Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > CALIFORNIA > California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes Do you have news relating to California's Prison or Ciminal Justice System and related efforts? Post them here! Also discuss 3 Strike laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:35 AM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 115
Thanked 340 Times in 218 Posts
Default The California Burglaries and Robberies without Physical Harm Exempt from T

Morning,
Does anyone have any information on this initiative? I see it talks a lot about 3strikers but I am wondering if it would help my husband who is not a 3rd striker and is not serving life. His controlling offense is a robbery though with a gang and gun enhancement though so he and I are both wondering if dropping robbery from the violent felony list can help him in any way.

Any info or insight would much appreciated. I have attached the link to the ballotpedia information page.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_C...itiative_(2018)


"initiative would remove the crimes of burglary and robbery that don't actually result in significant bodily harm from the list of crimes classified as violent felonies. Under current law, the intention of bodily injury is enough to qualify a burglary or robbery as a violent felony. Likewise, the initiative would remove robberies and burglaries in which a firearm or other dangerous weapon is not actually used from the list of violent felonies, where currently these crimes are classified as violent felonies if the defendant is armed with a firearm or dangerous weapon. The initiative would prevent these reclassified crimes from counting as third strikes requiring indeterminate term of life imprisonment sentencing according to the three-strikes law, thereby lifting minimum sentencing requirements"...

Last edited by trueblue310; 05-17-2018 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to trueblue310 For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (05-17-2018)
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:38 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,321
Thanks: 12,157
Thanked 17,094 Times in 6,306 Posts
Default

This is the first I'm hearing of it. When I get a chance, I'll read up on it. I know 3 Strikes is getting a lot of attention and it feels like voters may be ready to roll it back. But instead of addressing that law, they're throwing it out there for specific charges.

California Changes to [...]

Last edited by miamac; 05-17-2018 at 11:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (05-17-2018), trueblue310 (05-17-2018)
  #3  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:46 AM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 115
Thanked 340 Times in 218 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
This is the first I'm hearing of it. When I get a chance, I'll read up on it. I know 3 Strikes is getting a lot of attention and it feels like voters may be ready to roll it back. But instead of addressing that law, they're throwing it out there for specific charges.

I didn't see the link in your post, so I'll link it here.

California Changes to [...]
I'm barely hearing about it this week, apparently it's the talk of the building where my husband is at lol He's the one who asked me to look into it. There is a call tonight hosted by the group behind it so I'll definitely be listening in. And thank you! Any insight you can provide would be awesome! I'm trying to not get my hopes up as we have a long way to go on this but I'll be cautiously optimistic lol.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to trueblue310 For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-18-2018), miamac (05-17-2018), Patrickj (05-17-2018)
  #4  
Old 05-17-2018, 05:02 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,467
Thanks: 1,939
Thanked 1,993 Times in 925 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
Morning,
Does anyone have any information on this initiative? I see it talks a lot about 3strikers but I am wondering if it would help my husband who is not a 3rd striker and is not serving life. His controlling offense is a robbery though with a gang and gun enhancement though so he and I are both wondering if dropping robbery from the violent felony list can help him in any way.

Any info or insight would much appreciated. I have attached the link to the ballotpedia information page.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_C...itiative_(2018)


"initiative would remove the crimes of burglary and robbery that don't actually result in significant bodily harm from the list of crimes classified as violent felonies. Under current law, the intention of bodily injury is enough to qualify a burglary or robbery as a violent felony. Likewise, the initiative would remove robberies and burglaries in which a firearm or other dangerous weapon is not actually used from the list of violent felonies, where currently these crimes are classified as violent felonies if the defendant is armed with a firearm or dangerous weapon. The initiative would prevent these reclassified crimes from counting as third strikes requiring indeterminate term of life imprisonment sentencing according to the three-strikes law, thereby lifting minimum sentencing requirements"...
I need to do a little more research on this subject. Anytime a gun is used in an offense it will be nearly impossible not to call it a violence offense. You do not need to discharge a weapon to get the gun enhancement. All that need to be brought up is that the victim saw a gun. The gun doesn't need to be retrieve or entered as evidence.
With your husband being charged and the gun enhancement still in place his robbery will be a violent offense until they redefine the definition of P C. 211
it will stand as a violent crime
PC. 211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear

P.C.212. The fear mentioned in Section 211 may be either:
1. The fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family; or,
2. The fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of the robbery


I just went to the link you provided What this initiative you are speaking about is the PUBLIC SAFETY ACT OF 2018. they are still gathering signatures to get it on the November , Ballot. To many unanswered questions on how this initiative would be funded. Way to much retroactive action being requested also in this intiative but again this is just my
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help

Last edited by Patrickj; 05-17-2018 at 05:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-18-2018)
  #5  
Old 05-18-2018, 08:42 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 475
Thanks: 824
Thanked 933 Times in 394 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
I'm barely hearing about it this week, apparently it's the talk of the building where my husband is at lol He's the one who asked me to look into it. There is a call tonight hosted by the group behind it so I'll definitely be listening in. And thank you! Any insight you can provide would be awesome! I'm trying to not get my hopes up as we have a long way to go on this but I'll be cautiously optimistic lol.
Did you learn more in the call?

I followed the link which gives a PDF of the actual text. I see changes but struggling trying to follow all of it. It redefines robbery under 667.5 for enhancement of prison terms as:

(9) Any robbery wherein it is charged and proved that the defendant inflicted great bodily injury on any person, or any robbery wherein it is charged and proved that the defendant used a firearm or other dangerous weapon.

667.5 currently reads just this:

(9) Any robbery.

Defining burglary under 667.5 adds phrase "the defendant inflicted great bodily injury on any person, or any burglary of the first degree wherein it is charged and proved that the defendant used a firearm or other dangerous weapon"

Significant change. There are other changes but I gave up trying to find them. Changes are suppose to be in italics to make it somewhat easier to follow. I could not see where any changes were italicized in this PDF version. It is too much effort to go through.

Anyone have another link / source? I could not find one.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (05-18-2018)
  #6  
Old 05-18-2018, 08:49 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,321
Thanks: 12,157
Thanked 17,094 Times in 6,306 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
I followed the link which gives a PDF of the actual text.[...]

Anyone have another link / source? I could not find one.
Oddly, the ballotpedia link to the full text is now broken as is the link I posted. They both worked at the time of posting.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-18-2018), Patrickj (05-18-2018)
  #7  
Old 05-18-2018, 09:14 AM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,467
Thanks: 1,939
Thanked 1,993 Times in 925 Posts
Default

When the above link worked it would finally get you to information on
THE PEOPLE’S FAIR SENTENCING AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACT 2018 I have already expressed my opinion on this initiative in a couple of other threads along with this one. This is not a very well written initiative to many unanswered questions. Along with way to much retroactive action being sought.
Our courts are back logged enough. We need clearly written legislation that spells things out clearly and concisely. We don't need more initiatives like Prop.57. that is turning into nothing but court battle after court battle. Any kind of sentence reform more then likely will not lead to massive recall of sentencing
Remember CDCR is only going to try and just get the prison population at a level that gets the Federal government off their butts.
California may be way out in left field on some things but start talking about sentencing reform or releasing people from prison. Then you will see the extreme right law and order people really start up the scare machine .to extreme of prison reform can spell political suicide for a political career also.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-18-2018, 09:33 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,321
Thanks: 12,157
Thanked 17,094 Times in 6,306 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
We need clearly written legislation that spells things out clearly and concisely. We don't need more initiatives like Prop.57.
Interestingly one of the summaries I read was that these initiative were written to "clean up the mess left by Prop 57".
Let the in-fighting begin.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (05-18-2018)
  #9  
Old 05-18-2018, 10:53 AM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 115
Thanked 340 Times in 218 Posts
Default

The only info given last night was that the Attorney Generals office bumped up the deadline for petitions to be submitted (May 11th) so the initiative will not be on the ballot in November. They stated they initially had until end of June but for one reason or another that was changed. They have now brought in a professional consulting company (it was strictly a volunteer run effort from what I understand) and they are going to approach it two ways:

1- Reach out to assembly/senate people to make it a bill
2 (Plan B)- Continue getting funding and support and prepare for the 2020 election.

