• improve parole supervision,


• relieve California’s over-crowded prisons, and


• reduce recidivism (that is, the number of people who are released from prison and go on to commit new crimes),

the California Department of Corrections recently launched a new program…non-revocable parole.

When a parolee allegedly violates his/her parole conditions, he/she is entitled to a California parole revocation hearing. At that hearing, the hearing commissioner determines whether there is enough evidence to revoke the parolee’s status and return him/her to the California state prison.

However, under the non-revocable parole program, certain parolees will not attend California parole revocation hearings. Individuals who are placed on non-revocable parole will only be returned to prison if they are arrested for a new offense…and only if they are convicted of that offense in the same manner as any other criminal defendant.

In addition, parolees on the non-revocable parole program don’t report to a parole officer. They do, however, remain subject to warrantless searches by the police.

You see, before a “lifer” is placed on parole, he/she must appear before the parole board for a California Board of Parole “Lifer” Hearing. During one of these parole suitability or “lifer” hearings, the California parole board evaluates whether or not it believes that an inmate is “ready to be returned to society”.

Eligible parolees are supposed to be paroled unless they present an overriding public safety risk. What constitutes an “overriding public safety risk” is very discretionary and, as I’m sure you can imagine, very open to interpretation.

Although parole rates in the last few years have grown…due in large part to overcrowded California state prisons and the state’s budget crisis…certain classes of felons are surely more subject to scrutiny than others. It is these inmates who attend more than their share of hearings before being released on parole.

This is just one reason why it is so important to consult with a California criminal defense attorney who understands the most effective ways to convince the Board of Parole Hearings that you have been rehabilitated and are therefore ready and eager to become a “productive member of society”.

The main difference between probation and parole is that California parole laws apply exclusively to convicted felons and only go into effect once the inmate is released from the California state prison. As a “parolee”, the individual agrees to abide by certain terms and conditions, which are monitored by a parole agent.

Probation is also a supervised program, but (1) it applies to both misdemeanors and felonies, and (2) is imposed as a condition of sentencing. If the judge places you on probation, it means that you also agree to abide by certain terms and conditions, but you do so in exchange for either a lesser jail sentence or for no jail time at all. Probation can be formal or informal, depending on whether you were convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony.

If placed on formal probation, you report to a probation officer. If placed on informal or “summary” probation, you simply check in with the court for periodic progress reports.
Violating any of the terms of your probation or parole subjects you to further incarceration under California’s parole laws or California’s probation laws.

So, the big question is, will D’Angelo argue that he was entrapped? The legal defense of entrapment is raised almost every time an undercover cop is involved in a case alleging solicitation of a prostitute.

In California, for example, the Los Angeles Police Department is notorious for sending out “decoy” officers to pose as prostitutes. These undercover cops look for “johns” to engage in conversation and to ultimately arrest for soliciting illegal sex.

Under California law, entrapment only refers to situations where a law-abiding person is coerced into committing a crime that he/she otherwise would not have. If the officer simply offered D’Angelo sex in exchange for money, her conduct wouldn’t rise to the level of entrapment. If, however, she appealed to his ego and used flattery to get him to put up the cash, he could absolutely claim that he was entrapped.

Whether the conversation was recorded, whether there were any other witnesses to the alleged conversation, and the specifics of the conversation will all be critical issues in D’Angelo’s defense.

Had he been convicted under California’s misdemeanor “Battery on a Peace Officer” law, he would have faced up to one year in a county jail and a maximum $2,000 fine.

Fortunately, the jury recognized that, although the defendant’s act may have technically qualified as a misdemeanor battery on a peace officer…since a battery is any unwanted, unjustified, or offensive use of force on another person or on something closely connected to the person…they obviously didn’t feel he deserved to be punished for the alleged offense.

Kudos to a jury who allowed common sense to factor into their verdict!

A California Penal Code 240 PC “assault” takes place when you attempt to harm or injure another person. As long as you have the ability and desire to inflict an injury on someone, the crime is completed as soon as you attempt to injure that person.

It doesn’t matter whether you actually make contact with the individual or whether you actually injure that person. If you attempt to contact a person in a way that is likely to inflict harm, you have committed a California Penal Code 240 PC assault.

A battery, on the other hand, takes place when that attempt is completed…which is why battery is sometimes referred to as a “completed assault”. A battery necessarily involves physical contact. The contact doesn’t have to result in an injury (any unwanted or offensive touching will suffice).

This means that if you take a swing at someone during a fight, you could be guilty of assault. If you connect your punch, you could be guilty of assault and battery.

