Continuing in the trend of passing criminal justice reform laws, Governor Newsom has passed a series of new laws that just took effect on January 1, 2022.  The laws aim to increase transparency of police misconduct, improve police accountability, raising eligibility standards, and banning harmful restraint techniques.  Governor Newsom issued the following statement:  "Today marks another step toward healing and justice for all.  Too many lives have been lost due to racial profiling and excessive use of force.  We cannot change what is past, but we can build accountability, root out racial injustice and fight systemic racism.  We are all indebted to the families who have persevered through their grief to continue this fight and work toward a more just future.”

Governor Newsom has passed a series of criminal justice reform laws in his time in office, continuing the trend started by former California Governor, Jerry Brown.  Additionally, California voters have passed propositions aimed at reducing criminal punishments (such as Prop 47 and Prop 64).  Notably, Governor Newsom passed laws permitting judges to grant diversion over the prosecution's objection in misdemeanor cases (PC 1001.95 Judicial Diversion), changing the felony murder rule to avoid convicting non-major participants (SB 1437: Limits on Felony Murder), shorter probation periods for most misdemeanor and felony cases (AB 1950), shorter periods of sex offender registry for some registrants (SB 384), and many more.  These laws help to remedy some of the harsh criminal laws California has had for decades.  Paired with the election of progressive prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco, these law changes have put California at the forefront of criminal justice reform. 

Here is a summary of each piece of legislation and how it might affect Californians:
SB 2 - Creates a process within the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to investigate and discipline police officers for certain kinds of misconduct, including use of excessive force, demonstration of bias, dishonesty, and sexual assault.  This is very important, as often police departments have been left to "police" themselves, leaving little to no accountability for misconduct.  If police know that there is oversight, they may be less likely to abuse a suspect or lie in a report.  Paired with the increased use of body worn video and dash cameras, this program will work towards reducing police misconduct.

SB 16 - Increases transparency and access to records pertaining to police misconduct.  Presently, local governments stand in the way of access to records of police discipline and misconduct, including instances of use of force, discriminatory or prejudiced behavior, failure to intervene in another officer's misconduct, and participation in unlawful searches or arrests.  The difficulty in accessing these records is responsible for keeping bad cops on the job, and allowing them to commit more misconduct, harming the communities they are meant to serve. 

AB 26 - Creates guidelines requiring police officers to intervene and report another officer for using excessive force.  Police have long been notorious for maintaining a culture of silence with respect to the misconduct of other officers.  By penalizing officers who fail to intervene or report others' misconduct, the hope is that officers will be more likely to speak out to avoid being punished themselves.

AB 48 - Prohibits the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by law enforcement to disburse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with the specified standards set by the new law.  This would substantially reduce the permitted use of rubber bullets, tear gas, and the like to attempt to disburse a protest.

AB 89 - Raises the minimum age (to 21) and education requirements to become a police officer.  Lack of training (and to a certain extent life experience) can undeniably lead to poor job performance.  Police officers have an important job, a difficult job, and also a job in which their lack of training can result in harm to them, other officers, or the public.

AB 481 - Requires law enforcement agencies to obtain appropriate government approval prior to funding, acquiring, or using military equipment.

AB 490 - Bans certain subdual and transportation techniques determined to have a high risk of positional asphyxia. 

All of these reforms come in response to the murder of George Floyd, by then-officer Derek Chauvin.  Though that event occurred in Minnesota, community protests in the Summer of 2020 swept the nation.  Los Angeles was home to some of the largest protests, demanding justice, police accountability, and police reforms.  Chauvin had a long list of past misconduct, but was still working as a police officer.  The other officers present did nothing to stop Chauvin, as he employed dangerous techniques on a man who was not resisting.  Each of these reforms aims to stop such a situation from occurring in California.

Despite these (and previous) reforms, police misconduct will continue to affect Californians, particularly criminal defendants in California.  These new laws provide defense attorneys with tools that can help us to better defend our clients, and ultimately will hopefully impact police conduct in the future.  By identifying instances where police use dishonest and illegal tactics to justify searches, arrests, and charges, and investigating the same, we hope to see more ethical police conduct, investigations and testimony in the future.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED, CHARGED WITH A CRIME, OR IS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR A CRIME IN CALIFORNIA, CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS LONCAR NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION WITH A LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY.  213-375-3775.

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Federal Government, as well as the State of California instituted a number of programs to help individuals and businesses weather the economic downturn and other hardships that resulted from the virus and the responses to the virus that affected the ability of people to work, pay rent, pay employees, and much more.  Specifically, California offered business loans and grants, unemployment benefits, stimulus payments, rent assistance, paid sick leave, mortgage assistance, housing, healthcare benefits, and more.  The Federal government similarly issued stimulus payments, small business loans and grants, unemployment benefits, employer assistance to pay workers, and more.  These programs were deemed necessary at various levels of government to help our society cope with the harsh realities of a global health pandemic.  Benefits fraud and loan fraud are not new concepts, and our firm has handled cases involving numerous different types of fraud over the years. 

The fact that many of these programs were new, sought to get money in people's hands fast, and because many people were desperate during the pandemic, has apparently led to a significant number of new fraud cases.  Federal Agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), United States Secret Service, and the United States Department of Justice ("US DOJ") have been furiously seeking to investigate possible fraud and prosecutions have begun to occur in Federal Courts across the country, many in Los Angeles.  Similarly, the California Attorney General's office has been working hard to uncover

LEARN MORE ABOUT FRAUD LAWS IN GENERAL

INDIVIDUAL BENEFITS FRAUD
Law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in California have long gone after individuals who fraudulently obtain benefits such as welfare, MediCal, unemployment, food stamps and more.  Typically, these cases involve a benefits recipient providing false information (most often failing to disclose income).  Recipients can be charged not only for fraudulently obtaining the unearned benefits, but can also be charged with perjury, as many of the required forms are signed under penalty of perjury.  Perjury is an especially troublesome charge because unlike most felony charges, it cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor.  This means that a conviction for perjury will render a person a felon forever.  Often, the county, state, or even federal government will reach out to a recipient early in the investigation, but that does not mean that criminal charges are not still coming down the line.  Another common example of individual benefits fraud involves recipients who fill out paperwork in another person's name, and receive their benefits.  These schemes involve not only defrauding the government for unearned benefits, but also identity theft.  Due to the relatively low dollar amount of man individual relief payments, law enforcement and prosecuting agencies have not been as aggressive in seeking out individual fraud.  Still, cases involving individual Covid-19-related benefits fraud are beginning to surface, both in state court and in federal court, and are expected to grow significantly in the near future.

BUSINESS GRANTS AND LOANS FRAUD
Due to high dollar amounts, the relief given to businesses during the pandemic has drawn much of the law enforcement attention.  Businesses who received grants and loans as part of a state or federal Covid-19 relief program had to submit documentation to determine their eligibility for relief, and to determine the amount which they would receive.  Some of the early cases against business owners show situations where forged and fraudulent documents have been submitted.  These fraudulent documents made it appear that business owners were eligible to receive benefits, when they were in fact not eligible, or made it appear that the businesses were eligible to receive more than they in fact were.  Small business owners who obtained grants and loans lawfully are not in the clear yet, either.  Most of the Covid-19 relief programs proscribe specific uses for grants and loan funds.  Businesses who received grants or loans can still be charged with fraud if they fail to property spend the money.  Those who use the funds to handle personal expenses will likely find themselves facing charges sooner or later, whether in state or federal court.  In California, the statute of limitations for fraud crimes is four years from the discovery of the fraud, and in Federal Court, the statute of limitations for most crimes if 5 years.  This means that fraud committed in 2020 and 2021 might very well trickle into court throughout the rest of the decade.

DEFRAUDING BUSINESS OWNERS IN APPLYING FOR RELIEF
The California Attorney General's Office, the Small Business Administration, the FBI and others are warning small business owners about scams targeting business owners looking for Covid-19 relief in some form.  Investigations into accountants and tax preparers have been underway for some time, at all levels of government, seeking to uncover fraudulent grant and loan schemes, and early returns show that in many cases the business owners have seemingly not been aware of the fraud taking place (e.g. business owner's submissions have been altered to collect larger sums of money).  Small business owners should be very careful in applying for and receiving relief funds, particularly if working with others for the first time on such matters.

DEFENSES IN COVID-19 RELIEF FRAUD CASES
Every case is different, and there is no substitute for a one on one consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney to help you better understand your situation.  Still, some of the more common defenses in benefits/loan fraud cases will be mistake of fact (not lying), someone else is responsible for the fraud, there was no fraud, and more.  Careful examination of documents and financial records, as well as thorough investigation are vital to a successful defense in all criminal cases, but none more than complex fraud accusations involving government agencies.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED, CHARGED, OR IS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR ANY FORM OF BENEFITS FRAUD, CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS LONCAR TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION WITH A LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY.  213-375-3775.

A Franklin hearing is a supplemental sentencing hearing wherein a convicted defendant can present evidence that the defendant's young age at the time of the offense was a substantial contributing factor in committing the offense.  By presenting this evidence at a Franklin hearing, an inmate will greatly improve his or her chances of being released on parole at a Youth Offender Parole Hearing.  The legislature was recognizing a need to change the laws that were resulting in so many young people sentenced to life or excessive determinate sentencing.  It is no secret that young people are more likely to make mistakes, but prior law did not take into account that a person was still maturing at the time of their crimes.  In California, particularly Los Angeles, so many young people face life imprisonment for cases like attempted murder, murder, kidnapping for robbery, and more.  While being young is not a defense to crimes, our law makers made it very clear that going forward, youth and immaturity at the time of an offense should provide for lesser punishment.

THE FRANKLIN CASE
Tyris Lamar Franklin was 16 years old when he was convicted of first degree murder in the shooting death of another teenager.  Franklin was sentenced to two consecutive 25-life sentences, for a total of 50 years to life in prison.  In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court would hold that life without parole (LWOP) sentences for juvenile offenders violated the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.  This changed juvenile sentencing and California enacted new laws dealing with youth offenders. 

