Legal Blog

Spolin Law successfully argued a client’s case in the Supreme Court of California, forcing the case back to the CA Court of Appeal for reconsideration.

On September 22, 2021, after nearly 10 months of review, the Supreme Court of California issued an order in a Spolin Law P.C. case that involved a client who was deprived of her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The client was convicted under the doctrine of natural and probable consequences, which is in direct violation of SB 1437, a Senate Bill that was passed in September 2018.

SB 1437 changed California Penal Code (PC) sections 188 and 189 to end the role of the “natural and probable consequences” doctrine in murder cases. It makes it harder for people to be convicted of felony murder with fewer exceptions. Many people have been released from prison for time served and had their sentences reduced under SB 1437.

After the passing of SB 1437, a groundbreaking case was decided in July 2021 — People v. Lewis 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021). That case held that the defendant is entitled to counsel, and there is no requirement for a distinct prima facie showing before the appointment of counsel.

In violation of Spolin Law client’s due process rights, the Superior Court did not appoint counsel as mandated by SB 1437 and related case law. Additionally, the Court did not give our client the opportunity to file a reply to the prosecution’s response to her petition.

Upon appeal, a Spolin Law attorney argued that our client could not be convicted under the current law. The Superior Court and Court of Appeal erred in determining that the client did not make prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing. Our client was not only wrongfully convicted under the law, but she was not appointed counsel, nor given the right to file a reply in her case.

The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal failed to grant a hearing. If a hearing had taken place, Spolin Law attorneys argued that the prosecution would have been unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was not convicted pursuant to the natural and probable consequences doctrine. As mentioned previously, SB 1437 made convictions under the natural and probable consequences doctrine invalid. Thus, our client could not be convicted under current law and her petition for resentencing pursuant to PC 1170.95 should have been granted.

The Supreme Court of California agreed that Spolin Law client’s case should be reconsidered in light of People v. Lewis. The case has been transferred back to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider.

After spending months in the California state legislature, Senate Bill 775 was just signed into law yesterday, October 5, 2021, by Governor Gavin Newsom. This revolutionary new bill will change the lives of hundreds of California inmates, resulting in many individuals leaving prison decades before they would otherwise be free.

California criminal appeals attorney Aaron Spolin explains this new law, how it will affect criminal cases, and how prison inmates can achieve their freedom if their cases fall under the law. Mr. Spolin’s extensive analysis has been published in video and article form, viewable here. The following information explains the history of the law and some details about its application.

What Is Senate Bill 775?

This bill, sponsored by District 13 senator Josh Becker, was introduced to the State Senate on February 19th, 2021, passed by the Senate on June 2nd, and passed by assembly on September 10. Now, just leaving the Governor’s desk, this recently signed bill will serve justice to those wrongly convicted of a killing by expanding on the legal protections stipulated in Senate Bill 1437.

How Does SB 775 Expand on SB 1437?

Senate Bill 1437, passed in 2018, prohibited prosecutors from seeking first or second-degree murder sentences for a “felony murder” case in which the person on trial was “not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.”

Senate Bill 1437, and now its counterpart Senate Bill 775, challenged the previously established “natural and probable consequences doctrine” under which someone’s malice was implied solely by their participation in the crime.

As these bills sought to highlight, such a concept had many flaws and fails to consider many very probable scenarios. As a result, those who may have participated in a crime, but were unaware of the killing and had no intent to inflict harm were put behind bars for murder in the first or second degree alongside the killer themself.

However, while Senate Bill 1437 was the first legislation to initially highlight this disparity in the criminal justice system, it did have some holes of its own that Senate Bill 775 hopes to fill and address; among the largest being the expansion of the Senate Bill 1437 protection to those convicted of manslaughter and attempted murder, not just murder.

Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 775, defendants in these situations would oftentimes plead guilty to a lesser charge than murder, like manslaughter, with hopes of a shorter sentence and a chance at a normal life once again. However, in doing so, these people cut themselves out of the chance to receive the post-conviction relief offered solely to murder convicts under Senate Bill 1437. Additionally, individuals convicted of attempted murder paradoxically received a worse outcome than those convicted of murder.

