In California, felony sentencing is governed by complex laws that take into account various factors such as the nature of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and specific sentencing guidelines. Here's a brief summary of how felony sentencing works in California:

California utilizes determinate and indeterminate sentencing depending on the nature of the offense and the defendant's criminal history:

• Determinate Sentencing: For most felonies, the court imposes a fixed term of imprisonment. The length of the sentence is determined by statute and can be increased or decreased based on aggravating or mitigating factors.
• Indeterminate Sentencing: Certain serious felonies, such as murder, may result in indeterminate sentences. This means the court imposes a range of possible sentences (such as 25 years to life) and a parole board determines the actual release date based on the inmate's conduct and rehabilitation efforts.

Sentencing Factors
Several factors influence the length and type of sentence imposed:

• Aggravating Factors: These include factors that increase the severity of the offense, such as the use of a weapon, prior criminal history, or the vulnerability of the victim. For example, if:
  • The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness;
  • The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;
  • The victim was particularly vulnerable;
  • The defendant induced a minor to commit or assist in the commission of the crime;
  • The defendant threatened witnesses, unlawfully prevented or dissuaded witnesses from testifying, suborned perjury, or in any other way illegally interfered with the judicial process;
  • The defendant was convicted of other crimes for which consecutive sentences could have been imposed but for which concurrent sentences are being imposed;
  • The manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, sophistication, or professionalism;
  • The crime involved an attempted or actual taking or damage of great monetary value;
  • The crime involved a large quantity of contraband;
  • The defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense;
  • The crime constitutes a hate crime under section 422.55
  • The defendant induced others to participate in the commission of the crime or occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants in its commission;
  • The defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society;
  • The defendant's prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness;
  • The defendant has served a prior term in prison or county jail under section 1170(h);
  • The defendant was on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole when the crime was committed;
  • The defendant's prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was unsatisfactory.
• Mitigating Factors: Conversely, mitigating factors can lead to a lesser sentence. These might include a lack of prior criminal record, remorse shown by the defendant, or circumstances suggesting the crime was not premeditated. For example, if
  • ​The defendant was a passive participant or played a minor role in the crime;
  • The victim was an initiator of, willing participant in, or aggressor or provoker of the incident;
  • The crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance, such as great provocation, that is unlikely to recur;
  • The defendant participated in the crime under circumstances of coercion or duress, or the criminal conduct was partially excusable for some other reason not amounting to a defense;
  • The defendant, with no apparent predisposition to do so, was induced by others to participate in the crime;
  • The defendant exercised caution to avoid harm to persons or damage to property, or the amounts of money or property taken were deliberately small, or no harm was done or threatened against the victim;
  • The defendant believed that he or she had a claim or right to the property taken, or for other reasons mistakenly believed that the conduct was legal;
  • The defendant was motivated by a desire to provide necessities for his or her family or self; 
  • The defendant suffered from repeated or continuous physical, sexual, or psychological abuse inflicted by the victim of the crime, and the victim of the crime, who inflicted the abuse, was the defendant's spouse, intimate cohabitant, or parent of the defendant's child; and the abuse does not amount to a defense;
  • If a firearm was used in the commission of the offense, it was unloaded or inoperable;
  • The defendant has no prior record, or has an insignificant record of criminal conduct, considering the recency and frequency of prior crimes;
  • The defendant was suffering from a mental or physical condition that significantly reduced culpability for the crime;
  • The defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence and it was a factor in the commission of the crime;
  • The commission of the current offense is connected to the defendant's prior victimization or childhood trauma, or mental illness as defined by section 1385(c); 
  • The defendant is or was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking at the time of the commission of the offense, and it was a factor in the commission of the offense;
  •  The defendant is under 26 years of age, or was under 26 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;
  • The defendant was a juvenile when they committed the current offense;
  • The defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing before arrest or at an early stage of the criminal process;
  • The defendant is ineligible for probation and but for that ineligibility would have been granted probation;
  • Application of an enhancement could result in a sentence over 20 years;
  • Multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case;
  • Application of an enhancement could result in a discriminatory racial impact;
  • An enhancement is based on a prior conviction that is over five years old;
  • The defendant made restitution to the victim;
  • The defendant's prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was satisfactory.

Three Strikes
LawCalifornia's "Three Strikes" law mandates harsher sentences for individuals convicted of a felony who have previous serious or violent felony convictions. A third strike can result in a sentence of 25 years to life, even for non-violent felonies.