Franklin would not have been eligible for parole until the age of 66 had the legislature not passed SB 260.  This was based on the mandatory sentence the judge imposed.  There was no opportunity for the judge at sentencing to consider his youth.  SB 260 made him eligible for youth offender parole 25 years sooner.  The timing of Franklin's appeal meant that the sentence he was challenging was already impacted by a change in the law, and the change would apply to him and make him eligible for parole after 25 years.  The court also recognized that in order for the administrative parole process to be able to consider evidence of the youth of an offender at the time of offense, he would be eligible for a hearing to supplement the court record.

YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE HEARINGS (More About SB 260)
In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown passed a law, Senate Bill 260 ("SB 260") that provided hope to many young offenders sentenced to very long prison terms, if not life.  Originally applying only to offenders under 18 at the time of their crimes, SB 261 passed two years later, extending the application of Youth Offender parole to offenders up to 23 years of age.  The law was again amended to apply to offenders under 26 years of age at the time of their offense.

WHEN IS AN INMATE ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE?
Inmates who are serving a long determinate sentence (not a life sentence) are eligible for youth offender parole after 15 years in prison.  Those serving life sentences where no offense is 25 to life or greater become eligible after 20 years in prison.  Those sentenced to 25 to life or life without parole (LWOP) are eligible for youth offender parole after 25 years.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR A YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE HEARING?
A person 25 or younger (at the time of their offense) sentenced to life or a very long determinate sentence is eligible for youth offender parole.  Initially, this law applied only to minors charged as adults, but has since grown to include offenders up to 25 years of age. 

WHAT EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED AT A FRANKLIN HEARING?
Expert psychiatric testimony is the most important element of Franklin hearing evidence, though other witnesses (friends, family, teachers) can be called who have relevant testimony to a person's youth and immaturity at the time of their offense.  It is also relevant to consider how a youth offender's upbringing may have further impacted their maturity and mental and emotional state.  Aside from testimony, other evidence can include juvenile record, prison disciplinary records, psychology and mental health reports, risk assessments, and more.

A person currently serving a life sentence, or long determinate sentence who was under the age of 26 (must have been 25 or younger at the time the offense is committed), should ensure that their case file has adequate sentencing information pertaining to their youth at the time of the offense.  Because this law is new, when most of the people currently serving long prison sentences in California were sentenced, there was no reason to present this information at sentencing, as it did not result in a reduced sentence.  Because the parole board is now obligated to lend great weight to such evidence, it is vital to have a Franklin hearing and present this evidence in court, even if the case happened years ago.  Youth offender parole hearings provided many California inmates hope, but the likelihood of getting released early on youth offender parole depends upon how much evidence the parole board has about an offender's youth at the time of the offense.

CALL THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS LONCAR TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION WITH A LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY     213-375-3775

In recent years, California has seen a wave of criminal justice reform legislation that lessens punishments or otherwise helps those accused of a crime to be treated more fairly by the criminal justice system.  This trend of criminal justice reform began with former Governor Jerry Brown, and has continued under Governor Gavin Newsom.  The focus of this article is the recently passed AB-3070, which will go into effect on January 1, 2022.  AB-3070 changes the way that "peremptory challenges" (more on that later) may be used to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.  This law should have a strong impact on the jury selection process, and should favor the defense in its application.

SOME BACKGROUND:  HOW ARE JURIES SELECTED?  READ MORE ABOUT JURY SELECTION GENERALLY
Juries are selected by a negative process; what that means is that potential jurors are "stricken" one by one, and those who remain will decide the case.  There are two different kinds of "strikes" that the sides can make to excuse a potential juror.  One kind of strike is called a "challenge for cause."  Challenges for cause are used when a juror has expressed a strong bias that would make them legally unfit to serve on the jury.  The other kind of challenge is known as a "peremptory" challenge.  Peremptory challenges may be made for almost any reason, and generally no reason needs to be given to exercise a peremptory challenge.  The sides have a limited number of peremptory challenges, and will typically use them to exclude jurors who have not necessarily expressed a strong bias, but who projects to be an unfavorable juror.  For example, in cases involving a crime against young children, the defense may seek to use its peremptory challenges against potential jurors it deems to be more concerned about such crimes (e.g. parents of young children).  It has long been said that trials are won and lost at jury selection.  Not only is it important to ensure that those who end up serving on the jury not harbor bias against the defendant, but it is important to have jurors who have a wide range of experiences in life.

THE PROBLEM:  HOW IS THE PROCESS ABUSED?
One issue that has long caused concern for criminal defense attorneys and other criminal justice activists is the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecution to excuse jurors from racial minority backgrounds.  Historically, prosecutors have disproportionately used their peremptory challenges against people of color.  In Los Angeles, prosecutors have sought to avoid having Black and Latino jurors out of concern that those jurors would be less likely to convict.  This problem has been so widespread that in the 1970s and 1980s California and Federal courts got involved and made in against the law to use a peremptory challenge on the basis of race.  In other words, while peremptory challenges were intended as a way for each side to excuse potential jurors without having to give a reason, race became a forbidden reason to kick a person off of a jury.  Despite this recognition by courts, prosecutors have continued to "white wash" juries, stating other grounds as their reason for striking a potential juror.  Their position has often been that yes, they are striking a minority juror, but that they were doing so for a reason other than race.  This is where AB-3070 comes in.