Senate Bill 775 has changed that, now allowing those with attempted murder and manslaughter convictions to petition to have those crimes (and the corresponding sentences) removed. Having this relief granted is not guaranteed, however, as they and their lawyer will need to convince a judge that they were not a “major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.”

How Spolin Law P.C. Will Use SB 775 To Benefit Clients

This update to California state legislation will have a grand and positive impact on the work done at Spolin Law P.C. With this extra layer of protection for those convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter, many individuals can now get the justice that was once awarded to felony murder cases.

To learn if you may be eligible for such post-conviction action or if you have any questions about SB 775, feel free to reach out to your (310) 424-5816 to begin your petition for a sentence reduction.

Spolin Law P.C. legal team.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently issued an opinion in favor of Spolin Law P.C.’s client who was wrongfully denied a jury trial. (Case number PD-0593-20.)

In this 2016 case, the client waived his right to a trial by jury in anticipation of a negotiated plea agreement. That plea bargain was never completed, so the client attempted to withdraw the jury waiver multiple times. Instead, the trial court gave him a bench trial and he was found guilty and sentenced. The client contacted Spolin Law P.C. for help.

Spolin Law made arguments based on Constitutional and Texas law that the withdrawal requests of the client were valid, and he should have been given a jury trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas agreed with Spolin Law. As a result, the trial court decision has been reversed.

Arguments Spolin Law Used to Appeal the Case

Upon appeal, Spolin Law argued the following points for the client:

1. He did not validly waive his right to a jury trial in the first place.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to permit him to withdraw the waiver of his right to a jury trial.

These arguments are based on the facts of the case and required legal arguments established in Constitutional law and prior case decisions in Texas.

A defendant has an “absolute” right to a jury trial; however, it may be waived. According to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a waiver must “be made in person by the defendant in writing in open court with the consent and approval of the court, and the attorney representing the state.” The Texas Appellate Court found that although the client had signed a document waiving his right to a jury trial, that waiver was not made in open court. Thus, the jury-trial waiver was not valid, and the trial court abused its discretion by failing to allow the client to withdraw his jury-trial waiver.

The Appellate Court further found that the defendant “certainly made his ambivalence about waiving a jury trial clear to the trial court at the very outset.” He made multiple requests for a jury trial on multiple occasions.

Outcome of the Case

On September 22, 2021, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial consistent with the opinion. Spolin Law’s client will get his day in court before a jury of his peers.

Speak to a Texas Criminal Appeals Lawyer at Spolin Law P.C.

Spolin Law P.C. founder Aaron Spolin is a former prosecutor and a top-ranked criminal law attorney. He is an award-winning Texas criminal appeals attorney who is dedicated to fighting for the rights of his clients.

To speak with the legal team at Spolin Law P.C. about how the outcome of this case might affect your own case or any other criminal law matter, please call us at (866)-617-9620. The firm handles state and federal post-conviction matters.

Spolin Law P.C. has the great pleasure of announcing the winner of our 2021 Civil Rights and Criminal Law Scholarship. This year, we have chosen Yumei Duan to receive our $1,000 scholarship that goes toward tuition and other educational expenses.

Spolin Law P.C. developed this scholarship to aid in their goal to raise awareness of criminal and civil rights issues. This scholarship enables us to support students who are passionate about these principles and strive to implement them in their careers.

Ms. Duan showcased outstanding academic achievements and produced a compelling essay expressing the need to maintain the principles of the US Constitution. Ms. Duan urges that failing to do so diminishes the document’s value and prevents us from realizing our constitutional rights.

Read Ms. Duan’s full essay here.

She is set to graduate from Sol Price School of USC in 2022 with her master’s degree. The Los Angeles criminal appeals attorneys at Spolin Law P.C. strive to encourage and support the next generation of civil rights leaders who are determined to safeguard the constitutional rights of US citizens.

We encourage students from different fields to apply.

