On November 4, 2014, California voters approved a voter initiative which requires that certain crimes MUST be filed as misdemeanors. This appears to be an effort by the state of California to reduce the number of people in the state prison system. From now on theft offenses for less than $950.00 must be filed as misdemeanors-even if the person has an extensive prior record of theft offenses. This is significant because a person can only be sentenced to one (1) year or less on a misdemeanor and he stays in the county facility where the crime was committed. Previously, three or more petty theft cases for very small amounts could land a person in prison under Penal Code Section 666. However, that is no longer the case and the person cannot be sentenced to more than one year and cannot go to prison no matter how many petty theft cases he has under Proposition 47. Notably, the maximum jail penalty on a petty theft is 6 months, so from this point on it would appear that no matter how many prior petty theft convictions you have, as long as they are under $950.00, you cannot be sentenced to more than 6 months in jail.

Notably, if you are in prison for multiple petty thefts or grand thefts and the last case that sent you to prison involved a value of less than $950.00, you can be resentenced on this matter, meaning that the court will review the case and remove you from state prison and have you serve more than likely a much shorter sentence in the county jail. There may be some exceptions to this if you have prior violent convictions. The law is still being fleshed out but you can petition to have your case reviewed IMMEDIATELY if you fall into any of these categories. The only exception to that is if the court finds you are public safety risk. The definition of that seems vague and would probably be a determination made by the Judge.

Also drug offenses wherein the person is only charged with personal use because he only has a personal use amount on him, MUST now be filed as a misdemeanor. Meaning, once again that the person cannot do more than one year in jail. Previously, an individual was facing a maximum of 3 years on possession of a personal use amount of any controlled substance except for marijuana possession for personal use which has always been a misdemeanor and sometimes an infraction.

So for example, possession of methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code Section 11377(a) can only be filed as a misdemeanor; normally it is filed as a felony although it can be filed as either. Where this new law will really make a difference is when people are charged with possession of cocaine or heroin under Health and Safety Code Section 11352(a) which previously was only filed as a felony. Now those individuals are only facing misdemeanors which reduces their exposure to a year in county jail.

What will be interesting to see is what happens to people in the Penal Code Section 1210 program also known as Prop 36. It was the case that multiple fall outs from the program for personal use alone could land you in prison. However, under this new law it seems like the most the court can do for fall outs from possession for personal use is sentence the person to one year in county jail.

For first time offenders Prop 47 will have little practical effect but for individuals with multiple convictions this law could make a huge difference in their sentence. Please contact Attorney Will Bruzzo if you have any questions about your particular situation.

The previous location had a set of problems that could no longer be ignored. The old location was no longer adequate to meet the demands of the community of Long Beach. Lines would extend outside the building; there were issues of overcrowding, rodent and cockroach infestations, as well as security concerns.

According to the spokesperson for the state Administrative Office of the Courts, the financial backing for this courthouse was met from a combination of private and public funding. This new approach for private and public funding for public projects was started by former governor Schwarzenegger. The plan is that the developer paid for the construction of the building upfront, in turn the state of California will repay that amount plus interest over a 35 year period.

Here is a video of the new courthouse provided courtesy of Gazettes.com

If you are having trouble viewing the video, you can see it here.

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)

Mr. Luster was convicted and sentenced to 124 years in prison at trial in 2003. Since his conviction his lawyers have tried to reopen the case and have asked for a new trial. While those efforts were denied by the Judge sitting in Ventura County where the original trial was held, the court did recently agree to reopen the sentencing portion of the trial. The rationale being that the sentencing appeared to be excessive and improperly made. Prior to trial Mr. Luster may have been offered an 8-12 year sentence according to his Defense team.

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

Related Articles

• Convicted rapist Andrew Luster’s 124-year sentence vacated (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• Max Factor heir Andrew Luster granted new sentencing hearing (abclocal.go.com)
• CA judge vacates sentence for Max Factor heir (utsandiego.com)
• Calif. judge vacates sentence for Max Factor heir (kvue.com)
• Andrew Luster: Judge Vacates 124-year Sentence for Rape (ktla.com)
• Judge Sets Aside Sentence For Max Factor Heir (losangeles.cbslocal.com)

If you were an avid fan of Seinfeld or if you enjoy watching syndicated Seinfeld reruns, then you will probably remember the famous episode called “The Bookstore.” This is episode 173 from the 9th season, which aired originally April 9, 1998.  Like all Seinfeld episodes, this episode had numerous plotlines, but who can forget when Jerry discovers that Uncle Leo is shoplifting and even Jerry’s parents defend Uncle Leo’s behavior saying something like “it is not stealing, if you need it!” While we might laugh at this over-the-top sitcom, the truth is being accused of shoplifting is no laughing matter. And in California shoplifting is usually charged as petty theft.

Should you be arrested for petty theft in Orange County, California, be sure to seek legal counsel. William Bruzzo is the senior attorney in the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo and he has been a practicing attorney since 1993. Here is one client’s testimonial regarding being charged with petty theft and his case outcome.

“I was accused of petty theft [a violation of Penal Code Section 484(a)-488 a misdemeanor] and told to appear in the Orange County Superior court. It was alleged that I took an item from Sears without paying for it.

I hired Mr. Bruzzo because of his years of experience in the Orange County courts and his familiarity with all the District Attorneys. I knew that only a lawyer practicing in Orange County for quite some time would be able to get me the result I desired.

I am a nursing school graduate and have hopes of becoming a licensed nurse one day. The criminal charges against me were keeping me from pursuing this dream. Any conviction for a theft offense could have resulted in the end of my career.
Thankfully, Mr. Bruzzo was able to get me a complete DISMISSAL after just a few court appearances. All I had to do was complete a short class and give a DNA sample. Mr. Bruzzo took care of everything from the beginning to the end. Thanks to him, my record is clean.

I am happy to recommend Mr. Bruzzo to anyone facing a criminal charge, especially petty theft.” ~~ MO, June 5, 2009

On September 30, 2009–the eve of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, President Obama remarked how this violent epidemic “touches the lives of Americans of all ages, leaving a devastating impact on women, men, and children of every background and circumstance.”

This month is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Two different California code sections explain domestic violence. Under Penal Code 243(e) (1), domestic violence occurs when a person purposefully touches his/her partner in an offensive or angry way. A partner is defined by the code as your current or former spouse, your fiance/fiancee, someone you have lived with or currently live with, someone you have dated or are currently dating, or your child’s parent. If an injury results from the contact, then one can be charged under Penal Code 273.5(a) – Corporal Injury on a Spouse. In addition to fines and jail time, a person must also complete a one year batterer’s treatment program if convicted on one of the above offenses.

However, if you are charged with a domestic violence offense, there are some defenses available to you that an experienced criminal defense attorney can explore. A person accused of domestic violence can claim the defense of self-defense. Self-defense occurs when a person uses force against another because they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of bodily injury or that someone else is in imminent danger of bodily injury and that they must use force to protect them. The person using the force must not use more force then is necessary to defend against the danger. Another defense available to people in domestic violence situations is that of mutual combat. This defense allows the first person who used violence to claim self-defense if: (1) He/she in good faith tries to stop fighting; (2) He/she indicates in a way that a reasonable person would understand that he/she wants to stop fighting and he/she actually stops fighting; (3) He/She gives opponent the opportunity to stop fighting. If the District Attorney finds that the defendant acted in self defense as described in the two situations above then the case may be DISMISSED. Similarly a jury can find the Defendant NOT GUILTY on the same grounds. Criminal Law Updates by Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo. The Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo represent Defendants charged with Penal Code Sections 273.5 and 243(e) (1).