Changes to California’s Three Strikes Law

1. New law revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is serious or violent.
2. Continues to impose life sentence if third strike conviction was for certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offense or involved firearm possession.
3. Maintains life sentence for felons with non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder or child molestation.
4. Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentences does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.

In the past a person with two prior serious or violent felonies (strikes) could receive a 25 to life prison sentence if they are convicted of any felony – the current felony did not have to be serious or violent.  In many cases defendant’s received 25 to life sentences for committing offenses such as theft or drug possession.  As a result, California currently has 8,800 inmates serving 25 to life sentences. 3,000 of these cases involve current offenses which are not serious or violent – and therefore can potentially be drastically reduced.

The voters approved a change to the law which limits the 25 to life sentences to offenders who are convicted of a current felony that is serious or violent (with a few exceptions – such as when the defendant has a prior conviction for rape, murder or child molestation).  If the current offense is not serious or violent (and none of the exceptions applies) the court can now impose a sentence of twice the normal term for the crime.

Defendants Serving 25 to Life Sentences

The change in the law allows defendants who are currently serving 25 to life sentences (or longer) who were sentenced under the old three strikes law to ask to be resentenced under the new version of the law.  The defendants have two years to make this request.

Resentencing Judge Has Discretion

If you have a family member or loved one that is currently serving a 25 to life sentence (or longer) three strikes sentence this is very, very good news.  However, be aware the law includes a provision that allows the resentencing judge to apply his or her discretion and to deny the reduction in the sentence if the court finds “that resentencing the [defendant] would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety”.

Therefore, the resentencing hearing should be approached with substantial preparation and readiness to present evidence in support of appropriateness of the resentencing.

If you need help with this feel free to contact Dan Koukol.  If you have read the balance of this web site you are aware he is particularly well suited to handle these matters.

 
Dan Koukol
 

Placer County DUI DWI History

Placer county had established itself as being a tough and aggressive prosecution oriented justice system well before it established its current driving under the influence stance. This reputation was solidified during Brad Fenocchio’s tenure as Placer County District Attorney (1995 – 2011). The District Attorney’s Office as well as the Sheriff’s and Probation Department benefitted from Placer County’s financial resources. The county established an aggressive policy on domestic violence cases and a zero tolerance police on street gang activities. Specialized courts were established to handle drug offenses, driving under the influence cases, and cases where the defendant has mental health issues.

Placer County DUI DWI Court Changed in 2005

In 2005 the DUI court changed substantially. In October 2005 Matt Redding, a respected and well liked Rocklin Police Officer was killed on duty by a drunk driver on Highway 65. With this occurring shortly after Placer County experienced two other intoxicated driver homicides, one involving a young child on a bicycle Placer said “enough is enough” and assembled a task force.

The county hired an outside consultant to provide statistical insight into what works and what doesn’t work in respect to deterring conduct and reducing risks.

Placer County DUI DWI Court – Enforcement on Second Offenses

After several meetings the Placer County District Attorney’s Office indicated they would be taking an aggressive position in prosecuting DUI’s in Placer County. Among the key points:

· An emphasis will be placed on second offenders. (The consultant advised the task force that there is a 67% chance a second DUI offender will re-offend again).

In an attempt to separate the “high risk” group among the second offenders the probation department acquired and administers a psychological test. The test is primarily identifying psychopathic characteristics. If the defendant scores negatively or other risk factors (recent prior) are present “formal” (rather than the normal “informal”) probation is ordered.

The District Attorney also took the position that his office was going to ask for “actual jail time” on all second offenses – and that the normal benchmark would be 30 days. The law requires a minimum of 48 hours in custody on a second DUI. It would probably be fair to say the statewide average for a second offense is 10 days or less – most often 48 hours plus 8 days of work project.

Up until recently, a defendant was required to serve 2/3 of his jail sentence – while receiving a 1/3 reduction for good conduct. This meant a normal second offender would be serving 20 actual days in jail (at a minimum) – which would often result in a loss of employment.

Placer County DUI DWI Third Offenses Are Deemed a Lost Cause

While it was concluded that second offenders were extremely dangerous because of the likelihood they would re-offend third and subsequent offenders were deemed to be simply dangerous.

The best option was determined to be incarceration (jail) for as long as possible – to protect the public.

To this end the 120 day minimum on a third offense is not the normal sentence ordered (as it is in most counties) – instead, in Placer County, it is the absolute minimum.

Placer County DUI DWI Court Is Willing to Give Treatment a Chance

On the other side of the coin the court indicated that in some cases it would be receptive to allowing a defendant to “modify out” of jail and into a residential treatment program to satisfy up to one-half of the court’s sentence.

