The California prison system could be undergoing a significant change.
A federal mandate to lower prison population has led to bills like AB 109 (realignment) and Prop 47 (making some felonies into misdemeanors). Proposition 57, which is on the November ballot, is a two-part proposal designed to affect non-violent criminals as well as juveniles.
Through 23ABC’s interviews with public safety officials, the juvenile angle was not met with much opposition, so it will be discussed first.
If Prop 57 were to pass, judges would be given the power to determine if a juvenile can be tried as an adult. Currently, the county’s district attorney makes that decision.
Kern County District Attorney Lisa Green says she would give that power over to judges.
“If that were the only piece of Prop 57, I don’t believe you would see law enforcement lining up, district attorneys lining up against the proposition,” Green said.
“I actually have no issue with that. Judges are certainly capable of making those decisions of juveniles.”
As Green said, it isn’t the only part of Prop 57 up for a vote. The second focus of the proposition deals with non-violent criminals.
If Prop 57 were to pass, criminals that are serving time in prison for non-violent offenses would be eligible for parole after they serve their primary sentence entirely.
To give this context, here is an example: A person receives a three year sentence for burglary but he/she also was charged with enhancements (participation in a street gang, possession of a controlled substance, etc.) which raise the total sentence to seven years.
If Prop 57 were to pass, the person could be eligible for parole after serving the three years for burglary if they participate in programs and behave while incarcerated.
The person could apply to have their case heard by a parole board, and, by looking at the person’s prison file, they can determine if the person can be released to community supervision.
Mark Bonini, the president of the Chief Probation Officers of California, played a role in the formation of the bill and explains why passing Prop 57 would be best for California.
“The odds are that somebody that’s been exposed to that type of programming while in custody is going to be a much better product and a much better person on the street to supervise, thereby reducing recidivism, which reduces victims, which reduces crime.”
But Green disagrees that Prop 57’s goal to get non-violent criminals rehabilitated through incentives is the answer to lowering prison numbers.
“There are no nonviolent offenders in state prison in my opinion,” Green said.
“They’ve all been released. This bill will not deal with violent offenders. It deals with criminals who have repeatedly offended.”
Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood agrees.
“To get into prison, you must be an overachiever… and you have not complied with our laws over and over and over again.”
That over and over again is known as recidivism, something Bonini thinks could lower if incentives are given to inmates to participate in prison rehabilitation programs.
“What incentive is there to engage in any programming?” Bonini said.
“They’re going to earn the same amount of credits that the guy next to them does and they are eventually going to get out because they’ve been given that out date.”
With the passage of Prop 57, the hope is that inmates will want to enter the programs, and in turn, receive help from them.
“We want to say please behave, good things happen if you behave well,” Kern County Public Defender Konrad Moore said.
Mark Anthony Raimondo, a defense attorney, believes the use of prison programs will benefit not just the individual, but society as a whole.
“That guy in prison that stays in prison for the full 10 years with no training and no skills and no motivation, is just a burden to society when they get out,” Raimondo said.
The belief is these non-violent criminals, when rehabilitated, will not be a burden.
But the major point of contention between advocates and those who disapprove of Prop 57 is what constitutes as a violent crime.
In the California Penal Code manual, Section 667.5, 23 crimes are listed as violent. You can find that list by clicking here.
Green says those 23 listed do not come close to ensuring every violent crime is covered.
“That leaves 100s upon 100s of crimes that anyone would think is a violent crime, membership in a criminal street gang, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with a firearm, domestic violence, corporal injury on a child, elder abuse, the list goes on and on,” Green said.
“Literally, hundreds of crimes. Some of them pertain to terrorist acts, but they are defined in such a way by the penal code, they are considered nonviolent felonies.”
But Moore says that is not true
“Absolutely not, the list of violent crimes pretty much measures up to what most people think,” Moore said.
“Use a gun? That’s violent. Assault with a deadly weapon? That’s violent. Rape, murder, robbery, all those, violent. Child molest, all those are violent. What we are talking about is where nobody gets hurt.”
Regardless of whether Prop 57 passes on November 8th or not, because of California’s high prison population, inmates that never thought they would get out could get out soon.
