Petition for Certificate of Rehabilitation

Clear your criminal record through a petition for a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

In California, there are very limited ways to clear your criminal record. Unfortunately, public policy favors punishing offenders for the rest of their lives by imposing the ongoing stigma of a criminal conviction. One bad decision, and you could be denied housing, a job, loans, professional licenses, and many other restrictions, particularly if you’ve got a Penal Code section 290 requirement for sex offender registration.

One possible way to clear your record is through a Petition for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Essentially, under certain circumstances, you may petition the court to recognize that you have been rehabilitated. Once the court finds that you’ve been rehabilitated, the matter is instantly forwarded to the Governor’s office as a petition for pardon. However, the certificate alone (prior to a pardon) provides for a number of benefits, such as enabling you to apply for state licenses and relieving you from sex offender registration.

There are certain requirements before you apply, which depends on the type of crime committed. For example, you must remain crime-free during the intervening rehabilitation period, which can be anywhere between seven and ten years depending on the crime. You must also be a continuous residence for three to five years prior to filing, also depending on the type of conviction.

This area of law is complicated and requires the assistance of a lawyer. Call Santa Rosa Criminal Defense Attorney Gabriel Quinnan of Quinnan Law to help you determine your eligibility.

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

Wrongfully convicted? There is a way to clear your record.

Wrongfully Convicted? There is a way to clear your record.

Once upon a time, if you were wrongfully convicted of a crime and you had already served your time, vacating the underlying conviction was limited and difficult. Thankfully, in 2003, the California Legislature noted the increased number of cases wherein it was proven that a defendant was wrongfully convicted based on false testimony of a police officer or DNA exoneration long after the defendant’s sentence had been served and, therefore, promulgated California Penal Code section 1473.6.

This statute provides the means for you to vacate a wrongful conviction. To qualify for this relief, you must have completely served your sentence and:

  • (1)  Newly discovered evidence of fraud by a government official that completely undermines the prosecution’s case, is conclusive, and points unerringly to his or her innocence.
  • (2)  Newly discovered evidence that a government official testified falsely at the trial that resulted in the conviction and that the testimony of the government official was substantially probative on the issue of guilt or punishment.
  • (3)  Newly discovered evidence of misconduct by a government official committed in the underlying case that resulted in fabrication of evidence that was substantially material and probative on the issue of guilt or punishment. Evidence of misconduct in other cases is not sufficient to warrant relief under this paragraph.

It is important to note that, once you have information tending to prove your innocence, you must act upon that within one year. Moreover, if there is actual evidence of misconduct by the police, you must act within 6 months to avail yourself of money damages. If this happened to you, don’t hesitate to contact Santa Rosa Criminal Defense attorney Gabriel Quinnan here at Quinnan Law. In a brief, free consultation, Mr. Quinnan can help determine your next steps.

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

Police Abuse of Authority and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 Claims

Policing the Police; You CAN Get Compensated For The Deprivation Of Your Constitutional Rights.

With the advent of cell phone video and body cameras, the public has become increasingly aware of a disturbing amount of police violence and dishonesty. For years, my clients have complained of serious deprivation of their rights, from factual dishonesty in their investigations to fabrication of evidence to physical abuse. For example, it was recently discovered that a crime lab in New Jersey had been fabricating lab results, possibly resulting in thousands of convictions overturned: http://www.sciencealert.com/forensic-lab-tech-caught-fabricating-results-casts-doubt-over-almost-8-000-criminal-cases. It must be remembered that the reality of those convictions means years and years of jail for innocent people. And, of course, there are the almost daily reports of police physical abuse.

When someone’s constitutional rights have been deprived, what, if anything can be done? Thankfully, both federal and state law provides remedies, commonly referred to section 1983 actions. In 1983 claims, one must show that the officer, acting under the color of authority, deprived a citizen of his rights. The important thing to remember is that, while the cause of action is similar between state and federal law, state actions require extra steps to ensure that you are able to even bring your case to court. The first thing you must do is file a Tort Claim, which is usually a standard form provided by the city or county in which the law enforcement agent is employed. That form must be filled out within six  months, or you will have abandoned the claim. My advice is to have an attorney fill out the form on your behalf so that you can avoid making any statements that they can use against you later.

