Proposition 57 – Criminal Sentences, Parole, Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing Act of 2016 – Resource Center for Defenders
Most recent update: February 17, 2017 | 8:36 pm
First published November 9, 2016. Updated as additional documents become available.
This Proposition 57 Resource Center will be seeing many resources added over the next few weeks, so be sure to subscribe to the Defender411 notices for this website if you’d like a notice each time something is posted on the site, including to this resource center.
(Note: You must log in (over on the right side of this page) to view this members-only content (see log-in box on upper right panel of this page) If you have problems logging in, you can email tech support at claratech @ cpda.org All practice tips and practice samples are on this site but members cannot access them until fully logged in on this site, which you may do by using the login box on the right side of this page. If you have not renewed your membership, you can do that via this link, or you can call during business hours 1.800.538.4993 x 304 and renew by phone to gain access to this members website. Note: The Prop. 57 analysis document is available on the front page of this site without logging in, but any sample practice documents and memos related to tips and suggestions, etc. that are written specifically for defenders are not accessible unless you log in (and fully access this resource page).
THE WEEK’S CASES: for the week ending February 17, 2017
by Al Menaster, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office.
ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO A RESIDENCE IS NOT CURED BY A LATER SEARCH WARRANT
The police repeatedly ignored the defendant’s invocations of Miranda and browbeat him, eventually getting consent to search his residence. The C/A says that under the totality of the circumstances, the consent was invalid. The police went into the defendant’s residence without a warrant and there was no exigency. So the entry was illegal.
But wait, the police could have obtained a warrant and in fact did so later. Does that cure the illegality? Is the [More…] »
Criminal Law Case Summaries: December 2016-January 2017
by Gary Mandinach, Attorney at Law, California Appellate Project, Los Angeles, California
1. People v. Brown (2016) Cal.App.5th , reported on December 21, 2016, in 2016 Los Angeles Daily Journal 12496, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 2 held that section 137, subdivision (c), which makes it a felony to induce a person to give false testimony or to give false information to a police officer, is not necessarily more specific than section 136.1, subdivision (b)(2), making it a felony to attempt to dissuade a victim or witness from participating in the prosecution of a crime, so conduct that violates both statutes may be prosecuted under either. The prosecutors’ decision to charge the defendant under section 136.1, subdivision (b)(2), which carries a greater potential penalty than section 137, subdivision (c), did not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the absence of a showing that the decision was arbitrary or irrational. (See People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838-839.) The trial court did not err in failing to instruct on section 137 and correctly barred counsel from arguing that defendant was guilty under section 137 rather than under section 136.1. Counsel was essentially seeking an instruction on a lesser related offense, which could not be granted without the prosecution’s consent. (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 668; see also People v. Birks (1998) 10 Cal.4th 108.)
2. People v. Relkin (2016) Cal.App.5th , reported on December 23, 2016, in 2016 Los Angeles Daily Journal 12632, the Third Appellate District held that it was not in error to require, as a condition of probation that the defendant to obtain “written permission from the probation officer” before leaving the State of California was reasonably related to his conviction for sale and transportation of controlled substances and did not unduly inhibit his exercise of the right to travel. (See In re White (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 141, 149-150.) [More…] »
CACJ & CPDA 2017 Capital Case Defense Seminar
CACJ & CPDA proudly present the
2017 Capital Case Defense Seminar
February 17-20, 2017
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) and the California Public Defenders’ Association (CPDA) are pleased to invite you to participate in the 2017 Capital Case Defense Seminar (CCDS). The CCDS is an intensive educational opportunity for anyone involved in, or considering taking on, the defense of a capital case. It is designed not only for lawyers, but also for mitigation specialists, paralegals, investigators, and experts working in capital defense. The CCDS will also include sessions addressing murder and felony charges other than capital cases.
The CACJ/CPDA Capital Case Defense Seminar is the largest of its kind in the nation. CCDS is unique in that it offers lectures as well as specialized workshops that give participants the chance to brainstorm and exchange information with other participants. Experienced practitioners in any jurisdiction and those just entering the field can benefit from the lectures and workshops featuring experienced lawyers and experts, from both California and across the nation.
Complete program details and registration available via this link: https://www.cacj.org/Events/CACJ-CPDA-CCDS-Registration/Seminar-Information/Registration-Form.aspx
New mobile apps for CPDA members – Download from the Apple App and/or the Google Play store
The CPDA Members App. The CPDA Members App was created to help build a closer-knit community among members. Members of CPDA who download the app can join conversations, share photos, learn about events, and locate contact information for all members.
The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) is a nonprofit organization that serves as a resource center for its members who are all criminal defense attorneys – both private attorneys who practice criminal defense in California, and public defenders who are criminal defense attorneys employed by local county public defender agencies. The organization was formed over 40 years ago and today provides numerous on-site training programs through the year and in different locations held throughout the state of California, all designed exclusively for criminal defense attorneys who practice in California. Together, the two groups of criminal defense attorneys (private defenders and public defenders) comprise the membership of CPDA, which totals over 3,400 practicing criminal defense attorneys in California, in particular, but the membership is open to criminal defense attorneys in other states and several hundred from throughout the U.S. are associate members of CPDA.
Two options to download the CPDA Members App:
1. Download from the Google Play Store:
2. Download from the Apple App Store:
The CLARANET App. For CPDA members with the additional “Claranet” subscription, there’s an additional app that is [More…] »