THE SOLUTION:  HOW DOES AB-3070 MAKE THINGS BETTER
Since the Batson and Wheeler court rulings prohibiting race-based peremptory challenges, prosecutors would often ask minority jurors if they have ever had negative impressions of members of law enforcement.  The party challenging the use of a peremptory challenge would have to show that the other side was acting in an intentionally discriminatory way.  This is of course very difficult.  Under the new law, certain "explanations" as to why a (usually) prosecutor has chosen to strike a minority potential juror are presumed invalid.  One case, interpreting the new law, People v. Henderson (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 709 provides that the expression of a distrust of or having a negative experience with law enforcement or the criminal justice system are presumptively invalid reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror who is a member of a cognizable group.  This is a monumental change affecting the fair selection of a jury.  The reality is that many white Americans simply have not experienced the kinds of things that lead a person who has experienced law enforcement abuses distrustful of law enforcement and the criminal justice system.  Removing those experiences and viewpoints from jury pools dangerously makes juries more likely to convict, and less likely to look at evidence from the skeptical lens required by our presumption of innocence.

HERE IS SOME OF THE TEXT FROM THE STATUTE
AB-3070 § 1(b):  "The Legislature finds that peremptory challenges are frequently used in criminal cases to exclude potential jurors from serving based on their race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, and that exclusion from jury service has disproportionately harmed African Americans, Latinos, and other people of color. The Legislature further finds that the existing procedure for determining whether a peremptory challenge was exercised on the basis of a legally impermissible reason has failed to eliminate that discrimination. In particular, the Legislature finds that requiring proof of intentional bias renders the procedure ineffective and that many of the reasons routinely advanced to justify the exclusion of jurors from protected groups are in fact associated with stereotypes about those groups or otherwise based on unlawful discrimination. Therefore, this legislation designates several justifications as presumptively invalid and provides a remedy for both conscious and unconscious bias in the use of peremptory challenges."

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED, CHARGED WITH A CRIME, OR IS ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL CASE THAT MAY BE GOING TO A JURY TRIAL, IT IS VITAL TO HAVE THE REPRESENTATION OF A SKILLED, KNOWLEDGEABLE LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY ON YOUR SIDE.  CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS LONCAR TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION.  213-375-3775

For over 60 years, Californians convicted of certain sexual-based offenses have been required to register as sex offenders for life.  Over that time, the number of sex offenses in the Penal Code grew, and those convicted of even certain misdemeanor sex offenses became required to register for life.  Registration is harmful to individuals in many ways, including creating substantial difficulty for finding of suitable housing and employment.
note:  Per Penal Code § 290, convicted sex offenders must register with their local law enforcement agency annually, within 5 days of their birthday, or within 5 days of moving to a new residence.  Failure to register is a felony.  If you or a loved one has previously suffered a sex crimes conviction, or are presently fighting an open sex offense case, contact the Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar for a Free Consultation with a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney.  213-375-3775.

UNDER NEW LAW, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO TERMINATE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.  SPEAK TO A LAWYER TODAY TO DETERMINE IF YOU MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE (NOW, OR AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE)!

As of January 2021, Senate Bill 384 amended California's sex offender registration laws, eliminating the lifetime registration requirement for a majority of registrants.  The new law created three separate tiers among the sex offenses, with only the third tier (reserved for the most serious offenses) requiring lifetime registration.  The three tiers are as follows:

• TIER ONE:  Registration for at least 10 years.  Lowest level of sex offenses such as misdemeanor sexual battery and indecent exposure.
• TIER TWO:  Registration for at least 20 years.  Mid-level sex offenses.
• TIER THREE:  Lifetime Registration.  Most serious sex offenses such as most cases of rape, child sex-trafficking and other serious sex offenses.

At the Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar, we have closely followed changes in the law, and have sought to help our clients, particularly those who have already been overly punished for a crime in the distant past, move forward with their lives, clean up their records, and avoid negative impacts that a criminal record has on their professional, personal, and family lives.  Since the passage of Proposition 47 (reducing minor theft offenses and drug possession to misdemeanors), and Proposition 64 (legalizing marijuana), we have helped many clients avoid deportation, obtain professional licenses, restore their firearm rights, and no longer be felons.  This new change in the law permits those who have served their time to move on and not be subject to lifetime restraint. 

UNSURE IF YOU QUALIFY?  CONSULT WITH A LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY TODAY FOR FREE
213-375-3775

Certain registrants may also apply with the California Attorney General's office to be excluded from internet disclosure.  Those convicted only of certain specified offenses may apply to not be disclosed on the California Megan's Law website, but still must register with their local law enforcement agencies.  Those not yet eligible for termination of their registration requirement may still avoid some of the harms associated with publication of registration status. 

Termination of registration is not mandatory upon completion of the minimum time required for registration.  In order to have a registration requirement terminated, a registrant must file a petition with the court of the county in which he/she registers (not necessarily the county where the original case was handled).  The petition must be filed along with proof of current registration status, and served upon the law enforcement agency with whom the registrant registers, and the District Attorney's office of the county.  If the conviction was in a different state than where the registrant resides, copies must also be served upon the law enforcement agency and District Attorney's office of the county of conviction.  Failure to serve any required parties will result in a denial.

