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.

Under the Constitution of the United States and the California State Constitution everyone has a right to a ‘Speedy Trial’. This means that once you are charged and/or in custody they must give you a trial within a reasonable time frame. The specific amounts of time are left to the states. In a California misdemeanor case you must have a trial within 30 days of your initial court date, also known as an arraignment, which is when you enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. In a felony case you are entitled to a trial within 60 days of your arraignment. Also, if taken into custody in California you must be seen by a Judge within 48 hours of your arrest not counting weekends or holidays. So, if you are arrested Friday night you must be seen by a Judge no later than Wednesday morning.

This brings us to the sad case of Stephen Slevin of New Mexico. Mr. Slevin was arrested in New Mexico for drunk driving and possession of a stolen vehicle in August of 2005. These are relatively low grade offenses. However, for reasons unclear, Mr. Slevin’s case never went to trial and he was not released until June of 2007, almost two years later. What is worse is that he spent most of his time in solitary confinement where he eventually lost his mind and was reduced to rocking back and forth with a blanket over him. In May of 2007 he was released to a mental hospital covered in bed sores and fungus. After recuperating somewhat in the mental hospital he was returned to solitary confinement before Prosecutors finally decided not to pursue charges based on his lack of competence. Two years is a very long time for someone to be detained pending charges. Spokesman for the county he was detained in blamed the District Attorney’s office and the Public Defender for the excessive time he was in custody. It would also seem that the jail personnel were seriously remiss in the care of this inmate. He apparently wrote notes daily while in custody asking for medical attention but none came. He eventually gave up.

After release Mr. Slevin brought suit against the county for the lack of medical attention and the delay in bringing his matter to trial. The jury awarded him 15.5 million dollars for his suffering at the hands of the authorities. Hopefully, the results of this suit will cause the authorities in Doña Ana County to pay better attention to its inmates.

Here is a CNN News video covering this story.

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

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

Related Articles

• ‘Forgotten’ Inmate Gets $15.5 Million After 2-Years in Solitary (ktla.com)
• New Mexico inmate left in solitary confinement for 2 years gets $15.5 million (foxnews.com)
• ‘Forgotten’ inmate gets $15.5 million settlement from N.M. county (cnn.com)
• Left in solitary for 2 years, man gets $15.5 million settlement (usnews.nbcnews.com)
• Man left in solitary confinement for 2 years gets $15.5 million settlement (usnews.nbcnews.com)

Misdemeanor cases affected by the speedy trial clause of the US and California Constitution are controlled by the case of Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 219 Cal Rptr 420. The typical situation that deals with a speedy trial right is when a Defendant is arrested for a crime but the District Attorney does not file by the time indicated on the notice to appear. Then, either the Defendant never receives the letter with the new court date or ignores it. Sometime after a year post-arrest the Defendant gets picked up for a new crime or traffic matter or some other random police contact. Once a year has passed since the crime was committed and the crime is filed as a misdemeanor the speedy trial right for misdemeanors in California arises. Both the Federal Constitution and the California Constitution play a role. Because more then a year has passed, it is presumed that the Defendant has suffered prejudice. As such, the burden shifts to the Prosecutor to justify the delay. The court at that point considers the reason for the delay and also weighs the factors laid out in Barker v. Wingo, (1972) 407 U.S. 514, 532, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101, 118: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. As a practical matter on misdemeanors, it is rare when the Prosecution has done more then send a letter to the last known address. As such, if more then a year has passed on a misdemeanor, speedy trial motions are usually granted depending on the jurisdiction.

Felony cases are more difficult to win on the speedy trial issue. Part of this is because more time must pass as the minimum statute of limitation on a felony is at least three years or longer as opposed to a misdemeanor where allegations can only be brought within one year. People v. Martinez (2000) 94 Cal Rptr.2d 381 is generally considered the controlling California case on speedy trial issues for felonies. Felonies themselves must be split into two different types for speedy trial consideration.

1. Pre-preliminary Hearing Cases: In these felony cases because the case does not end in a trial only a hearing the Federal Constitutional safeguards are not covered. Thus, there is no presumed prejudice, actual prejudice must be shown and the Wingo, factors are considered.
2. Post- Pre-liminary hearing cases: The rationale for Martinez and Serna, would seem to indicate that prejudice is presumed for felonies post-preliminary hearing since the Federal standard would apply, however, the precedent is unclear here. Also some cases have held that actual prejudice will only be considered after trial which seems to indicate there is no presumed prejudice.

Will Bruzzo has managed to get many cases dismissed on the basis of a violation of the speedy trial right.

19-year-old Daniel Moreno has been charged with cruelty to animals for stomping on a California brown pelican’s beak at Newport Beach pier after it tried to take his fish. Under California Penal Code Section 597, the offense may be filed as a misdemeanor with up to one year in jail or a felony carrying prison time, both with maximum fine of $20,000.

After the incident, the pelican was taken to the Huntington Beach care center, where it is now recovering from a broken beak. Moreno was taken into custody for his actions. He is scheduled to appear in court in Orange County on April 5th.

A Battery occurs whenever one person touches another without consent. A Battery can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. The amount of injury to the victim will usually decide whether the case is charged as a felony or a misdemeanor. Here is one client’s experience facing a battery charge in Orange County:

“I was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer (Penal Code Section 241(b)); Battery on an Officer(Penal Code Section 243(b))and Resisting Arrest (Penal Code Section 148(a) (1)). These charges occurred as a result of an altercation I got into with a Police Officer in Orange County. I was looking at up to one year in jail for these offenses. I hired William W. Bruzzo to represent me because of his reputation and his familiarity with the courts in Orange County. I told Mr. Bruzzo that not only did I not assault the officer in question but that he assaulted me without reason or provocation. I realized that for the most part it would be my word against the officer’s. Mr. Bruzzo took my case and began investigating the officer by filing motions which requested the personnel records of the officer in question. The County of Orange fought to keep the records from being revealed but Mr. Bruzzo won in the end. The personnel records of the officer in question revealed that he had had problems with violence in the past. Mr. Bruzzo used this information in his negotiations with the District Attorney. In the end, the District Attorney agreed to DISMISS all the charges against me! I am very grateful to Mr. Bruzzo for his work and I would enthusiastically recommend him for any criminal matter.” ~ WR, 01/15/2010

Two months ago, I was cited in Orange County for using my cell phone while driving. I was written up for a violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23123 and given a court date on which to appear. This Vehicle Code Section went into effect on July 1, 2008.

This law prohibits the use of handheld cellular phones while driving. However, a handheld cellular phone can be used during an emergency, to call the police, fire department or other emergency services.

A violation of this section constitutes an infraction, which is a petty violation of the law and is less serious than a misdemeanor. It is punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars for a first offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offense. However, with the addition of penalty assessments, the fines can be more than triple the base fine amount.

The conviction appears on one’s DMV driving record; however, the violation is not added as a point and therefore does not affect insurance premiums.

Today was the court trial for my citation. After the officer’s testimony and presentation of all the evidence, the judge ruled I was NOT GUILTY of the above offense. I was able to show the court that I was not talking while holding my Blackberry in my hand. I demonstrated how my phone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking through Bluetooth. The law specifically allows for the use of one’s phone if it’s through a hands-free medium. Therefore, I fit the exception and walked out with a NOT GUILTY!

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