Once the claim is rejected, you will have two years from the date of the incident to file your federal and state claim. The federal action adopts statute of limitations of the state in which the incident occurred, which in California is two years. Once the matter is properly filed, expect to spend a few years fighting tooth and nail over the complaint. In recent years, local governments have been loathe to admit liability in these cases and will put up a significant fight before settling; so do not expect a quick pay day.

Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney Gabriel M. Quinnan can help you seek damages for police abuses. While you cannot get back the time and effort spent originally defending yourself, he can help ensure you get compensated.

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

Regulation of Marijuana facing local challenges

Regulation of Marijuana Challenging for North Bay Growers

With the recent legalization of marijuana in California, would-be growers and producers are, for the first time, experiencing greater hurdles than in the heady days of the black market. As argued by proponents of legalization over the years, government regulation of marijuana will result in less tax evasion, pollution and crime because of a combination of factors.

The most important of these factors will be the decrease of the price of the product due to the advent of huge, legal/corporate cultivation and distribution operations. With the price per pound plummeting (some have reported $800/lb, compared to upwards of $3000/lb during pre-legalization days), the opportunity costs no longer make remote, black market grows viable. When pot was at $3000/lb, it made sense to live off the grid, far away from the main roads (and the cops) and protected by unsavory itinerant labor. However, with the inevitable price drop, they will no longer command the same profit at market. There will still be markets across state lines, but even so, the general market price of legal pot in California, generally, should experience a downward pressure such that even pot intended for illegal export will be negatively affected. Right at this moment, there are black market growers desperately seeking a market for their product and finding few places where they can earn enough profit that will justify their businesses.

The second factor will be community backlash itself. Look no further than a recent opinion piece in the Ukiah Daily Journal (http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/opinion/20170423/in-our-opinion-growers-need-to-grow-up) regarding the raft of regulations and taxes passed by Mendocino County locals. As a result, growers are outraged by having to submit to a regulatory and tax structure. While Mendocino was widely believed to be the future Marijuana Mecca by growers and users alike, as it turns out, years of unregulated abuses by black market growers in the form of exposure to pollution, water theft, and criminal activity has apparently left a bad taste in the mouths of the voting public. This opinion piece makes clear that the marijuana grower’s vocal hysteria about having to pay taxes is particularly galling to the citizenry after decades of unmitigated profits at the community’s expense. The result: now that cultivators are forced from the shadows, they are facing substantial resistance from the people.

While the process of change will be difficult for some, the end result of the end of marijuana prohibition will likely result in a safer community. After all, you don’t see a lot of crime regarding moon shining anymore.

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

gun rights, second amendment law

Restoring your gun rights in California in an age of control

You’ve celebrated the recent passing of Proposition 64, which retroactively reduced your felony marijuana cultivation conviction to a simple misdemeanor. You petition the court for your reduction. Additionally, you ask for and are granted termination of probation and expungement. It was the only conviction on your record that made you ineligible to possess firearms. After obtaining the appropriate orders from the court, you immediately make plans to purchase a firearm, as is your constitutional right. You go to the gun store, pick out a nice varmint gun for the animals feasting on your chickens. You are denied.

The Department of Justice is doing everything it can to keep you in the prohibited persons category with regards to gun ownership, despite the state law that says otherwise and in the face of constitutional protections that create a fundamental right to bear arms. They are taking a page out of the federal government’s playbook by claiming that they have no resources to determine whether or not an applicant is truly eligible. In essence, you must wait indefinitely until, in their good time, they offer you due process. In many cases, it has amounted to years of waiting.

Lawsuits have been filed to end the delays, but, so far, the State of California has been unresponsive. Per usual, our system of government is less concerned with following the law than getting re-elected. Thus, the very people granted the authority to enforce the law will, once again, violate the law through intentional inaction. This is legislating via executive authority and violates the separation of powers doctrine.