The District Attorney's office(s) and law enforcement agency(ies) have 60 days from the filing of a petition to respond.  There may be a hearing to determine whether a registrant has met the requirements and/or to determine if the registrant poses a risk to community safety.  In Los Angeles, the District Attorney's office and law enforcement agencies were strongly against the amendments created by Senate Bill 384, and will aggressively oppose petitions for termination of sex offender registration. 

**Though interest in terminating your registration requirement may have led you to this page, there may be additional ways to clean up your record, including expungement and reduction to a misdemeanor.  Charges eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor may result in a lower tier, and in some cases, earlier termination of the registration requirement.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A SEX CRIME, OR IS CURRENTLY FACING A SEX CRIMES CASE IN LOS ANGELES, CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS LONCAR NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION WITH A LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY.  213-375-3775.

NOTE:  At this time, Senate Bill 82 has not yet passed.  This article will be updated once the law passes.

California’s Legislature is seeking to reform the criminal justice system yet again, this time by limiting the ability of prosecutors to file felony charges in shoplifting cases.

Robbery, or taking of the property of another by means of force or threat, is one of the most serious theft offenses in the California Penal Code.  Even when not involving a weapon, Penal Code § 211 provides for a punishment of up to nine years in prison (for Robbery in the First Degree).  Robbery in the second degree is more common, and punishable by up to five year in prison (with no weapon involved).  Additionally, Robbery is a violent felony under the California Penal Code, meaning that it is a “strike” for the purposes of California’s Three Strikes Law, and those convicted of violent felonies must serve 85% of their sentences.

One particular application of California’s robbery laws, commonly called Estes Robbery (based on the appellate decision in People v Estes (1983)147 Cal. App. 3d 24) interprets “taking by force” broadly, so as to include force used to get away.  In its most common application, defendants charged with Estes robbery were caught shoplifting, grabbed by store security, and pulled away (thereby using force).  Rather than facing mere misdemeanor petty theft charges, these cases were often charged as robbery.

More on Robbery Charges in California

The past few years have brought many great reforms to California’s criminal laws.  For example, in 2014, Proposition 47 reduced all simple drug possession charges and theft of less than $950 to misdemeanors.  Prior to that change, those possessing any amount of cocaine, heroin, certain pills, methamphetamine, and even concentrated cannabis faced felony charges.  Additionally, certain shoplifting offenses were charged as felonies (using the Burglary statute, PC 459 or Petty Theft, exposing people to lengthy prison terms for stealing items of very little value.  Unfortunately, these legal changes did lead to overcharging by the District Attorney.  Drug users found in possession of relatively small amounts of drugs became more likely to be charged with possession for sale (still a felony), and shoplifters find themselves charged with robbery where they had any amount of struggle with loss prevention (store security) officers.

The Legislature caught on to this unjust application of the law, and has proposed Senate Bill 82 (Full Text here).  SB 82 would amend the Penal Code to add a new offense, Penal Code section 486, Petty Theft in the First Degree, a misdemeanor.  Petty Theft in the First Degree will prohibit the taking of property from the person of another or from a commercial establishment my means of force or fear without the use of a deadly weapon or causing great bodily injury.  The amendment further provides “an act of petty theft in the first degree shall be charged as such, and shall not be charged as robbery or burglary.”  Petty Theft in the First Degree will be punishable by up to one year in jail, double the penalty for Petty Theft in the Second Degree, but most notably will avoid felony charges for shoplifters, so long as they do not use a deadly weapon or cause anyone great bodily injury.

Further, this legal change would be explicitly retroactive, offering those previously convicted of a violation of Penal Code section 211 for what would now be petty theft, an opportunity to vacate a felony sentence.  Much like Proposition 47, Proposition 64, and other law changes, this amendment would allow people who were convicted of a felony to remove the felony conviction from their records, restoring rights and getting their lives back.  This can have drastic implications for employment, professional licensing, and immigration.  More on cleaning up your record

It is important to note that these legal reforms start with the people.  Californians have demanded better criminal laws from their government, and the legislators are taking notice.  While a functioning criminal justices system is necessary to address crime and safety, the same system must be held in check to avoid unjust laws, and unjust application of the law.  Continue to elect legislators who want to make the criminal justice system more fair, and when possible, vote for criminal justice reforms.

If you or a loved one has been previously convicted of Robbery, in a case not involving a deadly weapon or great bodily injury, contact the Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar for a FREE CONSULTATION with a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney.  You may be eligible to have your felony sentence vacated, and can then also get the misdemeanor expunged.  Call 213-375-3775 or e-mail us in the contact forms provided.

