Romero Granted! Client Granted Probation on P.C. § 4501.5 (Battery on Correctional Officer in State Prison) & P.C. § 4573.6 (Possession of Heroin While Confined in State Prison) Charges – Prior Strike Dismissed! Originally Facing Six Years in State Prison!

Our client has an extensive criminal history including a prior strike offense for a Penal Code section 211 conviction in which our client was sentenced to state prison. While serving his time in state prison, it was alleged that he committed a battery on a correctional officer in violation of Penal Code section 4501.5. During the incident, it was further alleged that our client was in possession of Heroin while confined in state prison, a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6. Based on these charges, our client was facing six years in state prison.

After review of the discovery and after hearing the testimony at the preliminary hearing, we keyed in on the fact that although our client was in state prison custody at the time of the alleged incident, charges were not filed against him under after he was released. Based on this six-month delay in filing the charges, our client was unable to locate or contact any non-law enforcement witnesses or even attempt to access or identify potential defense witnesses such as inmates that may have witnessed the alleged incident. Further, our client lost his chance to serve a potential sentence on these charges concurrently with the sentence for his Penal Code section 211 offense.

We also filed a Romero motion requesting that the court exercise its discretion under Section 1385 to strike his prior strike. We argued that our client’s circumstances are outside the spirit of the three strikes law based on the nature of the current offense, the nature of his strike prior, and his background. We provided extensive mitigation documents that detailed that our client had rehabilitated his life post-release.

At the hearing on these motions, the court was moved by the arguments and granted our request to strike the prior strike for purposes of sentencing. The court agreed that our client had made great strides to rehabilitate himself since his release from state prison and therefore, our client was not sentenced to any confinement on the charges!

This is an amazing result for our client and he will no longer face state prison (or any confinement) for the charges!

DISCLAIMER:

The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Escovar & Avila, LLP or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. The information on this website is a communication and is for informational purposes only. The facts of every case are unique and nothing on this page or on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information on this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and viewing of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. The result portrayed in this advertisement was dependent on the facts of this case. Results will differ if based on different facts.

Categories: