Blog
Understanding ‘No Contest’ Versus ‘Guilty’ Pleas
Pleading “no contest” in California lets a defendant accept court punishment without admitting guilt, offering legal neutrality. It’s strategic, especially when trial outcomes are uncertain or evidence is strong.
A guilty plea, however, is a direct admission of guilt, accepting all charges and court-determined punishment.
Legal Nuances of ‘No Contest’ in California:
- Court Approval Required: A no contest plea needs court permission, considering its impact on the case and involved parties.
- Legal Consequences: Though not admitting guilt, a no contest plea results in penalties similar to a guilty plea, like fines or jail.
- Strategic Considerations: This plea can be chosen to avoid a guilty plea’s implications, useful in civil cases to prevent using an admission of guilt against the defendant.
Court Discretion in Accepting ‘No Contest’ Pleas
Judges hold the authority to accept or reject ‘no contest’ pleas, exercising discretion based on the case’s specifics. Notably, ‘no contest’ pleas are typically not permitted in cases eligible for the death penalty. Judges ensure that defendants understand the implications of their plea, confirming it’s made voluntarily and without coercion.
Legal Advantages of a ‘No Contest’ Plea
A ‘no contest’ plea allows defendants to bypass the uncertainties of a trial. This option is particularly beneficial when the trial’s outcome is unpredictable or when defendants prefer to keep case details private. Importantly, a ‘no contest’ plea cannot be used as evidence in related civil lawsuits, offering a strategic advantage in avoiding further legal complications.
Legal Disadvantages of Pleading ‘No Contest’
Despite its benefits, pleading ‘no contest’ carries significant legal consequences similar to a guilty plea, especially regarding sentencing. Defendants should not assume leniency from the court solely based on a ‘no contest’ plea. The legal effects of such a plea mirror those of a conviction, underscoring the importance of careful consideration and legal counsel when contemplating this option.
In the California legal system, defendants indeed have the choice of what plea to enter in response to criminal charges. This decision is a critical part of the criminal justice process, and defendants typically can choose from pleading “guilty,” “not guilty,” or “no contest” (nolo contendere). Each plea has distinct legal implications:
- Guilty: Admitting to the charges and accepting the associated penalties.
- Not Guilty: Denying the charges and taking the case to trial.
- No Contest: Not admitting guilt but accepting the conviction without contesting the charges. This plea is similar to a guilty plea in terms of sentencing but cannot be used as an admission of guilt in civil proceedings related to the criminal act.
A criminal defense attorney plays a crucial role in advising defendants on the best plea to enter based on the specifics of their case, the evidence against them, and the potential consequences of each plea. The attorney’s expertise is invaluable in navigating the complexities of the legal system, negotiating plea deals, and ensuring that defendants make informed decisions that align with their best interests.
Facing criminal charges in California places your rights and future at significant risk. Immediate legal representation is crucial to navigate the complexities of the legal system effectively. Attorney Arash Hashemi, with over 20 years of experience in criminal defense, is ready to stand by your side. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we prioritize your rights and work diligently towards achieving the best possible outcome for your case.
Don’t let the charges define your future. Contact us at (310) 448-1529 today for a comprehensive consultation. With Attorney Hashemi’s expertise, you can explore your options and strategize a robust defense to protect your rights and freedom.
The Scheme to Evade Tax Levies
Charges and Potential Penalties
Grimes faces one count of attempted tax evasion and four counts of willful failure to pay taxes, with a potential sentence of up to five years in prison for the tax evasion count and up to one year in prison for each count of willful failure to pay taxes if convicted. The indictment explicitly notes that from 2018 through 2021, Grimes filed individual income tax returns indicating he owed around $700,000 in taxes, which he has not paid, contributing to a total alleged tax loss to the IRS of approximately $2,418,050.
Legal Framework
The charges against Grimes are serious under federal law. Tax evasion, under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, is the willful attempt to evade or defeat any tax imposed by federal law. The statute for willful failure to pay taxes, under 26 U.S.C. § 7203, involves the willful failure to pay taxes at the time prescribed by law, without intent to evade taxes. The distinction between these charges reflects the nature of Grimes’ alleged actions: not only avoiding tax payments but also actively employing a scheme to evade IRS collection efforts.
Presumption of Innocence and Legal Defense
It’s crucial to remember that an indictment is merely an allegation. Grimes is assumed innocent until proven guilty, as is standard in the U.S. His defense may dispute the intentional nature of his actions, crucial for a guilty verdict. They might argue his financial dealings were legitimate, not efforts to bypass tax obligations. Additionally, they could attribute his tax payment failures to financial challenges, not intentional fraud.
IRS Criminal Investigation
The matter is under investigation by IRS Criminal Investigation. The federal agency responsible for examining financial crimes involving tax evasion, money laundering, and bank secrecy act violations. Their involvement underscores the seriousness with which the federal government views tax evasion and related offenses.
The case of Milton C. Grimes highlights the fine line between legal tax management and illegal tax evasion. As this case progresses, it will clarify legal versus illegal tax actions. It underscores the IRS’s investigative power and the severe consequences of tax law breaches.
Understanding Ignition Interlock Devices in California
An Ignition Interlock Device (IID) is a breathalyzer installed in vehicles to prevent operation by drivers under the influence of alcohol. In California, IIDs serve as a measure to curb repeat DUI offenses. The device requires the driver to provide a breath sample before starting the car. If alcohol is detected, the vehicle will not start.
The state mandates IIDs for many, though not all, DUI offenders as a deterrent against future violations. While installing an IID can be costly and inconvenient, it often enables offenders to regain driving privileges sooner. This approach reflects California’s commitment to enhancing road safety and reducing DUI recidivism.
How an Ignition Interlock Device Works
An Ignition Interlock Device (IID) measures the driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC). If it detects alcohol, it prevents the vehicle from starting. After a failed test, the IID imposes a lock-out period, which increases after each subsequent failure.
During drives, IIDs require rolling retests. Failing a retest triggers an alarm or the car’s horn, urging the driver to stop the vehicle. The device records information about failed retests but does not stop a moving vehicle for safety reasons.
Tampering with an IID can lead to the revocation of driving privileges and additional criminal charges.
Discretionary Device Laws
Judges in many states have the discretion to mandate IIDs for certain DUI offenders, including first-timers. These devices are often part of the conditions for a restricted license during a portion of the license suspension period.
To drive legally with an IID, offenders typically must fulfill other court-imposed requirements, such as:
- Serving jail time
- Completing probation
- Paying fines
- Finishing an alcohol treatment program
- Undergoing a period of complete license suspension
Mandatory IDD Laws in California
In California, certain DUI offenses trigger mandatory Ignition Interlock Device (IID) installation requirements. These laws aim to reduce repeat DUI incidents by ensuring that offenders can only operate their vehicles if they pass a breathalyzer test. Here’s a breakdown of the mandatory IID laws:
- DUI Convictions: For most DUI convictions, California law requires the installation of an IID for a period ranging from six months to several years, depending on the number of prior offenses and the severity of the incident.
- First-Time Offenders: Even first-time offenders may be mandated to install an IID, especially if their DUI involved aggravating factors such as a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or causing an accident.
- Repeat Offenders: The requirement becomes stricter with subsequent DUI convictions, with longer mandatory IID installation periods.
- Conditional License Restoration: Installing an IID is often a condition for restoring driving privileges after a DUI suspension, allowing offenders to drive legally as long as they comply with the IID requirements.
Ignition Interlock Device Installation and Costs
Installing an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) involves specific steps and associated costs. After a DUI conviction requiring an IID, offenders must select a state-approved provider for installation. The process includes:
- Selection of Provider: Offenders choose from approved IID providers.
- Installation: A technician installs the IID, integrating it with the vehicle’s ignition system.
- Costs: Installation fees vary by provider but typically range from $70 to $150. Monthly leasing fees, including maintenance and calibration, can range from $60 to $80.
- Calibration and Monitoring: Regular calibration checks ensure the IID functions accurately, included in the monthly fee.
- Duration: The mandated period for having an IID installed varies, influenced by the offense’s specifics.
Offenders bear the financial responsibility for the IID, covering installation, leasing, and maintenance costs.
Seek Assistance for Your DUI Offense with Attorney Arash Hashemi
Considering an ignition interlock device after a DUI conviction? Contact Attorney Arash Hashemi immediately. An IID might preserve your driving privileges. Regardless of whether it’s a first or subsequent DUI, Attorney Hashemi can assess your eligibility for an ignition interlock program.
Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 to explore your options.
Understanding Criminal Conspiracy Charges
A criminal conspiracy charge arises under the following conditions:
- You and at least one other person agree to commit a crime.
- You intend to commit the crime.
- You or a co-conspirator perform an overt act towards committing the crime.
Liability for conspiracy does not require you to personally commit an unlawful act. The severity of a conspiracy charge, classified as either a felony or a misdemeanor, depends on the state’s laws and the specifics of the case.
California’s Approach to Conspiracy Law
California, like other states, has its own statutes governing the crime of conspiracy. Under California Penal Code Section 182, a person commits conspiracy when they:
- Intend to commit a crime;
- Agree with one or more persons to commit that crime; and
- One or more of the parties to the agreement performs an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
Similar to other jurisdictions, the basic elements of conspiracy in California include intent, agreement, and an overt act. However, the state’s penalties for conspiracy can vary depending on the nature of the intended crime.
In California, conspiracy charges often mirror the severity of the planned offense, with penalties adjusted based on the specific crime attempted. Unlike Texas, where conspiracy is charged one category lower than the target felony, or Pennsylvania, where the conspiracy charge matches the grade of the intended offense, California’s approach can vary significantly based on the circumstances of the case and the specific offenses involved.
California law also does not limit conspiracy charges to felonies alone; the state can pursue conspiracy charges for a broad range of criminal offenses
The ‘Agreement’ Requirement in Conspiracy Charges
An agreement between co-conspirators doesn’t require formalities. For example, explicit statements like “I agree to commit a crime with you” are unnecessary. Courts can infer an agreement from the circumstances, like meetings to plan the crime.
The Element of ‘Intent’ in Conspiracy Charges
Intent is crucial for conspiracy charges, similar to other specific intent crimes. The court examines the mental states of all alleged conspirators, requiring agreement and a shared intention to achieve the criminal outcome.
Merely knowing individuals involved in crimes does not constitute conspiracy. For example, being informed of a friend’s plan to commit burglary does not automatically make you a conspirator. Active agreement and participation, such as serving as a getaway driver or scouting the property, demonstrate the necessary criminal intent.
Legal Defenses to Conspiracy Charges
Defending against conspiracy charges involves several strategies, depending on the specifics of the case. Key defenses include:
- Lack of Agreement: Demonstrating that no agreement to commit a crime existed among the alleged conspirators.
- Withdrawal from the Conspiracy: Showing that a defendant withdrew from the conspiracy before any overt act was taken, typically requiring notification to co-conspirators or law enforcement.
- No Overt Act: Arguing that no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred, essential in jurisdictions that require such an act for conviction.
- Insufficient Evidence: Contesting the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the conspiracy or the defendant’s involvement.
- Mistake of Fact: Claiming a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding the criminal plan or the nature of the agreement.
Legal Assistance for Criminal Conspiracy Charges
Samuel Pasillas, a 47-year-old pastor from Victorville, California, got arrested on March 13 amid severe legal issues. Accusations against him include orchestrating a murder-for-hire plot targeting his daughter’s boyfriend, sparking significant public interest. The attack happened on October 21, 2023, in Riverside’s Orangecrest neighborhood. The target, shot at several times while driving, survived and got to a hospital.
Charges Filed Against Samuel Pasillas
Samuel Pasillas is charged with:
- Solicitation for Murder (California Penal Code §653f): Asking someone to commit murder.
- Conspiracy to Commit Murder (California Penal Code §182): Planning with others to commit murder and starting to act on that plan.
- Attempted Murder (California Penal Code §§187 and 664): Trying to kill someone but not succeeding.
