My client embezzled over $60,000 during a 3 year period while working as an accountant in a position of trust for more than 3 years. The District Attorney initially wanted prison time because my client had no money to pay back the restitution. After 2 months of negotiating and providing proof of good character and mitigating factors, I was able to obtain a sentence of no jail time. My client is a mother of a 7 year old girl who can now stay home to raise her child instead of going to prison.

Client was charged with committing a lewd and lascivious act on a girl under the age of 14 and the Defendant was more than 10 years older than the victim (PC 288(a)). This was a very serious case with the potential of serious prison time. The evidence against my client was very strong but I knew there was a sympathetic side I could bring out in the Defendant's case. After thoroughly investigating the case and hiring a psychiatrist to evaluate my client, I was able to present mitigating factors to the prosecutor. Without having to go to trial, I was able to convince the prosecutor to allow my client to plead guilty to one count (other 3 counts were dismissed), get credit for the 60 days he was in jail, and 5 years probation with registration requirements. Although my client was charged and convicted of a serious sex offense on an 11 year old child, he only did 60 days in county jail and was then released on probation.

Client was on parole for domestic violence and was arrested for a new domestic violence charge on the same victim. New case alleged Client scratched victim during an argument in which Client was trying to leave the relationship against Victim's wishes. Client was offered by the Parole Officer a one year sentence for his parole violation unless the case was dropped. The prosecutor would not dismiss or reduce the charge even though Victim did not want prosecution and stated that the scratch was an accident and Client did not scratch her intentionally. Victim did not show up to the trial date. I argued a "Crawford" motion to exclude all statements made by the Victim to the police on the basis that it violated my Client's Sixth Amendment right to cross examine his accuser. My "Crawford" motion was granted, and the prosecutor had to dismiss the case because without the officer's testimony they had too little evidence to proceed to trial. The parole board will now revist my Client's case in two weeks and will likely lift his parole hold because the case was dismissed.

Client was charged with a DUI, driving with a .14 blood alcohol level, and a “refusal”. A conviction for this offense results in a mandatory 1 year suspension for a first time offender. Client claimed that she was followed from a bar and stopped by officers with no probable cause and that she never refused to take a blood alcohol test. My research showed that this particular bar had been a target for local law enforcement because of rowdy behavior, and that officers were harassing patrons leaving the bar.

At the DMV hearing I argued that the case should be dismissed because officers had no probable cause to stop my client. To win the case, I subpoenaed and cross examined the arresting officers. Through my cross examination, I shredded their credibility by impeaching their testimony and catching them in lies. The DMV hearing officer declared the officers’ police report to be “untrustworthy and unreliable” and found the officers had unlawfully arrested my client because they lacked any probable cause to stop her. The DMV hearing Officer dismissed (“set-aside”) the suspension and my client got her license back. The criminal court case is still pending, but as a result of the DMV set-aside, Client will have a very good chance of winning her court case or having the charges dismissed upon a motion to suppress.

Client was charged with a misdemeanor second DUI and but had over 20 prior criminal convictions, including two strikes. After carefully examining the discovery, I discovered that the police officers failed to give my client a breath or blood test within the proper time frame. I also noticed other sloppy mistakes by the police during their investigation. After pointing out the problems I uncovered in the DA's case, I was able to convince the DA to offer my client a 96 hour jail sentence (the statutory minimum sentence for a second time DUI), with the statutory minimum fine. Even though my client had a long criminal history with numerous felony convictions and two prior strikes, he only ended up having to do 96 hours in a city jail of his choice. Prior to being retained, my client was told by his Public Defender that he should be prepared to do at least 6 months to one year in county jail because of the seriousness of his prior criminal history.

Client was on felony probation for receiving stolen property. He was originally ordered to complete 60 days Caltrans as part of his plea. For two years, Client failed to report to probation and failed to complete his community service. After numerous probation violations, the judge imposed a three year suspended prison sentence on Client, warning him that if he violates probation one more time, he will immediately go to prison for the maximum sentence of 3 years. [Normally if a Probationer violates his probation after the court imposed suspended prison sentence, a judge has no discretion to recall the sentence and must impose the full prison sentence.]

