Legal Blog

Few things are more upsetting than losing a court case. It might feel like being told you’re wrong, or that your work wasn’t worth it. However, cases are decided by numerous factors. If you disagree with the court’s decision, in most situations you will have the opportunity to appeal your case. Before deciding to appeal, it’s important you understand what you’re doing. If your appeal is granted, you’ll have to prepare your defense all over again. Below are five things to discuss with your appeals lawyer when deciding whether or not to proceed with an appeal.

To contest a court’s decision, you have to know what specifically you are objecting to. That’s where Spolin Law P.C. comes in. Our lawyers know the ins and outs of the process, and will make sure your case is properly prepared. To schedule a free consultation with one of our attorneys, contact us today at (310) 424-5816.

Discuss Your Appeal With An Attorney

When considering whether or not to appeal your case, it’s important to remember that there are differences between an appeal and a regular trial. There will be further work, and further money to invest. There are a few questions you should ask your attorney if you’re considering appealing a case:

Do You Have Experience With Appellate Cases?

Appealing a case requires different work than arguing the original trial. The legal criteria you have to meet to win an appeal are also different. If a lawyer without appellate experience represents you, they may have a difficult time successfully defending you. The skillset required to win an appeal is unique, and you’ll want to make sure your attorney is up to the task.

May I See a Recent Appellate Writing Sample?

Reading an attorney’s writing is a good way to get a sense of their experience. Even if you don’t understand the legal vocabulary, the tone can often suggest whether or not the lawyer is knowledgeable. For additional reference, you can compare it to other examples of appellate writing. Alternatively, you can ask your attorney what points are important in an appellate case. You can then see if they address these points in their sample.

Have You Worked With Appellate Judges In The Past?

The differences between trial and appellate standards will not only affect the writing your attorney has to do. It will also change the factors the judge examines in making their decision. If your lawyer has worked with appellate judges in the past, they’ll better understand what factors the judges look for. Even if your attorney has not argued an appellate case before, they may have clerked for an appellate judge.

What Are Some Possible Arguments You Can Raise During Appeal?

If asking what arguments your attorney may make, you’re not trying to determine the legal merit of the arguments. Instead, you’re simply trying to make sure they’re not rehashing the same arguments from the previous trial.

How Long Do I Have to File My Appeal?

The time you have to file your appeal is variable. California law states that you must file a notice of appeal no more than:

• 60 days after a felony judgement was entered
• 30 days after a misdemeanor judgement was entered

Courts rarely extend the deadline for filing for an appeal. This makes filing in the appropriate time critical to your case. Make sure your lawyer has all the information necessary not to miss this deadline.

Do You Have Questions About How to Appeal Your Case? Call Us Today for Help

The best way to get answers to your questions about appealing a criminal case in California is to speak with an appeals attorney. In Los Angeles, contact Spolin Law P.C. to discuss your situation. An experienced lawyer or staff member from our firm will be able to provide the necessary information at every step in the appeals process. Call (310) 424-5816, or use the online form, to schedule your free consultation today.

Appealing a criminal case is vastly different than trying a criminal case. Do you need an attorney to handle your criminal case appeal? The short answer is, no — you do not. You have the right to act on your own behalf — or pro se — for your appeal. While it’s not prohibited, it is not necessarily recommended. Appeals are rather difficult and require a skill set that not even all attorneys possess.

A Los Angeles criminal appeals attorney or staff member from Spolin Law P.C. can help. If you’ve been convicted of a criminal offense and wish to appeal, contact us today at (310) 424-5816 to schedule a free case consultation.

Trial Work vs. Appellant Work

Trying a criminal case is vastly different than appealing a court’s decision in the same case. Reasons you may want to consider a criminal appeal include…

Slower Pace

Once a criminal trial begins, it moves at a relatively fast pace. At trial, criminal defense attorneys must pay careful attention to everything happening in the courtroom and raise objections on the record. This is important because those objections could mean the difference between winning or losing a future appeal.

Unlike a criminal trial, a criminal case appeal moves quite slowly. You’ve probably heard about appeals taking years to move through the process. That’s true. While criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial, there is no right to a quick appeal.

No Jury

The U.S. Constitution gives everyone the right to a jury trial where a defendant’s fate is in the hands of their peers, not solely in the hands of a judge. In a criminal case appeal, there is no jury. The attorneys make oral arguments either before a judge or panel of three judges depending on the jurisdiction where the appeal takes place.

Arguing before a jury is much different than making opinions before a judge. Experienced criminal trial lawyers are highly adept at reading a jury and crafting their arguments so jurors understand. Appellant lawyers, on the other hand, must be prepared to answer questions posed by the judge that could involve minute details about law and procedure.

