By Michelle Egberts, Founder/Executive Director, AV-East Kern Second Chance
California voters in November passed Proposition 47, also known as “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.”
Proposition 47 creates a new Penal Code section, §1170.18, which allows offenders currently serving felony sentences for specified crimes to petition to the sentencing court to have their sentences reduced to misdemeanor sentences.
In addition, certain offenders who have already completed a sentence for a felony that qualifies under the new law may apply to the sentencing court to have their felony conviction designated a misdemeanor.
YOU DO NOT QUALIFY for a reduction of a qualifying felony to a misdemeanor if:
- You must register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290(c). (Note, if your conviction is for petty theft with a prior theft conviction under Penal Code § 666, you are disqualified for a reduction if you must register under any provision of the Sex Offender Registration Act, Penal Code §§ 290 to 290.024).
- You have a prior conviction for any homicide (Penal Code §§ 187 to 191.5), attempted homicide or solicitation to commit murder.
- You have a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense listed in Welfare and Institution Code section 6600(b). This includes rape, spousal rape, rape in concert, aggravated sexual assault of a child, sodomy, lewd acts on a child under 14, oral copulation, continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 14 and sexual penetration, kidnapping with the intent to commit one of those offenses, and or assault with the intent to commit one of those offenses, when committed by force, violence, duress, menace, fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, or threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person.
- You have a prior conviction for any serious or violent felony punishable by death or life in prison.
- You have a prior conviction for possession of a weapon of mass destruction.
- You have a prior conviction for assault on a peace officer or a firefighter with a machine gun.
IF YOU HAVE A CONVICTION FOR A QUALIFYING FELONY and you are not disqualified, you may ask your sentencing judge to reduce your conviction to a misdemeanor.
The qualifying felonies are:
- Commercial Burglary (Penal Code § 459) that meets the definition of the new crime of shoplifting (see below for that definition).
- Forgery relating to financial instruments listed in Penal Code section 473(b)(Any check, bond, bank bill, note, cashier’s check, traveler’s check or money order), if amount of the item does not exceed $950, and you were not also convicted of identity theft per PC § 530.5. This will include convictions under Penal Code section 470(a), 470(d), 475 and 476.
- Passing bad checks (Penal Code § 476(a)) if the aggregate amount of the checks does not exceed $950, and you have no more than two prior convictions for violations of Penal Code §§ 470, 475, 476 or 476a.
- Grand theft (Penal Code §§ 487(a)-(d), 487a, 487b, 487c, 487d, 487f, 487g, 487h, 487i and 487j) if the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950.
- Receiving stolen property (Penal Code § 496(a)) if the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950.
- Unlawful possession of a controlled substance (Health and Safety code §§ 11350(a), 11357(a) and 11377(a).
Proposition 47 also created the new crime of shoplifting pursuant to Penal Code section 459.5. Shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment while the establishment is open during regular business hours with the intent to commit larceny where the value of the property taken does not exceed $950. Any act of shoplifting must be charged as shoplifting and may not be charged as burglary or theft.
How to petition the court under Proposition 47
Complete and file a Petition for Recall & Resentencing if you have been convicted either by trial or plea and are currently serving a sentence for an eligible felony charge under Proposition 47. See Penal Code §1170.18 (a) – (e).
Complete and file an Application to Have Felony Conviction Designated as a Misdemeanor if you have been convicted by trial or plea and have completed your sentence for an eligible felony charge. See Penal Code §1170.18 (f) – (i).
The Los Angeles Superior Court has created one form named Application/Petition for Resentencing and People’s Response (CRIM235) that can be used for both Applications and Petitions. The form is available on the Court’s Criminal Forms page [here].
A copy of your Petition or Application must be served on the appropriate office of the District Attorney. The Court will not serve your Petition or Application for you. It can be served by mailing a copy to the District Attorney or by hand-delivering it. If you fail to serve the District Attorney, your Petition or Application will be denied but you will be allowed to refile it after you have served the District Attorney.
A Proof of Service must be filed with the Court at the time that you file your petition or application, showing when and where you served the District Attorney. It must be served by someone other than you, and that person must complete and sign the Proof of Service. You can obtain a blank Proof of Service form from the Court’s Criminal Forms page [here].
Generally, the District Attorney’s offices are located within the courthouse where your case was heard. However, please consult the District Attorney’s web page for a listing of locations and addresses.
Your Petition for Recall and Resentencing will be reviewed by a judicial officer after the time allowed for the District Attorney to file a response has lapsed. If the District Attorney does not oppose resentencing, and the judicial officer concludes that resentencing you would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, you will be resentenced to a misdemeanor in accordance with Penal Code §1170.18(a)-(e).