- Assault with a Deadly Weapon (California Penal Code §245): Attacking someone with a weapon that could seriously hurt or kill them.
Authorities also arrested Juan Manuel Cebreros, 55, from Long Beach, on charges of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, highlighting his alleged role in the plot.
Incident Details
On the attack evening, the victim described a harrowing experience, shot at from another vehicle due to Pasillas’s alleged crimes. Investigators found Pasillas met with the hired attackers, giving them the victim’s location that evening. The assailants monitored the victim for weeks, leading to the Pasillas-financed attack with nearly $40,000.
Legal Defense and Consequences
Their defense may search for weaknesses in the evidence. They could claim no concrete evidence connects them to the crime. Given the risk of long prison terms, they will likely doubt the evidence’s reliability and question the accused’s intent. Weak evidence or witness statements not directly linking them to the crime are key. They aim to dispute charges of hiring for murder, plotting, attempted killing, and weapon use.
The ongoing investigation aims to expose every aspect of this case, ensuring justice prevails and demonstrating the legal system’s ability to tackle complex criminal conspiracies.
Legal Proceedings and Bail
Following their arrest, both Pasillas and Cebreros were detained on $1 million bail each.
Matthew Isaac Wolfe received a 14-year prison sentence in San Diego’s federal court. His crime involved a conspiracy with Michael Pratt, GirlsDoPorn’s owner, deceiving and coercing young women into porn videos. Highlighted for severe trust violations and exploitation, this case reaches a critical legal milestone. The court has scheduled a restitution hearing for May 7, 2024, at 10 a.m.
Charges Against Wolfe
Wolfe faced the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud, and Coercion, as outlined under 18 U.S.C. § 1594. This statute represents a serious federal offense, carrying a maximum penalty of life in prison and a $250,000 fine. His guilty plea on July 26, 2022, marked a pivotal moment in the legal proceedings, highlighting the depth of his involvement in the conspiracy.
Recruitment and Deception Tactics
The conspiracy used internet ads in the United States and Canada to falsely offer clothed modeling jobs, recruiting victims. Wolfe persuaded women under false pretenses, promising anonymity and no online or US video release. His central role in the scheme involved knowingly lying and directing others, like co-defendant Theodore Gyi, to amplify the deception.
Operational Methods
The operation was primarily based in San Diego, utilizing local hotels and short-term rental units as venues for the shoots. Wolfe admitted to having a wide range of responsibilities since moving to the United States from New Zealand in 2011 to work for Pratt, including filming approximately 100 videos, managing the company’s financial books, and overseeing the online distribution of the content. This operation generated over $17 million in revenue for GirlsDoPorn, demonstrating the financial scale and impact of the conspiracy.
Impact on Victims
Co-defendants’ Roles and Sentences
- Ruben Andre Garcia, the recruiter and male model, was sentenced to 20 years in prison on June 14, 2021.
- Theodore Gyi, serving as the cameraman, received a four-year prison sentence on November 9, 2022.
- Valorie Moser, the office manager, is scheduled for sentencing on August 9, 2024.
Dynamics of Sentencing
Wolfe’s 14-year sentence stems from his key role in the conspiracy, showing the court’s resolve against severe violations and exploitation. It considers the deception, operation’s scale, and victims’ suffering, underlining justice in sex trafficking cases.
The judicial process relied heavily on the evidence presented, including Wolfe’s own admissions and the powerful testimonies of the survivors. This evidence was instrumental in determining the severity of Wolfe’s actions and his sentence.
Misdemeanors are less severe than felonies. They typically result in shorter jail times, smaller fines, and are considered less serious. For instance, a DUI without aggravating factors often leads to a misdemeanor charge. In contrast, felonies, the most severe category of crime, can lead to long prison sentences, substantial fines, and lasting restrictions on personal freedoms. Factors like having a minor in the vehicle or a high BAC can escalate a DUI from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Understanding Crime Categories in California
California’s legal system categorizes crimes based on their severity, primarily reflected in the potential jail or prison time. These categories are:
- Infractions: Minor violations with no jail time, often just a fine.
- Misdemeanors: More serious than infractions, punishable by up to one year in jail.
- Felonies: The most serious crimes with penalties ranging from over a year in prison to life imprisonment or even death.
Each category is further divided into levels or classes that determine the specific penalties. The distinction between misdemeanors and felonies usually hinges on the maximum jail or prison time prescribed for the offense, guiding how the court approaches each case.
Understanding Infractions in California
Infractions in California are minor offenses, typically resulting in a fine without jail time. Common examples beyond traffic violations include public nuisance offenses, minor in possession of alcohol, and jaywalking. These violations usually require minimal court involvement. Failure to address or pay fines for infractions can escalate the situation, potentially leading to increased penalties.
Misdemeanors: A Closer Look at Lesser Crimes in California
Misdemeanors cover a wide range of non-violent offenses. Beyond the examples provided, other common misdemeanors include vandalism, public intoxication, and petty theft. California law categorizes misdemeanors with potential jail terms of up to one year in county jail. The state divides misdemeanors into:
- Standard misdemeanors: Punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a fine up to $1,000.
- Gross or aggravated misdemeanors: Carry harsher penalties, up to one year in county jail and/or higher fines.
Misdemeanor convictions in California also allow for probation, community service, and participation in treatment programs as alternatives to jail time. The flexibility in prosecution and sentencing aims to balance punishment with rehabilitation, especially for first-time offenders or those committing minor offenses.
Felony Offenses in California
Felonies represent the most severe category of crimes, encompassing acts such as aggravated assault, significant domestic violence incidents, sexual assault, and murder. Unlike lesser offenses, felonies carry the possibility of substantial prison time, often exceeding one year, and in some cases, may lead to life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Classification and Punishment of Felonies in California
California’s legal system classifies felonies into various categories, reflecting the seriousness of each crime and determining the appropriate sentencing range. For example:
- Violent felonies: Such as murder or rape, which may result in the most severe penalties, including life in prison or capital punishment.
- Non-violent felonies: Including burglary or drug trafficking, leading to lengthy prison terms but not capital punishment.
The state differentiates felonies based on the potential sentence length and the incarceration facility, typically state or federal prisons. California law adheres to specific guidelines to ensure that the punishment corresponds with the crime’s gravity, aiming to balance justice with rehabilitation prospects.
Legal Procedures and Defendants’ Rights
Given the significant consequences associated with felony convictions, California mandates rigorous legal procedures to safeguard defendants’ rights throughout the criminal justice process. This includes the right to legal representation, a fair trial, and the opportunity for appeal.
Understanding “Wobblers” in California Law
In California, “wobblers” are unique offenses that can be charged either as misdemeanors or felonies, depending on various factors. This flexibility allows prosecutors to consider the circumstances of the crime, the defendant’s criminal history, and other relevant factors when deciding how to charge the offense.
Key Characteristics of Wobblers
- Discretionary Charging: Prosecutors have the discretion to file wobbler offenses as either misdemeanors or felonies, based on the case’s specifics.
- Judicial Adjustment: Judges also have the authority to reduce a felony wobbler to a misdemeanor at sentencing or during probation.
- Impact on Sentencing: The classification of a wobbler as a misdemeanor or felony significantly affects the potential penalties, including jail or prison time, fines, and probation conditions.
Examples of Wobbler Offenses
Common wobbler offenses in California include certain types of theft, assault, domestic violence, and drug possession. The decision to charge these offenses as misdemeanors or felonies often hinges on the severity of the act, the amount involved in theft cases, or the presence of aggravating factors.
Misdemeanor or Felony? Get Clarity from a Criminal Defense Lawyer
Don’t let uncertainty dictate your future. Contact us at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation and explore your legal options with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.
The Fourth Amendment’s Influence on Vehicle Searches in California
The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for law enforcement to search vehicles, aiming to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. Vehicle searches in California adhere to this, with laws allowing adaptations due to vehicles’ dynamic nature.
In California, searches need probable cause, in line with the Fourth Amendment. The state acknowledges the “automobile exception,” letting officers search without a warrant if they have probable cause. This rule acknowledges vehicles’ lower privacy expectations and the difficulty in getting warrants quickly.
California’s laws and case law refine this exception, balancing rights and safety. For example, California Vehicle Code Section 22655.5 permits searching and impounding vehicles under specific conditions, showing the Fourth Amendment’s state-specific application.
Understanding Probable Cause for Vehicle Searches
Probable cause for a car search exists when officers reasonably believe a crime is occurring and evidence is in the vehicle. This belief surpasses mere suspicion but doesn’t reach the proof level for conviction.
Factors justifying probable cause include:
- Visible illegal items or activities within the vehicle.
- Detection of illegal substances’ odor from the car.
- Credible tips about the vehicle’s involvement in illegal acts.
- The driver’s apparent nervousness or conflicting statements.
- The car’s location in an area known for criminal activities.
With probable cause, officers can search any part of the vehicle, including locked compartments and containers, without a warrant.
People v. Diaz (2011)
In People v. Diaz (2011), the California court addressed the extent of probable cause in vehicle searches. The ruling clarified that law enforcement officers could search areas within a vehicle, including all compartments and containers, if they have probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present within the vehicle. This case exemplifies the application of the Fourth Amendment in California, demonstrating the balance between individual privacy rights and the needs of law enforcement.
Container Searches in Vehicles: Fourth Amendment Considerations
Under the Fourth Amendment, police may search containers in a vehicle without a warrant if there’s probable cause or consent. This aligns with privacy expectations and legal search grounds.
If there’s probable cause—believing a container holds evidence of a crime—police can search areas like glove compartments and bags.
Consent allows warrantless searches, bypassing the need for probable cause, but limited to where evidence might be. This practice reflects the Fourth Amendment’s balance between privacy rights and law enforcement needs in California.
Fourth Amendment and Searches for Driver’s Identification
The Fourth Amendment limits law enforcement’s ability to search for a driver’s identification in a vehicle without a warrant or specific legal exceptions. Searches must be justified by probable cause, not just to verify identity.
Searching for identification without probable cause or consent violates the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement needs a lawful reason beyond identifying the driver to conduct such a search, ensuring protection against unreasonable intrusions.
Defending Your Fourth Amendment Rights
If you believe a vehicle search in Los Angeles violated your Fourth Amendment rights, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi are equipped to assess and act on your case. Attorney Arash Hashemi offers expert legal representation to challenge unlawful searches, aiming to suppress illegally obtained evidence which could lead to case dismissal. With a deep understanding of search and seizure laws, Attorney Hashemi crafts strategic defenses tailored to your situation. Whether negotiating for reduced charges or advocating in trial, he stands ready to protect your rights and pursue justice. Contact out office at (310) 448-1529 to explore your options for defense and ensure your rights are defended.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation.
Jairo Tomas Santos, ex-office manager of a San Francisco law firm, received a 36-month prison sentence for embezzling over $1.1 million. The Hon. William H. Alsup, United States District Judge, also ordered Santos to pay $1,191,638.64 in restitution. United States Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey and FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert K. Tripp announced this.
Legal Basis for Sentencing
Santos faced serious charges of bank fraud, specifically violating 18 U.S.C. § 1344, which led to his indictment and eventual guilty plea.
Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) The legal proceedings against Jairo Tomas Santos hinged on his admission of embezzling funds through an elaborate scheme that began no later than March 2016 and continued until February 2023. Key details of the fraudulent activities included:
- Method of Embezzlement: Santos fraudulently obtained checks from the victim law firm, made them payable to himself by forging the senior partner’s signature, and deposited these checks into his personal bank accounts at Wells Fargo Bank.
- Extent of Fraud: Approximately 806 checks were deposited under Santos’s scheme, amounting to roughly $1,191,683 in unauthorized funds.
Dynamics of Sentencing
Judge Alsup emphasized the severe betrayal and financial harm Santos caused the law firm in his sentencing remarks. He imposed a 36-month prison sentence and ordered substantial restitution to reflect the crime’s seriousness and compensate the firm. Additionally, a five-year supervised release period will monitor Santos’s post-incarceration behavior, ensuring compliance and rehabilitation.