“95 percent, I think the number is of all offenders that are in custody, in CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), are going to get out,” Bonini said.
“There’s not very many that stay, [that] have a life sentence and stay there.”
Bonini added that the passing of Prop 57 wouldn’t create a Pandora’s Box of prisoners getting out of prison all at once.
“I think it’s going to take some time. The thing here is this isn’t a situation where prop 57 passes and all of a sudden everyone comes out and is on parole,” Bonini said.
“It’s not going to be that case, or comes out to community supervision. There is still going to be a process in place.”
https://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/focus-of-prisons-is-to-rehabilitate-inmates-so-when-they-do-get-out-they-are-not-burden-to-society
D.A. reviewing whether to file charges against woman seen on video dragging dog
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. – Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer is now considering to file charges against 39-year-old Elaine Rosa. Police believe she is the woman seen dragging a dog down the street as she rode a Bird scooter, several weeks ago.
Zimmer has a few options, according to Bakersfield defense attorney Mark Anthony Raimondo. She can either file charges, which would likely include animal abuse felnoy or misdemeanor charges, or she can throw the case out entirely.
“If you overload, over work, over burden an animal, that can be in the realm of animal cruelty,” Raimondo said. “Also, if you beat, maim, kill an animal, sadistically hurt an animal, it fits within the statutes, so it’s a pretty broad statute. [The statute] is not really well defined as to if it’s a felony or misdemeanor.”
Misdemeanors in California are crimes punishable by no more than a year in county jail and a maximum fine of $1,000. Felonies are much more serious, and can be punishable by at least a year in state prison.
When asked about whether the suspect can claim the incident was a result of an accident or negligence, Raimondo said the defense likely will not work.
“The negligent part is not really at issue,” he said. “It’s just did she cause the dog to suffer unjustifiably? Whether it’s negligent or not — maybe we weigh in the scale of if whether it’s a felony or misdemeanor — but if she had some duty to care for that dog, and if the dog was dragged to the point that it was, I think it certainly qualifies under the statute for some type of a crime.”
Raimondo said the argument that Rosa was not the dog’s owner does not matter as long as it can be proved she had control or custody of the animal. He added the statute allows the district attorney up to three years to make a decision whether to file charges, but he expects the decision to take place much sooner.
Late Thursday night, the district attorney’s office posted a message to its Facebook page saying they have received calls and messages from residents and across the country about the case.
The DA’s office says it is reviewing evidence in the case and assures the public that whether or not charges are filed, it is not a decision they take lightly.
Story: Click Here
Avvo
Justia
Facebook
Yelp
Twitter
Youtube
Man pleads not guilty to felony charges in assault at Bakersfield Speedway
An attorney entered not guilty pleas Friday on behalf of a man charged with assaulting another man at Bakersfield Speedway, inflicting serious head injuries.
Mark Anthony Raimondo also requested a preliminary hearing in late October for his client, Kyle Flippo, “due to the nature of the case and medical records.”
Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw set the hearing — in which a judge determines if there’s enough evidence to order a defendant to stand trial — for Oct. 24.
Flippo, 39, is out of custody after posting bond on $50,000 bail. He towered over Raimondo as he stood at the attorney’s side during the arraignment.
Flippo is listed in court records as 6-foot-6 and 270 pounds.
Witnesses told sheriff’s officials Flippo hit 20-year-old Zachary Diamond June 9 following a race at the track that evening, according to court documents. Diamond fell and lost consciousness.
He was taken to a hospital and, while not in a coma, was mostly unresponsive in the days after the incident, said Diamond’s mother, Linda Valdez.
The altercation happened near the technical inspection area where the top finishers go following the race. Flippo is the father of Jerry Flippo, who finished fourth, while Zachary Diamond is the brother of Jacob Diamond, who finished sixth.
Flippo is charged with assault on a person with force resulting in great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury. Both are felonies.
No other criminal cases are listed against him in Kern County.
Story Here https://www.bakersfield.com/news/man-pleads-not-guilty-to-felony-charges-in-assault-at/article_86f9980a-ad31-11e8-919b-bb80f1326bbd.html
Avvo
Justia
Facebook
Yelp
Twitter
Youtube
Local couple reportedly tried to kill unborn baby
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. – New details about the killing of an unborn baby. While there is no question her death was brutal, the legality behind it isn’t as clear.