 Vehicular Manslaughter and Murder Prosecutions

 Placer County was one of the first counties in the state to prosecute a vehicular homicide case as a Murder.  Dan Koukol was the defense attorney on this case.  The facts were tragic.  In 1991 the defendant was driving with a blood alcohol level of .23 at 105 miles per hour when he ran his pick-up truck head-on into a family of 5, killing 3, on highway 65.  The jury found that the defendant acted “in willful and wanton disregard” for human life and convicted him of three counts of second degree murder.

From this point murder prosecutions became almost routine in intoxicated vehicular homicide cases in Placer County.

That is a bit of history.  Where is the Placer County DUI court today?  Well, it is still tough.  But it is receptive to appropriate compromise.

 Placer County Drunk Driving Sentencing Patterns

If you studied the sentencing patterns for various categories of drunk driving cases in Placer County you would would find the following pattern:

First Offense

Vehicle Code Section 23152(a)/(b)

 Jail time is largely based on the defendant’s blood alcohol level

• .09% to .14%      = Normally no (additional) jail time
• .15% to .19%      = 5 days in jail
• .20%+                    = 10 days in jail

3 years of informal probation

• Fine approximately $2,100
• (3 month) DUI School
• Victim Impact Panel

Mandatory Probation Terms:

• Only drive if licensed and insured
• Don’t drive with a measurable amount of intoxicant in your system
• Don’t refuse a chemical test
• Obey all laws

Additional Factors (add additional jail time):

• Non-Injury Accident – Add 10 days jail
• Refusal to take chemical test – Add 10 days jail
• Minor in Car – Add 10 days jail (law requires 48 hours)
• Additional Factors (add additional jail time):

 Driver’s License

Note: The court advises the DMV of the conviction which results in a suspension (6 months or more)

Second Offense

Vehicle Code Section 23152(a)/(b)

Jail Time:

Jail time on second offenses is largely based on the defendant’s blood alcohol level

• .09% to .14%      = 30 – 40 days in jail
• .15% to .19%      = 40 – 60 days in jail
• .20%+                    = 60 – 90 days in jail

 Probation Terms

4 years informal (or formal) probation

• Fine approximately $2,400
• 18 month DUI School
• Victim Impact Panel

Mandatory Probation Terms

• Only drive if licensed and insured
• Don’t drive with a measurable amount of intoxicant in your system
• Don’t refuse a chemical test
• Obey all laws

No alcohol

Stay away from bars

Search and seizure

Additional Factors (add additional jail time):

• Non-Injury Accident – Add 20+ days jail
• Refusal to take chemical test – Add 20 days jail
• Minor in Car – Add 20+ days jail (law requires 10 days)
• Violation of probation – 10 to 30 days for each grant of probation

Driver’s License

Note: The court advises the DMV of the conviction which results in a 2 year driver’s license suspension. (however, new options allow the defendant to drive on a restricted basis after 90 days in some cases)

Third Offenses

Vehicle Code Section 23152(a)/(b)

Jail Time:

120 – 270 days

(If on Placer County Probation 180 – 365 days)

Probation Terms

5 years Formal Probation

Fine approximately $3,200

18 month DUI School

Victim Impact Panel

Mandatory Probation Terms

• Only drive if licensed and insured
• Don’t drive with a measurable amount of intoxicant in your system
• Don’t refuse a chemical test
• Obey all laws

No alcohol

Stay away from bars

Search and seizure

Non-Injury Accident – Add 30+ days jail

Refusal to take chemical test – Add 20 days jail

Minor in Car – Add 20+ days jail (law requires 10 days)

Violation of probation – 10 to 30 days for each grant of probation

Driver’s License

Note: The court advises the DMV of the conviction which results in a 3 year driver’s license suspension. (however, new options allow the defendant to drive on a restricted basis after 6 months in some cases)

Conclusion

 Without any question Placer County is a bad place to be charged with driving under the influence (drunk driving).  The county intentionally earned this reputation and I believe they intend to maintain it.

If you are charged with DUI in Placer County it is particularly important that you are represented by an attorney that is not only well versed in the complexities of California driving under the influence law – but also well known and respected in the Placer County Courts.

Knowing the history of the county and the rationale behind why they do certain things can make all the difference in your case.  First if you have a “marginal” case your attorney needs to be a respected adversary – able to fight to a not guilty finding.  In the rest of the cases your attorney needs to be able to present credible alternatives to jail time – that will keep your life on course.  Sometimes this may require attendance in self help meetings or other forms of counseling / treatment.

In any case Dan Koukol without a doubt has this experience.  Dan has literally handled over one thousand driving under the influence cases in Placer County and has achieved a reputation of being and extremely hard fighting advocate as well as possessing a balanced and credible perspective – when proposing compromises to the court.