Judge’s Remarks: Judge Alsup condemned Santos’s conduct as “unforgivable,” emphasizing the calculated theft over years. This unforgiving stance underlines the court’s dedication to upholding justice and deterring future crimes of a similar nature.
Jury and Legal Proceedings
Santos’s guilty plea marked a pivotal moment in the case, resulting in a plea agreement that dismissed two of the three initial bank fraud charges against him.
The FBI’s diligent investigation and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christiaan Highsmith’s prosecution efforts closed the case. Their collaboration highlighted the federal authorities’ commitment to rigorously prosecuting financial crimes, particularly sophisticated schemes defrauding employers.
Charles Aghoian, 61, previously a supervising attorney for a nonprofit, faces charges related to child sexual abuse material (CSAM). He voluntarily surrendered to federal law enforcement and pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in downtown Los Angeles’s United States District Court.
Specific Charges Against Aghoian
The indictment charges Aghoian with three counts of distributing and one count of possessing child pornography from December 2020 to April 2021. He allegedly shared videos of child exploitation. The possession count is for images on his smartphone, some showing children under 12.
After his not guilty plea, his bond was set at $1 million, with a trial date of May 6.
Evidence and Allegations
- Distribution of Child Pornography: Prosecutors claim that Aghoian knowingly distributed sexually explicit videos featuring minors during late 2020 and early 2021.
- Possession of Child Pornography: April 2021, authorities allege Aghoian possessed images on his smartphone that constituted child sexual abuse material, including content involving children under the age of 12.
Defense Strategies
Aghoian’s defense may argue against the evidence collection method, claiming it violated privacy rights. They could also question the link between Aghoian and the found CSAM, indicating insufficient proof of possession or distribution. Additionally, they might dispute Aghoian’s awareness of the material on his devices or his intent to share it.
Sentencing Outlook
If found guilty of these federal charges, Aghoian could receive a mandatory minimum of five years and as much as 20 years in jail for each offense. This emphasizes the strict punishments for crimes involving child pornography.
Byrom Zuniga Sanchez, 32, previously residing in Laguna Niguel, faces two counts of making threats via interstate and foreign communication. This case arises from accusations that he sent a series of threats to a family law judge and various individuals within the legal community. These charges underscore the evolving challenge of using digital and online platforms to issue threats across state and international borders, bringing them under federal scrutiny. The United States Code explicitly establishes the legal grounds for these accusations by criminalizing the act of issuing threats through interstate or international communications.
Evidence and Impact on the Case
The prosecution’s case against Zuniga Sanchez appears to be built on a combination of digital evidence, including emails and social media posts, that allegedly contain direct threats.
- Digital Evidence:
- Emails: Zuniga Sanchez is accused of sending multiple emails threatening to kill or harm the judge, other judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officials. In one email, he purportedly stated his commitment to murdering the judge and dedicating his life to assassinating legal and law enforcement personnel.
- Social Media: A post on Zuniga Sanchez’s Instagram account allegedly declared his ease in accessing a weapon to carry out an assassination in a courthouse. Another threat mentioned planning an active shooting at the courthouse.
- Impact of the Threats:
- These communications not only caused profound fear among individuals in the legal and law enforcement community but also forced them to take extra security precautions. The nature of these threats significantly undermines the rule of law and poses serious concerns for the safety of public servants.
Legal Proceedings and Expected Outcomes
The arraignment of Zuniga Sanchez in the United States District Court marks a critical phase in the legal process, where officials will formally present the charges and Zuniga Sanchez will enter a plea. The grave nature of the allegations and the evidence brought forward mean that, upon conviction, Zuniga Sanchez could face a penalty of up to five years in federal prison for each count. Furthermore, the indictment reinforces the fundamental principle of presuming an individual innocent until proven guilty.
Tibet Ergul, a 22-year-old from Irvine, California, admitted to orchestrating a series of planned attacks, including a firebombing at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Costa Mesa in March 2022, plotting against an electrical substation in Orange, and targeting Dodger Stadium during an LGBTQ pride event. His guilty plea encompasses one felony count of conspiracy to damage an energy facility and one misdemeanor count of intentional damage to a reproductive health services facility.
Legal Charges and Ideological Motivation
Ergul’s actions, driven by a hateful ideology, aimed to incite a race war, intimidate individuals seeking reproductive health services, and disrupt public utilities. His plea reveals a chilling intent to use violence to further his extremist beliefs, as noted by United States Attorney Martin Estrada and officials from the FBI and NCIS.
The Planned Parenthood Attack
In early 2022, Ergul and Chance Brannon, a co-conspirator, agreed to attack a Planned Parenthood clinic using a Molotov cocktail. Their objective was to deter abortions by intimidating patients and staff. On March 12, 2022, they prepared the incendiary device in Ergul’s garage. The following day, they executed the attack, causing the clinic to close temporarily and reschedule about 30 appointments.
Additional Plots
Post the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022, Ergul and Brannon planned a second attack on another Planned Parenthood clinic, which they aborted upon noticing law enforcement presence. Furthermore, Ergul conspired to attack a Southern California Edison electrical substation to cripple Orange County’s power grid, a plan that remained unexecuted before their arrest.
Dodger Stadium Plot
In the summer of 2023, discussions between Ergul and Brannon included plans to attack Dodger Stadium’s parking lot or electrical room during an LGBTQ pride event, contemplating the use of remotely detonated devices. Their arrest occurred just days before the scheduled “Pride Night.”
The Plea Agreement
The plea agreement, described as “binding,” suggests a prison sentence ranging from 60 to 78 months for Ergul, pending acceptance by United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney at a sentencing hearing scheduled for May 30. The agreement’s acceptance or rejection carries significant implications for Ergul’s sentencing.
Co-Conspirators’ Guilty Pleas
Chance Brannon and Xavier Batten, Ergul’s co-conspirators, have also pleaded guilty to related charges. Brannon’s charges include conspiracy, malicious destruction of property by fire and explosives, possession of an unregistered destructive device, and intentional damage to a reproductive health services facility. Batten pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered destructive device and intentional damage to a reproductive health services facility. Their sentencing hearings are scheduled for April 15 and May 15.
This case underscores the severe legal repercussions of using violence to further extremist ideologies. The detailed account of the plots, the ideological motivations behind them, and the legal outcomes serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of such actions.
Statute of Limitations for Felonies and Misdemeanors in California
The statute of limitations for felonies in California varies depending on the severity of the crime:
- Murder: No time limit.
- Other offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment: No time limit.
- Embezzlement of public funds: No time limit.
- Offenses punishable by 8 or more years in prison: 6 years.
- Offenses punishable by imprisonment: 3 years.
For misdemeanors, the statute of limitations is generally shorter:
- Misdemeanors: 1 year.
- Misdemeanor violation committed on a minor under 14 years: 3 years.
- Sexual exploitation by a physician or therapist: 2 years.
California’s Discovery Rule
In California, the statute of limitations timer begins not at the moment a crime occurs, but when it is discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered. This rule is crucial for cases where the crime isn’t immediately obvious. It ensures that victims have a fair chance to seek justice, even if the crime comes to light years later. Keep in mind, the rules around when this clock starts can differ greatly from one state to another, reflecting the diverse legal approaches across the country.
Scenario Example
Imagine a scenario where a person discovers that they were a victim of fraud related to a contract signed five years ago. In California, the statute of limitations for fraud is three years from the date the fraud was discovered. Despite the fraud occurring five years ago, the victim only became aware of it recently. Under the discovery rule, the victim would still have the opportunity to initiate legal proceedings since the statute of limitations starts from the moment of discovery, not the moment the fraud occurred.
Navigating Statute of Limitations with an Experienced Defense Attorney
For individuals under investigation or facing charges where the statute of limitations could play a crucial role, consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney is essential. Attorney Arash Hashemi, specializes in these matters. His expertise can be pivotal in cases where charges may be subject to dismissal due to the statute of limitations. For a thorough review of your case and to understand your legal options, contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. Contact our office at (310) 448-1529 or via our online contact form.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.
In 2019, the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Assault Section began investigating former NBA player Rashid Byrd for sexual assault. Their investigation uncovered a 2010 conviction and a 2005 arrest for assaulting a woman in Washington State.
Victims Detail Assaults by Byrd
Victims reported that Byrd initially used his charm and status to manipulate them before committing violent sexual assaults. Detective Dara Brown, leading the investigation, highlighted the shift from Byrd’s initial charisma to his perpetration of rapes and violence.
Arrest, Bail, and Sentencing of Byrd
Authorities arrested Byrd on September 18, 2020, setting his bail at $4,150,000. He remained in custody until his trial, where the court found him guilty of multiple violent sexual assaults across Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties from 2015 to 2020. On March 1, 2024, the court sentenced Rashid Byrd to 90 years to life in state prison.
The LAPD expressed gratitude to the women who came forward with their stories, acknowledging their role in Byrd’s conviction. Detective Brown emphasized the investigation’s length and its outcome, ensuring Byrd’s removal from the public sphere.
Legal Implications of Byrd’s Conviction
While specific penal codes were not mentioned, sexual assault charges in California, such as PC 261 (rape), PC 262 (spousal rape), and PC 264.1 (rape in concert), carry significant penalties. Byrd’s case, involving repeated and violent offenses, resulted in a lengthy prison sentence, reflecting the legal system’s stance on sexual violence.
Understanding Zero Tolerance Laws in California
California enforces zero tolerance laws to address underage drinking and driving, prohibiting individuals under 21 from operating a vehicle with any detectable alcohol in their system. These laws reflect a stringent approach to prevent the risks associated with underage drinking.
Under California’s zero tolerance policy, it is a criminal offense for underage drivers to have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01% or higher. This threshold is significantly lower than the standard DUI limit for drivers 21 and over, underscoring the state’s commitment to ensuring the safety of young drivers and the public.
Even consuming a single alcoholic beverage can elevate an underage driver’s BAC to 0.01% or more, potentially resulting in a DUI charge. The intent behind these laws is clear: to deter underage drinking and driving by imposing strict penalties for any level of alcohol consumption by underage drivers.
California’s Approach to Underage DUI Offenses
In Los Angeles, law enforcement will conduct chemical and field sobriety tests if they suspect DUI. These tests, including Breathalyzer, blood, and urine tests, determine BAC levels and drug presence. California’s implied consent law requires drivers to undergo these tests; refusal leads to license suspension, fines, or arrest, and does not exempt from DUI charges.
Underage drivers with a BAC above the state’s zero tolerance limit but below 0.08% face misdemeanor charges, usually processed in juvenile or family courts. A BAC of 0.08% or higher subjects underage drivers to adult DUI charges, with more severe consequences.
UNDER 21 DUI CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL PENALTIES IN CALIFORNIA
Underage drivers in California who refuse to undergo a chemical test face severe consequences under the state’s “zero tolerance” law. The refusal leads to a driver’s license suspension ranging from 1 to 3 years, depending on the individual’s prior convictions for similar offenses.
- A first refusal results in a 1-year license suspension.
- A second refusal within 10 years triggers a 2-year driver’s license revocation.
- A third or subsequent refusal within 10 years leads to a 3-year driver’s license revocation.
Charged With an Underage DUI? Contact An Experienced Defense Attorney Today
Bijan Kohanzad, a 62-year-old from Calabasas and owner of an Encino-based tax preparation company, has pleaded guilty to aiding in the filing of a false tax return. This admission comes after accusations of underreporting a client’s income, resulting in a tax loss exceeding $400,000 to the IRS.
Guilty Plea and Charges
Kohanzad was charged with tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). For aiding in filing false tax returns between mid-2015 and May 2017. He admitted to inflating business expenses, reducing a client’s taxable income, and evading taxes.