Extensive Research & Writing

Before an appeal even gets to a judge, your attorney will have likely spent hours studying the law, reading trial transcripts, and determining if criminal procedure was followed to the letter. This is how criminal defense attorneys make their case for your appeal. While doing their research, your attorney will outline a legal brief. This is the document they send to the court, and upon which the court decides if it will or will not hear your appeal.

Intricate Legal Arguments

We’ve already how established how important a well-written and persuasive a legal brief must be. But what’s actually in the brief? Included in this important document are complex legal arguments that delve deep into the complex details of the law.

Criminal trial attorneys know the law inside and out. Appellant attorneys take that knowledge and craft an argument explaining not only the law, but how and why the trial court below applied the law incorrectly in your case. This is an extremely difficult obstacle to overcome, because appellant courts are hesitant to tell other courts they were wrong.

Contact Spolin Law P.C. for Help With Your Criminal Case Appeal

The attorneys at Spolin Law P.C. know what is at stake when you’ve been convicted of a crime. An appeal may help you get your life back on track. Appealing on your own is possible, but your chance of winning may be decreased simply because you don’t know the legal system like our highly-skilled attorneys do.

Contact us today at (310) 424-5816 to schedule a free, initial case evaluation.

The California Supreme Court sided with a Spolin Law client earlier this month, effectively saving the client from a potential 50-year-to-life sentence.

Spolin Law represented the client throughout the appeals court process. Earlier this year, attorney Aaron Spolin had won the client’s matter in the California Court of Appeal. When the prosecutor appealed the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the California Supreme Court sided with the Spolin Law client by denying the prosecutor’s petition for further review and thereby settling the matter in the client’s favor.

This is the conclusion of a months-long appellate battle that began when Spolin Law won a hearing in May, which situated the client in juvenile court for a double-murder trial involving elements of self-defense.

After Mr. Spolin won the hearing that would allow the client to be retained in juvenile court, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office appealed the finding to the California Court of Appeal. They argued that the lower-court judge had abused her discretion in ruling for the Spolin Law client and had improperly applied the law. In the defense response, Mr. Spolin argued that the lower court had ruled properly due to (1) new changes in the law enacted by Proposition 57, (2) the intent of the recent proposition coupled with clear legislative intent, and (3) the client’s lack of sophistication, prior trauma, clean record, and ability to be rehabilitated.

To view the table of contents outlining Spolin Law’s appellate arguments, click here.

After Spolin Law won in the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court effectively sided with the Spolin Law client by rejecting the prosecution’s attempt to overturn the lower court’s finding. Because the California Supreme Court is the highest court with regard to California law, there is no further court to which the prosecution can appeal. Therefore, this appellate issue is finally and permanently resolved in favor of the Spolin Law client.

Earlier today the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Spolin Law P.C. on an appeal that will have lasting positive effects on one of the firm’s clients.

Background

A Spolin Law client was accused of a homicide crime based on a killing that occurred when the 17-year-old female client was confronted by an adult gang member. The prosecution filed a motion seeking to move the case to adult court. Aaron Spolin, representing the minor, opposed the motion. After an approximately two-week hearing, the juvenile court judge ruled in favor of the Spolin Law client and found her “fit” for juvenile court.

The ruling was significant because the client would have faced a maximum sentence of life in prison in adult court. Instead, now in juvenile court, the client faces a maximum sentence of seven years in a juvenile rehabilitative facility. Juvenile court is also focused primarily on rehabilitation.

To read about the original juvenile judge’s decision, click here: “Minor Charged with Homicide Crime Found ‘Fit’ for Juvenile Court.”

Appeal

The prosecution appealed the judge’s decision to the California Court of Appeal. Specifically, they filed a “petition for a writ of mandate” asking the court to overturn the original juvenile judge’s decision. Prosecution appeals are extremely rare because juveniles charged with homicide crimes are almost always sent to adult court; this case was a rare exception.

The Court of Appeal was faced with two legal issues.

1. What effect did the recent Proposition 57 have on how juveniles should be evaluated in deciding whether to send them to adult court?
2. Did the juvenile court judge “abuse her discretion” in keeping the minor in juvenile court?

The prosecution argued that Proposition 57 (passed by California voters in November of 2016) did not change the criteria for evaluating minors and that the juvenile court judge, in this case, had abused her discretion. Spolin Law’s opposition brief argued that Proposition 57 had substantively changed the law in key areas and that the judge’s decision was supported by the defense evidence presented.

The stakes were high for the Spolin Law client. If the prosecution had won the appeal, the client would have been sent to adult court where she would have faced a maximum sentence of life in prison (instead of the current juvenile court maximum of effectively seven years).

