I already consulted with an immigration attorney; and based on that consultation, here is what I learned:
FranL: “A theft offense is considered a crime of moral turpitude.”
The crime at issue is “receiving stolen property”. Immigration law distinguishes a theft from receiving stolen property. Even if receiving stolen property could still be a crime involving moral turpitude, it is something my immigration attorney will deal with later; and it is certainly not the focus of my question.
FranL: “Here, the possible maximum for the crime of which you have been convicted is is 3 years of prison.”
In CALIFORNIA, which I mentioned TWICE in my question, PC 496(a) states:
496 (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than ONE year.
Thus, the possible maximum … is ONE year, not three.
FranL: ”So taking a day off your actual sentence doesn't mean a thing.”
Well, it could mean the whole world to me because it could make a difference between mandatory detention and being released on bail, which, in reality, worries me even more than deportation.
According to my immigration attorney, avoiding an aggravated felony is critical because of its severe impact such as mandatory detention pending removal. Crimes of Violence are aggravated felonies if a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of one year or more.
My immigration attorney says that the definition of Crimes of Violence is highly arguable and heavily litigated in court. So, even before trying to argue whether receiving stolen property is a crime of violence, I should reduce the sentence to 364 days to be extra safe. A reduction to 364 days has been done in many criminal courts in California. The immigration attorney told me to contact the public defender. But I wanted to find out more on how to reduce it before speaking with the public defender.
My immigration attorney also says that the person at issue is likely deportable due to a crime involving moral turpitude; but even if he is deportable, he has several “relief” options available, which could help him stay in the US.
That is why I did not ask whether or not reducing by 1 day would help. I simply asked how to reduce it.
Instead of answering on how to reduce it, you wrongly analyzed my case with assumption of your own and gave me the wrong or, to say the least, sketchy “immigration” answers, which is not the focus of my “criminal” question.
The previous attorney “at least” answered in the proper context- criminal law. You, on the other hand, turned it around to an immigration law question; or at least devoted most of your answers to the context of immigration law.
These are good reasons for me to click on “bad service” due to “inaccurate” answers. I will not do that if you simply opt out and refer this to other criminal attorneys practicing in California.
I’m not trying to be difficult. I have never clicked on “bad service” until today. I have been giving “excellent service” or “good service” to all of the answers (more than 20) I have received on JustAnswer thus far.
All I am asking for is a proper answer. Thank you.