DA won’t direct clean sweep of pot convictions in San Bernardino County

By Shea Johnson, Staff Writer, Daily Press, Posted Feb 8, 2018 at 4:36 PM

While some California prosecutors begin to
retroactively expunge or reduce pot convictions
en masse as afforded by Proposition 64, which
legalized recreational marijuana, San Bernardino
County’s top law enforcement official says he
will “absolutely not” follow suit.

District Attorney Mike Ramos told the Daily Press
this week despite actions by his peers in San
Francisco and San Diego to proactively review
cases and seek criminal record changes, this
county’s prosecutors will instead follow the
current as-requested formula set forth in the proposition.

“We have a system in place where an individual
can petition the court to get their record
(cleared),” he said by phone. “I think that
system has worked pretty well for those who
really want to rehabilitate and change their lifestyles.”

Meanwhile, advocacy groups like the California
branch of the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) support pending
state legislation that would require the courts
to automatically clean up records for individuals
convicted of marijuana offenses that are either now no longer or lesser crimes.

NORML argues that “many aren’t aware that they
qualify for re-sentencing, or can’t afford to bring a petition.”

Phyllis Morris, the Public Defender for San
Bernardino County’s Public Defender’s Office,
said that a court-backed system purge would
remove the burden off her department, which is often under-resourced.

“The problem with recent laws is that they really
put the burden on the client to act,” Morris told
the Daily Press, “so we’re in this rehabilitative
season — I don’t know how long it’s going to last
— but if people have anything on their record, or
any questions, they need to act.”

Currently, if someone contacts the Public
Defender’s office, attorneys will research their
case to determine all avenues for which they
might be eligible, meaning potential changes not
only due to Prop. 64 but also Prop. 47, the Three
Strikes Reform Act, an incorrect rap sheet and other elements.

“We look at the global picture,” she said.

Her office will prepare the petitions and submit
them to the DA’s office for review. If
prosecutors sign off, it’s a done deal. If not,
her office will file a petition with the court and request a hearing.

Either way, a court will ultimately have to OK
the individual’s petition, but a judge will know
beforehand whether it’s being contested or uncontested by the DA’s office.

Neither Morris or Ramos could immediately provide
the most updated number of Prop. 64 petitions
that have crossed through their offices since it passed in November 2016.

But according to potentially incomplete data
reported by county courts throughout the state to
the California Judicial Branch, there were 267
petitions submitted here, including two juvenile
petitions, between November 2016 and September.

It’s less than half of what was submitted to
courts in Los Angeles (617) and nearby Riverside
(627) counties over the same period.

Speaking anecdotally, Morris said her office has
seen less activity with Prop. 64 petitions than
they have with Prop. 47, the ballot initiative
approved in 2014 which reduced certain felonies to misdemeanors.

“And that’s what’s puzzling us,” she said, adding
that even a significant number of their Prop. 64
cases had initially been submitted as Prop. 47,
then individuals were told they qualified for the former.

But Morris said the recentness of Prop. 64 has
likely played some factor in the lower number of petitions in this county.

“In my opinion, it seems like there was more
talk, more debate around Prop. 47,” she said.

The Public Defender’s office does attend
community outreach record-clearing clinics,
however, which are spurred by community
organizations first contacting them through a
division branch. The clinic locations are hosted
by the organizations, typically at churches, but attorneys do the work.

The office has so far conducted them in
Victorville, San Bernardino, Fontana and Rancho
Cucamonga, either on the weekend or in the
evening after attorneys have wrapped up their daily calendar.

Ramos insisted he was “all for” petitioners being
granted expungements or reductions in appropriate
cases, yet also described how marijuana deals
were often a part of the criminal economy perpetuated by gang members.

A clean sweep of what he estimated were 50,000 to
100,000 marijuana-related cases on file in this
county would be a “huge disservice to the
public,” he added, because of the intricacies involved in certain cases.

For instance, the DA’s office has prosecuted
cases where a suspect might be facing auto theft
and possession of marijuana charges. A plea
bargain could have dismissed the more serious
auto theft charge in an effort to push the suspect into drug court.

A blanket approach would enable that type of
suspect to have his record cleared, he said,
raising the specter that there was too much
opportunity for collateral damage in the process.

The DA’s office also did not receive any
additional funding to pore over marijuana cases
nor do they have the staff to do so. It’s a
resource deficiency he said he recently discussed
with L.A. County District Attorney Jackie Lacey, who shares his views.

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon,
when he announced last week that his office would
retroactively apply Prop. 64 to every marijuana
case since 1975, said the city was leading
efforts to “undo the damage that this country’s
disastrous, failed drug war has had on our nation
and on communities of color in particular.”

Ramos said he had not since reached out to Gascon
or any other top county prosecutor beyond Lacey.

“I’m pretty solid on my position.”

Source link:
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20180208/da-wont-direct-clean-sweep-of-pot-convictions-in-san-bernardino-county