According to court documents the mother and father headed to the Bluffs mid May to discuss the future of their unborn baby. The couple decided they didn’t want to have the child.
Court records state the mother, who was seven months pregnant, allowed the father to hit her stomach as many as 10 times and squeeze her, hard enough to leave bruises. Documents state she told investigators she didn’t feel the baby move after he hit her.
About a week later, she delivered the baby at Kern Medical. The baby girl had a fractured skull and spinal injury. She didn’t survive.
Police said the father denies he hurt his girlfriend, or the unborn baby. Bakersfield police are investigating. The district attorney’s office is also reviewing the case.
California law defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. State law also has a provision that states: the law does not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if the act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
Local defense attorney Mark Anthony Raimondo said, “In the state of California a person who is pregnant, still pregnant, can terminate their pregnancy almost by any means and not be held liable criminally for their actions.”
Raimondo couldn’t speak directly to the case, but said state law also protects anyone who helps end a pregnancy at the mother’s direction.
Raimondo said, “It’s kind of a very unique circumstance. It doesn’t happen very often, but somebody who would assist somebody in ending a pregnancy whether it’s through minor means or something rather aggressive also cannot be prosecuted as an aider and abettor if it was at the director or assistance with the actual mother of the fetus.”
The coroner will determine if the baby’s death is a homicide. A death can be ruled a homicide, but not be a criminal case. It’s not yet known if that will be the case in this situation.
According to our records, there were two homicides in 2016 where unborn babies were killed. Both cases were handled by the sheriff’s department. Details of those investigations were not released.
Source: KGET
Yesterday Superior Court Judge Charles Brehmer Placed twenty-three year old Callie Feezell on five years of Felony Probation following her guilty plea to one count of Robbery pursuant to Penal Code Section 212.5(C), along with an enhancement of being armed with a firearm. She faced a maximum sentence of 15 years in State Prison.
Mrs. Feezell had entered the Walgreens Pharmacy on Chester Avenue last summer armed with her father’s 9mm firearm, walked up to the pharmacy and pointed the loaded weapon at the pharmacist while demanding “boxes of oxycodone’. She then returned to her parents and their car that was waiting outside and fled the scene. She was apprehended a few miles from pharmacy.
“This was an extraordinary disposition and opportunity afforded to Mrs. Feezell”, said her attorney Mark Anthony Raimondo following the Judge’s Ruling. He continued, “She was suffering from the opiate withdrawals which she severely underestimated., and in a moment of desperation she took her father’s gun and made this terrible decision, we are very grateful that no one was injured”. Mr. Raimondo also pointed out that Mrs. Feezell had no prior criminal record, and she was a junior at the University of Tennessee. In an attempt to break her addiction, Mrs. Feezell left Tennessee on a road trip with her parents without any pills. She was hoping to force herself sober. However, once the withdrawal symptoms intensified she made this desperate attempt to bring relief to herself.
The Court did note that Mrs. Feezell had successfully complete a long-term rehabilitation during the course of the last nine months while this case was pending and had a promising future ahead of her now that her addiction issues have been properly addressed.
We asked Mr. Raimondo about Mrs. Feezell’s future plans, and he stated she is very sorry for her actions and hopes that she can be an example to other young people struggling with opiate addictions.
Interview with Mark Raimondo regarding prop 57 and prisoner rehabilitation
The California prison system could be undergoing a significant change.
A federal mandate to lower prison population has led to bills like AB 109 (realignment) and Prop 47 (making some felonies into misdemeanors). Proposition 57, which is on the November ballot, is a two-part proposal designed to affect non-violent criminals as well as juveniles.
Through 23ABC’s interviews with public safety officials, the juvenile angle was not met with much opposition, so it will be discussed first.
If Prop 57 were to pass, judges would be given the power to determine if a juvenile can be tried as an adult. Currently, the county’s district attorney makes that decision.
Kern County District Attorney Lisa Green says she would give that power over to judges.
“If that were the only piece of Prop 57, I don’t believe you would see law enforcement lining up, district attorneys lining up against the proposition,” Green said.