Probation and Alternative SentencingIn some cases, instead of prison time, the court may grant probation or alternative sentencing options like community service, drug rehabilitation programs, or electronic monitoring. These alternatives aim to rehabilitate the offender while reducing prison overcrowding.

Recent Reforms and Considerations
Based on various and numerous studies and report (example here) ecent legislative changes in California have focused on reducing mass incarceration and addressing disparities in sentencing. Efforts include reevaluating mandatory minimums and expanding eligibility for parole and early release programs.

Conclusion
California's felony sentencing laws are designed to balance punishment with rehabilitation and public safety considerations. The system incorporates both determinate and indeterminate sentencing based on the severity of the crime and the defendant's criminal history. While there is a focus on punitive measures, there are also provisions for probation and alternative sentencing aimed at reducing recidivism and integrating offenders back into society. As the legal landscape evolves, ongoing reforms seek to achieve a more equitable and effective approach to felony sentencing in the state.

If you need a lawyer, contact Devina here.

In California, the bail system serves as a crucial component of the criminal justice process, allowing individuals accused of crimes to secure their release from custody while awaiting trial. Bail laws in California are governed by various state statutes and are designed to balance public safety concerns with the constitutional rights of the accused, particularly the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Bail Basics:Definition of Bail: Bail is the monetary amount set by a court that a defendant must pay to be released from custody pending trial. It serves as a form of security to ensure the defendant's appearance at all court proceedings.
Types of Bail:

1. Cash Bail: Defendants can pay the entire bail amount in cash or through a bail bond company to secure their release.
   
2. Bail Bond: If a defendant cannot afford the full bail amount, they can use a bail bond company. The company charges a non-refundable fee (typically 10% of the bail amount) and guarantees payment of the full bail if the defendant fails to appear in court.
   
3. Own Recognizance (OR) Release: In some cases, a defendant may be released on their own recognizance without posting bail. This is typically reserved for low-risk defendants with strong community ties and a minimal flight risk.
   

Bail Process:1. Arrest and Booking:

• When a person is arrested, they are taken to a police station or county jail for booking.
• During booking, personal information is recorded, fingerprints and photographs are taken, and a background check is conducted.

2. Bail Hearing:

• After booking, the defendant is entitled to a bail hearing where a judge determines whether to set bail and, if so, the amount.
• The judge considers factors such as the severity of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, ties to the community, and flight risk.

3. Bail Amount Determination:

• Bail amounts vary depending on the offense. For minor offenses, bail may be set at a standard amount predetermined by a county's bail schedule. For example, in Sonoma County, the bail for the run-of-the-mill 1st offense DUI is $10,000.
• For more serious offenses or cases with special circumstances, the judge has discretion to set higher bail amounts or deny bail altogether. In Sonoma County, the default bail amount in a Domestic Violence case is $30,000.
• Sonoma County's curent Bail schedule can be found here. 

4. Posting Bail:

• If bail is granted, the defendant or their representative can post bail in cash or through a bail bond company.
• Once bail is posted, the defendant is released from custody with conditions to attend all court hearings.

5. Failure to Appear:

• If the defendant fails to appear in court as scheduled, the court may forfeit the bail and issue a bench warrant for their arrest.
• The bail bond company may also hire a bounty hunter to locate and apprehend the defendant.

Recent Changes and Reforms:California has undergone significant bail reform efforts aimed at reducing reliance on cash bail and addressing disparities in the criminal justice system. In 2018, Senate Bill 10 was signed into law but was later suspended due to a voter referendum. The law aimed to replace cash bail with a risk assessment system to determine whether defendants should be released pretrial.
California continues to debate and implement reforms to the bail system, with a focus on alternatives to cash bail that consider the defendant's risk to public safety and flight risk rather than their ability to pay.
Despite efforts at reform, California's bail system has faced criticism for perpetuating inequality, as defendants unable to pay bail may spend extended periods in jail awaiting trial, impacting their employment, housing, and family stability. Critics argue that cash bail disproportionately affects low-income and minority defendants.
The bail process in California is a complex system designed to balance the rights of the accused with public safety concerns. While recent reforms aim to address issues of fairness and equality, challenges remain in ensuring a system that is both effective and equitable for all defendants. As California continues to navigate these issues, ongoing debate and reform efforts seek to improve the pretrial process and reduce disparities within the criminal justice system.

