In the context of Romeo and Juliet laws, recently passed SB-30 and SB-145 have changed California law in two significant respects.
Three Strike Offenders Eligible for Resentencing, But There Are Restrictions
In 2012, California voters passed Proposition 36 by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent, and significantly changed California’s well known “Three Strike You’re Out” law. Prior to Proposition 36, when a defendant was convicted of any felony after already suffering two prior serious felony convictions, they would be “Three Strike Offenders Eligible for Resentencing, But There Are Restrictions”
Gang Enhancements
In the 1980s, there was an explosion of gang related crimes in California. In 1988 the California Legislature responded by enacting the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, also known as the gang enhancements law. For anyone convicted of a felony, if the prosecution is also able to prove “Gang Enhancements”
Is That Dog Sniffing Your Front Door Violating Your Privacy?
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states that people have the right to privacy and that extends to the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police are not permitted to search a person without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and they cannot search a home without probable cause and a “Is That Dog Sniffing Your Front Door Violating Your Privacy?”
Three Strikes Law Modified by Proposition 36
Last night California voters approved a limited modification of the state’s notorious “Three Strikes” law. Most criminal defendants who have two prior convictions for a serious or violent felony will no longer face a 25 years to life sentence. The amended provision of the law mandates a life sentence for “Three Strikes Law Modified by Proposition 36”
CA Supreme Court Says Lab Report Does Not Violate Confrontation Rights
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution grants a criminal defendant the right to confront adverse witnesses. Prosecutors cannot introduce testimonial out-of-court statements at trial without calling the witness to testify and without permitting the defendant to cross-examine that witness. If a statement is not testimonial, however, a defendant “CA Supreme Court Says Lab Report Does Not Violate Confrontation Rights”
Former Arizona Congressman Must Face Public Corruption Charges
Members of the United States Congress are generally protected from being criminally prosecuted for their “legislative acts” under the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. Pursuant to the clause, members of both Houses of Congress are privileged from being arrested, except for treason, felony, or breach of “Former Arizona Congressman Must Face Public Corruption Charges”
California Allows Prison Inmates to Earn Work Time Credits While Incarcerated
In California, defendants convicted of a crime and sentenced to a determinate term in the state prison are generally required to serve their entire sentence imposed by the court except for a reduction in the time served as a result of their performance in work, training or education programs organized “California Allows Prison Inmates to Earn Work Time Credits While Incarcerated”
Alleged Tucson Shooter Can Refuse Antipsychotic Medication
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that Jared Lee Loughner, an individual who is charged with shooting Representative Gabrielle Giffords, could refuse taking forced antipsychotic medication while he appealed his treatment prescribed by prison doctors. Loughner, who has been prosecuted for the Tucson shooting, is currently facing “Alleged Tucson Shooter Can Refuse Antipsychotic Medication”
California Makes it Harder for “Lifers” to Parole
The primary purpose of a “lifer” parole hearing is to determine whether an individual is suitable for parole while serving a life sentence that allows for parole. The initial decision on the inmate’s suitability has to be made by the California Board of Parole Hearings, which evaluates various circumstances related “California Makes it Harder for “Lifers” to Parole”