The reason that a civil burden is used in criminal hearings is because these proceedings don’t afford criminal defendants as much protection as criminal trials do. Using the example above, this means that the prosecutor must only prove that it is more likely than not that a defendant violated his probation in order to find him guilty during a California probation violation hearing.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the typical criminal burden of proof…and a bit trickier to define. It basically means that if there is no reasonable explanation other than the fact that the defendant committed the alleged act, then he must be guilty. This is the burden that is exclusively used during criminal trials, as it is California’s highest burden of proof.

Great bodily harm is only supposed to be alleged under the most severe circumstances. When charged and proven, it subjects an offender to a three to six year California State Prison sentence in addition and consecutive to the sentence he/she will serve for the underlying offense.

The problem is that overzealous prosecutors charge this enhancement almost routinely anytime someone is injured. Even injuries as insignificant as scratches, red-marks, or simple bruises are being labeled “great bodily injuries”.

Fortunately, good California criminal defense lawyers understand that GBI is more severe than the type of injury that would normally result from a violent act…and know how to effectively convey that message to a judge and jury.

The defendants allegedly billed Medi-Cal for in-home nursing services that were provided by unlicensed individuals. Some of these individuals had no medical training whatsoever, but performed nursing services that included administering medications, adjusting ventilators, and feeding through gastronomy tubes.

Medi-Cal fraud includes billing for unnecessary services, for drugs or other supplies that were never ordered, and for paying unauthorized individuals to perform medical services. The penalties can be severe, which is why it is important that anyone accused of this type of health insurance fraud consult with a criminal defense lawyer who has expertise in this complex area of the law.

The problem is lies in the awful reputation that plagues nursing homes. While it’s true that elder abuse in California nursing homes is common, it’s certainly not the norm. But anytime an elder who lives in one of these long-term care facilities is unhappy, injured, or ill, the staff is automatically suspected of abuse.

My grandfather is a well respected and well educated doctor…and had I not been there, would have been a victim of financial elder abuse, otherwise known as “senior fraud”.

California financial elder abuse or “senior fraud” is punished under Penal Code 368 PC. It can include anything from stealing money from an elder’s wallet (a California elder is someone who is 65 or older), to scamming an elder out of money (like the letter sent to my grandfather), to sophisticated offenses like transferring an elder’s entire estate into your own name.

Not always easily detectible…nor always easily provable…California financial elder abuse is on the rise and…as a result…law enforcement officers are on the lookout.

As recently as last year, nationwide studies suggest that three to five million seniors have experienced abuse but that only one in five cases are reported. It’s these kinds of statistics that have prompted many California local law enforcement agencies to target elder abusers and to prosecute elder abuse cases swiftly and aggressively.

There are a variety of crimes, such as prostitution, lewd conduct in public, and indecent exposure that carry severe social stigmas and, sometimes worse…a lifetime duty to register as a California sex offender.

Skilled California criminal defense attorneys know how to expose the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case early on to convince prosecutors to reduce these more serious offenses to Penal Code 415 “disturbing the peace”.

“Disturbing the peace” is a “wobbler”, which means that prosecutors have the discretion to charge the offense as either a misdemeanor or an infraction. Either way, employers, family members, and anyone else who learns that you were convicted of “disturbing the peace” is much less likely to subject you to the harsh treatment that a California sex crime would surely invite.

The other good news is that penalties for Penal Code 415 “disturbing the peace” charges are limited to a maximum county jail sentence of 90 days and a maximum fine of $400. “Typical” misdemeanor offenses are punishable by up to six months in the county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine.

In reality, if your attorney negotiates a “disturbing the peace” charge reduction, you will likely pay a small fine and serve no jail time.

Prosecutors charged Melvin “Shane” Sparks, a judge on “America’s Best Dance Crew” and a choreographer on “So You Think You Can Dance”, with eight felony counts of lewd acts with a child under California Penal Code 288 late last month.

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office is relying on a California Penal Code 801(f) that provides that the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses committed against minors may be extended if the following three conditions are satisfied: (1) the statute of limitations has otherwise expired, (2) the crime(s) involved substantial sexual conduct, and (3) there is clear and convincing evidence that corroborates the victim’s allegations. According to the Los Angeles D.A.’s Office, each of these conditions has been fulfilled.

If Sparks is convicted of lewd acts with a child under California Penal Code 288 (otherwise known as “child molestation”), he not only faces imprisonment and substantial fines, but will be required to provide a DNA sample and register as a sex offender for life.

Police arrested Williamson after a mother and her 7-year-old son claimed that as they walked by Williamson’s home, he made a point of making his “naked self” visible to them.

Under California’s “indecent exposure” law, Penal Code 314 PC, unless Williamson purposely “flashed” himself to the mother and son and drew attention to his genitals, he could not have been convicted of indecent exposure. This is because California’s “indecent exposure” law under Penal Code 314 PC requires

1. that you intentionally expose yourself or your “private parts”,


2. in a public area or area where people were present and likely to be offended, and


3. you acted in a lewd manner while drawing attention to your genitals.