If the District Attorney opposes resentencing, or the judicial officer is unsure whether resentencing you would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the judicial officer will set a hearing date and you will be given notice of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judicial officer will decide whether to resentence you or not.
Your Application to Have Felony Conviction Designated as a Misdemeanor will also be reviewed by a judicial officer after the time allowed for the District Attorney to file a response has lapsed. If it appears you are eligible for resentencing, the judicial officer will designate your felony conviction a misdemeanor conviction in accordance with Penal Code §1170.18(f)-(i). The clerk will notify you by mail when this happens. As with a Petition, if the District Attorney opposes your Application, you are entitled to a hearing.
If your Petition is granted, you will be subject to parole supervision for one year by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, unless the judicial officer releases you from parole at the time of resentencing. Parole violation hearings will be heard by the superior court of the county where you are released or reside.
The judicial officer’s decision is final. If you think the judicial officer’s ruling is in error, you may appeal the denial to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. To do so, you must file a Notice of Appeal with the clerk of the Superior Court (not the Court of Appeal) within the time limits allowed for taking an appeal.
[Source: California Superior Court, LA County]
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The AV Times.
Email letters@www.theavtimes.com to submit a story to Your Issues | Your News.
–
Editor’s Note:The author of this article, community activist Michelle Egberts, hosts a free “Expungement Workshop” on Tuesdays and Thursdays at the Lancaster GROW office, located at 337 East Avenue K-10. She said she submitted this article in hopes of starting a dialogue about Proposition 47. For more information on the “Expungement Workshop,” contact Egberts at 661-418-8361. View a flyer for the workshop here.
Miguel Levin says
I have been trying to get the information concerning my cases I have 3 that I was sentenced to prison with strikes but am still having the problem of getting the info needed. So this is informative thank you for your help and patience.
as a soon to be ex felon says
I appreciate the offering of this workshop. My husband has a felony from 12 years ago…never been in any trouble since, and will definitely benefit. I do think that if a person is a habitual offender of said felonies, than this prop 47 should NOT apply to them.
Jason Zink says
One of the Best Voter Approved Laws to be passed!
Saves taxpayers money $$$, brings common sense thinking and corrects unjust rail roaded sentences.
kelley says
Thank you michelle for all your hard work…
kelley says
I will say that michelle egberts has done a hell of a job helping me get my life back in order..What some fail to realize when she started doing this she did and still does do this out of the kindness of her heart at little or NO cost to us.I guess you have to be in a situation to understand that one mistake will take everything you worked so hard to get,and trying to get back on your feet with a feony or felonies is almost close to impossible.However i do not agree that sex offenders shouldnt have to register is a joke..my personal opinion …So quit bashing people that try to give us felons hope.If you dont want this town to get better and let her help the ones who really need it you might need some funding from the mental health department…on a better note keep it pushing michelle your awesome
callitasitis says
@ Michelle Egbert’s
Good information for those seeking reduction as I posted before but I do not agree with PROP 47 bait and switch trick on the voters. What comes to mind is medical marijuana prop that passed years ago and how that worked out. Hey the voters passed that one also. I read the voters information I read the pro/con, sometimes I have more questions that answer because this so call legal minds who write the props do not disclose their true intent. Omission of facts is also lying.
callitasitis says
@ Michelle Egberts
I think the 2nd chance is from God, not from man justice , but good try . What comes to mind is Romans 13 take a read.
Michelle Egberts says
@Callitasitis… Read Psalms 40 which is the story of my life.
callitasitis says
Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Matthews 5:17-19 (Jesus spoken) so like I said God is the 2nd Chance giver NOT man justice that is why humans are warned by GOD to obey the law. But for those who have religion they can attempt to interpret the word as they wish, but at their own risk. Those who break the law will face the consequence of doing so, Matthews 27: 38. If you claim the 2nd chance then the person should be the most law abiding citizen.
vincent says
Your god only exist in that brain of your. Please take your religion and shoved it up yours.
callitasitis says
@ Vincent
Same to you. Let your god is found where ever your head is at. If you are sitting on it’s Okay with me. Best wishes on your life trip where ever it goes.
William says
@callitasitis
Did God exist for you before you consciously ‘believed’ in him?
If you later decide that you don’t ‘believe’ in God, will he still exist?
