, at least one would think. Maybe some of the smart legal people on the site can comment on in's and out's of re-sentencing.

News about this is getting out. This opinion piece was in the Orange County Register yesterday. Anti SB620, anti 57, anti everything. This guy John Phillips is an idiot, he writes there once a week or so. His opinion was so full of factual error, I wrote a letter to the editor. I don't know if they'll publish what I sent. I said everything but explicitly came out and state him a moron, albeit that was my unmistakable message.

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/06/22...ot-the-gunman/

Anyway, this states Republicans and NRA are organizing to mount an opposition. We need to be ready.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
Tatiana23 (08-01-2017)
  #20  
Old 07-10-2017, 08:39 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 388
Thanks: 659
Thanked 750 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Today full Assembly had a 3rd reading and vote on SB620. It needed 41 votes of 80 members to pass. First vote was 33 to 31. They broke for about 20 minutes and tried again. Final vote was 34 to 32. They needed 7 more for a pass. Several members abstained. Assemblywoman Weber was lead advocate. One or two Republican Assembly members gave rough speeches in opposition. The bill is set for reconsideration. I don't know what comes next. Members here who understand the process can maybe comment on what typically happens with a reconsideration for a bill.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
callmelioness (07-15-2017), KobeDeuce (07-11-2017)
  #21  
Old 09-15-2017, 03:57 PM
Mari808 Mari808 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default Sb 620 passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Today full Assembly had a 3rd reading and vote on SB620. It needed 41 votes of 80 members to pass. First vote was 33 to 31. They broke for about 20 minutes and tried again. Final vote was 34 to 32. They needed 7 more for a pass. Several members abstained. Assemblywoman Weber was lead advocate. One or two Republican Assembly members gave rough speeches in opposition. The bill is set for reconsideration. I don't know what comes next. Members here who understand the process can maybe comment on what typically happens with a reconsideration for a bill.
If you haven't heard, SB 620 passed Assemble on 9/12/17 & the Senate 9/13/17. Bill is on the way to governors office for signature. I called the capital for for information. Governor has one month to sign the bill. They are currently just focusing on governor signing it, not sure if it's going to be retroactive. They left that out for open into interpretation. That could be good for filing a motion for resentencing. We will have to wait & see. Waiting is hard part.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mari808 For This Useful Post:
KobeDeuce (09-15-2017), Patrickj (09-16-2017)
  #22  
Old 09-16-2017, 08:13 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,272
Thanks: 1,417
Thanked 1,519 Times in 757 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mari808 View Post
If you haven't heard, SB 620 passed Assemble on 9/12/17 & the Senate 9/13/17. Bill is on the way to governors office for signature. I called the capital for for information. Governor has one month to sign the bill. They are currently just focusing on governor signing it, not sure if it's going to be retroactive. They left that out for open into interpretation. That could be good for filing a motion for resentencing. We will have to wait & see. Waiting is hard part.
For resentencing under the changes proposed in SB620 You are going to need a different approach other than just the changes in Section 12022.5 of the Penal Code If you are already sentenced. There needs to be other error some where else in the sentencing , or during trial . So that new sentencing would be in order
These changes will be good but as far as challenging your sentence only do to the changes in P.C.12022.5 isn't going to be accepted by the courts.
12022.5.(c) The court may, in the interest of justice pursuant to Section 1385 and at the time of sentencing, strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by this section. The authority provided by this subdivision applies to any resentencing that may occur pursuant to any other law.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-24-2017, 04:46 PM
Niner1 Niner1 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: ca, usa
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default Contact governor brown

You can actually write directly about whatever bill you want signed by the Governor.

Please do the following:

1) Go here govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/
2) Select "Have Comment", fill out information, and then under Please choose your subject, select "SB00620:\Firearms: crimes: enhancements"
3) Select Pro on the next page and then type your email.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-26-2017, 02:00 PM
vpaulsmithjr vpaulsmithjr is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Retro

Any thoughts on retro action if it is on record that the sentencing judge did in fact ask to drop the enhancements, only to have it appealed by the DA? So in this case it wouldn't be speculation of what the judge might've wanted... the judge is on record asking for this.
Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-30-2017, 12:36 PM
marie8899 marie8899 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California, U.S.A.
Posts: 930
Thanks: 3,385
Thanked 1,001 Times in 470 Posts
Default California SB620 passed both houses

I just received information that California SB620 has passed both houses; now waiting for for the Governor to sign. This bill, I think, would allow a court to rescind a gun enhancement on a prisoner's sentence.

Can someone fill me/us in on this? My l.o. thinks that if the Governor signs, he would then have to submit something to the sentencing judge in this case to request the gun enhancement be removed. I haven't been able to find anything about SB620 in this forum, and if this bill becomes law, I'm sure it would also help many other prisoners.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to marie8899 For This Useful Post:
KobeDeuce (10-01-2017)
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
Previous life, current life, future life... cristinas Husbands & Boyfriends in Prison 1 04-19-2013 12:58 PM
Experience of life... Book about life and life in prison... Savannah Florida - Region 2 Facilities 1 09-06-2010 03:57 PM
A Day in the life of hell, that's my life. Sorry it's long stress mode mabear Husbands & Boyfriends in Prison 4 06-24-2003 09:52 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37 AM.
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