To Whom It May Concern,

National Winner

($500 Prize and “Winner – Best in Nation” Certificate)

Gregory Truitt (#01701265)
Darrington Unit (State Prison)
Rosharon, Texas

Contest Judges

• Rodney Hollie (Former inmate)
• Aaron Spolin (Attorney)
• Brittany Means (Professor)
• Adam Wright (Poet/Professor)

Rodney Hollie – Judge 1

Former inmate and former Spolin Law P.C. client

Rodney Hollie was wrongfully convicted of murder and served several years in prison before successfully overturning his conviction in 2020. He obtained his freedom in Superior Court on January 29, 2020, represented on that day by Spolin Law attorneys Aaron Spolin and Caitlin Dukes. Mr. Hollie now gives lectures on wrongful convictions, life in prison, and the value of never giving up.

He had the following to say about the winning poem by Gregory Truitt:

“This poem reminds me of my time when I was serving my sentence. I found myself in the law library and the opinions that were from other inmates regarding my case. This [poem] was very relatable, and it gives you an insight into what an inmate goes through. No matter if you’re guilty or innocent, the prosecutors want someone to be found guilty for their own personal status.”

Aaron Spolin – Judge 2

Criminal appeals attorney and former prosecutor

Aaron Spolin handles criminal appeals, writs of habeas corpus, and other post-conviction matters throughout the country. He worked as an Assistant District Attorney before becoming an appeals lawyer. He has a Juris Doctorate degree from U.C. Berkeley School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University. He is also the author of Witness Misidentification in Criminal Trials, which discusses the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the United States.

Brittany Means – Judge 3

Professor of English and Literary Critic

Brittany Means is a former professor and literary critic. She taught English at the University of Iowa and served as a judge for the Iowa Prize in Literary Nonfiction, a contest run by the University of Iowa Press. She has won over a dozen literary awards and accolades in the field of creative writing and has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Ball State University and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa.

Adam Wright – Judge 4

Professional Poet and Humanities Professor

Adam Wright is a professor of humanities subjects, including creative writing, literature, English, rhetoric, and comparative religions. He is also a professional poet. He is currently serving as a lecturer at the University of Texas at Dallas. Mr. Wright has two Master of Fine Arts degrees, one from the University of North Texas and another from the University of Central Oklahoma, the latter of which is in creative writing and literature. He also has three Bachelor of Arts degrees, all from Oklahoma State University, in the subjects of English, history, and broadcast journalism.

All the judges were impressed with the level of literary skill demonstrated in the competition.

Top-Voted Poems at Each Prison¹

($100 Prize and “Winner – Best in Prison” Certificate)

California

New York

Texas

Federal

United States Penitentiary, Lee
Manuel Hernandez (44584-112)

¹ Note: Winners are listed under the prison facility that they identified on their submission form if identified; therefore, some individuals may no longer be at the listed facility.

Lady Justice holding scales.

In Austin, TX on April 14th, 2021, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the death sentence of the state’s longest-serving death row inmate. Raymond Riles, now 70, was sent to death row 45 years ago following a conviction for murder and attempted robbery that took place in 1974. The court recently ruled that Riles’ death sentence “can no longer stand,” because the jurors in his trial were not instructed to properly consider his mental illness as a possible mitigating factor.

Raymond Riles has spent more than 45 years wrapped up in Texas’ criminal justice system, starting with his initial death sentence in 1976. Riles spent the next few decades on death row after numerous execution dates would be set and then canceled as he was repeatedly deemed too mentally incompetent to be executed. Thea Posel, one of Riles’ attorneys, noted, “the first time they found him incompetent was in 1987 and 1988 and he has never been restored.”

Riles’ 1976 conviction was overturned shortly after he was sentenced. Riles claimed an insanity defense at his retrial in 1978 and had a number of experts testify that he had schizophrenia with paranoid delusions and psychosis. Relatives also cited a family history of severe mental illness and testified about his own history of “odd and often violent behavior” that persisted throughout most of his life. Despite these well-supported claims, doctors for the prosecution argued that Riles was faking a mental illness. As a result, the jury rejected Riles’ insanity defense. When jurors were later deliberating the sentence, they were only to decide if the murder was deliberate and if Riles is likely to be a danger to society in the future, in accordance with Texas law at that time. Once again, the jury voted to convict Riles of capital murder in 1978.

