The charge of Petty Theft under Penal Code Sections 484(a)-488 is a very commonly alleged crime and generally not considered serious as first time offenders generally face no jail time and small fines. However, the effect of such a conviction on professionally licensed persons like Nurses, Doctors, Lawyers and Teachers can be career ending.

The reason for this is that Petty Theft (and any theft offense) is considered a crime of moral turpitude and in the jobs indicated above convictions for crimes of moral turpitude call into question the character of the person. As such the licensing board of each vocation can convene a hearing to decide whether the person is of sufficient character to continue to perform that job in light of their conviction. For example, in the event of a Nurse getting a conviction for Petty Theft the Nursing Board can convene a hearing and could put the person on “license probation.” This status could make the person unemployable. Other lesser punishments may occur as well.

The way to prevent this situation is to avoid a conviction altogether. Attorney Will Bruzzo has successfully represented many professionals to include Nurses and Teachers accused of Petty Theft and other charges. Mr. Bruzzo has managed to negotiate arrangements which sometimes involve community service and charitable giving as a way to avoid a conviction or guilty plea.

Notably, some places like Orange County have programs which allow first time petty theft offenders to avoid a conviction by entering a diversion program. A diversion program usually requires a guilty plea with deferment (postponement) of sentencing and completion of a program; once the individual completes the program the guilty plea is withdrawn and the case dismissed. In this way there is no conviction since the person was never sentenced and California requires sentencing for a conviction.

However, what many people (and some attorneys) do not understand is that because the diversion programs requires a guilty plea the diversion program is not helpful for Nurses and other licensed individuals. This is because the Nursing Board, for example, treats a guilty plea as it if were a conviction.

Mr. Bruzzo has even counseled other criminal defense lawyers as to the dangers of diversion programs for certain individuals; it is very important that you hire a lawyer who knows what is at stake in your particular situation. Mr. Bruzzo also works with a licensing lawyer, Fred Ray Esq. to make sure that the client is getting the best representation possible and one that will preserve his/her ability to work in their chosen field.

Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bruzzo or look at the testimonials on his website under Petty Theft for more information.

Until recently, the law in California required that anyone with two prior serious or violent convictions who then picks up a third felony of any type had to be sentenced to 25 years to life. One significant exception to that was the Romero exception which referred to a case by the same name. That case allowed a Judge to strike a prior violent or serious conviction if the ends of justice, in the Judge’s opinion, required it. If a Judge found that striking a prior conviction for a particular Defendant was appropriate then that Defendant would not be sentenced to 25 years to life. Despite the Romero exception however, many Defendants faced a difficult battle even if the new felony was relatively minor like possession of a controlled substance or a theft offense.

Then, in an effort to be fairer to Defendants and perhaps to lessen the prison population, the California legislature passed a law known as the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 in November of 2012. That law states that a Defendant will only be subject to a 25 year to life sentence if the new crime (or third strike) is a serious or violent one. Serious or violent crimes would include residential burglary, Assault with Great Bodily Injury, Car Jacking, some Sex Offenses, and Attempted Murder among others. However, crimes like Possession with Intent to Sell a Controlled Substance and Grand Theft are not considered serious or violent and thus would not trigger the 25 to life sentence requirement.

By some estimates there are 3000 inmates who are serving 25 to life sentences for situations where the third strike was not a serious or violent offense. Those inmates are entitled to immediate review of their cases. The Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo can be retained to file a Motion for Resentencing consistent with the new law. It should be noted that the District Attorney can fight this attempt at resentencing if they present evidence at the hearing that shows the Defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Regardless, for Defendants in this situation, it provides a great opportunity to get their life back. (See People v. Superior State of California, Kaulick-Real Party in Interest. 2013 DJDAR 5571).

Here is a CBS News video discussing the Motion for Resentencing, you can see the video here.

Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney William W. Bruzzo (714) 547 4636

Related Articles

• “Three-strike” lifers get a second chance in Calif. prisons (cbsnews.com)
• California ‘Three-Strike’ Inmates Get 2nd Chance With New Law (sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com)

One of the most confusing areas of criminal law is the area of murder versus manslaughter. Both murder and manslaughter involve the Defendant willfully killing another person. Notably, self defense is a defense to murder and manslaughter.

First degree murder is the classic fact scenario where the Defendant plans to kill someone and executes on that plan. It can be a plan that took years to go into effect or one that only took five minutes. If a mobster sees another mobster speaking to police and assumes he is cooperating with them and kills him on the spot that is first degree murder. He planned to kill the individual and followed through with the plan to the point of killing.

Second degree murder is when the Defendant kills someone without planning it out. For example, two neighbor’s have a dispute. They decide to discuss it. In the middle of the discussion one person gets angry and shoots the other. This would probably be considered second degree murder, because although he killed the person the Defendant did not go into the meeting planning to do so.

Manslaughter is trickier still and presents a difficult analysis for the jurors. In order to be found guilty of manslaughter and not murder, there must be evidence which shows that there was some sudden event which caused the Defendant to lose his normal reasoning and kill the person. The classic law school example is the man who comes home to find his wife in bed with this best friend and he kills his best friend or his wife or both. In that situation the “heat of passion” caused the individual to lose his reasoning and kill the person. The law requires that there be evidence that: (1) there was a sudden quarrel or the killing occurred in the heat of passion; (2) there was no planning or a reckless disregard for human life amounting to malice; (3) the Defendant acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured his reasoning and judgment; (4) the provocation would have caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation.

Notably, the California Supreme Court recently held in People v. Beltran (2013 DJDAR 7016) that the test is not whether a reasonable person would have killed but whether it reasonable for the Defendant to have killed under that condition or provocation. As you can see, deciding whether the Defendant committed manslaughter versus murder is not an easy decision for the jurors. Yet few would disagree that a lesser crime then murder should be available to Defendants acting out of extreme provocation instead of those planning to kill or those acting knowing that their actions could likely result in death.