top of page

SB483 - GUARANTEED RESENTENCING for those who qualify

Updated: Jul 8, 2022

SB483 is a bill that was signed into law in 2021, enacting changes to Penal Codes 1171, and 1171.1 (as of 7/1/22, renamed Penal Codes 1172.7 and 1172.75). These new amendments allow for RETROACTIVE resentencing for those who have the following specific enhancements:

  1. Enhancement imposed prior to 1/1/18 for Health and Safety Code 11370.2 (except for enhancements imposed for a prior conviction for violation of HS11380) - this is (was) a 3 year enhancement for having a prior narcotics conviction.

  2. Enhancements imposed prior to 1/1/20 under Penal Code section 667.5(b) (except for enhancements for a prior sexually violent offense as defined in WIC 6600) - this is (was) the 1 year "prison prior" enhancement.

If your loved one has either of these SPECIFIC enhancements on their sentence, they sort of hit the jackpot. That's because it qualifies them for a complete resentencing. Not only will the court be required to remove the specific enhancement described here, but the court will ALSO be able to apply all current laws (such as SB81 which allows dismissal of any enhancement, SB620 which eliminated mandatory gun enhancements, etc) to the resentencing.

SB483 includes a procedure whereby the CDCR identifies eligible parties, and provides statutory deadlines for completing their resentencing. People have been asking "Do we have to wait for the CDCR to identify them and refer them to court? Why can't we just file now?" And the answer is, I DON'T KNOW. The law does not prohibit filing a motion with a court requesting the benefit of the law, but the law also does not require the court to get anyone's case done sooner than the statutory deadline. One thing I feel confident of: by filing early, you won't risk losing the benefit of the law. The worst that a court will do is make you wait.

So the bottom line here is: if you want to pay a lawyer to try filing it earlier, do so at your own risk. The lawyer might charge an exorbitant fee, and they CANNOT make any promises about whether a court will actually act sooner than the statutory deadline.

If a lawyer makes promises and guarantees about getting it done early, then they are probably a scammer, and you should RUN the other way.

But if they warn you that they can't promise it will work, then at least you know they are honest and understand the law. From that point, it's up to you whether you want to risk your funds.

2,818 views3 comments

Recent Posts

See All

this is why

Dave and I just returned from our weekly group at CMF--it's now after 7 pm, yet another long day. But I wanted to share an email that was waiting for me when we returned to the office--below is that

3 comentarios

Obtuvo 0 de 5 estrellas.
Aún no hay calificaciones

Agrega una calificación

If someone is granted resentencing for this should they hire a lawyer or trust in the courts? Are the public defenders doing good with the cases so far? Thank you for your time and effort 🙏

Me gusta

In regards to this post SB483 - GUARANTEED RESENTENCING for those who qualify, but RISKY TO FILE EARLY

SB483 states the following

By March 1, 2022, for individuals who have served their base term and any other enhancements and are currently serving a sentence based on the enhancement. For purposes of this paragraph, all other enhancements shall be considered to have been served first.

Can you shed some light on where it says “all other enhancements shall be considered to have been served first”? To my understanding my loved one has 667.5 enhancement and 1170.12(a)-(d) with a base term of 3 years. So would the 1170.12 be considered time served with under SB483? Thank you.

Me gusta
LRSheppardLaw
LRSheppardLaw
24 ene 2022
Contestando a

I have no idea from what you've written whether your loved one even qualifies for relief under SB483. Make sure you note: there are a LOT of different things in section 667.5, and this new law ONLY applies to the 1 year prison prior in 667.5 subdivision (b). As far as 1170.12, I'm not sure why you are referencing that...that is not something that is applicable to this law.

Me gusta
bottom of page