Announcing their decision this morning, the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Spolin Law client. They denied the prosecution’s petition and are allowing the case to proceed in juvenile court. This means that the client will remain in juvenile court.

Given the circumstances of the case and the unique background of the client, this was an eminently fair outcome. The client will now be in the juvenile court system, which has a primary focus on rehabilitation.

(Update 1/1/2019: The prosecution ended up appealing this issue to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court eventually denied the prosecution’s petition and thereby effectively ruled in favor of the Spolin Law client. To read about the subsequent events in this case, read the updated article posted here.)

On July 20, 2017, Senators Kamala Harris (CA-D) and Rand Paul (KY-R) announced that they had teamed up to write a bipartisan bill on bail reform. Bail systems across the country have been subjects of contention for many years. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the Constitution prohibits “punishing a person for his poverty,” many U.S. states currently have policies in place which keep those who cannot afford bail in jail for extended periods of time before their trial. Oftentimes, the amount of bail money required greatly exceeds the means of an average American citizen – even for petty crimes, like shoplifting. Those who are wealthy, however, are able to avoid pretrial incarceration, even if they pose greater flight risks for more severe crimes. Additionally, Senators Harris and Rand highlight some of the other consequences of our current bail system in their article, such as the disparate impact on black and Latino defendants, many of whom are required to pay significantly larger sums for bail. In order to solve this problem, the senators have introduced the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act. Under the bill, each state would receive a grant from the Department of Justice, in order to “carry out the most effective policies, tailored for its needs.” In return, the states will have to provide better data collection on the pretrial process, as well as progress reports, in order to ensure that the practices are not discriminatory in nature.

These senators are not the only legislators who have attempted to overhaul the bail system. In Maryland, the Court of Appeals determined that it is unconstitutional to hold a defendant in jail for no reason other than an inability to afford bail. While this does not eliminate the use of money bail, it does make it necessary to first take into account the individual flight risk. In Texas, the State Supreme Court determined that money bail should only be used in the “narrowest of cases” for people charged with misdemeanors. Instead, judges can order supervision tools, such as GPS monitoring or drug testing. In the California State Legislature, Assembly Bill 42 has been proposed, which would end the use of money bail schedules, instead of requiring the use of pretrial services agencies. This has been met with opposition from Republican lawmakers, however, who have asserted that the state would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reimburse counties for establishing these new pretrial services. In addition to Republican lawmakers, several interest groups, such as bail bond agents, have been staunchly opposed to the measures passing across the country. In New Jersey, where voters supported a measure which nearly eliminated cash bail, bail bondsmen are planning to sue Gov. Chris Christie.

California is in particular need of a solution, as the state’s median bail rate is five times higher than that of the rest of the country. The Human Rights Watch has analyzed California data and has found many troubling statistics. Over 63 percent of prisoners in county jails have not been sentenced, but are serving time because they cannot afford to pay bail. Racial disparities are common as well – for example, black people are nine times as likely to suffer pretrial incarceration than white people in San Francisco. This standard of pretrial incarceration is costing the Californian taxpayer, as well. According to Human Rights Watch analysis from 2014-2015, California spent $37.5 million in six counties jailing people whose cases were dismissed or never filed. Of the almost 1.5 million felony arrests in California from 2011-2015, 459,847 were not guilty of a crime. Currently, most defendants rely on bail bondsmen to be released. The system allows defendants to pay bail in one of three ways: They can pay the full amount, 10 percent of the actual bail amount, or they can schedule a payment plan in order to get out of detention. The bail bond payment is not refundable, however – even if the case is dismissed. These numbers make a compelling argument for why bail reform must be pushed forward.

While some lawmakers may be troubled by the initial cost of implementing pretrial service agencies, the eventual savings should lead to long-term benefits. By incorporating a model for pretrial risk assessment, we can better identify those who pose an actual flight risk, as well as a danger to others, and allow the rest to go free. GPS monitoring could also be incorporated as an alternative measure, in order to allow those who pose no real threat to continue caring for their families and paying their bills. Senator Harris and Senator Rand have come up with a promising alternative to the controversial bail system. The Pretrial Safety and Integrity Act allows each state to tailor its system as it sees fit, whether that be by implementing a risk assessment model or limiting pretrial incarceration to felons. This bill is the right step in the direction of eliminating discriminatory practices and unconstitutionally expensive bail.

Talk to a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer

Aaron Spolin, a former prosecutor, and award-winning Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, has a track record of success handling violent crime cases. He has been on the winning side of hundreds of cases. To receive a 100% free and confidential consultation from an attorney or staff member today, please call this number: (310) 424-5816.