RELATED ARTICLES
California Robbery Laws, Theft Crimes, Proposition 47, Proposition 64

Effective January 1, 2021, Assembly Bill (AB) 1950 will limit probation sentences for most misdemeanor offenses (currently 3 years for most crimes), to one year, and two years for most felony offenses. However, there are some exceptions:

• Offenses in violation of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law, as defined in Section 23500
• Offenses involving the use of dangerous or deadly weapon
• Violent felonies
• Child abuse
• Offenses that includes specific probation lengths within its provisions, such as DUI because Vehicle Code Section 23600 specifically states that probation for a DUI is between three and five years
  

LINK TO THE FULL TEXT OF AB 1950
The enactment of AB 1950, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2020, will significantly improve California’s probation system. California currently has more than 300,000 people on probation —1 in 98 adult residents—and eight percent of that prison population is made up of those who have committed a “technical violation” in regard to their parole. When individuals violate a condition of probation, such as failing to report an address changes, showing up late to an appointment, traveling beyond county lines or using drugs or alcohol, but have not committed new offenses, they can be found guilty of a “technical violation” and incarcerated. A single technical violation can result in a loss of all earned credit for the time they lived in the community without violation. Additionally, AB 1950 is expected to save the citizens of California hundreds of millions of dollars.

The purpose of probation is to assist in reducing the incidence and impact of crime by probationers in the communities. The enactment of AB 1950 will set probationers up for success rather than failure.

Research by the California Budget & Policy Center shows that probation services, such as mental healthcare and addiction treatment, are most effective during the first eighteen months of supervision. Research has also shown that multiyear supervision sentences that extend beyond the point of service rehabilitative or public safety objectives result in bloated probation and parole caseloads. The changes enacted in AB 1950 to bring shorter probation lengths is good for public policy. Californians are already facing consequences from COVID-19 to wildfires and AB 1950 will help some of the most vulnerable community members to succeed and exit the criminal justice system.
This was the first major win for REFORM Alliance, which is co-founded by Meek Mill, Michael Rubin, Shawn “JAY-Z” Carter, Robert Kraft, Clara Wu Tsai, Michael Novogratz, Dan Loeb, Robert Smith, Robert Kraft and Laura Arnold and the CEO is Van Jones. Together they worked with Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, to push AB 1950 through the legislature. This bill will decrease the probation population by thirty-three percent, give 24,000+ life years back, and prevent 48,000+ prison admissions due to technical probation violations. AB 1950 will save $2.1 BILLION over the next five years in reduced judicial, probation, and operational costs. Most importantly, it will help hundreds of thousands of people get a second chance at success and exit the justice system for good!   

Currently, it is not clear whether the changes made by AB 1950 will apply to cases filed before January 1, 2021. Therefore, if you or a loved one is convicted prior to January 1, 2021, contact the Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar to discuss your case. Further, if you have an open case, you should talk to your lawyer about delaying sentencing until after January 1, 2021, to receive the benefits enacted in AB 1950.

CALL THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS LONCAR NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION!  213-375-3775

On September 30, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom took a major step for criminal justice reform by passing AB 3234, allowing judges in misdemeanor cases to offer defendant's diversion, over the prosecution's objection.  Diversion is a process where a defendant is given an opportunity to avoid a conviction in a criminal case, usually in exchange for completing some obligations such as: pay any restitution, perform community service, attend counseling, etc.  The new law will go into effect in January 2021, and will apply to open cases that were filed before that date.  If your or a loved one is currently facing misdemeanor charges, or was recently arrested and must appear in court, contact the Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar to discuss your case, and how you might make the best possible case for diversion.

LINK TO FULL TEXT OF AB 3234

A pilot program of judicial diversion existed in Los Angeles County until 2018, whereby judges routinely would give first time misdemeanor defendants a chance to earn a dismissal of their charges.  Rather than getting criminal records, thousands of people of Los Angeles were able to do community service, anger management, or simply stay out of trouble for a year and then have their charges dismissed.  Prior to this pilot program (end since it ended), a defendant could only get diversion if the prosecuting agency was on board.  A prosecutor's job is to prosecute crimes, and when left to their sole discretion, diversion is more of a rarity.  The passage of AB 3234 will surely result in a greater number of people getting second chances to keep their records clean.  Unlike the pilot program, which was only in Los Angeles, this new form of judicial diversion will be available in every county in California.

Helping people avoid a first-time conviction, through diversion, will greatly reduce criminal recidivism.  The stain of a criminal conviction, as well as the experience of jail time and probation, in many ways, promote the commission of future crimes.  In addition to serving as a ball-and-chain for those motivated to seek employment and schooling, jail and probation put people at odds with their own governments and societies, shunning, rather than accepting with open arms people who have made mistakes.  Diversion is the positive reinforcement option our judges need in order to help motivate offenders to succeed.  Criminal justice reform often focuses on some of the most serious charges, but it is in misdemeanor courtrooms that many the greatest number of people come into contact with the criminal justice system.  How that contact goes can greatly influence the future of offenders, especially youthful and first time offenders.  Guidance and positive reinforcement will do better to quell recidivism than harsh punishment.

Being convicted of a crime can carry very serious consequences.  Even though misdemeanor offenses often do not result in jail time sentences, the conviction or associated probation can have harmful impacts on a person's life and livelihood.  By giving judges greater discretion, the Governor has given defense attorneys another tool with which to protect our clients' liberty and interests.  As with all new legislation, there will be detail left to be ironed out to see exactly how everything will be implemented.  During the Los Angeles pilot program, judicial diversion was limited not to include DUI, domestic violence, certain sex offenses, and was applied only to first time offenders.  At this time, AB 3234 does not have those limitations, although Governor Newsom has already indicated an intention to address DUI offenses in a future legislative session.  Due to heavy lobbying and the dangerous nature of impaired driving, DUI has often been excluded from diversion considerations.