Details of the Fraudulent Activity
In 2015, Kohanzad falsely claimed $150,000 in advertising expenses on a corporate tax return, reducing the client’s business income significantly. This manipulation allowed the client to underreport personal taxable income, falsely declaring $127,878 instead of the actual $278,000. Kohanzad continued this fraudulent practice into the 2016 tax year, filing corporate and individual returns with exaggerated business expenses, further reducing the client’s taxable income from over $1.3 million to under $450,000.
Kohanzad’s actions caused an IRS loss of approximately $401,436 over two tax years. He acknowledged the willful violation of federal law in his plea agreement, admitting to intentionally defrauding the IRS.
Sentencing and Investigation
United States District Judge André Birotte Jr. has set the sentencing for July 12, where Kohanzad could face up to three years in federal prison. Currently released on a $100,000 bond, Kohanzad awaits his final sentencing, which will consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutory factors.
IRS Criminal Investigation leads the inquiry into Kohanzad’s fraudulent activities, emphasizing the seriousness with which the federal government views tax evasion and fraud.
Understanding a Third DUI Offense in California
In California, the severity of driving under the influence (DUI) charges escalates with each arrest. If you commit a third DUI offense within a 10-year period, you face incredibly serious consequences, such as fines, jail time, and restrictions on your driver’s license.
DUIs Count as Prior Offenses in California
DUIs are prior offenses in California, staying on your record for 10 years. Each DUI within this period escalates penalties.
Plea bargains, like wet reckless charges, count as DUIs. Accepting these can lead to a third offense, increasing consequences.
Penalties for a Third DUI Conviction
A third DUI in California brings significant consequences:
- Fines up to $5,000 and additional court costs.
- License suspension for three years.
- Requirement to install an ignition interlock device in your vehicles at your expense.
- Designation as a habitual traffic offender for three years, increasing penalties for any new traffic violations.
- Mandatory jail time between 120 days and one year.
A DUI conviction remains on your record for 10 years, impacting future DUI charges. A fourth is considered a felony, with even more severe penalties.
License Revocation and Designation as a Habitual Traffic Offender
Offenders will face a three-year license suspension upon a third DUI conviction. The DMV straightforwardly enforces this revocation after the court’s decision. Furthermore, authorities label the offender as a habitual traffic offender for three years. This designation subjects them to heavier penalties for any subsequent traffic violations, highlighting the severe consequences of repeated DUI infractions.
Mandatory Education Programs
California requires DUI offenders to undergo education programs, the lengths of which depend on their offense history. The state targets second-time offenders with an 18-month program that emphasizes counseling and education. For those with three or more offenses, a more intensive 30-month program includes additional treatment and monitoring. Both programs strive to lower DUI recidivism rates.
Punishment for a Third DUI in California After a Decade
If a third DUI occurs after 10 years from the previous offense, it’s treated as a first offense due to the “lookback” period. However, courts may consider past DUIs when deciding penalties
Defense Strategies
To fight a third DUI in California, you might get the charge lowered or even dropped. Common defenses include:
- Questioning the Traffic Stop: Arguing that there was no probable cause for the initial stop.
- Challenging Field Sobriety Tests: Demonstrating that tests were improperly conducted.
- Breathalyzer Accuracy: Citing defects in the breathalyzer device.
- Medical Conditions: Highlighting conditions like acid reflux or dental issues that could skew breathalyzer results.
- Blood Test Integrity: Pointing out potential contamination in blood sample analysis.
An experienced criminal defense attorney can often work to reduce the charge to something less serious, like “wet reckless,” using these defenses.
Alternatives to Jail Time
California law may offer alternatives to jail for third convictions, including:
- DUI education programs extending up to 30 months.
- Community service or work programs as court-approved.
- House arrest or electronic monitoring based on judicial discretion.
Contact A Los Angeles DUI Defense Attorney
Facing a third DUI charge? Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 for expert legal representation. Our experienced criminal defense attorney will guide you through the process and fight for the best possible outcome for your case
Two men from Los Angeles County are charged with a series of armed robberies. These incidents targeted massage parlors in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The charges against them include interference with commerce by robbery under the Hobbs Act and using a firearm during a crime of violence.
Legal Charges and Penal Codes
- Interference with Commerce by Robbery (Hobbs Act): This federal charge, under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, targets robberies affecting interstate or foreign commerce. The defendants’ actions, targeting massage parlors, fall under this due to the commercial nature of the victims’ businesses.
- Using and Carrying a Firearm During a Crime of Violence: Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), this charge is applied because the defendants allegedly carried a .38-caliber firearm during the commission of these violent crimes..
Details of the Incident and Arrest
On February 16, Cuellar drove Morales in a black Jeep Grand Cherokee to rob a Torrance massage parlor. Law enforcement later caught them at a gas station, throwing away robbery items. After a foot chase, officers arrested them. Morales carried $4,000, and Cuellar, $400 and wore clothes matching those from earlier robberies.
Officers found a .38-caliber firearm, reported stolen in 2018, in their Jeep. Authorities suspect Cuellar and Morales in 12 additional armed robberies in various cities between January 12 and January 29.
Legal Implications
A criminal complaint is not a conviction. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Convictions could lead to 20 years for the robbery and life for the firearm charge.
This case underscores the seriousness of armed robbery and firearm charges under federal law, particularly involving commercial establishments. The use of a stolen firearm elevates the gravity of the offenses, potentially impacting sentencing outcomes.
Melvin Alexis Diaz Arteaga, 30, from Oakland and a citizen of Honduras, received a 78-month federal prison sentence for six drug charges. These charges were related to his activities in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district, where he was involved in the sale and intent to sell fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. The sentencing, announced by United States Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey, took place under Senior United States District Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Charges and Plea
Diaz pled guilty in October 2023 to several charges:
- Conspiracy to distribute fentanyl (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vi))
- Possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vi), (b)(1)(B)(i)–(ii))
- Distribution of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii), (b)(1)(C))
In his plea, Diaz admitted to possessing 6.6 kilograms of fentanyl and quantities of other drugs for sale at the time of his arrest in Berkeley, California, on November 16, 2022. He used a Berkeley apartment to store and prepare drugs for sale in the Tenderloin and other locations. Diaz also confessed to selling fentanyl and methamphetamine to an undercover San Francisco Police Department officer on four occasions between September 16, 2022, and October 5, 2022.
Evidence and Sentencing Memorandum
Law enforcement found two firearms, cash, and drug processing equipment in the Berkeley stash house, alongside the drugs. Investigations revealed Diaz’s daily travels from Oakland to the Tenderloin for drug sales, often after stopping at the Berkeley stash house for drug supplies.
The government’s sentencing memorandum highlighted Diaz’s regular engagement in drug trafficking and his possession of significant quantities of fentanyl. It emphasized the seriousness of his offenses and the impact on the community.
Forfeiture and Sentencing
As part of the plea agreement, Diaz agreed to forfeit over $50,000 in cash seized during his arrest, acknowledging these funds were related to drug trafficking. Diaz, who has been in custody since November 16, 2022, was also ordered to serve four years of supervised release following his prison term.
Josh Waring, connected to “The Real Housewives of Orange County,” got arrested for reportedly punching a security guard at Chapman Global Medical Center in Orange, California. This incident happened while security was escorting him out of the hospital early Wednesday morning.
Charges and Legal Basis
- Assault: Police suspect Waring of punching the security guard, possibly facing assault charges under California Penal Code § 240. This law defines assault as an attempt to commit a violent injury on someone else.
- Battery: The physical contact suggests a battery charge under California Penal Code § 242, which identifies battery as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence on another person.
- Post-Release Supervision Violation: Authorities also wanted Waring for a post-release supervision breach, under California Penal Code § 3455. This code deals with the revocation or modification of post-release supervision.
Key Details
- Date and Location: The assault occurred around 5:45 a.m., Wednesday, at Chapman Global Medical Center, 2600 E. Chapman Ave., Orange, California.
- Prior Legal Issues: Waring’s legal history includes a shooting conviction in Costa Mesa and multiple drug-related offenses.
- Legal Proceedings: At the incident time, Waring was due for a post-release supervision revocation hearing at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana.
Legal Implications
This arrest complicates Waring’s legal situation, potentially impacting his upcoming post-release supervision hearing and future legal actions. The combined charges of assault and battery, along with the post-release supervision violation, might result in serious penalties, including jail time.
Potential Defenses for Waring
- Self-Defense: Claims he acted to protect himself from the guard’s immediate threat.
- Mistaken Identity: Argues he was wrongly accused due to confusion at the scene.
- Lack of Intent: Suggests the contact was accidental, not violent.
- Insufficient Evidence: Questions the proof’s strength, including witness and video reliability.
Josh Waring’s recent arrest underlines his ongoing legal struggles. The charges, based on specific California penal codes, highlight the severity of assault and battery offenses and the consequences of violating post-release supervision. The evidence and details of this incident will significantly influence Waring’s legal battles ahead.
Zachery Ty Bryan, known for “Home Improvement,” faces legal challenges after his DUI arrest in La Quinta, California. This document breaks down the incident, charges, and potential legal outcomes, focusing on specific penal codes and dates for clarity.
Incident Details:
- Date of Arrest: In the early hours of Saturday, February 17th
- Location: La Quinta, California.
- Initial Observation: Police suspected Bryan’s involvement in a collision.
- Evidence of Impairment: Signs of impairment observed, leading to arrest.
Charges Filed:
- Felony DUI: Bryan was charged under California Vehicle Code 23152(a) for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. This charge escalates to a felony, per California Vehicle Code 23550, due to Bryan having at least three prior DUI convictions within the past ten years.
- Misdemeanor Contempt of Court: This charge suggests a violation of court orders, potentially related to Bryan’s past legal issues, under California Penal Code 166(a)(4).
Prior Convictions and Legal Implications:
Bryan’s legal history includes DUI convictions in 2004, 2007, and 2017, and a guilty plea to a DUI charge in May 2020. These prior convictions significantly impact the current charges, potentially leading to harsher penalties, including prison time, fines, and license suspension.
- Impact of Prior Convictions: Bryan’s history of DUI offenses enhances the severity of the current felony DUI charge. Under California law, repeat offenses within ten years can result in increased penalties, including up to three years in state prison and a four-year driver’s license suspension.
- Contempt of Court: This charge indicates non-compliance with a court order, which could relate to any condition set in Bryan’s previous DUI or assault cases. Penalties may include fines and jail time, depending on the nature of the violation.
Potential Legal Defenses for Bryan
United States District Judge James Donato sentenced 28-year-old Honduran national Esmun Moyses Moral-Raudales to 6.5 years in prison. He received this sentence for distributing dangerous drugs in San Francisco’s Tenderloin District. Moral-Raudales pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine and fentanyl.
Charges and Admission
Moral-Raudales pleaded guilty in October 2023 to charges under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) for distributing methamphetamine and fentanyl. He also faced charges for possessing more than 40 grams of fentanyl with intent to distribute, acknowledging his role in the drug trade.
Criminal Activities Unveiled
Throughout January and February 2023, Moral-Raudales sold 103.8 grams of fentanyl and 95 grams of methamphetamine. His arrest in March 2023 revealed an additional 317.7 grams of fentanyl and a loaded “ghost gun,” underscoring the threat he posed to public safety.
This sentencing marks Moral-Raudales’s second federal conviction for drug trafficking, demonstrating a persistent disregard for the law and community well-being.
Authorities’ Condemnation
U.S. Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey and DEA Special Agent Brian M. Clark have condemned Moral-Raudales’s actions. They highlight the danger recidivist drug dealers pose in the Tenderloin District. “Recidivist drug dealers in the Tenderloin pose a serious threat, especially when armed,” Ramsey said. Their statements reflect law enforcement’s dedication to dismantling drug trafficking networks. They emphasize the heightened risk from individuals armed during these illegal activities.
DEA’s Warning on Fentanyl
The DEA warns against the lethal risks of fentanyl, a potent opioid responsible for a surge in overdose deaths, underscoring the importance of vigilance against counterfeit pills.