If your answer it “Yes” to both questions, then why do you need to ‘believe’. Did you ever have occasion to ‘believe’ in gravity for it to exist?
callitasitis says
@ William
You do need to believe in God to read the Bible, just like reading the Koran. God he can defend himself, just as Allah or Buddha can. Some the best versed bible readers are non-believers. I though you knew that already.
callitasitis says
@ William
People groups of the world have always believed in some type of spiritual things since the beginning of time (anthropology 301 not the entry level course). If anyone chooses not to believe anything it is their RIGHT in America but some will take the “condescending comments” as a personal insult on their belief system. Do you not know that an atheist has a belief system also, they believe in themselves, as their own God. I am good with that are you?
William says
@callitasitis
I noticed you ignored my questions.
Human beings are superstitious. When they ‘believed’ that gods rode across the sky in chariots, was that true?
Then, there is ‘reality’ as close as we can manage to know it. Antibiotics have done a lot more good for humans than all the prayer that went before to cure illnesses.
In this country, we have to be constantly vigilant as the ‘true believers’ still mistakenly think this is a Judeo-Christian country despite the Treaty of Tripoli saying “No, it isn’t”. Those believers constantly try to create legislation for all of us based on their particular religious ‘beliefs’.
And, as it has turned out over the decades, phony baloney U.S. ‘Christians’ have done more damage to the brand than any atheist, pagan, etc.
And, you just can’t help yourself by projecting that just because you ‘believe’ in whatever, that atheists believe as well. Atheists aren’t in the ‘belief’ business.
So, bottom line is “If someone doesn’t believe in your god, they don’t have to abide by your god or his rules.”
And, you don’t do any good telling atheists that they ‘believe’ whatever. That’s you.
William says
@callitasitis
You wrote>
“You do need to believe in God to read the Bible,…”
followed by>
“Some the best versed bible readers are non-believers.”
Do you see the contradiction in your 2 statements? Now, you may have meant to write “You DON’T need to believe…..” But, that doesn’t make any more sense either. You don’t need to believe to read Harry Potter.
How do you know that the Bible is the word of God other than hearsay from others? Do you believe everything that you hear people say?
Our government ‘believed’ that there were WMDs in Iraq. And, that was recent history yet you believe word of mouth from 2,000+ years ago. I don’t think that would hold up in court.
stop says
William & callitasitis—PLEASE, stop; this article is about prop 47! You two bickering on and on is just old and pointless.
Bobby says
Reading the comments here reinforces the belief that the Antelope Valley will always remains a clueless, hopeless, regressive, strong hold of right wing azzbackwardness.
Michelle Egberts says
@Bobby… Many things are about to change in this dry desert, wind swept town that will be better for the people!
I've seen it all says
I see quite a few comments regarding how great they think this program is and they hope our kids don’t commit felonies bcuz their kids made mistakes. I hate to be the one to tell you, you’ve always had the right to petition the court for a sentence reduction. Change your felony conviction into a misdemeanor.
What this law SPECIFICALLY DID was; Allow people serving felony prison time to ask for a change from felony to misdemeanor including changing their sentence. For those who don’t know, the MAXIMUM penalty for ANY misdemeanor, is 1 yr in County jail. A person serving 5 years in prison for Burglary can now say reduce it. Unless disqualified, its a gaurenteed reduction to a misdemeanor which only carries a 1 yr sentence. So the criminal basically gets out of his sentence. The other part of the law is changing the TOP 5 FELONY crimes from Felony to misdemeanor. Since a 1 yr sentence nets about 20 days in jail due to overcrowding, criminals will no longer be paying for their crimes! So if no one is going to jail, what’s the incentive to stop being a criminal?
Now, the Safe Neighborhood part is just bull. It says the money saved by not sending that criminal to jail is supposed to be split between schools and mental health patients. Do you think those calculations will be accurate?
Wake up people! If criminals aren’t going to jail, they’re committing new crimes. Spin that and tell me again how this was a good thing…
Michelle Egberts says
@ I’ve seen it all… Obviously you are not one of the 59.6% (4,238,156) California voters who supported Prop 47 and secondly, you evidently didn’t read Prop 47 aka “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund Act, because if you had you wouldn’t be giving out incorrect information.
Why don’t you talk about the monies saved by the state from this proposition and how it will be of a benefit instead of being such a negative “naysayer”
I've seen it all says
Michelle, your words are a political joke. I can see the Democrat/Socialist agenda from the moon. Your ethnic group just basically took the top 4 felony crimes and reduced them to misdemeanors ENSURING that the criminals will see zero jail time. So what precedent are you setting?
