Category: Sentencing

LA Co. Judge Reinstates Sentencing Charges After Victims Object

There has been a significant development in the victims’ revolt against LA DA George Gascón’s reckless policies.

Judge Rob Villeza of the East Judicial District of LA Superior Court, in Pomona, initially dismissed special circumstance allegations against Raymond Gonzalez, who is charged with two counts of murder and carjacking. The dismissal was based on a motion by the District Attorney’s Office under the DA’s special directives to never charge special circumstances and to dismiss any pending special circumstance allegations. But then the victims’ families sought reconsideration. Continue reading . . .

The Perfect Storm for Crime to Flourish in San Francisco

In San Francisco fear has become part of life for many of its residents. According to this article by Kenny Choi of CBS San Francisco:

Residents in San Francisco say they don’t feel safe amid an alarming rise in the number of burglaries across the city. Residents say the initial response form San Francisco police went nowhere. So after someone broke into her complex in the middle of the night, [Iryna] Gorb started sleuthing, obsessively collecting evidence on her own from neighbors’ cameras.  

 

Continue reading . . .

The Lethal and Racist Dishonesty of the Defense Bar

In the post immediately preceding this one, Amber Westbrook wrote of “Another Violent Felon Released from Prison Early to Commit More Crimes.”  The piece I bring you now is in the same vein but much worse.  It’s from the pro-criminal justice “reform” Washington Post.  Its title is, “Released early after a murder conviction, D.C. man is charged in new homicide.”  It’s yet another story of dishonest lawyers, both white, one an advocate and one a judge, who worked hand-in-hand to secure the early release of a violent thug in the prime of his criminal life.  The released convict, Darrell Moore, went on to commit another murder a scant nine months later, by shooting his victim six times in the chest.  The evidence suggests that the victim was black, as Moore’s first victim was.

What we have here is the nauseating combination of the poisons that have been taking over our criminal justice system  —  strutting elitist attitudes and shameless lying masquerading as compassion.  But it’s not compassion.  It’s the opposite.  It starts with self-congratulatory virtue-signalling by elite-type lawyers (the great majority of whom are, as in this case, white).  The next step is pro bono representation of a violent hooligan to obtain early release, thus to shortcut his supposed accountability for an earlier brutal crime.  It proceeds by patently false representations about his New Life and Now Peaceable Character.  The final chapter is another black man in the morgue.  The white lawyers who made it all possible have  —  you guessed it  —  no comment.

Continue reading . . .

Another Violent Felon Released from Prison Early to Commit More Crimes

The Sacramento Bee has this story on Alberto Quiroz, who was sentenced to ten years in state prison for the events in the 2017 death of CHP Officer Lucas Chellew who died as a result of injuries sustained in a high-speed chase with Quiroz through South Sacramento.  Quiroz had 5 previous failures to appear on unrelated charges and previous cases. He was arrested on May 5th for assaulting one of his family members with a semi-automatic weapon. So the question is, why was he released less than three and a half years into this sentence?? Below is the answer offered by corrections spokeswoman, Dana Simas. 

Continue reading . . .

Dumping a Dishonest Precedent Less Than Honestly — Part II

In Jones v. Mississippi, decided April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in cases where a juvenile is facing life without parole (LWOP) for murder, all that is needed to comply with its 2012 precedent in Miller v. Alabama is for the sentencing court to have discretion to choose a lower sentence and consider the defendant’s youth in making the choice.

That would have been fairly straightforward based on Miller itself. The complications arose from the 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, making Miller retroactive so as to require resentencing for a 1963 murder. The problem, as explained at length in the previous post, is that Montgomery contradicted Miller in order to achieve that result, and Montgomery even contradicted itself, making statements that cannot be reconciled.

In Jones, the majority opinion joined by five Justices and the dissent joined by three have many sharp points of disagreement, but they agree on one thing. Both maintain the fiction that Montgomery is consistent with Miller. As a result, neither opinion’s analysis can possibly be completely correct, and neither is. Continue reading . . .

Dumping a Dishonest Precedent Less Than Honestly — Part I

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Jones v. Mississippi, regarding the constitutional requirements to sentence an under-18 murderer to life in prison without parole (LWOP). The majority opinion claims to “carefully follow[] both Miller [v. Alabama] and Montgomery [v. Louisiana].” The dissent claims “the Court guts” both decisions. Neither statement is completely right. Neither could be, given that Montgomery contradicts both Miller and itself.

About all that is left of Montgomery is its bare holding that Miller is retroactive. That holding will soon be essentially moot, as nearly all the murderers who killed before their 18th birthday who qualify for reconsideration under Miller will either have had a new decision in their cases (see footnote 6 of Jones, last sentence) or have lost their right to seek it by delay. The holding stands like the chimney of a house that burned down, useless but still standing.

There is a certain poetic justice in Montgomery being largely relegated to the dustbin in a less-than-honest decision, as Montgomery itself is among the most dishonest decisions in recent Supreme Court history. Continue reading . . .

Coverage of Jones Decision

Not a lot of media coverage of the Jones v. Mississippi decision. A lot of other events were happening yesterday. Jessica Gresko has this story for Associated Press:

In a statement, Kymberlee Stapleton of the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation called the decision a “victory for the families of victims murdered by juveniles.”

Continue reading . . .

Major Victory in Juvenile Murder Case

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones v. Mississippi, No. 18-1259, a case of teenager who murdered his grandfather. The high court pruned back expansive language in its 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. The decision confirms that the 2012 case of Miller v. Alabama requires only that the sentencer have discretion to choose between life without parole and a lesser sentence in the case of a juvenile murderer. There is no requirement imposed by the federal constitution that the judge find that the juvenile is “permanently incorrigible,” a finding that cannot be made with any degree of reliability. Continue reading . . .

What Do “Studies Show” About Sentence Length and Recidivism?

Eric Siddall, VP of the (Los Angeles) Association of Deputy District Attorneys has this article debunking DA George Gascón’s assertion that the “science and data” show that his soft sentencing policies will actually improve public safety.

CJLF is presently working on a literature review of this area, which we expect to have in working paper form in the next couple of weeks. Continue reading . . .

CA Law Abolishing Felony Murder Gives Child Killer Re-sentencing Opportunity

A 2018 bill (SB 1437) signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown, made a change in the California Penal Code (PC 1170.95) which is providing Pearl Fernandez, convicted in 2018 of the torture murder of her 8-year-old son Gabriel, with an opportunity to have her sentence of life in prison overturned. According to this article from Fox 11, “In her petition, Fernandez declares changes made to Penal Codes 188/189 (which took effect in 2019) alter how malice is imputed on someone, that would possibly alter her murder conviction.” Fernandez’s hearing is scheduled for June 1st in Los Angeles Superior Court according to this article by Bradford Betz of Fox News. 

Pearl Fernandez plead guilty to first-degree murder and a special circumstance allegation of torture, as discussed by Betz.  Gabriel was determined to have been abused and neglected time and time again, Betz explained, “An autopsy revealed the boy had a fractured skull, multiple broken ribs and burns on his body.” Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Hatami stated in a Tweet, “Gabriel’s family now has to relive all the horror that was perpetrated upon a small and helpless child. It is plain wrong and completely unjust.”    Question:  Will District Attorney George Gascón allow his office to oppose this murderer’s petition?