Esmun Moyses Moral-Raudales’s sentencing reflects the legal system’s unwavering dedication to curbing drug trafficking and ensuring public safety. His case serves as a stark reminder of the severe consequences awaiting those who engage in such criminal activities, especially when they pose a significant risk to community health and safety.
United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton sentenced Eduard Gasparyan, 38, from Granada Hills, to 210 months in federal prison for leading a scheme that fraudulently obtained over $1.5 million in COVID-19 unemployment benefits and stole dozens of car titles. Judge Staton also ordered Gasparyan to pay $2,232,767 in restitution.
In February 2023, Gasparyan pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, covering both the unemployment benefits scam and the car title thefts.
Scheme Details
Gasparyan, alongside his then-fiancée Angela Karchyan, exploited stolen identities to file for unemployment insurance benefits through the California Employment Development Department (EDD) and manipulated documents to unlawfully claim ownership of numerous vehicles. This fraudulent activity spanned from early 2020 to September 2022.
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Exploitation
The duo capitalized on the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) provisions, introduced by Congress to aid self-employed workers and others during the COVID-19 pandemic, by submitting false applications for unemployment insurance benefits.
Withdrawal of Fraudulent Funds
Surveillance footage captured Gasparyan withdrawing $4,500 using nine debit cards at a bank ATM within minutes on August 23, 2021. The cards were registered under various names, including Gasparyan’s and those of other identity theft victims.
Fraudulent Benefits and Vehicle Purchases
Court documents reveal that EDD disbursed approximately $544,089 in fraudulent jobless benefits to a Van Nuys address and around $307,012 to a Granada Hills address, both linked to Gasparyan. Additionally, Gasparyan and Karchyan engaged in purchasing vehicles with bad checks or bank account numbers and manipulated DMV records using forged documents.
Prosecutors highlighted the extensive harm caused by Gasparyan’s actions, emphasizing the impact on taxpayers, the individuals whose identities were stolen, and the legitimate owners of the stolen vehicles.
Co-conspirator’s Sentence
Angela Karchyan, also pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, received a 41-month prison sentence and shares the restitution obligation with Gasparyan.
Investigation and Prosecution
The United States Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General, the California Employment Development Department – Criminal Investigations, and the Orange County Auto Theft Task Force investigated the case. Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Brown led the prosecution.
This sentencing underscores the severe legal consequences of engaging in fraud, especially schemes exploiting pandemic relief efforts and the theft of property. The case serves as a stark reminder of the justice system’s commitment to prosecuting and penalizing such fraudulent activities.
Digital and Physical Evidence
Charges and Legal Implications
Potential Legal Defense for Victoriano Romero
Romero’s defense could argue the evidence collection process was flawed, questioning the validity of search warrants and adherence to Fourth Amendment protections. Demonstrating procedural violations might lead to excluding crucial evidence.
To contest Romero’s connection to the bicycle thefts, his defense might provide alternative explanations for the bicycles’ presence on his property. This approach seeks to undermine the assumption that possession implies guilt, potentially raising doubts about his involvement.
Regarding the reliance on digital evidence, Romero’s defense might challenge the integrity and handling of digital photos and online ads. They could scrutinize the collection, analysis, and attribution of digital evidence to Romero, aiming to question its reliability in establishing his identity and intent.
Legal and Investigative Developments
Phillip Maurice Allen, a 49-year-old from Stockton, California, faces federal indictment charges for his involvement in cocaine distribution and illegal firearm possession. U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced these charges following a detailed investigation into Allen’s activities.
Charges and Legal Implications
Cocaine Distribution and Possession with Intent to Distribute: Allen is charged under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for distributing cocaine and possessing it with the intent to distribute. This law targets the distribution and possession for distribution of controlled substances, including cocaine. Law enforcement’s search of Allen’s auto repair business in Manteca on December 4, 2023, yielded 3 kilograms of cocaine, vacuum-sealed into 1-kilogram bricks. They also found a digital scale, Ziploc bags, a money counter, and a vacuum sealing machine, indicating a sophisticated drug distribution operation. Distributing cocaine could land Allen up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine. Possessing with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine raises the stakes to 40 years in prison and a $5 million fine, as per 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
Felon in Possession of a Firearm: The indictment also includes a charge for being a felon in possession of a firearm, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). This statute forbids convicted felons from owning, possessing, or controlling firearms or ammunition. During the search, authorities discovered two handguns, a Glock 31 and a Diamondback Arms 9 mm, along with over 1,200 rounds of ammunition in Allen’s office, clearly contravening federal firearm laws given his status as a convicted felon. If convicted of this firearm charge, Allen faces up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Conclusion
Phillip Maurice Allen’s indictment on charges of cocaine distribution and illegal firearm possession underscores the serious legal repercussions for such offenses. The evidence collected, including significant quantities of cocaine and firearms, highlights the gravity of Allen’s alleged criminal activities. As the case progresses, Allen’s legal defense will likely address the specifics of the charges and the evidence gathered during the investigation. Allen remains innocent until proven guilty, with any potential sentence to be determined based on statutory factors and Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Penal Code 29810 PC Overview
Effective January 2018, Penal Code 29810 PC requires individuals convicted of certain crimes in California to surrender their firearms. This law is a critical component of Proposition 63, aimed at strengthening gun control.
Key Provisions:
- Court Directive: Upon conviction, the court must inform the defendant of their firearm ownership ban and order the surrender of any firearms.
- Relinquishment Form Requirement: Defendants must complete the Prohibited Persons Relinquishment Form. They must list all firearms they own or control and designate someone to take possession.
- Custodian Responsibilities: The designated custodian must transfer the firearms within a set timeframe. Options include surrendering to law enforcement, selling to a licensed dealer, or storing with a dealer.
- Consequences for Non-Compliance: Defendants who fail to properly relinquish firearms face charges for unlawful firearm possession.
Crimes That Require Relinquishing Guns Under Penal Code 29810
Penal Code 29810 applies to individuals convicted of:
- Any felony offense.
- Certain misdemeanors, including assault, battery, making criminal threats, and brandishing a weapon.
For example, a petty theft conviction wouldn’t require firearm surrender. However, a felony embezzlement conviction would necessitate relinquishing firearms.
Understanding the Relinquishment Process Under Penal Code 29810
When a court convicts a defendant of a crime covered by Penal Code 29810, it follows a specific process:
- The court informs the defendant that they can no longer legally possess firearms, ammunition, or magazines.
- The defendant receives an order to give up any such items in their possession.
- The court provides a Prohibited Persons Relinquishment Form to the defendant.
Using this form, the defendant:
- Records all firearms, ammunition, or magazines they own.
- Nominates another person to take control of these items.
- Gives this person legal authority to handle the disposal of the firearms.
This process ensures the safe and legal transfer or disposal of firearms from individuals prohibited from possessing them.
Penalties for Failing to Relinquish Firearms Under Penal Code 29810
Defendants who don’t comply with the firearm relinquishment process under Penal Code 29810 face serious penalties:
- Failing to submit the required paperwork within the specified timeframe results in an infraction. This carries a maximum fine of $100.
- Possessing firearms past the deadline can lead to more severe consequences. Such individuals may face charges under Penal Code 29800. This statute prohibits certain people from owning guns. Violating this law is a felony, punishable by 16 months to 3 years in jail.
In San Diego, a federal court sentenced 50-year-old Indio dentist Javad Aghaloo to 37 months in prison for committing Medicare fraud. Melissa Rosas, 42, from Calexico and Aghaloo’s former billing manager, received a sentence of three years of probation, including one year of home confinement, for her role in obstructing a Medicare audit.
Understanding Robbery Under California Penal Code Section 211
California Penal Code Section 211 defines robbery as forcefully or fearfully taking property from someone against their will. For an act to qualify as robbery, it must involve:
- Taking property directly from the person or in their immediate presence.
- The use of physical force or a deadly weapon, known as armed robbery.
The value of the property taken is irrelevant in determining a robbery charge. Notably, actual possession of the property by the defendant is not necessary for a robbery charge. The critical factor is a confrontation involving force or the threat of force.
Robbery charges can escalate if the act benefits a gang, invoking California’s Gang Sentencing Enhancement Law. As a violent crime against a person, robbery falls under California’s Three Strikes laws.
Involvement in a robbery doesn’t require direct participation. Charges can arise from conspiracy, aiding, or abetting in any form, such as providing a vehicle for a bank robbery.
California categorizes robbery into first and second degrees, and the penalties depend on the degree and the robbery’s specific circumstances. Robbery always constitutes a felony and cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor as a “wobbler” offense. Additionally, most robbery convictions qualify as a “strike” under California’s three-strikes law.
The case of Salvador Alejandro Sanchez, a former LAPD officer involved in the fatal shooting at a Corona Costco, presents a complex legal scenario. This article delves into the specifics of the incident, the charges filed, and the applicable California Penal Codes, offering a comprehensive overview for those interested in the intricacies of criminal defense law.
The Incident in Detail
On June 14, 2019, at the Costco in Corona, Salvador Sanchez, then an LAPD officer, fatally shot Kenneth French, a developmentally disabled man. The altercation reportedly began when French pushed or slapped Sanchez, leading to the shooting that also critically injured French’s parents.
Charges and Penal Codes
- Voluntary Manslaughter Charge: Salvador Sanchez faces a count of voluntary manslaughter under California Penal Code Section 192(a). This law defines voluntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, occurring during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.
- Assault with a Semiautomatic Firearm Charge: Sanchez is also charged with two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, as outlined in California Penal Code Section 245(b). This specific charge is levied for committing an assault on another person using a semiautomatic firearm. In this incident, the alleged victims are the parents of Kenneth French.
- Sentence-Enhancing Gun and Great Bodily Injury Allegations: Alongside these charges, there are sentence-enhancing allegations related to the use of a gun and causing great bodily injury. These allegations, if proven, can lead to more severe penalties under the relevant California penal statutes.
Connecting the Incident to the Charges
The charges stem from the incident’s circumstances, particularly the altercation between Sanchez and French. The voluntary manslaughter charge reflects the lack of premeditation but acknowledges the lethal outcome of the conflict. The assault charges focus on the use of a semiautomatic firearm against French’s parents.
Defense’s Perspective
Sanchez’s defense, as articulated by his attorney, has suggested that the shooting was a result of self-defense and a reaction to being attacked. They have criticized the charges as being politically motivated and not reflective of the situation’s nuances.
Legal Defenses and Implications
Potential defenses in this case might include:
- Self-Defense: Arguing that Sanchez’s actions were a necessary response to an immediate threat.
- Questioning the Evidence: Challenging the prosecution’s evidence, including the nature of the altercation and the circumstances leading to the shooting.
Potential Sentencing and Consequences
If convicted, Sanchez faces significant imprisonment. The exact duration will depend on the court’s interpretation of the incident’s circumstances and the applicable California sentencing guidelines.
The Salvador Sanchez case highlights the legal complexities surrounding law enforcement actions, particularly when off-duty. It raises questions about self-defense, use of force, and the legal repercussions faced by police officers. For those facing similar charges or interested in criminal law, understanding such cases is crucial. At The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi, we specialize in navigating the intricacies of criminal defense. Contact us at (310) 870-2607 for expert legal counsel.
Dory Lindsay Ford, a 57-year-old caterer from Monterey, California, faces serious charges for defrauding the government of $4 million in COVID-19 relief funds. A federal grand jury indicted Ford for bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.
Background and Charges
Ford operated Aqua Terra Culinary, Inc., a catering company in Monterey. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he applied for and received approximately $4 million in loans and grants. These funds came from three key sources: the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (EIDL).
The CARES Act, enacted in March 2020, aimed to provide financial assistance during the pandemic. It authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans through the PPP for small businesses. The ARPA, passed in 2021, established the RRF with $28.6 billion for grants to food and drink businesses affected by the pandemic. The EIDL program offered low-interest financing to small businesses in disaster-affected regions.
