California Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Congress Passes Legislation To Reduce Disparity Between Crack And Powder Cocaine Sentencing.

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:36:45 -0800

According to an article by Jasmine Tyler, published on the Huffington Post, United State’s House of Representatives has just passed legislation meant to address the current disparity that exists in federal sentencing guidelines wherein people found in possession of crack cocaine are sentenced to a much longer sentence than those in possession of powder cocaine. U.S. Senate passed a similar bill in March, and now President Obama can turn this piece of legislation into law.

According to the article, and the research conducted by cocaine sale and transportation attorneys of Criminal Defense team, as the law stands now a person with just five grams if crack cocaine could receive a mandatory sentence of up to five years in prison. This while someone possessing powder cocaine would have to possess over 500 grams of the substance to receive a similar sentence. The law addresses the disparity of sentences for crimes involving sale of crack as opposed to powder cocaine and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of five grams of cocaine. Origins of these rather draconian laws are traced back to 1970s and 1980s when many lawmakers believed that crack cocaine was more dangerous and addictive than powder cocaine. Based on the article, the AMA has proven that the two substances have the effect on the human body.

Many in the criminal defense and civil rights communities are applauding the new legislation. According to public records, most of those convicted of crack cocaine offenses are African-Americans. Our Orange County drug sales and possession attorneys have handled many cases involving powder cocaine and sales of drugs. In fact, we have handled some of the largest cocaine transportation cases of the last few years in San Bernardino. Our attorneys know the law and know how to defend these complicated cases. If you or a loved one need the assistance of our experienced criminal defense attorneys contact us at 888-529-2188.

Actress In Charged With Vehicular Manslaughter

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:34:02 -0800

According to Popeater.com, 'Melrose Place' actress Amy Locane-Bovenizer has been charged with vehicular homicide following a wine-fueled crash Sunday night in Montgomery, New Jersey. The website reports that the accident resulted in one woman being killed and a man in critical condition.

Apparently the actress best known for her role in “Melrose Place” was involved in a hit-and-run collision in Princeton, N.J. while driving her 2007 Chevy Tahoe. The crash sent the driver of the other vehicle to hospital and resulted in the death of the passenger whose side the actress crashed into. After apparently committing a hit and run by leaving the scene of the accident Locane-Bovenizer rear-ended a different vehicle and fled the scene of that accident as well. It was the driver of the second vehicle that followed her and called the police. According to the website the police at the scene smelled alcohol on the actresses breath and her eyes were bloodshot, both signs of intoxication. Locane-Bovenizer has been charged with second-degree vehicular homicide and third-degree assault by automobile. At her arraignment on Monday afternoon, Superior Court Judge Robert Reed set her bail at $50,000.

Our Orange County DUI attorneys bring a wealth of experience to every DUI case we handle. Those cases that involve an accident, injury and death obviously are the most serious DUI cases one can face. Our DUI with injury attorneys have handled many cases in which the allegation is that our client while under the influence has caused an injury to another person. In these cases we know full well that the district attorney must establish not only that our client was under the influence BUT also that he or she violated another law as well. See Penal Code Section 23153. This is a step that in many cases gives the prosecutors the most trouble. Call us today and consult with our Orange County DUI attorneys for a free consultation.

On Monday, May 17, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, issued a ruling long sought by Orange County Juvenile attorneys

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:04:04 -0800

On Monday, May 17, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, issued a ruling long sought by Orange County Juvenile attorneys. The ruling ends life-without-parole sentences for crimes other than homicide as applied to juveniles. According to the court the basis for this decision is that "children are inherently less culpable and able to be rehabilitated." The defendant involved, Terrance Graham had back to back armed robbery convictions which in turn resulted in a judge giving him the maximum prison sentence available, i.e. life in prison without the possibility of parole. According to www.nola.com, in the United States there are at least 2,570 juvenile convicts that are serving life-without-parole terms, but most are for murder charges. Today's decision by the Court was a 6-3 decision. Based on the ruling juveniles who have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in non-homicide cases now have the chance to have their sentences reviewed by the courts, but not the right to automatic release,