“I actually have no issue with that. Judges are certainly capable of making those decisions of juveniles.”
As Green said, it isn’t the only part of Prop 57 up for a vote. The second focus of the proposition deals with non-violent criminals.
If Prop 57 were to pass, criminals that are serving time in prison for non-violent offenses would be eligible for parole after they serve their primary sentence entirely.
To give this context, here is an example: A person receives a three year sentence for burglary but he/she also was charged with enhancements (participation in a street gang, possession of a controlled substance, etc.) which raise the total sentence to seven years.
If Prop 57 were to pass, the person could be eligible for parole after serving the three years for burglary if they participate in programs and behave while incarcerated.
The person could apply to have their case heard by a parole board, and, by looking at the person’s prison file, they can determine if the person can be released to community supervision.
Mark Bonini, the president of the Chief Probation Officers of California, played a role in the formation of the bill and explains why passing Prop 57 would be best for California.
“The odds are that somebody that’s been exposed to that type of programming while in custody is going to be a much better product and a much better person on the street to supervise, thereby reducing recidivism, which reduces victims, which reduces crime.”
But Green disagrees that Prop 57’s goal to get non-violent criminals rehabilitated through incentives is the answer to lowering prison numbers.
“There are no nonviolent offenders in state prison in my opinion,” Green said.
“They’ve all been released. This bill will not deal with violent offenders. It deals with criminals who have repeatedly offended.”
Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood agrees.
“To get into prison, you must be an overachiever… and you have not complied with our laws over and over and over again.”
That over and over again is known as recidivism, something Bonini thinks could lower if incentives are given to inmates to participate in prison rehabilitation programs.
“What incentive is there to engage in any programming?” Bonini said.
“They’re going to earn the same amount of credits that the guy next to them does and they are eventually going to get out because they’ve been given that out date.”
With the passage of Prop 57, the hope is that inmates will want to enter the programs, and in turn, receive help from them.
“We want to say please behave, good things happen if you behave well,” Kern County Public Defender Konrad Moore said.
Mark Anthony Raimondo, a defense attorney, believes the use of prison programs will benefit not just the individual, but society as a whole.
“That guy in prison that stays in prison for the full 10 years with no training and no skills and no motivation, is just a burden to society when they get out,” Raimondo said.
The belief is these non-violent criminals, when rehabilitated, will not be a burden.
But the major point of contention between advocates and those who disapprove of Prop 57 is what constitutes as a violent crime.
In the California Penal Code manual, Section 667.5, 23 crimes are listed as violent. You can find that list by clicking here.
Green says those 23 listed do not come close to ensuring every violent crime is covered.
“That leaves 100s upon 100s of crimes that anyone would think is a violent crime, membership in a criminal street gang, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with a firearm, domestic violence, corporal injury on a child, elder abuse, the list goes on and on,” Green said.
“Literally, hundreds of crimes. Some of them pertain to terrorist acts, but they are defined in such a way by the penal code, they are considered nonviolent felonies.”
But Moore says that is not true
“Absolutely not, the list of violent crimes pretty much measures up to what most people think,” Moore said.
“Use a gun? That’s violent. Assault with a deadly weapon? That’s violent. Rape, murder, robbery, all those, violent. Child molest, all those are violent. What we are talking about is where nobody gets hurt.”
Regardless of whether Prop 57 passes on November 8th or not, because of California’s high prison population, inmates that never thought they would get out could get out soon.
“95 percent, I think the number is of all offenders that are in custody, in CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), are going to get out,” Bonini said.
“There’s not very many that stay, [that] have a life sentence and stay there.”
Bonini added that the passing of Prop 57 wouldn’t create a Pandora’s Box of prisoners getting out of prison all at once.
“I think it’s going to take some time. The thing here is this isn’t a situation where prop 57 passes and all of a sudden everyone comes out and is on parole,” Bonini said.