Allegations and Misuse of Funds
The indictment alleges that Ford obtained the $4 million through false representations and omissions. He is accused of using the COVID-19 relief funds to purchase real estate in Belize, invest in the stock market, and fund other business ventures. These actions were in direct violation of the intended use of the funds, which was to cover payroll costs, rent or mortgage payments, and supplies.
Specific Charges
Ford faces multiple federal charges:
- Bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
- Three counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
- Two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
Legal Implications
If convicted, Dory Lindsay Ford faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine for bank fraud. Each count of wire fraud carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The money laundering charges could lead to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count. Sentencing will consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
Next Court Appearance
Ford is scheduled to appear in court on January 31, 2024, before United States Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi in the Northern District of California. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Neal C. Hong.
Law enforcement officials arrested four individuals in Los Angeles for operating a drug trafficking ring in the San Fernando Valley, as detailed in a 15-count federal grand jury indictment. This operation involved distributing cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl.
The Operation
The indictment reveals a structured drug trafficking network. Giselle Buraye, 23, from Van Nuys, along with Efren Meraz, Jr., 35, from Sylmar, and Oscar Alejandro Melendez, 50, from Van Nuys, were identified as the operation’s leaders. They were responsible for obtaining the fentanyl pills, methamphetamine, and cocaine. This trio, together with Sarkis Kyurkchian, 40, from North Hollywood, supplied the drugs to Robert Carlton Lavilette, 68, from Ventura, and Max Roman-Betancourt, 41, from Sunland, who then handled street-level sales. Esteban Armas, 36, from Panorama City, was allegedly responsible for storing the narcotics.
Arrests and Arraignments
Charges and Seizures
Specific Incidents Linked to the Defendants
The indictment details specific incidents involving the defendants. On April 14, 2021, Buraye and Mendez allegedly sold around 1,000 fentanyl pills. In March 2022, Buraye reportedly sold over 700 fentanyl pills. In May 2022, authorities executed a search warrant at Armas’s residence, leading to the seizure of 2,504 grams of fentanyl, 57 kilograms of cocaine, 10.92 kilograms of methamphetamine, and $152,602 in drug proceeds.
Former Los Angeles City Councilman José Huizar, was sentenced to 13 years in prison Friday in a high-profile corruption case. He was found guilty of accepting at least $1.5 million in cash and benefits. These were in exchange for his assistance in approving various real estate projects in downtown LA. A year ago, Huizar pleaded guilty to federal counts of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and tax evasion.
California’s Three Strikes Law significantly impacts sentencing for repeat felony offenders. It mandates doubled sentences for individuals with one prior serious or violent felony upon any new felony conviction. For those with two such prior convictions, a third felony conviction leads to a minimum 25-year to life sentence, with parole eligibility determined by the Parole Board. This law underscores California’s firm stance against repeat serious or violent offenders.
In California, people often use “Restraining Orders” and “Protective Orders” interchangeably, but understanding their specific applications and legal implications is crucial. Both orders, which are judicial decrees, aim to protect individuals from unwanted behaviors like stalking, harassment, threats, or physical abuse. The court directs these orders at specific individuals, named in the orders, to stop them from engaging in harmful conduct.
Under California Penal Code Section § 273.6, violating the terms of a protective order is a criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances, such a violation can be classified as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Typically, a first-time violation, in the absence of other criminal charges, is treated as a misdemeanor. The consequences for a misdemeanor violation can include a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), a jail term of up to one year, or both.
While both restraining orders and protective orders aim to safeguard individuals from harm, they are distinct in their legal context and application. Restraining orders are generally used in civil contexts, whereas protective orders are more common in criminal cases. The choice between a restraining order and a protective order depends on the specific situation and the nature of the threat involved.
Criminal vs. Civil Orders
Criminal Protective Orders: In criminal cases, protective orders are typically requested by the district attorney on behalf of the victim. These orders are particularly prevalent in domestic violence cases. Here, the prosecuting attorney seeks a judicial decree to safeguard the victim from their abuser. The goal is to prevent further harm and ensure the victim’s safety while the criminal case is ongoing. It’s important to note that in these scenarios, the state, represented by the district attorney, takes the initiative to request the order, reflecting the seriousness of the criminal context.
Civil Restraining Orders: On the other hand, restraining orders are more common in civil matters and are requested by one of the parties involved in a civil dispute. These orders are frequently seen in family law cases, such as divorces or custody battles. For instance, a party in a divorce may seek a restraining order against their spouse to prevent harassment, ensure physical distance, or stop any other form of harmful behavior. The key aspect here is that the individual seeking protection takes the initiative to request the order, which is then considered and issued by a civil court.
Violating a Protective Order in California
In California, non-compliance with a protective order’s terms is a significant legal violation. Under Penal Code 273.6 PC, the consequences for the restrained person can be severe. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must demonstrate:
- A judge legally issued the protective order.
- The defendant was aware of the order.
- The order was intentionally violated.
Misdemeanor Charges: Typically, such violations are treated as misdemeanors, with penalties including:
- Up to one year in county jail, and/or
- A fine not exceeding $1,000.
Felony Charges: In certain cases, violations can escalate to felony charges, with more stringent penalties:
- Up to three years in state prison, and/or
- A fine of as much as $10,000.
Expiration of Protective and Restraining Orders in California
Violating a Restraining Order
Violating a restraining or protective order is a serious offense under California Penal Code 273.6. This crime occurs when an individual intentionally and knowingly disobeys a court-issued protective or restraining order. Such orders, including temporary restraining orders (TROs) in civil cases and protective orders in criminal court, are designed to safeguard victims from harm, harassment, threats, stalking, or physical abuse.
Restrictions Imposed by the Orders
The terms of these orders typically prohibit the restrained individual from making any form of contact with the protected person. This includes communication through phone calls, text messages, emails, social media, and direct face-to-face interactions.
Criminal Protective Orders (CPOs)
In domestic violence prosecutions, judges often issue Criminal Protective Orders (CPOs) to prevent defendants from engaging in harassment, abuse, stalking, or threatening behavior towards the alleged victims. These orders are common in criminal cases involving violence or credible threats of violence and are closely linked with domestic violence cases in California.
Types of California Restraining Orders
In California, courts issue various types of restraining or protective orders, each designed for specific situations. Violating any of these orders can lead to penalties under Penal Code 273.6.
Domestic Violence Restraining Order: This order is issued to protect individuals from abuse by an intimate partner. It aims to prevent physical, emotional, or other forms of abuse in intimate relationships.
Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Order: Issued to protect elders (aged 65 and above) and dependent adults (aged 18-64 with disabilities), this order safeguards against physical, emotional, or financial abuse.
Contempt of Court Charges: Violating the terms of any of these orders can result in contempt of court charges under California Penal Code 166 PC.
Emergency Protective Order (EPO): Law enforcement officers can request an EPO during a domestic violence incident response. This order is immediate and typically lasts for 7 days, requiring the alleged abuser to avoid contact with the victim.
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): After an EPO expires, or in cases of harassment, individuals can request a TRO from the court, effective for up to 3 weeks. Applicants must demonstrate they are victims of harassment, credible threats, or behavior causing substantial emotional distress.
Permanent Restraining Order (PRO): A PRO is issued following a court hearing where both parties present their arguments. The judge assesses the evidence and decides on the necessity and terms of the PRO, which can last up to 3 years and be extended if needed. Common restrictions include no contact with the victim, maintaining a certain distance, and firearm restrictions.
How Prosecution Proves a Restraining Order Violation in California
In California, to convict someone under Penal Code 273.6 for violating a restraining order, a prosecutor must establish several key elements:
- Lawful Issuance of a Protective Order: The court must have issued a protective order in accordance with legal procedures.
- Defendant’s Awareness of the Order: You must have been aware of the existence of the court order. This awareness is established if you had the opportunity to read the order, regardless of whether you actually did so.
- Ability to Comply with the Order: You must have been capable of complying with the terms set out in the court order.
- Willful Violation of the Order: The violation of the order must have been willful, meaning it was done willingly or on purpose.
Understanding ‘Willful’ Actions and Additional Charges
- An action is considered ‘willful’ if it is carried out willingly or with intent.
- Importantly, if you commit another crime while violating a restraining order, you can face charges under both PC 273.6 and the statute relevant to the other crime.
Consequences of Violating a Restraining Order
Misdemeanor Offense: Typically classified as a misdemeanor, a violation of Penal Code 273.6 involves:
- A potential jail term of up to one year in county jail.
- A mandatory 30-day jail sentence if the violation resulted in victim injury.
- Fines reaching up to $1,000.
- Compulsory participation in counseling and domestic violence classes.
- Financial contributions to a battered women’s shelter and victim restitution.
Enhanced Charges for Repeat Offenses: For a second offense within seven years involving violence or threats, the charge can escalate to a “wobbler,” allowing for prosecution as either a misdemeanor or a felony.
Felony-Level Violations: In cases classified as felonies, the penalties intensify:
- State prison sentences of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years.
- Fines up to $10,000.
- Probation for a maximum of one year.
- A minimum 30-day jail term for repeat offenders within one year, especially if the violation results in victim injury.
Additional Legal Implications
- Violators lose the legal right to own or possess firearms.
- Possession of firearms can lead to further criminal charges.
- Court-mandated anger management or domestic violence counseling may be required.
Defending Against Charges of Violating a Restraining Order
- Lack of Knowledge: If you were not aware of the restraining order, this can be a defense. It must be proven that you did not have a reasonable opportunity to learn about the order’s existence or terms.
- Inability to Comply: Circumstances may have made it impossible for you to comply with the order. This could include situations where you were unaware of the protected person’s presence in a public place.
- False Accusation: Sometimes, allegations of violating a restraining order are based on false accusations. Proving that the claim was fabricated or exaggerated can be a valid defense.
- Accidental Violation: If the contact with the protected person was accidental and not intentional, this can serve as a defense. This might apply in cases where you unknowingly entered a place at the same time as the protected person.
- Order Was Not Legally Issued: Challenging the legality of the restraining order’s issuance can be a defense. This involves showing that the order was not properly issued according to legal procedures.
Defending against a charge of violating a restraining order requires a clear and effective legal strategy. At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we focus on crucial aspects of your case, including challenging the legality of the restraining order, proving a lack of awareness about the order, and contesting any intentional violation. We also consider your ability to comply with the order and address any additional related charges. If you’re facing such charges, immediate legal assistance is essential. Contact Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Arash Hashemi at our Westside Towers office, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064, or call (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.
Photo: (Photographs of Bell are being released in order to identify and speak with additional persons who may have been victimized)/ www.lapdonline.org
Bruce Edward Bell’s arrest on December 21, 2023, for a high-stakes bank robbery in Sun Valley, Los Angeles, marks a critical development in a series of criminal activities. Bell, facing charges for allegedly entering a bank, using a firearm to threaten an employee, and fleeing with over $60,000, is now at the center of a significant legal case under California law.
The incident, occurring in the 8000 block of Vineland Avenue, spotlights Bell’s alleged actions. According to reports, he employed a firearm to coerce a bank employee, culminating in a substantial monetary theft. This act puts him in direct violation of multiple penal codes, emphasizing the severity of the charges he faces.
Legal Charges and Penal Code Analysis
What is Domestic Battery?
Under California Penal Code Section 243(e)(1), domestic battery is a misdemeanor offense that involves the use of force against an intimate partner. This charge is commonly applied in cases of spousal abuse, cohabitant altercations, or other domestic violence conflicts.
Key Elements of Domestic Battery:
- Willful and Harmful Touching: The defendant must have intentionally engaged in physical contact that was harmful or offensive.
- Relationship with the Victim: The victim must be a current or former intimate partner of the defendant, which includes spouses, cohabitants, fiancés, co-parents, or dating partners.
Understanding ‘Cohabitant’: This term refers to two unrelated individuals living together, characterized by elements such as a sexual relationship, shared finances, joint property ownership, and the duration and continuity of their relationship.
