Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: First Time offense armed robbery with assualt

I hate to be the one to give you a reality check, but by the time Junior is committing armed robberies it's too late for him to start "redeeming himself to the community." And 14 years isn't an unfair sentence for armed robbery.

Re: First Time offense armed robbery with assualt

It is impossible to say without looking at the case file and knowing the specifics of the attorneys conduct, but given the attorney issues you raised there may be an ineffectiveness of counsel issue that could provide a basis for your son to withdraw his plea of guilty. Your son has a right to effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages, including sentencing.

Further, at the time of the plea your son had to knowlingly and voluntarily waived all of his constitutional rights. A lawyer would need to review the transcript of the plea to see if there is any issue there.

Also a sentence can be appealed if it unlawful (imposes more time than can be imposed under the law). Nothing in your brief recitation of facts necessarily suggests that the sentence was unlawful - just more time than you and your son hoped for - but it's worth having a criminal defense attorney look at that aspect as well.

The only way to know for sure is to hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer to review the file. Many, myself included, will do this review for a modest consultation fee to cover the time spent reviewing the record. Once the lawyer has determined whether there are any viable issues, you and the lawyer can negotiate a fee to fully litigate those issues. If there are none, at least you will have satisfied yourself that you did everything you could for your son.

If you are interested in discussing this further contact me via email - [email protected]

Re: First Time offense armed robbery with assualt

I don't know why you think "they" are "setting these young men up to fail". Armed robbery and assault are very serious crimes. Your nephew is in trouble because of his own actions, not due to anything "they" did to him. I disapprove of the three-strikes law in general, but given that it exists I don't see anything wrong with the way it was used in this case.

I agree with Ms. O'Connor's analysis, though I think she is overly optimistic about the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Depending upon the facts of the case, I might also agree with Mr. Stone that 14 years was a reasonable sentence.

By pleading guilty, your nephew waived many issues he might otherwise have been able to argue on appeal. Some issues are still potentially available, but he needs to act quickly in order to preserve his rights. He can raise issues on appeal that normally would not be available to him if the sentencing judge agrees that his position has some merit, but he needs to work even more quickly if he wants to take that approach.

Some issues may be arguable in a habeas corpus petition, either instead of or in a addition to an appeal.

If your nephew is indigent he is entitled to have an appellate attorney appointed for him at no cost. If you want to hire private counsel for him you should feel free to contact me; I am a certified appellate specialist (per the State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization) with a great deal of experience in this area.