If I’m a car burglar, I break in to 100 cars a month and make $10,000 dollars a month from the purses, phones, laptops, & cash that I steal. I might get caught twice a year for Receiving Stolen Property/ theft. Since there’s no more thefts with priors, instead of 3 years in prison, I might get 20days in County Jail after being sentenced to the maximum for a misdemeanor of 1year. Prior to your proposition, every prior theft meant extended prison time. Now the maximum time I can get is 1 year,(Translate to about 20 days due to overcrowding in County Jail)! So why would I give up $10,000 a month in stolen property if the worst they can do is 20 days?
You’ve just ensured that criminals won’t have to pay for their crimes. Make sure you remind the next victim that the guy who committed those crimes against the victim, did his 20 days and is now eligible for for all your expensive programs like job training, school grants, and free medical care.
COREY SINCLAIR says
SO WHO GIVES A CRAP IF U DONT LIKE THE NEW LAWS MOVE OUT OF CALIFORNIA STOP CRYING AND PUT UP WITH IT ITS THE LAW OF THE LAND JUST LIKE OBAMACARE
michele says
Why on earth is it even called “safe neighborhood and schools”? This prop has absolutely nothing to do with schools other than making it far worse because now people can break into your home, sell drugs to your kid, possess meth and crack, and nothing will happen to them. That doesnt make it more safe. If anything, it will increase crime. The idiots that passed this must all have felons as family members.
Michelle Egberts says
@Michele… Prop 47 ensures that prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses, maximizes alternatives for non-serious, non-violent crime, and invest the millions of dollars in savings generated from this Proposition into PREVENTION AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS IN K-12 SCHOOLS, VICTIM SERVICES, AND MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG TREATMENT.
The preliminary estimates range from $150 million to $250 million per year. This is a historic moment in California. California has gone from a state epitomizing our country’s over-reliance on incarceration to now leading the nation in advancing SMART JUSTICE.
As for your statement “the idiots that passed this must all have felons as family members.” A diverse coalition came together to fix the problems we collectively face. We built this campaign with unlikely allies and people of ALL WALKS OF LIFE: liberals and conservatives, law enforcement veterans, crime victims, teachers, business and labor, faith leaders, civil rights champions and more. This is the kind of collaboration that the public craves– putting aside differences to advance SMART POLICIES that IMPROVE the lives of ALL Californians.
Just an FYI… convicted felons CAN vote in California as long as they are not in prison or under parole supervision. Their voting rights are automatically restored.
Jason says
My question for the coalition that came up with this bill is this. Why did they not exclude theft of a firearm under $950 and the possession of date rape drugs from the reduction in penalties? Both can and have been used in serious and violent crimes. Was it something that was ignored or was it overlooked when this proposition was written?
Omar says
@ Jason: Think about it…
Neither “theft of a firearm under $950” nor “possession of date rape drugs from the reduction” need to be specifially excluded, simply because such acts, (as you concluded on your own) are by their very nature, violent crimes (no one is going to steal a firearm to go hunting for quail, and no one possessing date rape drug is likely to have a prescription nor is intending to use that drug for a headache) and as a result, those committing such acts would pose an almost certain and “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety”, which is, in and of itself, a disqualifying condition.
As such, and since the district attorney on each of these cases must be served with a copy of said petition, and since you are not likely to find a district attorney who would agree to a resentencing of either of those convictions, it isn’t an issue to have to worry about.
Furthermore, and even if you can find a District Attorney who might not oppose resentencing, I highly doubt you’d find a judge who would resentence.
So those committing either of those offenses, and if they are convicted of either as a felony, would not get resentenced and their charge will not get reduced to a misdemeanor!
Jason says
Omar, I’m not talking about resentencing, I’m talking about new crimes. If those crimes are committed now, they are now a misdemeanor and not a felony
William says
@Omar
Good luck discussing this with an ‘obtuse’ person.
It seems that you know more than he does but that doesn’t matter to him. Only his opinions matter and you will find that you will be wasting your time.
You’ve been warned. Good luck.
moll flanders says
@William…There you go again talking about yourself again. Every word in your comment applies to you. You are the very definition of obtuse, and only your opinions matter. Anyone having a conversation with you is only wasting their time.
people are dummies says
what this act does is help felons trying to better thier life its a great prgram and i commend Michelle she is a great person .u guys are all to close minded and i hope your children never make a mistake that will ruin thier lives-frank
frank says
great Job Michelle ,keep pushing its a good thing here ,and most people unless they are in a situation wont understand.-frank
frank says
great job Michelle.keep doing what you are doing ,its a good thing to help past offenders trying to fix thier lives, i hope most judgemental people never has a kid that offends and gets involved with the law because they will see how broken the system is thanks-frank
Michelle Egberts says
@Frank…Like I’ve repeatedly said “We are all one bad mistake away from having a criminal record.” For those who feel that a former offender is not entitled to a second chance at redemption shame on them especially if they “profess” to be a Christian as that would make them hypocrites.