In California, obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) is a legal process designed to protect individuals from harassment, threats, violence, or other forms of abuse inflicted by another person. Here’s a detailed summary of how one can pursue a CHRO in California, as determined by California Civil Code 527.6:
Understanding Civil HarassmentCivil harassment occurs when someone harasses, threatens, stalks, or commits acts of violence against you, causing substantial emotional distress or fear for your safety. It typically involves behavior that is not connected to a close familial or intimate relationship, such as neighbors, coworkers, or strangers.
Eligibility to Seek a CHROTo seek a civil harassment restraining order in California, you must meet specific eligibility criteria:

1. Relationship: There must be no close familial or intimate relationship between you and the person you seek protection from (unlike domestic violence cases which involve family or intimate partners).
   
2. Acts of Harassment: You must demonstrate that the person has engaged in a pattern of harassment or committed specific acts that cause you emotional distress or fear.
   

Steps to Obtain a CHRO1. Filing a RequestThe process begins by filing a request for a civil harassment restraining order with the court. While having an experienced attorney help you through the process is recommended, a person can sek protection without having to hire one. If you want to do it yourself, you can obtain the necessary forms from your local courthouse or online through the California Courts website. These forms typically include a petition for the restraining order and a description of the incidents that led you to seek protection.
2. Court ReviewAfter filing your request, a judge will review your petition and decide whether to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on the information provided. A TRO can provide immediate protection until a hearing is held to determine whether a permanent restraining order is necessary.
3. Serving the RespondentOnce the TRO is issued, the next step involves serving a copy of the order and the court hearing date to the person you are seeking protection from (the respondent). This ensures they are aware of the legal proceedings and have an opportunity to respond in court.
4. Court HearingA hearing will be scheduled where both you (the petitioner) and the respondent can present evidence, witnesses, and arguments to support your respective cases. It’s crucial to gather any relevant documentation, such as police reports, witness statements, or records of communication, to substantiate your claims of harassment.
5. Judge’s DecisionBased on the evidence presented and California state law, the judge will decide whether to grant a permanent civil harassment restraining order. If granted, the order typically remains in effect for up to five years and can be renewed if necessary.
Key Considerations and Legal Standards

• Burden of Proof: You, as the petitioner, have the burden of proving by a clear and convicing evidence (a pretty high standard,) that harassment has occurred and that a restraining order is necessary for your safety.
  
• Types of Orders: The CHRO can include various provisions, such as prohibiting the respondent from contacting you, coming near your home or workplace, or from possessing firearms.
  
• Violation Consequences: Violating a civil harassment restraining order is a serious offense in California, punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both.
  

Seeking AssistanceNavigating the process of obtaining a civil harassment restraining order can be complex and emotionally challenging. It is advisable to seek assistance from legal professionals, victim advocates, or domestic violence organizations who can provide guidance, support, and resources throughout the process.
ConclusionObtaining a civil harassment restraining order in California involves a structured legal process aimed at protecting individuals from harassment, threats, or violence perpetrated by others. By following the necessary steps, gathering evidence, and presenting your case effectively in court, you can seek the legal protection necessary to ensure your safety and peace of mind. Understanding your rights and responsibilities during this process is essential for a successful outcome in obtaining a CHRO.

Rueter's Super Lawyer program recognizes top legal professionals annually based on peer nominations and evaluations. Lawyers undergo rigorous assessments by an independent research team, evaluating criteria such as professional achievement and peer recognition. Those selected demonstrate exceptional legal skill and ethical standards. Being designated a Rueter's Super Lawyer indicates significant respect from peers and confirms excellence in the legal field.

Devina Douglas is proud to announce that she was recognized as a Super Lawyer's Rising Star for the 2nd year this year. Her first award was received in 2023. 

​ 
While the authors of a recent bill note that it is difficult to find comprehensive, up-to-date statistics on the prevalence of drink-spiking/drugging, various state officials and police departments from across the country have stated that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. “Date rape drugs”
can cause disorientation, confusion, and temporary paralysis or loss of consciousness—meant to 
make a person’s potential victim vulnerable—and are substances such as flunitrazepam, ketamine, and gamma hydroxybutyric acid. According to the author's office, "the underreported epidemic of drink spiking is often used to facilitate the commission of other crimes, such as sexual assault and rape. While anyone can have their drink spiked, the targets of this act are all too often women. Although drink spiking can be perpetrated in almost any setting, a common location for this activity to take place is at bars or night clubs, where alcoholic beverages are being served.”
 