Our San Bernardino juvenile attorneys have litigated many juvenile cases in which the prosecutors were seeking to try the juvenile involved as an adult. These cases require a further level of analysis by the juvenile defense attorney to decide on whether to fight the issue of a fitness hearing under the Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. Of course in certain circumstances, and after passage of Proposition 21, the district attorneys office may choose to do a "direct:" filing wherein the case is directly filed with the adult court. Under Prop 21, a child as young as 14 can be prosecuted as an adult if the crime carries life imprisonment or death if the accused was an adult. What's more, crimes involving personal use of a a firearm as defined under Penal Code 12022.5 and crimes involving gang allegations or hate crimes can also result in a direct filing by the District Attorneys office. Cases which are filed in Juvenile court are evaluated under the section 707 "fitness hearing" standard. These cases include but are not limited to : murder, arson under Penal code 451 (a) and (b), robbery, sodomy by force, ……

If your child or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Orange, riverside, San Bernardino or Los Angeles counties, contact our experienced juvenile defenders for a free consultation. We have handled all levels of juvenile criminal cases and our attorneys and investigators are a familiar face in the juvenile courtrooms and detention centers.

Juvenile Defense Attorneys Of Criminal Defense Team Score A Victory.

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:59:41 -0800

When a juvenile (anyone under 18) is charged with a crime, the first question that faces the system is whether he or she will be tried as an adult or a juvenile. Under California’s Welfare and Institutions Code the court can hold a hearing to determine whether the juvenile is “fit” to be prosecuted in the juvenile court or no, hence the Fitness Hearing. The same code section, W&I Code Section 707, lists a few crimes which if alleged against the minor shift the burden to him/her to establish that he is fit to stay in the juvenile court. The advantages of staying in the juvenile system are many, the most important of which are that if the case is lost the minor will not be sent to adult facilities, and the fact that certain serious crimes if litigated in the juvenile system will not be deemed to be a “strike” for the Three Strike Law purposes.

Unfortunately, those practicing juvenile criminal defense in Orange County , Los Angeles or Inland Empire know well that beating back the presumption created by the Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707 is next to impossible. That is why we are so proud of the ruling we obtained on behalf of our client C.B. in a case out of Sylmar’s juvenile court in June of 2010. Our Los Angeles juvenile defender was able to convince the court that our client who was accused of having committed two serious felonies (strikes in adult court) was fit to be adjudged in the juvenile system. Our juvenile defense attorneys and our investigators presented an enormous amount of evidence documenting our clients mental state and his psychological problems as well issues related to his family and lack of criminal history. At the end the presiding Referee made the tough but right decision and he should be commended for it.

If you or a loved one is facing serious criminal charges such as rape, assault with a firearm, murder, shooting at a dwelling, etc., in the juvenile court system call us immediately for a free consultation.

"Bling Ring" Defendant turns down county jail offer

Mon, 03 May 2010 19:34:47 -0800

An 18 year old woman accused of having taken part in a string of burglaries targeting the homes of young celebrities including Orlando Bloom and Lindsy Lohan in the "bling ring" celebrity break in caseturned down a negotiated plea deal Monday that would have sentenced her to six months or a year in county jail. Alexis Neiers who had a show on E channel as well, is now scheduled to start trial on a residential burglary charge Information on May 10, 2010.
On May 3, 2010, Judge Swain of the Los Angeles Superior Court criminal division rejected Neiers' criminal defense attorney's request to have the statements Neiers made to police detectives excluded from introduction to the jury. The judge declined to issue such ruling stating that Neiers knew the rights she was giving up when she made the statements to the police and that they are not inadmissible under the Miranda. Neiers can face up to six years in the State prison to be followed by a period of parole, for the charges now pending against her, whereas the offer made to her would have had her do a six to one year sentence and be placed on probation for three years.