What can be done? In my cases, I have taken the matter back to Superior Court and asked the judges to sign an order granting my client’s rights back. Next, I send the signed order along with the administrative appeal paperwork demanding they remove him/her from their list of prohibited persons. If they do nothing, I file suit and let DOJ explain why they refuse to act in accordance with the law.

If you have a gun rights issue, contact Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney Gabriel M. Quinnan to evaluate your case.

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

Collective defense Santa Rosa Criminal Defense

You don’t need collective documents to assert a collective defense 

colorfuljudgeRecently, the requirement to have collective documents to assert a collective marijuana cultivation defense was eliminated. The ruling came on January 16, 2015, in People v. Orlosky, a criminal appeal filed in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.[i]

The court stated that collective documents may be a relevant factor for juries to evaluate. Such documents are not a mandatory requirement preventing a defendant from asserting a collective defense regarding “informal joint cultivation arrangements between two qualified patients who grow marijuana exclusively for their own medical use.”[ii]

The new rule applies to you if your circumstances are similar to those of the appellant. Robert Orlosky argued he and his roommate, who lived in a trailer on rural property, were growing marijuana together solely for medical purposes. Orlosky asserted his defense under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA). Law enforcement officers had argued that Orlosky and his roommate were growing more marijuana than was needed for their medical use.

Although the court has eliminated the requirement to have collective documents, possessing these documents may be helpful to you. If you want to review these documents with an attorney or have been charged with felony cultivation, contact Gabriel Quinnan. Quinnan is a skilled criminal defense attorney based in Santa Rosa, available to represent clients in Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Marin, and Napa counties. Call Gabriel Quinnan at (707) 540-2356 to discuss your case.

[i] People v. Orlosky, No. D064468, Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. Filed January 16, 2015.

[ii] See People v. Orlosky.

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

Vehicular Manslaughter Santa Rosa Criminal Defense

What is vehicular manslaughter?

colorfullawbookThe recent tragic accident that occurred at 3rd and B Streets in downtown Santa Rosa raises the question: what is vehicular manslaughter?

This offense is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, committed while driving a vehicle.[i] A driver must have demonstrated ordinary or gross negligence.[ii] Ordinary negligence means the driver failed to use reasonable care to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to another person. Gross negligence means the driver acted recklessly, in a way that created a high risk of death or great bodily injury.

Vehicular manslaughter is a “wobbler,” and can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. A driver’s criminal and driving history are relevant. A misdemeanor is punishable by a fine up to $1,000, informal probation, and/or a year in jail. A felony is punishable by a fine up to $10,000, formal probation, and/or two, four, or six years in prison.[iii]

At this point, police cannot determine which, if any, driver acted negligently. The cause of the crash remains under investigation.[iv]

In many cases such as the one above, facing a possible manslaughter charge can be a terrifying ordeal. If it is possible that you can be charged with vehicular manslaughter, call Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney Gabriel Quinnan. He has experience in handling such matters in both DMV and the criminal courts. Quinnan is a skilled practitioner available to represent you in Sonoma, Marin, Lake, Mendocino, and Napa counties. Call Gabriel Quinnan today at (707) 540-2356 to learn how he can defend you.

[i] California Penal Code (PC) § 192(c).

[ii] PC §§ 192(c)(1) and (2).

[iii] PC §§ 19 and 193.

[iv] The Press Democrat, January 28, 2015. Pedestrian killed in crash on sidewalk was longtime Santa Rosa resident. See:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/3449571-181/pedestrian-killed-in-crash-on?page=0

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

Heien police search seizure santa rosa criminal defense

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Police Can Stop for “Reasonable Mistake of Law”

 

colorfuljudgeRecently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer can stop a vehicle based on a reasonable mistake of law. fn1. This ruling both defines and restricts your Fourth Amendment rights. A law enforcement officer can stop you on the street or while you are driving if he or she thinks you are breaking the law. This is true even if the officer is wrong. Such a stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The stop is defined as reasonable.

In the pertinent case, Heien v. North Carolina, the officer stopped a vehicle which appeared to have only one working brake light. The officer thought it was a violation of state law to drive a vehicle with one broken brake light. It was not. North Carolina only requires a vehicle to have one working brake light.