A criminal conviction can have the most disastrous consequences for non-citizens and professional license-holders.  We have previously written about the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.  When discussing diversion, it is very important to note that not all diversions will be the right option when dealing with potential immigration consequences.  For immigration purposes, diversion must be "informal" or "pre-plea" in that the offer of diversion must be extended without the entry of a plea of guilty or no contest.  This is because, although California law recognizes a conviction as occurring at the time of sentencing, Federal law (including immigration law) determines that a conviction has occurred at the time of a plea.  Each defendant and each case are different, making the need for a dedicated attorney on your side invaluable.  Your attorney should not only have the knowledge, experience, and zeal to do a great job, but should also be able to give your case the individual attention it deserves.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED, CHARGED WITH A CRIME, OR MAY BE UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR A CRIME, YOU NEED A PASSIONATE, AGGRESSIVE, EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER ON YOUR SIDE.  CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS LONCAR TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION WITH A LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY.  213-375-3775.

RELATED ARTICLES:  Jail Alternatives, First Time Offender Defense, Second Chances, Mental Health Diversion

In California's criminal courtrooms, the Deputy District Attorneys are said to represent the People of the State of California.  For defense attorneys who actually represent real people, it can be difficult to stomach hearing overzealous prosecutors, who take joy in destroying defendants' lives, dare to say they represent "the People."  Of course a large number of prosecutors are good people, who work hard to vindicate victims' rights, while also understanding that criminal defendants are real people.  Unfortunately, in my eight years defending the accused in Los Angeles County, I have found far too many prosecutors who feel it is their job to secure the most severe punishments that they can, and to oppose even the most reasonable of a defendant's requests.  No matter how good of an argument a defendant might have for reduced bail, mitigated punishment, lesser charges, or even a minor accommodation that can help a person remain employed or not be deported, these battles are often far too difficult.  The LA County District Attorney's office lacks empathy, common sense, and is in need of reform.

In 2017, Philadelphia made headlines by electing Larry Krasner.  Krasner, a former public defender, private defense attorney, and civil rights lawyer, ran on a campaign of criminal justice reform, reduced incarceration rates, and devoting the city's crime-fighting resources to more serious crimes.  The new District Attorney got to work quickly, firing 31 of his staff attorneys, and directing law enforcement not to make marijuana arrests, and not to seek bail in misdemeanor and nonviolent felony cases.  He further took strong stands against excessive punishments, the death penalty, while working to ensure the integrity of convictions, both past and present.  In 2018, Geneviéve Jones-Wright, a San Diego Public Defender, ran for District Attorney of San Diego County.  Despite an enthusiastic campaign from Jones-Wright, San Diego re-elected Summer Stephan.  While Krasner is probably the nation's most well-known progressive prosecutor, he is not alone.  Suffolk County District Attorney Rachel Rollins has pledged and implemented a progressive agenda in Boston, and Nueces County (Texas) District Attorney Mark Gonzalez is a former defense attorney with reputed biker gang ties, and a "not guilty" tattoo.  Having a "not guilty" tattoo myself, I certainly understand the confusion this might create.  San Francisco's District Attorney, Chesa Boudin made the transition from public defender to the city's chief prosecutor, and has already made major strides in bail reform and reducing incarceration.

Across the country, the people are speaking; they want prosecutors who understand that defendants in criminal cases are people, too.  The United States has the world's highest rate of incarceration.  That's right, right here in the land of the free, we lock up both the largest number of people, and the largest percentage of people in the entire world.  Something is seriously wrong with our criminal justice system.  And it is time for Los Angeles County to step into the future. 

In March 2020, incumbent Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey was dealt a major blow to her re-election efforts.  A three-way race in the Democratic primary saw progressive challengers George Gascón and Rachel Rossi combined for more votes than Lacey.  With no candidate earning a majority of votes, election rules dictate that the candidates who finished first and second now face off on the November ballot.  Rachel Rossi ran a formidable campaign, but ultimately finished third.  A former public defender, Rossi ran on a campaign of bail reform, and addressing issues such as jail overcrowding, racial disparities in the administration of criminal justice, and more.  Gascón, formerly District Attorney of San Diego, is also a well-known progressive/reformer prosecutor.  Gascón and Rossi ran on strikingly similar platforms, and Rossi voters will still be able to vote for a progressive in November.  Lacey saw significant support from law enforcement, who are also working hard to defeat Gascón.

Los Angeles needs a progressive District Attorney.  The cash bail system has long served to deny criminal defendants a fair trial, as well as deny liberty to Angelenos who had not been proven guilty of any offense.  During Lacey's tenure, the death penalty has been sought only against defendants of color, not one of the hundreds of police officers who shot and killed a person in Los Angeles during Lacey's tenure has been prosecuted.  It is no wonder Lacey sees such strong support from the police she refuses to hold accountable and the bail bondsmen she makes rich.  Los Angeles leads the nation in law enforcement shooting deaths.  Los Angeles leads the nation in law enforcement shooting deaths!  We can no longer afford to have Jackie Lacey in charge of these charging decisions.