Charges facing Alexis Neiers are as serious as they get. Residential burglary as defined under Penal Code section 459 is a serious felony and therefore a strike. Our Los Angeles residential burglary attorneys have defended against many "res burg" cases and have handled cases involving an occupant present "hot prowl burglary." Of course, if a person other than an accomplice is present when the residential burglary occurs then the convicted person will face a violent felony on his/her record and will have to of 85% of any state prison time. Our residential burglary lawyers will look into every available avenue of defense in order to ensure that the prosecution does not "railroad" our clients into a quick plea. If you have any questions about your rights visit us at our Orange county criminal defense homesite or at out site dedicated to Orange County three strike attorneys of our firm.

Anaheim police officer convicted of DUI gets jail

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:30:40 -0800

A former Anaheim police officer who has had three DUI convictions was recently sentenced to ten (10) months in county jail by a judge in Orange County's West Court located in Westminster Orange County. The former law enforcement official, Kevin Noel Schlueter, was also sentenced to five years of probation and is required to serve six months in a residential drug treatment facility as well. According to the prosecutors from the Orange County District Attorneys office the defendant under the influence of a cocktail of prescription drugs when he nearly crashed into a CHP cruiser in March of 2009, and smashed through a fence January of 2010 and crashed into parked cars in March of 2002. The drugs involved were hydrocodone, hydromorphone and carisoprodol.

Orange County DUI attorneys of Criminal Defense Team, have successfully handled many similar cases for our clients in Westminster court and other local courts. Our DUI attorneys know that in order to receive a favorable sentence the court and the DA must be presented with evidence about such topics as : defendants background, his/her efforts to quite the drugs/alcohol involved, defendants openness to treatment, etc.

We have also handled many cases in which our client has been accused of violation of Vehicle Code Section 23153, commonly referred to as DUI with injury. Many times if the injuries are serious, prosecutors can allege GBI enhancements as well. Whats important is that the DUI with injury attorneys try to establish that although the facts may be there for a simple DUI the prosecutors cannot establish violation of a separate statute which is required for DUI with injury conviction.

Call our office at 888-529-2188 for a free consult or learn more about what our Orange County DUI lawyers, and Newport Beach DUI attorneys can do for you.

Arrests Made At Costa Mesa DUI Checkpoint

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:24:25 -0800

According to the Orange County Register, Costa Mesa Police Department in Orange County arrested five people on suspicion of drunken driving a violation of Vehicle Code Section 23152, and issued eight citations during checkpoint stops. Orange County DUI attorneys of our office are quite familiar with cases involving checkpoints. The checkpoint in question was funded by a grant from the California office of the Traffic Safety, through National Highway Traffic Administration. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that DUI (sobriety) checkpoints are legal and not a violation of the drivers’ Fourth Amendment protections. In its ruling the Court acknowledged that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right; however, the court reasoned that they were justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving and preventing death or injury was outweighed the individual’s right. An experienced Riverside DUI attorney can still help those accused of violating the law by making sure that there compliance with not only 4th amendment rights, but also with rules related to the testing of blood, urine or breath and DMV proceedings.

Failure To Advise Of Immigration Consequence Can Lead To In-Effective Assistance Of Counsel.

Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:09:22 -0800

According to Courthouse News Service the lawyer who advised a Honduran immigrant to plead guilty to drug distribution charges failed to provide him with an adequate defense in violation of the Sixth Amendment, because he did not advise his client of the fact that the plea could result in his deportation. the Supreme Court ruled.  The Supreme Court in a 7-2 to vote held that Jose Padilla who had plead guilty to possession of drugs for distribution and sales should have been advised by his counsel that his plea will subject him to immediate deportation. Orange County drug sales attorneys know that many drug charges especially those related to sales and trafficking can trigger deportation and loss of legal status for aliens. This consequence can become a reality even if the defendant does not have any prior record or has been in the country for a very long time. That is why our Riverside drug transportation attorneys look for every alternative and consider the defendant’s entire range of choices before we make a recommendation about a plea. It should be noted that according to recent cases even simple possession charges can result in deportation proceedings if the defendant is considered a recidivist. Our Newport Beach drug possession and Newport Beach drug sales attorneys can offer creative pleas, which may save the accused his or her legal status in the United States.

Simple Drug Possession Charges can Result in Deportation.

Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:03:38 -0800

Riverside drug possession attorneys were glad to hear that the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday March 31, 2010, considered whether a longtime legal permanent resident can be deported to his native country after pleading guilty to two minor drug offenses, i.e possession of less than two ounces of marijuana and possession of one prescription Xanax pill.   The government argued that the second conviction although for mere possession of a controlled substance, was an “aggravated felony” because the defendant Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo could have been charged with recidivist drug possession a crime that is punishable as a felony under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA.)

According to an article by Courthouse News Service the Immigration and Nationality Act defines an aggravated felony to include any felony "punishable" under the CSA. The final ruling is not expected until June of 2010. Our Orange county presdription drug possession attorneys have handled many cases on behalf of legal and undocumented residents and are quite familiar with the interaction between state laws and the immigration policies. We have recently been able to resolve cases with implication of possession with intent to sell so that the immigrant client does not face deportation. If you or a loved one are facing charges for possession of a drug for personal use or for sale you should immediately contact our Los Angeles drug sales attorneys so that we can evaluate your case at no costs.

Assault, self-defense or mutual combat

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:41:33 -0800

Long Beach assault attorneys of Criminal Defense Team are currently defending a young man accused of assaulting another person and causing him serious bodily injury. The enhancement for serious bodily injury means that if convicted our client will have a “strike” or a serious and violent felony on his record. Needless to say, we intend to vigorously defend this case. What is particularly interesting about this case is that all parties agree that this was a case of voluntary combat. If this point is established then the question is whether the defendant used excessive force when engaging in the “mutual combat” and whether he tried to stop the fight and communicated that request to the other party. Our investigators will be reviewing all surveillance tapes and will attempt to contact all witnesses so that we can get to the truth. Violation of Penal Code Section 245 (assault) can be a felony and can expose a defendant to state prison time and the enhancement for serious bodily injury can add more prison time and the “strike.” Our Orange County Assault with a deadly weapon attorneys have handled many 245 cases and have achieved results satisfactory to our clients.

New Ruling in Blackwater Murder Case

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:30:12 -0800

In a 90 page ruling which has started a floodgate of criticism, Judge Urbina dismissed the murder charges that were filed against Blacwater contractors who were accused of killing innocent Iraqi civilians in 2007. According to New York Times the issue was that the contractors who were considered government agents were obligated to give an immediate report of what they had done, however, the United States Constitution prevents the government from requiring a defendant to testify against himself, so those statements could not be used in the prosecution of the con tractors. The Warren court in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) established that government employees should not be coerced to give statements that can be used against them under the threat of unemployment. Orange County Felony Attorneys of Criminal Defense Team handle cases brought against government and public sector employees for such allegations as embezzlement, fraud, battery and assault. In embezzlement cases especially, protections provided by Garrity can be essential to a defendants case and anyone facing felony or misdemeanor embezzlement charges should consult with our Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys.

When is Possession of Drugs For Sale and Not a Simple Possession Case

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:47:48 -0800

When dismissing the case against Broadcom’s co-founders Judge Carney cited the following passage from the ruling in Berger v. United States:

"the united states attorney is the representative, not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and a very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocent suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor. Indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."

This elegant passage applies to District Attorneys who represent States and local communities as well. For example the goal and ideal is to make sure that when a defendant is charged with possession of drugs for sale he actually possessed the drugs and he possessed them with the intent to sell them, as opposed to possessing for personal use. Many times individuals are arrested when they have just purchased a large quaintly of a drug, i.e cocaine, marijuana, meth, etc. and there intent is to keep the drug for personal use. However, the mere fact that the quantity may be larger than one may use in one attempt the DA’s office may charge him of her with possession with intent to sell or distribute. This to me is not right. The prosecutors should have more than a mere hunch to accuse someone of such serious crime. Our Orange County Drug Possession and Sale Attorneys make sure that the prosecutors meet their burden by showing the jury or the judge that the drugs seized could very well be for personal use and that the DA needs to show more evidence of intent to sell. For instance, if the defendant was found with few cell phones, with a pay-owe sheet showing records of sale and monies owed, a scale to measure the drugs, or if the drugs were put in different baggies, then it would be reasonable for the DA to file the case as “sale” case.

