The bubble: sentencing law confusion

Convict, John Q.

Original

Transcript

THE BUBBLE SENTENCING LAW CONFUSION To many current as well as most former prisoners, Sentencing Law is very confusing, as ironically enough, for many licensed practicing "Criminal Law" Attorneys. Surprised, we don't be as the simple fact is that California Sentencing Laws are "Arcane," and out of such plain ignorance these Public Servants tend to mislead unintentionally or intentionally mislead their clients into accepting the so-called plea bargains that their defense attorney presumptively have brokered with the prosecution who factually tend to be much more versed in the future ramifications and penalties that such convictions result in for the person so duped. However, on its face, it appears that some aspects of California Sentencing Law practices are getting a proverbial tune up! Yes like for instance the infamous "Felony-Murder Rule" which commencing January 1, 2019 a defendant will no longer be automatically deemed guilty of a murder just because they were present when the crime was committed. Hur-ray, some are saying. However this change has in effect resulted in even more confusion for many current prisoners, who are seeking to obtain some sort of relief from the sentence they may be suffering based upon the draconian Felony Murder Rule. I anticipate that numerous petitions will flood the courts on the presumption of entitlement to resentencing. Sure, some may be granted, but most will not, since there is clear stopgape provisions in the law as written whereas if the alleged accomplice did not actually do the killing, he/she will only be held accountable for the underlying crime. Yet slow down and lets explore this a bit more carefully. There is no free pass, since when one has been found to have Aided, Abbetted, Instructed, Commands, Induces, Counsels, Solicits, Requests or Assists in the commission of a murder, that person will still be held liable as a participant. What, how does this small insertion concern you? Well lets consider the fact that current statute that suggests that when a accomplice is deemed a major participant in the underlying felony and is said to have acted with reckless disregard/indifference to human life, or it has been emphasized, the victim is a peace officer. The individual will still be never-the-less, held accountable under the Felony-Murder Rule with a vengence. Most Prisoners in California do not pay close attention to all the ramifications they subject themselves, and interestingly enough are not counselled as to the particulars of how they were charged in the first place by the prosecution which is key to any petitions success, or benefit one hopes to gain from the modest change in the Felony-Murder Rule statute. One may have to litigate that aspect in order to ultimately be successful on their petition at some point not clear. This will also result in sadly, lots of bubbles being busted when they're petitions for resentencing based on SB 1437 is denied. One will have to check the records for proper support, for if the record does not provide substantive proof that none of the above mentioned burdens apply in their case. Know that there will not be any unfettered mass releases of violent prisoners based upon the change in the Felony-Murder Rule, but if one person is resentenced to a lesser term or released from these confines based upon the change, it will still be a good thing. With All Due Respects Mr. John Q. Convict 1-1-19

Author: Convict, John Q.

Author Location: California

Date: January 1, 2019

Genre: Essay

Extent: 2 pages

If this is your essay and you would like it removed from or changed on this site, refer to our Takedown and Changes policy.