I'm all for retroactive bills... of course I have a personal interest on things that will help my husband... yes it's a large undertaking and chances are slim.. but if anyone asked lifers if they thought they would ever get their family visits back 10 years ago they would probably would have told you no.. it wasn't until the people pushed back in a collective way to get them reinstated. So if this group can push back in a hard way in an attempt to get it done.. then hey.. they got my support. Closed mouths don't get fed, as they say.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to trueblue310 For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-18-2018), miamac (05-19-2018), Patrickj (05-18-2018)
  #10  
Old 05-18-2018, 02:40 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 475
Thanks: 824
Thanked 933 Times in 394 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
The only info given last night was that the Attorney Generals office bumped up the deadline for petitions to be submitted (May 11th) so the initiative will not be on the ballot in November. They stated they initially had until end of June but for one reason or another that was changed. They have now brought in a professional consulting company (it was strictly a volunteer run effort from what I understand) and they are going to approach it two ways:

1- Reach out to assembly/senate people to make it a bill
2 (Plan B)- Continue getting funding and support and prepare for the 2020 election.

I'm all for retroactive bills... of course I have a personal interest on things that will help my husband... yes it's a large undertaking and chances are slim.. but if anyone asked lifers if they thought they would ever get their family visits back 10 years ago they would probably would have told you no.. it wasn't until the people pushed back in a collective way to get them reinstated. So if this group can push back in a hard way in an attempt to get it done.. then hey.. they got my support. Closed mouths don't get fed, as they say.
Thanks for that. Explains why links Mia referenced are broke.

Option 1 - I think (someone correct me if wrong) it's too late in this years legislative session. If they can get a poli to champion, it would be 2019 session. If approved, earliest it would be law is Jan 2020.

Option 2 - If initiative passes as written, earliest it would be law is early 2021.

Not much to follow or worry about for now.

I agree retroactive is what we should hope for in any initiative or bill. For fairness and to trim prison population further. Still overcrowded IMO. Patrick is being realistic about the fight things like this face. Worth the fight but if initiatives are not really really well written and clear in their intent we get court fights and counter initiatives. This is happening to 57 because they deliberately wrote it vague and hid intent. No one really understood what we were voting on.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (05-19-2018), Patrickj (05-18-2018), Sarianna (05-20-2018)
  #11  
Old 05-19-2018, 12:51 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,321
Thanks: 12,157
Thanked 17,094 Times in 6,306 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
I agree retroactive is what we should hope for in any initiative or bill. For fairness and to trim prison population further.
Yes! I was thrilled to see this bit added in (before the link broke). Surprised, actually, if you want the truth. I guess after the debacle that was the application of Good Conduct Credits under 57 not only NOT being applied to whole sentences, but only a portion of the remaining sentence and essentially bypassing Youth Offenders entirely, I'm a bit jaded. So seeing that line was huge.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-20-2018), Patrickj (05-19-2018), Sarianna (05-20-2018)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My Boyfriend is being threatened with physical harm Jonegan Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered People in Prison 6 01-06-2013 01:55 AM
Deputies arrest suspect for 20 burglaries whisky 23 Texas Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events 0 01-22-2009 09:35 AM
PLEASE READ, DESPERATE FOR HELP,: 15 years for 3rd degree non violent burglaries jrt2006 PTO Lounge 7 05-09-2008 01:39 PM
Can someone define "attempted serious physical harm" imissmike Ohio General Prison Talk, Introductions & Chit Chat 4 08-28-2007 01:17 PM
Burglaries up in Briton, passes US. KConnor56 World Prison News 0 02-07-2003 12:31 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:15 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics