Attorney Peter Goldscheider defends individuals charged with state or federal crimes. He also does appellate work.
Strong Appellate Representation
Peter Goldscheider is a capable and experienced appellate defense attorney in both state and federal court including handling direct appeals, petitions for writs of habeas corpus and other post-conviction petitions for relief. He will work to expose errors during your trial and fight to get you another chance in court.
With more than 40 years of experience in law and a California State Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist, Peter Goldscheider will be a strong advocate as you appeal your criminal case. He has tried more than 150 jury trials with a history of success, and also has a record of accomplishment with appeals winning reversals of convictions and releases from prison.
Here are a few example cases:
- People v. Matesky – This client was serving a 75 year to life sentence under the three strikes law for what was a non-violent crime. After a series of appeals and petitions to the trial court, his release was secured by demonstrating that one of his “strike” priors from years ago should not have been used in this sentencing. He was immediately released from prison.
- People v. Gates – Our client was also serving a life sentence under the Three Strikes Law for what is now a minor drug possession charge but had several offenses including a sex offense as a juvenile that made him ineligible for relief under a current law changing the Three Strikes Law. We were able to secure his release by convincing the prosecutor that his sentence was cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- People v. Easter – In a published decision, our client’s murder conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeal because the trial judge refused to consider evidence that he was not mentally competent to stand trial.
- People v. Reyes – In another recently published opinion, our client’s conviction for the possession of an assault weapon was reversed by the Court of Appeal because the trial judge admitted prejudicial evidence in his trial. In addition, the trial judge refused to admit testimony by the owner of the vehicle where the weapon was found.