Tuesday, July 17, 2018


LIFER BBQ at City Buena Park - Fun had by ALL again!

The Sixth annual lifer picnic Hosted by Gary “Red” Eccher and Attorney Keith Chandler [ECCHER CONSULTING COMPANY (ECC)] gets better every year, with the typical grilled hot dog, BBQ style. We had additional food items ranging from pizza to fried chicken; delivered on the hour (fresh and hot) for several hours through the day.  The meals were well rounded with veggies, fruits and sweets! We had great 70 ish degree weather with a cool breezes in the typical Southern Sunny California day. 
Over 300 people gathered thorough the day at Buena Park from Noon to 6 pm. We had the typical LIFER Group picture (see below) at 3pm.

Gary "Red" Eccher, Diane "Renegade Attorney" Letarte, Keith Chandler  


to everyone that pitched in to help GARY &KEITH for this GREAT yearly summer BBQ.

LIFER group Photo
LIFER Group photo



Infamous "Doc" Hales,  Attorney Marc Norton, Diane "Renegade Attorney" Letarte having fun @ BBQ

Even some of Attorney Diane Letarte's Clients were "incognito"  wearing street clothes !!

It is always great to meet up with clients at the Annual BBQ to see how well they have prospered!


More clients that keep returning every year to the FUN Annual reunion.....

Let's not FORGET Vanessa Sloane from LSA who is such a strong Advocate for the Lifers. 
( Lifer Support Alliance - LSA)

 Keith Chandler (right) who worked hard to get his JD and is working relentlessly to help Lifers with his new academic skills.

Friday, June 22, 2018

In re Darryl Poole (6/22/18) - Court socks it to BOARD for Lip Service to YOPH

Hearty congratulations to awesome Attorney Michael Satris!

In re Darryl Doyle  case #A152341 - (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 96274)
In re Poole ____ Cal.App.5th ____, ____ Cal.Rptr.3d ____, 2018 
D.A.R. 6257 (1st Dist. 2018) June 22, 2018 (A1522341)

The  COA of the state of California just Published today 6/22/18 a Great decision in a Youth Offender Parole Hearing case!!  
Division Two of the First Appellate District vacates a parole denial, smacking the  BOARD around a bit to for its lack of insight finding: 
The court stated: "It is unclear what greater insight the Board could have been looking for."

AND here is what the Court stated for the BOARD's treatment of youth Factors:

The Board paid lip service to the requirement that it consider youth factors, but the record gives no indication the Board actually did so, much less that it gave these factors “great weight.” (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).)


Convicted of a second degree murder committed in 1988, petitioner Darryl Poole
was sentenced to a prison term of  20 years to life.  He contends the Board of Parole
Hearings acted arbitrarily in finding him unsuitable
for release on parole in that there was
not “some evidence” he posed a current danger to public safety.  Additionally, he
challenges the Board’s application of Marsy’s Law, enacted subsequent to his offense, as
imposing ex post facto punishment , and argues that the Board’s appointment procedures
and compensation limits for attorneys appointed to represent inmates at parole hearings
deprive him and other inmates of effective assistance of counsel.  We find no evidence in
the record to support the Board’s determination that petitioner presents a current danger
to the public.  Accordingly, the Board’s decision cannot stand.


The record clearly demonstrates that petitioner has long since disavowed the
criminal conduct and values of his youth and dedicated himself to improvement of his
own skills and internal resources and to providing help to others.  He has expressed understanding of what caused him to commit a heinous crime as a 19-year-old, over 28 years ago, and remorse for taking an innocent life and the resulting pain he inflicted on the victim’s family. Even without reference to the directives of Penal Code section 4801, this record reflects no support for the Board’s finding of “no insight,” and no evidence petitioner poses a current threat to public safety. Considering
the contrast between the irrationality, impulsivity and recklessness of petitioner’s offense
as a 19-year-old, and the evidence of his subsequent development of maturity and changes in attitude and conduct, the Board’s hearing and decision in this case inspire little confidence that it took seriously the directive of  Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801, subdivision (c), for it to provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release, ”with “great weight” given to “the diminished culpability of youth
as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.

The Board’s decision cannot stand.


The decision of the Board is hereby vacated.  The matter is remanded for a new
parole suitability hearing consistent with due process of law and this decision.  (See
Prather, supra,  50 Cal.4th at p. 244.)

 Click Here for the full OPINION : 

Thursday, May 3, 2018

SB 1437 - Accomplice Liability for Felony Murder

UPDATE: SB 1437 - Accomplice Liability for Felony Murder
SB1437 is a bill to amend the Penal Code sections relating to felony murder.  It also appears that as currently proposed, it would be retroactive and potentially apply to many inmates.

The legislative process is long and tortuous.  During that process bills are often amended. At this time we cannot predict the final result of this legislation, or even if it will eventually become law. Since we do not know what the final form of this legislation will be, we cannot reliably predict how it may affect specific inmates. It will be a case-by-case basis.  This Senate Bill (SB 1437) would certainly offer some hope for resentencing at this time.

For all those anxious people - Keep in mind - there is nothing to do until SB1437 actually becomes law.  Quick Bill update below-->
SB 1437 passed out of Senate Public Safety committee on 4/24/2018.
It will now probably go to Senate Appropriations Committee and put in the Suspense file. The Assembly Appropriations Committee reviews all bills with any fiscal impact after passage by a policy committee. Another unique feature of the Appropriations Committee is the Suspense File, to which the committee sends any bill with an annual cost of more than $150,000 (any fund). Suspense File bills are then considered at one hearing after the state budget has been prepared and the committee has a better sense of available revenue. No testimony is presented – author or witness – at the Suspense File hearing.
The way the Bill is written it could possibly force counties and cities to incur expenses for re-sentencing hearings and if that is the case, the legislature must appropriate funds to send to the municipalities to cover those costs.

This is standard legislative practice.  If it passes Appropriations and the Senate floor it will go to Assembly, where the process starts over again. Everything must be passed and signed by the Gov by mid-September 2018, before possibly taking effect Jan. 1 of 2019

Those who fall under the Bill would most likely have to petition the sentencing court for re-sentencing under this Bill.  At this time, It does not seem to exclude third-strikers, but exactly how the process will go will in part depend on how California Dept. Of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) implements the regulations that will put the Bill into effect, something we won't know for awhile.

This Bill is funneling thru the legislative process now and seems to have considerable support.  it will probably have a harder time in the Assembly, but we stay hopeful that it will pass both the Senate and the Assembly. 

Our Law office will be accepting new cases in January 2019 on this SB1437, if it becomes Law.