Take a look at Dan’s testimonials – when local attorneys family members pick up driving under the influence they often go to Dan for representation.

Dan Koukol

Dan Koukol

Mr. Koukol’s investigator got started investigating the case the same day (Sunday afternoon). The following day (Monday) Mr. Koukol had his investigation reports prepared and he contacted with the District Attorney that was assigned to make a charging decision on my brother’s case.

The next day (Tuesday) the prosecutor agreed to not file criminal charges against my brother. My brother was released from jail mid-afternoon that same day.

I have never had to hire an attorney before – but I can tell you Mr. Koukol did everything we hoped he would do and more.

I recommend Dan Koukol if you need an attorney.

The first thing Dan did was get me out of jail. He was able to convince the Judge that I
was not a dangerous person and that I deserved to be trusted. This was really important
because for the next four years Dan fought my case for me – while I was able to go back
to work and to take care of my kids.

Suffice it to say that I had been hanging out with the wrong crowd. I made a promise to
the Pre-Trial Supervision person (who was wonderful) that I would abide by her rules and
that I would not do anything that would put me back in jail.

Over the course of the next four years Dan went through three prosecutors and two
judges on my case. In the end, which was today, the judge sentenced me to probation
only – with no jail time whatsoever.

This is an amazing outcome for my case! I was charged in Federal Court with selling
crack cocaine. The sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of at least 10 (ten) years!
Dan was able to convince both the prosecutor and the judge to agree to a less serious
charge and to “depart” from the guideline sentence calculation all the way down to zero
days in jail.

Everyone involved in the case was amazed at this outcome – especially me. I don’t really
know how he did it but Dan seemed to believe in me and he just kept fighting for me. If
you get in trouble and you need an attorney that can really help you, I recommend that
you hire Dan Koukol.

Dan Koukol

Dan Koukol is a mighty pillar standing on the foundation of the right to counsel with absolute loyalty to the client. He recognizes the enhanced importance of criminal defense representation and special vigilance required to protect his clients’ interests under the Sixth Amendment. Dan Koukol has the uncanny ability to provide both zealous advocacy and skillful negotiation so his clients are in as little trouble as possible, even in federal court.

Dan Koukol

My charges were two counts of felony insurance fraud.

On my way to a car insurance office after recently shipping my car to California, I rear ended a
truck. Being nearly broke, I panicked and quickly got insurance. Not thinking clearly I opened a
claim saying the accident had happened just after I got insurance – rather than just before.

A few conversations later, I realized what I had gotten myself into. I immediately cancelled the
claim hoping it wasn’t too late. Shortly thereafter, I was being hounded by detectives. This was
too much pressure for me – I came clean and confessed to everything.

Next thing I knew, I had a letter from the District Attorney. This was the scariest moment of
my life. When I went to court the Judge gave me a Public Defender who offered me very little
reassurance. My PD made it sound inevitable that I would be convicted of a felony.

I spoke with my father and we agreed to find a private lawyer to help me. We searched for
the best in the business and Dan Koukol certainly is. Not only did Dan give me peace of mind
throughout the 6 month period he was negotiating my case, in the end he got it dropped to a
misdemeanor.

Dan saved my future which was worth every penny spent. I honestly cannot thank him
enough, being able to pursue my dreams is something I can never put a price on. I’ve learned
many lessons throughout this ordeal, and fortunately it has ended with a not-so-bitter taste in
my mouth. Mahalo Dan, I sincerely appreciate everything.

Although the prosecutor ordinarily has sole discretion to determine whom to
charge, what charges to file and pursue and what punishment to seek under
Dix v. Superior court, (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 451, other people interested
in a particular criminal case, such as alleged victims of domestic violence,
have the right to retain counsel to request leniency on behalf of their
accused partner. The end result should be to benefit the entire family,
including the victim of domestic violence, by assuring their safety AND
SUPPORT. Hiring an experienced attorney to help a victim seek leniency to
avoid their alleged abuser’s incarceration can help preserve an entire
family’s quality of life from going down the drain from their provider’s
incarceration.

Dan Koukol

Although the prosecutor ordinarily has sole discretion to determine whom to
charge, what charges to file and pursue and what punishment to seek under
Dix v. Superior court, (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 451, other people interested
in a particular criminal case, such as alleged victims of domestic
violence, have the right to retain counsel to request leniency on behalf of
their accused partner. The end result should be to benefit the entire
family, including the victim of domestic violence, by assuring their safety
AND SUPPORT. Hiring an experienced attorney to help a victim seek leniency
to avoid their alleged abusers incarceration can help preserve an entire
family’s quality of life from going down the drain from their provider’s
incarceration.