Scope and Application of the Law:
- Domestic battery law applies to both same-sex and heterosexual relationships.
- The law does not necessitate that the victim sustains a physical injury. Any form of harmful or offensive contact, regardless of the presence of injury, can constitute domestic battery.
Additional Legal Considerations:
- Slight or No Injuries: Even in cases with slight or no physical injuries, charges can be filed. The mere act of using force or violence is sufficient.
- Aggravated Circumstances: In cases where the victim suffers serious injuries, charges may escalate to aggravated battery or intentional infliction of corporal injury.
- Investigative Process: Post-arrest, a police detective typically conducts interviews and gathers statements to support the allegations. It is crucial to seek legal counsel before making any statements to law enforcement.
Legal Definition and Examples:
- Domestic battery includes any willful and unlawful touching that is harmful or offensive.
- Common examples include pushing during an argument or grabbing a wrist to restrain.
- To convict, the prosecution must prove willful touching, that it was offensive or harmful, and the victim was an intimate partner.
Important Legal Note:
- Physical injury is not a prerequisite for a domestic battery charge.
- Threats or actions in an angry or disrespectful manner can lead to charges, even without physical harm.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.
Definition and Elements of the Crime
Under California Penal Code Section 166 PC, various behaviors are classified as contempt of court. This includes disruptive conduct during court proceedings, refusal to comply as a witness, and notably, the intentional violation of a Court Order. This statute is particularly relevant in cases involving Protective Orders, Restraining Orders, and Stay-Away Orders, often seen in domestic violence situations.
To establish a violation of a Court Order under Penal Code 166 PC, the prosecution must prove:
- A lawful written court order was issued.
- The defendant was aware of the court order.
- The defendant had the capability to comply with the court order.
- The defendant willfully violated the court order.
It’s important to note that this statute is applicable to any protective or stay-away order issued by a court. However, it does not extend to violations of probation conditions, which are legally considered court orders but are addressed separately in Probation Violation Hearings and are explicitly excluded from prosecution under Penal Code 166 PC.
Types of Contempt of Court Under Penal Code 166 PC
Penal Code 166 PC outlines several specific types of contempt:
- Disruptive Behavior: Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior during court proceedings that interrupts or disrespects the court.
- Breach of Peace: Any noise or disturbance that interrupts court proceedings.
- Willful Disobedience of Court Orders: Intentionally disobeying the terms of a court order.
- Resistance to Court Orders: Actively resisting or obstructing a court’s lawful order or process.
- Refusal to Comply as a Witness: Refusing to be sworn in as a witness or to answer essential questions.
- Misrepresentation in Court: Publishing false reports of court proceedings or presenting unauthorized information during sentencing.
- Gang-Related Injunctions: Disobeying injunctions related to criminal street gangs.
Penalties for Violating Penal Code 166 PC
Violations of California Penal Code 166 PC generally fall under misdemeanor offenses. The penalties for these misdemeanors can be substantial, including:
- Up to six months in jail.
- Significant court fines.
However, the law includes provisions for enhanced penalties and specific circumstances:
- Contacting a Victim: Enhanced penalties apply if the contempt involves contacting a victim, especially after a prior conviction.
- Protective Order Violations: Violating protective orders, particularly in domestic violence or elder abuse cases, can lead to imprisonment and fines.
- Firearm Possession: Owning or possessing a firearm when prohibited by a protective order results in additional penalties.
Legal Defenses
Defending against charges of violating a court order can involve several strategies:
- Arguing it was not a willful violation, such as in accidental encounters.
- Demonstrating a lack of awareness of the court order.
- Proving inability to comply due to circumstances beyond control.
- Challenging the legality of the court order itself.
Criminal Defense for Violating a Court Order Cases in Los Angeles
The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi are at your service to defend your rights if you find yourself facing the serious charge of violating a court order in Los Angeles.With over two decades of experience in handling both misdemeanor and felony cases, Attorney Arash Hashemi is well-versed in the intricacies of contempt of court charges, including violations of court orders, protective orders, and stay-away orders.
At our office, we understand the serious implications of being charged under Penal Code 166 PC. Whether you’re accused of disruptive behavior in court, willful disobedience of court orders, or any other form of contempt, we are here to provide the robust defense you need. Contact us at (310) 448-1529 or visit us at Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, to schedule a consultation.
Attorney Arash Hashemi will review your case, exploring every legal avenue to challenge the accusations against you. Whether it’s arguing against the willfulness of the violation, questioning the awareness of the court order, or challenging the legality of the order itself, we are committed to pursuing the best possible outcome for your case. Trust us to build a strong, effective defense strategy tailored to the specifics of your situation.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.
Paul Horton Smith Sr., 59, from Moreno Valley, California, has entered a guilty plea to a federal charge of wire fraud in connection with a Ponzi scheme. This scheme, which spanned nearly two decades, defrauded over $24 million from at least 200 investors, many of whom were elderly or retired.
Case Overview
- Charge and Penal Code: Smith pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, as defined under 18 U.S.C § 1343.
- Duration and Scope: From July 2000 to May 2020, Smith operated several companies in Riverside, including Northstar Communications LLC, Planning Services Inc., and eGate LLC, to orchestrate this scheme.
Mechanics of the Scheme
- Investment Misrepresentation: Smith falsely represented Northstar as an annuity or a similar investment, claiming involvement in real estate or the stock market.
- Guaranteed Returns: He assured investors of a fixed rate of return, falsely branding Northstar as a “safe investment.”
- Misuse of Funds: Contrary to his promises, Smith never invested the funds, instead depositing them into a non-interest-bearing checking account.
- Ponzi Scheme Operation: Smith paid earlier investors with funds obtained from newer investors, a hallmark of Ponzi schemes.
Noteworthy Incident: In a striking case, Smith persuaded a victim to invest $400,000, which was life insurance proceeds. Promising a 5% return on a “safe investment,” Smith instead diverted these funds to maintain his fraudulent scheme.
Legal Implications
- Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C § 1343): This statute criminalizes the use of interstate communications to perpetrate fraudulent schemes. Smith’s use of emails, texts, and electronic bank transfers to execute his scheme falls squarely under this law.
- Potential Sentence: Facing a maximum of 20 years in federal prison, Smith’s sentencing highlights the severe consequences of wire fraud.
- Impact on Victims: The scheme led to significant financial losses, with over 200 investors defrauded and 106 victims still awaiting full repayment, totaling a loss of about $13.3 million.
Investigation and Upcoming Sentencing: The federal investigation into this case demonstrates the commitment to prosecuting financial fraud. United States District Judge Jesus G. Bernal will preside over Smith’s sentencing on April 1.
In California, the crime of assault is defined under Penal Code 240 PC as the unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person. This law, commonly addressing what is known as “simple assault,” is fundamental in the state’s criminal justice system. It highlights the legal boundary not only against acts of violence but also against any attempts to initiate such acts.
Key Highlights of Penal Code 240 PC
- Nature of the Offense: Assault under PC 240 does not require physical contact or actual injury. The essence of the crime lies in the intent and capability to inflict harm.
- Penalties: Classified as a misdemeanor, simple assault can lead to penalties including jail time of up to six months and/or a fine up to $1,000.
- Assault vs. Battery: It’s important to distinguish assault from battery (Penal Code 242). While assault is the attempt to use force, battery involves the actual use of force on someone.
What is Assault in the State of California?
In California, assault is legally defined under Penal Code 240 PC. The law states:
“An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”
Breaking Down the Elements of the Crime:
To secure a conviction for simple assault, the prosecution must prove several critical elements, collectively known as the “elements of the crime”:
- Willful Conduct: The accused must have engaged in a deliberate action that would likely result in the application of force to another person.
- Intent to Injure: The act must be accompanied by the intent to commit a violent injury. The term “attempt” inherently implies an intention to cause harm.
- Awareness of Potential Harm: The individual must have understood that their actions could potentially cause injury. This awareness is a key component of the “attempt.”
- Capability to Inflict Injury: The accused must have had the present ability to apply force or cause harm to another person.
Understanding ‘Application of Force’:
The term “application of force” in this context refers to any harmful or offensive touching. This can include even minor contact if executed in a disrespectful or rude manner. Notably, the law does not require the touching to cause physical injury or even be direct.
The Concept of Indirect Force:
It’s important to note that actual physical contact or the successful application of force is not a prerequisite for an assault charge. The critical factor is acting in a manner that could have resulted in force being applied to another person. For instance, in a road rage scenario, aggressive actions that could lead to physical harm may constitute assault, even if no physical contact occurred.
Penalties for Penal Code 240 Simple Assault in California
In California, simple assault as defined under Penal Code 240 PC is treated as a misdemeanor offense. The legal repercussions for those convicted of this crime can be significant.
Standard Penalties for Simple Assault:
- Jail Time: A conviction can lead to a sentence of up to six months in a county jail.
- Fines: Additionally, offenders may face a fine of up to $1,000 per offense.
Consequences of Multiple Assault Charges:
- Cumulative Penalties: If an individual faces multiple assault charges, the penalties can accumulate, potentially leading to longer jail time and higher fines.
Enhanced Penalties for Assaults Against Specific Victims:
- Protected Categories: The law imposes elevated penalties when the victim of the assault belongs to designated protected categories. These categories encompass individuals such as police officers, firefighters, traffic officers, code enforcement officers, animal control officers, and process servers, among others.
- Conditions for Enhanced Penalties: For the enhanced penalties to apply, two conditions must be met:
- The victim must have been performing their official duties at the time of the assault.
- The assailant must have reasonably known or should have known the victim’s occupation.
- Increased Penalties for Protected Victims: When these conditions are met, the penalties for assaulting individuals in these categories can include:
- Up to one year in county jail.
- A fine of up to $2,000.
Defenses to Assault in California
In California, individuals have the right to defend themselves if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of physical harm from another person. If someone who acted in self-defense is later charged with assault, they may have a valid self-defense claim.
Moreover, because assault is a criminal offense that often lacks physical injuries or concrete evidence, false accusations made by individuals seeking to cause trouble for the defendant can lead to unjust charges.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.
Photo: (Pat Brady, 53, of Lake Forest (U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California)
Pat Brady, a 53-year-old Aryan Brotherhood member, confessed to a murder within a Northern California prison, as part of a significant investigation into the gang’s activities. This announcement was made by the U.S. District Attorney’s Office.
Details of the Prison Murder
In the July 2018 incident at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, Pat Brady, an Aryan Brotherhood gang member, admitted to the premeditated killing of a fellow inmate. This inmate had falsely represented himself as a member of the Aryan Brotherhood and had accrued a substantial drug debt. Brady committed the act to maintain and strengthen his position within the gang’s hierarchy.
Investigation Highlights
The plea is a key development in a comprehensive investigation that uncovered crimes committed by the Aryan Brotherhood between 2011 and 2016. These crimes include racketeering, murder, conspiracy, and drug trafficking. The gang orchestrated and managed these activities from their prison cells, using smuggled cell phones.
Brady’s guilty plea marks a crucial milestone in understanding the inner workings of criminal organizations like the Aryan Brotherhood. It sheds light on the extensive criminal network operating within prisons and the severe ramifications of such activities.
Upcoming Sentencing
Often referred to as ‘Gang Enhancements,’ California Penal Code Section 186.22 PC deals with criminal street gangs. It’s integral to the “Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act”(STEP) in California, addressing gang-related issues.
Active Participation in a Criminal Street Gang
Subsection (a) of Penal Code Section 186.22 PC defines the consequences for individuals actively participating in a criminal street gang. To be convicted under this section, a person must:
- Actively participate in a criminal street gang.
- Possess knowledge of the gang’s pattern of criminal gang activity.
- Willfully promote, further, or assist in felonious criminal conduct by gang members.
Penalties for this involvement may lead to one year in county jail. Alternatively, they can result in state prison for 16 months to three years.