After the suspended prison sentence was imposed, Client was arrested on a probation violation for driving on a suspended license and for still failing to complete his community service. The Public Defender who initially represented Client coldly stated that there was nothing she could do for him because the law mandated he now serve the 3 year prison sentence that was previously imposed but suspended. Client was advised to notify his employer and family that he would soon be transferred from the local jail to the prison to serve out his 3 year sentence. As a full time employee and sole financial supporter of his 2 young children, wife and mother, Client could not afford to go to prison.

In desperation, the family retained me as Client’s attorney. I immediately took charge of the case, compiled character references, work history and other documents to show the court that Client’s case had mitigating factors and the Court should make the unusual steps of reinstating probation and releasing client from jail. After lengthy negotiations with the court, and over the District Attorney’s persistent objections, the Judge agreed to give Client one more chance, releasing him back on probation. Instead of going to prison for 3 years, Client was immediately released from jail, placed back on probation, and ordered to complete 60 dates of community service.

Client was charged with 2 counts of robbery of a store clerk that occurred 6 months prior to the arrest. The only evidence connecting my client to the crime was a bad witness identification and my client happened to live in the area where the robbery occurred. We went to trial, where I presented several alibi witnesses and thoroughly cross examined the victim and officer. The jury acquited my client on all charges, finding there was reasonable doubt as to whether he committed the robbery.

My client was charged with felony grand theft. A strike and prison prior was also alleged. The client’s exposure was up to 7 years in prison. The DA would not dismiss the strike or prison prior and refused to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor, which is what it should have been filed as originally. At the preliminary hearing I cross examined both officers and it became clear that the client’s conduct did not rise to the level of a felony. The Judge granted my motion pursuant to Penal Code 17(b) and reduced the charge to a misdemeanor. My client will now receive informal probation with work release.

My client had two misdemeanor cases from 2006; one case involved a DUI (driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of above .08), and the other case involved possession of meth-amphetamine and a pipe. In both cases, my client failed to appear in court for arraignment. I filed a Serna motion (alleging the denial of a speedy trial) in both cases. The court granted my motions and dismissed all the charges.

My Client was charged with felony possession for sale of marijuana. Twenty-two baggies of marijuana were found in the center console of his vehicle. He claimed that he never sold any drugs and all the marijuana was for his personal use. At first the DA refused to negotiate with me, but after my persistent coaxing and the fact that I convinced the DA that my client was a hard working young man with a nice family who had no other criminal record, I was able to get the charge amended to a misdemeanor. My client plead guilty to misdemeanor possession of marijuana and received Diversion. After his Diversion is completed, the conviction will be dismissed from his record.

My client was charged with felony theft and he had a prior strike. His bail was set at $150,000, which he had no way of paying. I did a bail reduction motion and the court reduced his bail to $50,000. He was able to obtain $5,000 and was released on bail.

My Client, a Mexican National with no legal status, was charged with felony theft; to wit, stealing $1000 worth of plant material from private property. If he got convicted of this offense he’d have been deported and would likely never have been able to obtain legal status in the United States. The DA refused to reduce the charges to a misdemeanor, but after an in-chambers conference with the Judge, the Court agreed with me that the offense was overcharged and granted my motion to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. My client plead guilty to a misdemeanor theft and was sentenced to 30 days of work release. He was not deported and will have the possibility of applying for his citizenship in the future.

My client was charged with receiving stolen property, a felony; to wit. 13 candy bars and 5 soda cans. He was accused of accepting candy and sodas from a man that broke into a snack shop and stole cash and merchandise. My client had a prior strike from when he was a juvenile. His exposure, if convicted, was up to 6 years in prison. I thought it was ridiculous that the DA filed the charges as a felony but she refused to reconsider. I cross examined the officers at the Preliminary Hearing and showed that there was insufficient evidence to presume the client knew the food was stolen when he took it into his possession. The court dismissed the case and chastised the DA for filing such a weak and silly case.