 Obviously, there are a lot of interesting issues presented in this ruling, not the least of which is the obvious: the police are able to legally detain you based on a mistake of law, however, a mistake of law is never a defense for those accused of a crime. Secondly, is this ruling opens the door for law enforcement officers to claim a “mistake”, which will undoubtedly be upheld by friendly (and so often former prosecutor) judges. But, to me, the most interesting implied admission by this court is that the law, generally, has simply become so complicated that even those tasked with enforcing it can’t keep it straight.

By law, we, the citizens (but no longer the police citizens), are deemed to know every single code, regulation, tax provision, etc. and are expected to be in full compliance. This is so even if the law is so confusing that law enforcement officers can’t figure it out. However, we are seeing the accelerated passage of laws every single legislative session by local, state and federal governments; sometimes by the hundreds. And yet, we are deemed to have perfect knowledge of every one of them. The Supreme Court is, for the very first time, recognizing this complexity, but only as it applies to the government, the very people who are in the best position to know what the law is. It’s hypocritical and further decays our ability to defend against unreasonable police intrusion.

Cases about reasonable mistakes of law often arise after an officer has stopped a person and conducted a search of the person’s body and clothing or vehicle. If an officer has stopped you, conducted a search, and found anything incriminating, call Gabriel Quinnan, an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Gabe Quinnan can tell you if the officer’s mistake of law was reasonable. He can represent you in trial or negotiate for an improved plea offer. Gabe Quinnan is available to represent you if you live in Sonoma, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, or Lake County. Call Gabe Quinnan at (707) 540-2356 today.

1. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. ___ (2014).

 

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

Marijuana sales in native tribal land

Can Tribes Grow and Sell Marijuana?

bookiconOn December 11, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said Native American tribes can grow and sell marijuana on their lands. So far, only three tribes across the country, and one in California, has shown an interest in doing so. DOJ did not name the California tribe.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Although DOJ has the authority to prosecute marijuana felonies on tribal lands, the agency stated generally it will not enforce federal marijuana laws on federally recognized tribes that choose to grow and sell marijuana. The tribes must meet eight federal guidelines, including not selling marijuana to minors and not transporting marijuana to areas that prohibit it.

The question is how federally recognized tribes in northern California will react to this change. It is also unknown how DOJ will implement the policy in the manner it stated: on a case by case basis. Reaction to the delay may be slow. Tribes will likely need to reach a consensus and implement their own policies.

DOJ’s change does not make it legal for those who are members of a tribe or not members of a tribe to grow marijuana on Native American lands and sell marijuana without the tribe’s permission. If you have been charged with marijuana possession or sale, call Gabe Quinnan at (707) 540-2356. Gabe Quinnan is an experienced criminal defense attorney who has represented clients facing marijuana-related charges in Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, and Marin Counties. He help you reach the best possible resolution in your case.

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin

police body camera criminal defense Santa Rosa

Police body cameras: how they can change your case

courthouseiconAcross California, local law enforcement agencies are purchasing body cameras. Here’s some facts about these devices.

* Officers determine when and where to turn them on.
* The category of camera determines where the officer will wear the device: usually in the center of their chest or on their lapel.
* The resolution and quality of the camera determines what can be seen and heard.
* The law enforcement agency that buys the cameras will determine how long a recording will be kept and who should have access. Distributing video to individuals who are not charged with a crime or connected to a case could be seen as violating privacy rights.

The fact that a body camera is rolling can discourage an officer to use excessive force. Yet footage from a camera could hurt your case if you appear more violent or out of control than you remember.

On December 9, 2014, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved a $1.2 million contract to outfit all county’s sheriff’s deputies with lapel cameras for 5 years. Current policies allow deputies to deactivate their cameras at any time they believe the use of the camera is unnecessary.

If you need a skilled criminal defense attorney, call Gabe Quinnan at (707) 540-2356. Gabe Quinnan is an experienced and determined criminal lawyer who is able to analyze the footage from a police body camera and determine whether it can help your case. Gabe Quinnan is available to represent you if you live Sonoma, Lake, Mendocino, or Marin County.

Facebookgoogle_pluslinkedin