Transport Of Xanax Without a Prescription Can Land You In Jail

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:55:34 -0800

Our Los Angeles Drug Possession for Sale Attorneys were able to resolve the case of a client with a result that had even our most hard to please criminal defense client happy. The case involved the act of a good Samaritan who had agreed to bring an envelope containing some pills from overseas to give to a friend’s relatives. Unbeknownst to the client the pills inside were Xanas (Alprazolam) and Viagra. Xanax (Alprazolam) is a listed drug under California’s Health and Safety Code and its possession requires a prescription. Once one possesses such large quantities of the drug the presumption arises that he or she possesses the drug for sale. That is what happened to our good smarting client. She was charged with violating Section 11372 of the California Health and Safety Code and was offered a deal wherein she would have to plead guilty and instead of State prison she was offered 180 days at Los Angeles County Jail. To accept would also meant that she would lose her Green Card and United States’ residency, meaning she would have to leave her children. Needless to say pleading guilty to possession with intent to sell and doing jail was not an option. After months of aggressive litigation and investigation today and after reviewing our evidence, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office agreed to offer our client a deal wherein she would plead to simple possession of Xanax without a prescription and no jail time. Our client went home happy; however, I doubt that she will ever agree to transport any items for anyone else across the U.S border.

Validity of Call-In tips for DUI Arrests and stops.

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:36:05 -0800

Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a new law that that dramatically shortens the period of time that must pass before a person convicted of a second DUI or a third DUI offense may apply to have his or her driver's license suspension modified to restricted status. Those with a restricted license are allowed to drive to and from work and to and from a court ordered alcohol or DUI program (hence “to and from license”).

Prior to SB 598, anyone convicted of a second-time DUI must serve at least 12 months of a two-year license suspension before applying for restricted status. The new law shortens the 12-month period to 90 days.

Similarly, a person convicted of a third-time DUI would lose his or her license completely for at least 12 months before he/she could apply to reduce the three year suspension. Now third time offenders only have to wait 6 months.

Those hoping to take advantage of this new law must agree to install an ignition interlock device (IID) and any vehicle owned by him/her.

If you have suffered your Second or Third DUI arrest or conviction contact Orange County DUI attorneys of Criminal Defense Team so that we may explain the ramifications of this new and whether it will be of any help to you. However, you should know that this law does not take effect until Summer of 2010 and the question remains whether it only applies to suspensions past that date or anyone suspended prior can take advantage of it as well.

Validity of Call-In tips for DUI Arrests and stops.

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:43:50 -0800

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009 puts to question the legal authority of a police officer's authority to pull over a suspected drunk driver based solely on a tip from a caller to law enforcement.

Over the dissent of Chief Justice Roberts, Supreme Court let stand a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that a police officer can follow but cannot stop a suspected drunk driver's car until the officer observes the driver doing something suspicious, such as swerving into another lane.

According to Los Angeles Times this case is expected to open the door for further legal challenges to police stops that are prompted solely by a called-in tip from another driver. Many states have upheld car searches prompted by a called-in tip, as long as the vehicle matches the description given, the L.A. Times reported. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was behind the appeal to the U.S Supreme Court.

This case is particularly interesting to me as a friend recently was cited by an officer who did not even observe him drive. In this particular case, the driver was on a freeway and after he exited to get gas he was approached by a plain clothes detective who claimed that the driver was going 90 on the freeway. The detective then called for a unit to come all the way to where they were to cite the driver. This even though the officer who cited the driver had not even observed him drive or get out of the vehicle.

I consider this kind of practice to be a complete abuse of authority and the recent Supreme Court case ( although it deals with DUI stops) may help reign in “rouge” officials. Our Orange County DUI defense attorney have encountered many DUI cases which were initiated with call-in tips from people who may not have been completely truthful when calling the police. With this new ruling our Newport Beach DUI attorneys can now have a new tool to counter the District Attorney’s office.