Things changed in Texas in 1989 when it was ruled that death penalty juries are required to consider mitigating evidence, including a mental illness, that may influence juries to decide for a lesser punishment. In their ruling, the judges for Riles’ case explain that the evidence of mental illness that Riles presented at trial “is the type of evidence that both [the Court of Criminal Appeals] and the Supreme Court have come to regard as the kind of ‘two-edged’ mitigating evidence calling for a separate, mitigation focused jury instruction.” Since the jury in Riles’ trial did not receive this instruction, the Court said his death sentence can no longer stand.

Herbert Washington, Riles’ co-defendant, was also sentenced to death on related charges, but his death sentence was commuted in 1978 to 50–25 years after he pleaded guilty.

Riles’ case has now been sent back to Harris County, where it was originally tried, to again determine his punishment now with an informed and properly instructed jury. While the Harris County DA’s office supported tossing the death sentence, they have not yet shared whether or not the office would seek the death penalty again. Riles’ capital murder conviction remains unchanged.

Attorneys and staff from Spolin Law P.C. meet with a former client. His murder case was entirely dismissed this past February.

A former Spolin Law client visited the firm’s main office and shared with his lawyers what he has been doing since his release. The client had been wrongfully charged with a gang-related murder and held in custody for nearly a year. (For more details about his case, read the original article written the day after his case was dismissed.) Last week the client met with four of the firm’s lawyers as well as some members of the firm’s administrative team.

After walking out of custody a free man, the client visited family all over the country to reconnect, celebrate his release, and begin the exciting next phase of his life. Much of his time was spent in Chicago and Los Angeles, where many of his family and friends live. And of course, he has not forgotten to spend a great deal of time with his mother, who probably spent even more time than the Spolin Law lawyers in fighting to secure her son’s release.

The client says goodbye as he moves on to the next phase of his life. Pictured (left to right): Hemi Tann, Arlene Binder, Don Nguyen, Jeremy Cutcher, and client.

In recounting his travels and celebrating his newfound freedom, the client met with the lawyers who had directly represented him, including Aaron Spolin, and Jeremy Cutcher. Two other attorneys on his legal defense team were not present: Caitlin Dukes and Matt Delgado (of counsel). Attorneys Don Nguyen, Arlene Binder, and Dan DeMaria had not represented him but were present for the happy occasion. Also present was one of the firm’s case managers, Hemi Tann; and the mailroom manager Michael Alfi. The Spolin Law attorneys and staff were excited to hear about further travel and life plans in the client’s future.

To speak with an attorney or staff members about your case, call us at (866) 716-2805.

Filing a criminal appeal in California is oftentimes a drawn-out and complicated process. If you plan on taking appellate action, knowing the basics of how it functions is crucial. The length of this appeals process varies from case to case, ranging anywhere from a couple of months to a couple of years. Nevertheless, while some cases may take longer than others to resolve, it is important that all appeals are filed quickly after a conviction sentencing.

Deadline

Before filing, you must first confirm that you have a case that warrants an appeal. It is important that you reach out to an appellate attorney, who will look through the details of your case to identify any legal errors and advise you on what the next steps may be.

If the attorney confirms you are eligible, and you decide to proceed with an appeal, you will start the appellate process by filing a Notice of Appeal in the superior court. For misdemeanor cases, the deadline to file is 30 days from the date of judgement. Felony offenses, on the other hand, hold a 60-day deadline.

While direct appeals must be filed within this 30- and 60-day window, there are other types of post-conviction relief that may be submitted after this deadline has passed. Common examples include a California Writ of Habeas Corpus and an Application for Commutation of Sentence.

Can I file a late appeal?

In some cases, extensions may be granted for defendants who miss the designated deadline. In compliance with the 2018 California Rules of Court, in instances of public emergency, defendants will receive a longer time window to appeal.

Additionally, in the event that your attorney fails to provide proper assistance during the appeals filing process, the traditional 30- or 60-day deadline no longer applies. For example, if your attorney does not inform you of your right to appeal or provides misinformation about the deadline of your appeal, you may be eligible for an extension.

