Great Bodily Injury Enhancement (12022.7) in DUI?

In the context of sentencing a person convicted of DUI under Vehicle Code § 23153, DUI causing injury or death to others, there are two cases, Cook and Arndt, that deal with sentencing defendant with multiple enhancements arising out of one event injuring or causing death to multiple victims. These are good cases for the criminal defense attorney who handles DUI cases involving gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated charges. To read about these two cases, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/great-bodily-injury-enhancement-12022-7-in-dui.html

PC 245(a) / 243(d), Battery with Serious Bodily Injury

If one is charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code §§ 245(a)(1), 245(a)(2) or 245(a)(3)), the charge is a strike and if sentenced to serve time on this, the time is served in state prison for a minimum of 85% of the total sentence (subject to downward modification by the CDCR in implementing Proposition 57 in some cases). However, if one pleads to battery causing serious bodily injury, a violation of Penal Code § 243(d), it is not a strike and one would serve a maximum of 50% of the sentence. The prudent defense attorney should consider negotiating a 243(d) change in lieu of a 245(a) charge when there is actual battery to the victim, as the punishment is, counterintuitively, less. To read more about these two charges, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/pc-245-a-243-d-battery-with-serious-bodily-injury.html

How is “Personal Infliction” Defined? Examples?

If you or a loved one faces a criminal case for assault, battery, mayhem, or even felony DUI, the prosecution may have alleged that defendant “personally inflicted” great bodily injury or death upon another. What does “personally inflict” really mean? The answer is that defendant directly caused or inflicted something damaging or painful to another, not through an intermediary. To read more about the “personal infliction” requirement, as challenged in a recent case brought to the appellate court level, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/how-is-personal-infliction-defined-examples.html

List of Great Bodily Injury Sentence Enhancements

Including the Penal Code § 12022.7, there are 23 specific sentence enhancements of varying length that our state legislature has separately provided for a person who inflicts great bodily injury when committing certain crimes. To read the list of the great bodily injury sentence enhancements, by the type of crime involved, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/list-of-great-bodily-injury-sentence-enhancements.html.

Multiple Counts with Hate Crime Enhancements

When a defendant commits multiple acts based on hate (a hate crime), does the judge apply a one, two or three year sentence enhancement to each sentence for each crime? What if the crimes are separate, i.e., they take place days apart? The answers are complex and there are exceptions for certain types of crimes (kidnapping and sex offenses). To get a basic idea of how such sentencing works, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/multiple-counts-with-hate-crime-enhancements.html

Is Sentence Enhanced for Prior Hate Crime Conviction?

Yes is the answer to the question posed in the title to this blog entry, if one commits a hate crime and has previously commits such a crime, the sentence is enhanced by one additional year for each prior hate crime conviction under Penal Code §§ 425.75(a) or 425.75(b). However, if the prior hate crime was a prior serious felony subjecting the defendant to the prior serious felony five-year enhancement, the two enhancements are not stacked. In such a case, the five year enhancement will apply, but not the additional one year for a prior hate crime. To read more about this sentence enhancement, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/is-sentence-enhanced-for-prior-hate-crime-conviction.html

What is a Sentence Enhancement for a “Hate Crime?”

When one commits a crime based on bias of certain groups of people, based on actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group having one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics, that person faces a one, two or three year additional years in custody. Such crimes are often vandalism, assault with a deadly weapon, arson or criminal threats. To read more about hate crime enhancements, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/what-is-a-sentence-enhancement-for-a-hate-crime.html

AB 865 – Does 1170.91(b)(2) Petition Apply if a Plea Bargain?

No is the answer to the question in the title to this blog entry because the judge had no discretion in sentencing when there is a stipulated sentence. Therefore, the judge could not have overlooked something or ignored anything involving a service-related disability such as PTSD, alcohol abuse, drug use or any other type of trauma that AB 865 seeks to consider. To read more about this rather harsh ruling, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/ab-865-does-1170-91-b-1-petition-apply-if-plea-bargain.html

AB 865 – Does 1170.91(b)(2) Petition Apply if a Plea Bargain?

No is the answer to the question in the title to this blog entry because the judge had no discretion in sentencing when there is a stipulated sentence. Therefore, the judge could not have overlooked something or ignored anything involving a service-related disability such as PTSD, alcohol abuse, drug use or any other type of trauma that AB 865 seeks to consider. To read more about this rather harsh ruling, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/ab-865-does-1170-91-b-1-petition-apply-if-plea-bargain.html

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) But No Prejudice?

The following case summary is a good example where there indeed was ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), but the court found the totality of the evidence otherwise was so great that one could not find but for the IAC, the result would have been different. This is the second element of the Strickland v. Washington test. To read more about this interesting, yet sad case, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-iac-but-no-prejudice.html