Felony Committed for the Benefit of a Gang
Subsection (b) of Penal Code Section 186.22 PC addresses more severe penalties for individuals convicted of a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. To trigger these enhanced penalties, the following elements must be established:
- The specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members.
The consequences may include additional terms of imprisonment based on the nature of the felony:
- Two, three, or four years for non-serious or non-violent felonies.
- An additional five years for serious felonies.
- An additional ten years for violent felonies.
Enhancements Near Schools
Subsection (b)(2) provides an aggravating circumstance if the underlying felony occurs within 1,000 feet of a school during school hours or when minors are present. This circumstance can lead to more severe sentencing.
Sentencing Discretion
Subsection (b)(3) grants the court discretion in imposing sentencing enhancements, allowing judges to consider the unique circumstances of each case. The court is required to specify the reasons for its choice of enhancements on the record at the time of sentencing.
Indeterminate Sentences
Probation Conditions
Understanding Key Terms
To fully comprehend Penal Code Section 186.22 PC, it’s essential to familiarize oneself with key terms used within the statute:
- “Pattern of criminal gang activity” (Subsection (e)): This phrase refers to the commission, attempted commission, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of specified offenses by gang members, with at least one offense occurring after the effective date of this statute. These offenses require separate occurrences or involvement by two or more gang members, benefiting the gang beyond reputation.
-
“Criminal street gang” (Subsection (f)): Defined as an organized association of three or more persons, formal or informal, with primary activities involving the commission of specified criminal acts, common identifiers, and a pattern of criminal gang activity.
Richard Jason Mountford, a resident of Monterey County, California, confessed to a substantial tax fraud, cheating the IRS out of nearly $900,000. His guilty plea, recorded in a federal court, acknowledges his role in a sophisticated tax scheme from 2016 to 2020.
Court documents reveal that Mountford, alongside unnamed accomplices, submitted fraudulent income tax returns. These documents falsely claimed employment and wages from a non-existent company, wrongly reported federal tax withholdings, and illicitly sought refunds.
Further Deceptions: Alimony Claims
The scheme was exacerbated by false alimony claims on most returns, inflating the refund amounts. As a result, the IRS was duped into issuing refunds totaling $873,723.53.
Personal Gains from the Fraudulent Scheme
Mountford personally benefited by depositing $757,075.53 into his accounts. His extravagant purchases included cars worth approximately $360,000. An accomplice also received significant amounts, including around $170,000 in cash and gold bars.
Legal Proceedings and Charges
Attorney General Phillip A. Talbert announced this key legal progression in the case against Mountford. The charges, led by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Tax Division, included:
- Conspiracy to File False Claims (18 U.S.C. § 286): This charge arises directly from Mountford’s participation in submitting fraudulent tax returns. Under this statute, it is a federal offense to conspire to defraud the United States government by filing false claims for refunds. The conspiracy charge implies that Mountford and his co-conspirators agreed to commit this crime together, with each playing a role in the execution of the fraudulent scheme. The law under 18 U.S.C. § 286 makes it illegal to engage in any agreement to submit false claims, emphasizing the seriousness of Mountford’s actions.
- Making False Statements on Tax Returns: This charge is concerned with Mountford’s deceitful tactics to inflate refund amounts through false alimony claims. By reporting false information on tax returns, particularly about alimony payments, Mountford significantly increased the refund amounts he and his co-conspirators claimed. This act of making false statements on tax returns is a violation of the U.S. tax laws. Such acts not only mislead the IRS but also unjustly enrich the fraudsters at the expense of the government and, ultimately, the taxpayers.
RS Criminal Investigation actively and thoroughly probed the case. Trial Attorneys John C. Gerardi and Charles A. O’Reilly of the Tax Division, along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Dhruv M. Sharma, led the prosecution.
Upcoming Sentencing and Potential Restitution
Photo: ( closeup shot of metal handcuffs and dollars)
The federal government has charged Shray Goel and Shaunik Raheja in a complex case involving an $8.5 million scam. This scheme, primarily executed through Airbnb and Vrbo, involved misleading property listings and discriminatory practices against Black renters.
Case Details
- Indictment Charges: Both men face allegations of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 13 counts of wire fraud. Additionally, prosecutors have charged Goel with two counts of aggravated identity theft.
- Victim Count: The fraud impacted thousands of individuals, linked to over 10,000 reservations and nearly 100 properties in 10 states.
The Fraud Mechanics
- Goel and Raheja are accused of operating a short-term rental business, Abbot Pacific LLC, used to conduct their fraudulent activities.
- They allegedly engaged in a double-booking strategy, creating multiple listings for the same property on Airbnb and Vrbo.
- Utilizing fabricated excuses like plumbing issues, they canceled or moved guests to less desirable accommodations.
- A bidding war mechanism was employed to maximize profit from these properties.
- The indictment also highlights racial discrimination, with the defendants accused of selectively canceling reservations based on racial biases.
Charges and Penal Codes
- Wire Fraud: The charge of Wire Fraud, under 18 U.S.C § 1343, is a federal offense that targets the use of interstate communications for carrying out fraudulent schemes. In the current case, this relates to the supposed use of online platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo to deceive renters.
- Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud: Under the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, as outlined in 18 U.S.C § 1349, the indictment alleges a joint effort by Goel and Raheja to perpetrate wire fraud. This suggests that both individuals coordinated their actions to defraud renters, as per the provisions of this statute.
- Aggravated Identity Theft: The accusation against Goel for Aggravated Identity Theft under 18 U.S.C § 1028A alleges that he unlawfully used another person’s identity to commit felony wire fraud. This statute applies when identity theft aids or occurs in conjunction with a felony offense.
Potential Legal Consequences
- Convictions could lead to up to 20 years in prison for each wire fraud and conspiracy charge. Aggravated identity theft carries an additional two-year mandatory sentence.
- Financial repercussions, including fines and restitution, are also likely.
The FBI and FDIC-OIG are leading the investigation into this case, with support from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Airbnb and Vrbo are actively cooperating with the government in this investigation, a cooperation that the government acknowledges and values. It’s essential to note that an indictment represents only an accusation. Under the law, all defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Photo: (close up on man trying to break into a car)
In California, the legal landscape surrounding grand theft auto is uncompromising. If you find yourself accused of grand theft auto, you could potentially encounter significant legal consequences.
Grand Theft Auto Laws and Penalties in California
In California, vehicle theft can lead to charges under one of two primary statutes:
- Grand Theft Auto: Under Penal Code 487(d)(1), Grand Theft Auto charges are applied when there is an intention to permanently deprive the owner of their vehicle.
- “Joyriding”: Alternatively, under Penal Code 10851 VC, the offense of “Joyriding” or Unlawful Taking or Driving of a Vehicle is typically charged when the vehicle is taken temporarily, without the intent of permanent possession.
Understanding Grand Theft Auto in California
Grand theft auto, a specific category of grand theft, is charged when the stolen property is an automobile. This charge implies an intent to permanently or significantly deprive the vehicle’s owner of their property. Scenarios can range from using the stolen vehicle as a getaway car in another crime, to stealing a car for parts or resale, or even intending permanent theft but later abandoning the vehicle.
Key Elements for Grand Theft Auto Conviction
For a grand theft auto conviction under California law, the prosecution must establish that the defendant:
- Stole a Vehicle Belonging to Someone Else: The vehicle must be proven to be the property of another individual.
- Intended Permanent or Long-Term Deprivation: There must be an intention to deprive the owner of the vehicle either permanently or for a significant duration.
- Lacked Owner’s Permission: The vehicle’s owner did not authorize the defendant to take the vehicle.
- Moved and Retained the Vehicle: The defendant must have moved the vehicle and kept it for some time, regardless of the distance moved or the duration of retention.
Grand theft auto is not limited to larceny. It can also include:
- Embezzlement: Stealing a car entrusted to you by its owner.
- Trickery: Deceiving someone to gain possession of their car.
- False Pretenses: Acquiring a car through lies or deceit.
Penalties for Grand Theft Auto under Penal Code 487(d)(1) PC
Grand theft auto is a “wobbler” offense in California, meaning it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, based on the crime’s specifics and the defendant’s criminal history.
Felony grand theft auto carries the following penalties:
- Jail Time: From 16 months to 3 years.
- Fine: Up to $10,000.
Enhanced penalties apply for high-value vehicles:
- Additional Jail Time: 1 extra year for vehicles worth over $65,000; 2 extra years for vehicles worth over $200,000.
Joyriding, as defined under California’s Vehicle Code Section 10851, refers to the illegal act of taking or driving a vehicle without permission. This offense is considered less severe than grand theft auto. Often treated as a wobbler offense, joyriding is usually charged as a misdemeanor for first-time offenders.
If someone takes a vehicle with the intention of using it temporarily, they may be charged with joyriding rather than grand theft auto. It’s important to note that there is no specific duration for which the vehicle must be taken or driven to warrant a joyriding charge; even a very brief period can qualify.
Penalties for misdemeanor joyriding include:
- A maximum of 1 year in jail, and/or
- A fine of up to $5,000.
For felony joyriding charges, the penalties can be more severe:
- Jail time of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years, and/or
- A fine of up to $10,000.
California Vehicle-Theft Related Offenses
In California, besides grand theft auto or joyriding, you may face charges for several other vehicle-theft related offenses:
- Carjacking: Penal Code 215 defines carjacking as the felonious taking of a motor vehicle from another person by force or fear. It is a felony punishable by 3, 5, or 9 years in state prison.
- Petty Theft: If the vehicle stolen is valued at $950 or less, it falls under petty theft, as per Penal Code 490. This is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or both.
- Burglary: As per Penal Code 461, burglary involves entering a structure with the intent to commit theft or any felony. Burglary of a vehicle could be charged if you break into a garage to steal a car. Burglary in the first degree is punishable by 2, 4, or 6 years in state prison.
- Auto Burglary: This involves breaking into a vehicle with the intent to commit theft or any felony. It’s treated under the general burglary statutes but specifically targets vehicles.
Explore Your Grand Theft Auto Defense Options
Charged with grand theft auto in Los Angeles? The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi are here to protect your rights. With more than 20 years of experience in both felony and misdemeanor cases, Attorney Arash Hashemi is equipped to handle your case’s complexities. Call us at (310) 448-1529 or visit our office at Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, for a consultation. We are dedicated to building a strong defense for you.
Attorney Arash Hashemi will examine various legal strategies to help avoid a conviction or lessen your charges.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.
Photo: (arrangement at a crime scene)
The Charges Against Arkete Davis
Arkete Davis faces multiple serious charges in connection with the incident.
First, authorities have charged him with violating Penal Code Section 29800(a)(1), a law that forbids specific individuals, especially those with specific prior convictions, from owning or possessing firearms. Davis, who is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, committed a violation of this code due to his ownership of the stolen gun used in the shooting.
Furthermore, Davis is facing accusations of child endangerment under Penal Code Section 273a(a). This charge is applicable to individuals who place a child in a situation where the child’s health or safety is at risk. In this case, Davis’ failure to securely store the firearm, which allowed his son to access and use it, directly led to the endangerment and subsequent death of another child.
Furthermore, Davis is facing charges for being an accessory to a crime after the fact, as per Penal Code Section 32. This charge applies to individuals who help someone evade arrest or punishment after committing a crime. Davis’ attempt to get rid of the firearm after the shooting incident falls under this category, adding to the seriousness of his legal situation.
Legal Implications
The charges against Arkete Davis have significant legal implications. The accusation of child endangerment carries the potential for imprisonment of up to six years in a state prison. Additionally, Davis is facing charges for firearm possession by a prohibited person, which can result in imprisonment for up to three years in county jail or up to three years in state prison. Furthermore, Davis faces charges for being an accessory to a crime after the fact, which could lead to a sentence of up to three years in a state prison. Davis is being held on a $500,000 bail. Meanwhile, authorities have detained the boy at the Sacramento County Youth Detention Facility on suspicion of murder.