Furthermore, cases of constructive filing also serve as proper grounds for an appellate extension. This occurs when the appeal does not make it to the courthouse on time despite genuine efforts from the defendant. Filing the appeal with the wrong court or mailing delays that are out of your control are just some instances in which a constructive filing extension may be offered.

Certificate of Probable Cause

In addition to submitting a Notice of Appeal, you must file a Certificate of Probable Cause (CPC) which legitimizes the basis of the appeal. The court then receives 20 days to review the submission and either grant or deny the CPC.

Notice of Designation Record on Appeal

Within 10 days of filing your Notice of Appeal, you must also file a Notice of Designation Record on Appeal. Doing so will notify the involved parties (including the court clerk, court report, etc.) and facilitate the collecting of trial records and transcripts which will be used in the appellate proceedings.

Opening Brief

Once the primary paperwork has been completed and all the trial records have been compiled, the next step in the appellate process is the preparation of the opening brief. In an opening brief, your appeals attorney provides a summary of your trial, presents their argument, and requests a certain outcome.

The opening brief is expected to be submitted within 40 days of when the Notice of Designation Record on Appeal was filed. This is followed by the respondent’s brief which is filled by the opposing counsel within 30 days of the opening brief. Lastly, once the respondent’s brief is filed, the appellant is given 20 days to counter the respondent’s brief what is called the reply brief.

Oral Arguments

The next steps in the appellate process are the oral arguments, during which attorneys will be given the chance to argue their case in person and answer any lingering questions the presiding judge may have. You can expect these oral arguments to take place a few weeks after the filing of the briefs.

Contact Spolin Law P.C. About an Appeal in California

If you or a loved one plan on appealing a criminal conviction or have questions about your eligibility for an appeal or extension, don’t hesitate to reach out to Spolin Law P.C. today.

With the recent introduction of new laws and the revision of old ones, the chances of winning a criminal appeal in the state of California have slowly been on the rise. Reaching a record 20% success rate, now is as good a time as ever to pursue appellate action and achieve the fair result you deserve.

Despite this hopeful incline, however, the reality of it is that many appeals are not granted. But losing an appeal doesn’t mean you have to give up your fight for justice. As you will see below, there are many different pathways you can take after a failed appellate petition.

Option 1) Petition for Rehearing: By petitioning for a rehearing, you are asking the court to review the appellate court’s ruling in the search for large legal irregularities such as a major misstatement of fact or error of law. If you wish to petition for a rehearing, you must do so within 15 days of the official appellate court’s decision. This is a very strict window so it is important that you act fast and enlist the help of a proper legal team.

Option 2) Petition for Review by Supreme Court: While not as common, if you lose your appeal, you do have the option to challenge the decision in hopes of taking your case to the Supreme Court. However, it is important to recognize that the Supreme Court has the authority to turn away any cases they do not want to review. Furthermore, the granting of such review is typically reserved for cases regarding legal issues that are of great importance or those that have never come before the courts.

Because an appellate court decision becomes final within 30 days of its release, the state enforces a strict 10-day deadline to submit this request for review by the Supreme Court.

Option 3) Pursue other types of Post Conviction Relief: A Writ of Habeas Corpus, for instance, is a common type of post-conviction relief that is available to those who have exhausted all other appeal options, and may offer hope to someone who just received an undesired appellate decision. Furthermore, unlike the other two options, writs of habeas corpus do not come with a strict submission deadline and you have a little more leeway in terms of when you want to file.

However, before you proceed with a Writ of Habeas Corpus, you must make sure you are eligible for this type of post-conviction relief. Some common grounds for such an appeal include ineffective assistance of counsel, jury misconduct, judicial misconduct, violation of due process, prison conditions that violate civil rights, or lack of speedy and public trial. Additionally, with a Writ of Habeas Corpus, new evidence may be introduced if discovered.

However, successfully arguing Habeas Corpus relief is no easy feat and it can be extremely difficult if you don’t have a strong team of appellate lawyers on your side. We recognize that this may be your last chance at relief and are prepared to treat your case with care and passion. Aaron Spolin has filled countless Writs of Habeas Corpus and has been consistently recognized for his work in this area of law. With the guidance of Aaron and his experienced legal staff, fighting an unsuccessful appeal isn’t as daunting as it may seem.