CLIENT CHARGED WITH: BRANDISHING A FIREARM IN LONG BEACH.
PEOPLE V. MICHAEL T.
Involved in an altercation involving his girlfriend and her mother on one side and co-tenants on the other, the co-tenants called the cops and reported that client was brandishing a gun. Cops arrived and arrested client. We pushed the case to trial. At trial, the DA wanted to introduce a 911 call as evidence of my client’s guilt. I opposed confrontation cause grounds. Judge agreed. No 911 call. Motion to dismiss granted. Tough cases deserve tough lawyers who aren’t afraid to stand up to prosecutors gone wild.
CLIENT CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN IN HIS CAR.
PEOPLE V. MIGUEL R.
Client and a co-defendant were driving in South Central when the police bulled them over for a minor traffic violation. The police searched the vehicle; the cops say consentually, my client says no, when they found two handguns in bags in the backseat. They arrested both of them and charged them with possession of a handgun in the car and not properly locked up. The other defendant took a plea. We pushed it to trial and showed that the sheriffs were dirty. The jury came back hung 8 for guilt and 4 for not guilty. The DA dismissed the case. Good things happen at trial: my client’s case was dismissed and his co-defendant has a gun conviction.
CLIENT CHARGED WITH: 3D TIME DUI WITH AN ACCIDENT AND HIT AND RUN.
PEOPLE V. MARITZA M.
Maritza was driving a friend home early in the morning. As she turned right onto a street another car turned left and cut her off. This caused her to collide with a parked car. She lost control of her vehicle and struck another parked car 30 feet down the road. The police came and investigated the case for DUI. Over three hours after the accident, Maritza’s blood was tested for alcohol and came back .23% BAC. The DA charged Maritza with a 3d time DUI. The DMV sought to suspend her license. I fought the DMV and won on the because the test was done more than three hours after the accident and they can’t tell what Maritza’s BAC would have been at the time of driving. I announced ready for trial and the DA, who initially wanted 180 days in jail, finally agreed to settle the case for a wet reckless. No Jail. No License Suspension. Good things happen when you announce: “Ready for Trial!” This means that if someone promises to dispose of your case in one appearance or that you won’t have to show up, they are not fighting for you.
CLIENT CHARGED WITH ROBBERY.
PEOPLE V. KEVIN H.
Police arrested my client and his friend for robbery after they picked them up on the street in Inglewood and took them to where the robbery victim was. The robbery victim identified them as the people who robbed him. After a preliminary hearing, we filed a 995 motion and a non-statutory motion to dismiss arguing that the eyewitness identification was seriously flawed. The motion was granted. Case dismissed.
CLIENT CHARGED WITH: FELONY THEFT BY DECEIT AND MISDEMEANOR FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT.
PEOPLE V. CHRISSY H.
In 2007, Chrissy used the services of a doctor. The procedure was paid by credit through Capital One. Chrissy lost her job and defaulted on the loan. Capital One sold the loan to a third party. In 2014, Chrissy was trying to obtain a mortgage when she saw the third party’s name on her credit report. At the direction of the mortgage broker, she made a complaint with the police for identity theft. The cops contacted Capital One who said it was still a valid debt and that they had a right to collect on it. Felony Theft by Deceit and Misdemeanor Filing a False Police Report charges were filed. At Preliminary hearing, I proved that the debt was legally uncollectible and the felony charges were dismissed. The DA refiled with felony theft charges which were dismissed via a PC 995 Motion to Dismiss. The DA then proceeded to trial on the filing a false police report charges. At the trial, the DA had to dismiss because of lack of evidence. I obtained dismissals on all charges because (1) I know the law, (2) I fought hard for my client and (3) I announced ready for trial leaving the DA no option, but to fold
CLIENT CHARGED WITH DUI.
PEOPLE V. JONATHAN H.
Client was arrested in Valencia for DUI after the police caught him on his motorcycle doing over 120 miles per hour on the highway. He was a military veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD during his service. We convinced the judge over the prosecutor’s strenuous objection (he threatened to appeal his loss – I mean the guy served his country) to grant the client military diversion (PC § 1001.80). The client successfully completed military diversion and his case was dismissed. We know the law and fight hard for you.