It’s people like you and thousands of others who continue to support my reentry efforts through legislation, propositions and changes in local ordinances.
Now I just have to get the employers in the Antelope Valley in alignment with the law (SB 530) or they will be joining the slew of companies who have been give severe monetary judgements for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for numerous violations.
For the victims of crime, I’m sincerely trying to get the restitution owed to you paid so that you will feel less pain.
Lastly, for the registered sex offenders, don’t worry as the Tiered Registry will be coming soon and many may qualify not having to register any longer.
Thank you Frank for your support. Happy Holidays!!!
omega says
Tiered Registry? Dream on. Never gonna happen. 100,000+ and growing every day. Even if it were to happen most will stay on for life. And they will still have been convicted – as that is the pertinent language here – of the offense listed in the bill text. That is NEVER going to change.
Because the bill text states that any savings is to benefit the schools do you really think this is going to happen? Again – dream on. Oh, and I have a bridge to sell you.
You have not answered the question. How is it pertinent that a person writing a bad check or stealing something off the shelf at Walmart had an underage girlfriend decades ago or slapped a 13 year old on the rear?
While sticking someone who commits a minor property crime with a crippling felony conviction is absurd, replacing a bad law with a fatally flawed one, a law that throws 100,000 people who have no connection to this offense that this law purports to address, under the bus – in the interest of drumming up support for a flawed law – makes no sense.
You think it is a big deal that 59.6% of voters voted for this proposition?
Proposition 35 and Proposition 83, of recent memory, were approved by 80+% of the people that bothered to show up at the voting booth. Prop 35 has been, for the part that addresses registered sex offenders, deemed unconstitutional and thusly invalidated. Prop 83 (Jessica’s Law) was recently heard by the California Supreme Court. Stay tuned on that one.
The proposition process is for well informed, educated voters. The California / American voter is neither.
COREY SINCLAIR says
IF YOU DONT LIKE THE NEW LAW PASSED BY VOTERS THEN YOU CAN TAKE YOUR ASS OUT OF THE STATE EASY AS THAT STOP WHINING AND CRYING ACTING LIKE YOUR A VICTIM
Jason says
So we as citizens aren’t allowed to criticize the stupidity of this law when what it dies is completely opposite of what its named?
Omar says
You can criticise it as much as you want… But you will also have to face the reality that it is the law. If you didn’t like it, you should have cmpaigned against it BEFORE it passed. Protesting now is much too late… It may be in your best interest to find something else to waste your energy on!
omega says
Why is it a person who has to register under PC 290 is not eligible for a reduction for offenses like theft? If that is not punitive, and ex post facto, then I do not know what is. One can only hope that one of 100,000 California residents on this registry challenge this new provision in a court of law under the Equal Opportunity doctrine.
Smack! says
Individuals who have to register under PC 290 are required to register because they pose anunreasonable threat to society… So by the very nature of the offence PC290 regsitrants had committed, they are disqualified. And the law would be a hipocrisy if sexual preditors were included!
As for the “Equal Opportunity doctrine”… Seriously…. Get a clue!
Stanley says
You are absolutely wrong. While there is a small number of truly dangerous people with sex offense convictions out there, there are many misdemeanor crimes that will force someone to register under PC 290 for life. Many 290 registrants have never seen the inside of a prison or even a jail cell. Such is the very heinous nature of the crime committed.
As far as high re-offense rate and dangerousness goes:
“About 95% of solved sex crimes are committed by individuals never previously identified as sex offenders and so not registered.”
http://www.cce.csus dot edu/portal/admin/handouts/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%204-2-14.pdf (California Sex Offender Management Board)
Besides, a previous 290 or even murder conviction has absolutely no bearing on the prosecution of someone who has committed a minor property crime. Why are those with prior theft / burglary / robbery or other property crime conviction not excluded? Is that not pertinent to the crime in question? The only reason is that this was sold to the public as “spare a thief, keep a sex offender in prison” which is ludicrous – but of course the public swallowed it hook line and sinker.
I believe omega means a challenge not under ‘Equal Opportunity’ but ‘Equal Protection’, and he is totally right.
callitasitis says
Good info, thanks