Under AB 1013, which took effect 7/1/24, establishments must provide kits that can detect these substances. The program will be administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), and non-compliance could affect a licensee’s ability to obtain/maintain their license to sell alcohol. Licensees are responsible to purchasing the kits, and are then free to either give the tests away, or charge “a price not to exceed a reasonable amount based on the wholesale cost.” 
 
The bill follows a test program in Long Beach that provided residents with a free test strip that could be used identify specific “date rape” drugs in a beverage. 
 
The new law also requires bars to display a prominently placed sign stating: “Don’t get roofied! Drink spiking drug test kits available here. Ask a staff member for details.” 
 
 

​Two new laws have gone into effect today which affect the purchase of firearms in CA. The first of these is AB-28 which establishes the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant Program, administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections, to award competitive grants for the purpose of violence intervention and prevention. The author of the bill states that "Californians are counting on us to do everything possible to keep them safe from mass shootings and gun violence. AB 28 is a common-sense measure that will fund school safety measures and gun violence prevention programs that have proven to be some of the most effective ways of stopping gun violence. A modest tax will provide us with a permanent, sustainable funding source for these essential programs and help protect communities across our state."
 
While the author calls the tax “modest” the reality is that the new law imposes an 11% tax on the gross receipts from the retail sale of a firearm, firearm precursor part, and ammunition. 
 
The money, one collected will be distributed as follows: 
 
·      The first $75 million will be annually allocated to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to fund CalVIP Grants and administration and evaluations of CalVIP-supported programs. 
·      The next $50 million will be annually allocated to the State Department of Education to fund school mental health and behavioral services and school safety measures, and for physical security safety assessments. 
·      The next $15 million will be annually allocated to the Judicial Council to support a court-based firearm relinquishment grant program to ensure the consistent and safe removal of firearms from individuals who become prohibited from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition because of a court order such as a domestic violence restraining order, gun violence restraining order, civil harassment restraining order, or workplace violence restraining order. 
·      The next $15 million will be annually allocated to DOJ for a justice “for victims of gun violence program to support evidence-based activities to equitably improve investigations and clearance rates in firearm homicide and firearm assault investigations in communities disproportionately impacted by firearm homicides and firearm assaults.”
As expected, the bill faced opposition from gun-rights ground such as the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asserted "All of California's law-abiding citizens benefit from efforts to implement programs which remediate the impacts of illegal gun violence upon our public, and all should equally help to fund their implementation. Yet, AB 28 would unjustifiably place the entire burden of funding efforts to address illegal gun violence on the backs of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase and lawfully use firearms and ammunition.” They continued "Additionally, by substantially raising the cost of purchasing a firearm and ammunition in California, AB 28 would disproportionately impact the ability of economically disadvantaged communities and individuals to legally purchase a firearm and ammunition to protect themselves and their loved ones. Further, AB 28 would impede their equitable access to hunting and shooting sports – at a time when the Administration and the Legislature are seeking to increase participation in outdoor recreation and access for all Californians.”
 
The second law which went in effect today was AB 1587 which  required credit card payment networks to create a unique identifying code for gun and ammunition retailers so that transactions can be better tracked.  All credit card processing networks use these credit codes to designate the type of goods or services a merchant sells allowing as to help with tax compliance, to establish the interchange rate, or to pay rewards to cardholders for certain types of expenditures.
 
The author wrote "This bill is simple. It would mandate that banks and credit card companies utilize this life saving tool and attach the MCC code to California businesses that have, or are expected to have the highest sales volume, of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. This is consistent with how other MCC codes are used for all other businesses in California, all over the country and all around the world. This will allow financial institutions to identify and report to law enforcement known patterns that are highly suggestive of illegal firearms trafficking — such as repetitive purchases at the same gun store or purchases at multiple gun stores with corresponding cash deposits supplying them with a critical tool to interrupt trafficking rings that flood our communities with guns and violence. This is how we can stop gun violence BEFORE it happens."
 
However those opposed claim that as a result of this bill’s passage, the "DOJ will gain no new data that it does not already possess in the status quo through firearms and ammunition purchases. Given the fact that MCCs will not provide any additional information to solve crimes, it appears that the intent is focused on placing law-abiding citizens in harm’s way. Imagine a parent supporting their child by making a purchase of shotgun ammunition for competitive shooting at the range and having a completely unwarranted visitation by DOJ agents for doing nothing illegal."