“It’s not going to be that case, or comes out to community supervision. There is still going to be a process in place.”
https://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/focus-of-prisons-is-to-rehabilitate-inmates-so-when-they-do-get-out-they-are-not-burden-to-society
Expunging a Marijuana Conviction in Bakersfield CA
If you have a conviction for marijuana use or possession in Bakersfield CA, you can now have your record expunged under Prop 64, “The Adult Use of Marijuana Act”, which will allow most people with marijuana offenses to either fully expunge and remove the conviction from their record, reduce their conviction to a misdemeanor, or reduce their conviction to an infraction; however, the process is not automatic. A petition must be filed with the court and prove that you are not a danger to society. The Law Offices of Mark Anthony Raimondo in Bakersfield, CA will help you through the marijuana conviction expungement petition process.
What offenses are covered by Prop 64 for expungement?
– Possession of NOT more than one ounce of marijuana or not more than 4 grams of concentrate (hash/oil/rosin): Possession by an adult over age 21 was a $100 ticket and anyone with this offense will now be able to have it expunged from their record entirely. If you were under age 21 at the time of the offense, it is reducible to an infraction. If the possession occurred in a school or on school grounds, then the offense cannot be expunged entirely from your record. Instead, it can be reduced to a misdemeanor if you were 18 years of age or older or reduced to an infraction if you were under the age of 18.
– Possession of more than one ounce of marijuana or more than four grams of concentrate (hash/oil/rosin): Possession of hash/oil/rosin was a misdemeanor or a felony and anyone with this offense will be able to reduce the offense. If you were under age 18 at the time the offense was committed, it can be reduced to an infraction. If you were 18 or older at the time the offense was committed, then it is reducible to a misdemeanor only.
– Cultivation of less than 6 marijuana plants: This was a felony and anyone with this offense will be able to have it expunged from their record entirely (if you were under 21 at the time of the offense it will be reduced to an infraction).
– Cultivation of more than 6 marijuana plants: This was a felony and anyone with this offense will be able to reduce it to a misdemeanor in most cases unless you had prior offenses for cultivation of more than 6 plants (if you were under 21 at the time of the offense it will be reduced to an infraction).
– Possession of Marijuana for sale: Was a felony and anyone with this offense will be able to reduce it to a misdemeanor if it is their first or second offense in most cases. (If you were under 18 when the offense was committed it can be reduced to an infraction).
– Transportation of marijuana for sale and unlawful gift over 28.5 grams marijuana or any amount of concentrate: This was a felony and anyone with this offense will be able to reduce it to a misdemeanor in most cases (If you were under 18 at the time the offense was committed it is reducible to an infraction).
– Transportation of marijuana for sale and unlawful gift under 28.5 grams marijuana (not concentrate): This was a felony and anyone with this offense will be able to reduce it to an infraction. What are the next steps?
You can start the petition yourself or call our office for a Free Consultation and professional assistance with your marijuana expungement petition at (661) 827-8000.
Prop 57 is newest attempt to lower state prison population
Case 1
Child porn charge against Vineland teacher dismissed
Prosecutors have dismissed a charge of child pornography possession against a Vineland School District teacher whose trial ended in a hung jury earlier this year.
A prosecutor said there was insufficient evidence to continue with another trial of Margarito Madueno after a jury hung 9-3 for not guilty in May. No additional evidence surfaced in the case between the mistrial and Monday’s dismissal of the charge, Deputy District Attorney Cole Sherman said.
Madueno was in possession of a SD chip that contained child porn. His attorney argued at trial that Madueno had found the card and, not knowing what was on it, picked it up to use later.
An FBI search of Madueno’s computers and other electronic devices did not turn up additional child porn, attorney Mark Anthony Raimondo said.
“The FBI report comes back and it’s absolutely negative,” Raimondo said Tuesday. “Not only was that (chip) never in any of his devices, no files from any of his devices were on the chip.”
He said prosecutors tried to get Madueno to enter a plea to a lesser charge after the mistrial, but he refused.
“He said, ‘Mark, I didn’t do anything wrong,'” Raimondo said.
Upon the charge being dismissed, Madueno “cried like a baby and hugged me,” Raimondo said.
Madueno, 33 at the time of his arrest in October, was a teacher at the Vineland School District. Raimondo said he expects he will remain employed with the district, which he said was “100 percent behind (Madueno)” throughout his legal ordeal.
Story Credit: Bakersfield.com
Letting a Bakersfield attorney help guide you through the bail process