Gascón has an interesting biography.  An LA native and former LAPD officer, Gascón would go on to serve as Chief of Police in Mesa, Arizona, and San Francisco.  After earning his law degree, District Attorney of San Francisco.  With a lifetime commitment to public safety, Gascón has a unique perspective and a wealth of experience to help Los Angeles address its failing criminal justice and incarceration system.  Gascón has received endorsements from the California Democratic Party, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the LA Times, LA Daily News, La Opinión, Long Beach Press-Telegram, Pasadena Star News, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Krasner, Boudin, musician John Legend, former LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, and many more people and organizations who share his vision for fairness and reform.

From his website, GeorgeGascon.com:

"Today, Gascón, and his work, are defined by the same notions of fairness, public safety, service, and critical thought that have been consistent throughout his life. In addition to his criminal justice work at the local, state, and national level, Gascón has worked on public safety initiatives in Latin America and the Middle East. He is a board member of the Council of State Government’s Justice Center, a graduate of the FBI’s National Executive Institute, and a member of the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government’s Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety.

District Attorney Gascón holds a Bachelor of Arts in History from California State University, Long Beach, and a Juris Doctor Degree from Western State University, College of Law.  
As San Francisco’s Chief of Police, he significantly increased the murder clearance rate and homicides in San Francisco fell by half, from 98 cases in 2008 to 45 the next year. Violent crime continued to drop to near-record lows over the next nine years that he spent as San Francisco’s District Attorney."

In November, make sure to get out and vote, and while many will be primarily focused on the Presidential race, know that you can help to bring dignity and fairness to the criminal courts in America's second largest city.

VOTE FOR GEORGE GASCON!  Although the election is still months away, do not forget to vote, share, and educate!

Meet George
Donate to Gascón

First off, WE ARE OPEN, and working hard to protect the safety, rights, and liberty of our clients during this global health pandemic.  For the safety of our team, clients, and community, we have moved most consultations to be conducted via telephone, as well as seeking accommodations from courts to permit remote court appearances and to excuse our clients from unnecessary court appearances.

As if incarceration and the rapid global spread of a deadly virus were not independently scary enough, those in correctional facilities at this time are especially vulnerable due to overcrowding (previously discussed here for jails and here for prisons), unsanitary conditions, and lack of access to adequate healthcare.  Jail and prison inmates live in close proximity to one another, are not given ample opportunity to wash hands, and jails are filthy (perhaps most true of Los Angeles County).  Further, staff and other visitors, who have daily contact with the outside world, go in and out in large numbers, exposing inmates to risk of infection.  In other words, like nursing homes, jails are a severe health hazard, especially during these difficult times. 

In response to the pandemic, courts have moved to more limited operations, as well as permitting more court appearances by phone, without the requirement of the defendant's personal presence, and have put off some procedures such as jury trials (which require many people to be together in one room, risking the health and safety of the attorneys, the jurors, and of course our clients).  In some cases, these delays are not the end of the world, notably for defendants who are out of custody.

Additionally, courts have adopted an emergency bail schedule to permit many defendants who have pending charges to remain out of custody on their own recognizance, or at least at substantially reduced bail.  Bail for serious, violent offenses is generally still required, but can be lowered with a bail motion by a skilled criminal defense attorney.  Our office has recently assisted in the release on reduced bail of clients facing charges as serious as murder and attempted murder.  NOTE:  Our firm deals with a significant number of serious and violent felonies, even having a dedicated unit for life cases.

Presently, crime, arrests, and prosecutions are down, but the uncertainty of our economy and vast unemployment may soon result in a spike in all three.  Staying out of trouble will become increasingly more difficult, but it is important that we all do our best.  Jail, prison, and even court, are not places that we want to be during this crisis.  In the event that you or a loved one is arrested or charged with a crime, we are here to help.

It is likely that both during this pandemic, and once we are able to resume normal activity, the courts and prosecuting agencies will be dealing with a significant backlog of cases, which can drastically benefit our clients.  By maintaining manageable caseloads, we are able to devote individual attention to our clients' needs and concerns, and are here to work out the best possible outcomes in these cases.  In cases where our clients are in custody, we aim to get them out as quickly as possible, whether by securing a lowered bail amount, or obtaining a disposition that will result in the nearest release possible.  If you or a loved one is currently facing criminal charges in Los Angeles, know that having an experienced criminal defense attorney by your side may be more vital than ever before.

Our firm offers free consultations, now being done primarily over the phone for the health and safety of all involved.  If you have legal questions regarding a new or pending case, contact the Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar now for a Free Consultation.  Our office number is 213-375-3775.  With much of our staff working remotely, we may not be able to answer every call, but if you leave a brief message, we will be able to get back to you very quickly to answer any questions you may have.  FREE CONSULTATIONS WITH A LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY   213-375-3775.  You can also reach us by filling out the contact form on the right side of this page.

OTHER RESOURCES:
LA County Court Covid-19 Updates
Court and other LA County facility closures
News article about modified bail schedules
LA County Sheriff's Department Inmate Search
LA County Superior Court

PLEASE STAY SAFE during this difficult time, and know that the Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar are here to help you through this unusually difficult time.