How the Fourth Amendment Protects You During Vehicle Searches in California

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 […]
Continue Reading

Former Law Firm Office Manager Sentenced for Embezzling Over $1.1 Million

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. […]
Continue Reading

Former Attorney for Foster Children Charged with Child Pornography Crimes in Los Angeles

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 […]
Continue Reading

Unlawful Search and Seizure in California

Unlawful Search and Seizure California’s search and seizure laws strive to harmonize law enforcement practices with the protection of individual rights, safeguarding against unlawful search and seizure without valid legal grounds. Both the Fourth Amendment and state legislation in California provide these safeguards. However, not every search and seizure is illegal. Law enforcement is permitted […]
Continue Reading

Orange County Resident Admits Guilt in Planned Parenthood Firebombing

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 […]
Continue Reading

Criminal Statute of Limitations in California

Statute of Limitations in Criminal Cases California law defines a time limit for prosecutors, both federal and state, to bring criminal charges against someone. If charges come after this time limit, courts will dismiss them. This rule protects people from the anxiety of facing charges for long-past actions. It promotes prompt legal action while upholding […]
Continue Reading

Ex-NBA Player Rashid Byrd Sentenced to 90 Years for Sexual Assaults

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 […]
Continue Reading

Underage DUI In California: Laws and Penalties

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 […]
Continue Reading

Encino Tax Prep Company Owner Admits to Filing False Tax Returns

  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 […]
Continue Reading

Third DUI Offense in California: Legal Penalties and Processes

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 […]
Continue Reading

Two L.A. County Men Face Serious Charges for Massage Parlor Robberies

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 […]
Continue Reading

Over Six Years in Prison for Drug Dealer Arrested with 15 Pounds of Fentanyl

  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 […]
Continue Reading

Son of a former member of ‘Real Housewives of Orange County’ Josh Waring Faces Assault Charges After Hospital Incident

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 […]
Continue Reading

Home Improvement’s Zachery Ty Bryan Detained on Felony DUI and Contempt Charges

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. […]
Continue Reading

Honduran Fentanyl Dealer in Tenderloin Sentenced to Six Years for Ghost Gun Possession

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) […]
Continue Reading

COVID-19 Fraud and Auto Title Theft Land Granada Hills Man 17.5-Year Sentence

  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 […]
Continue Reading

Federal Sentencing of San Bernardino Brothers for Armed Robbery and Homicide

A court has sentenced two brothers, Martrell Patrick Shaw, 20, and Rontrell Brainell Shaw, 22, to federal prison for their roles in the armed robbery and murder of a marijuana dealer in San Bernardino in July 2021. Along with their cousin Dillion Jones, the Shaw brothers meticulously planned and carried out the robbery, which tragically […]
Continue Reading
San Jose Man Accused of Masterminding Bicycle Theft for Resale in Mexico

San Jose Man Accused of Masterminding Bicycle Theft for Resale in Mexico

A federal grand jury has indicted 53-year-old Victoriano Romero from San Jose on charges involving a sophisticated scheme to steal high-end bicycles in the Bay Area and resell them in Mexico. Unveiled on January 23, 2024, the indictment outlines Romero’s alleged involvement in this international operation. The indictment accuses Romero of orchestrating nighttime burglaries to […]
Continue Reading

Stockton Man Faces Federal Charges for Cocaine Distribution and Illegal Firearm

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. […]
Continue Reading
California Penal Code 29810 PC – Relinquishment of Firearms by Convicted Persons

California Penal Code 29810 PC – Relinquishment of Firearms

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 […]
Continue Reading

Imperial County Dentist Dr. Javad Aghaloo Sentenced for Medicare Fraud

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. Fraudulent Scheme […]
Continue Reading

California Penal Code 211 PC – Robbery

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 […]
Continue Reading

Ex-LAPD officer goes on trial for killing man in Costco in Corona

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 […]
Continue Reading

Monterey Caterer Charged for Allegedly Defrauding $4M in COVID-Relief Funds

  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 […]
Continue Reading

San Fernando Valley Drug Trafficking: Cocaine, Meth, and Fentanyl Ring Busted

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 […]
Continue Reading

Former Los Angeles Councilman José Huizar Sentenced to 13 Years in Federal Prison for Racketeering Conspiracy and Tax Evasion

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 […]
Continue Reading
California Three Strike Law: Penal Code Section 667

California Three Strike Law: Penal Code Section 667

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 […]
Continue Reading

Understanding the Difference Between Restraining Orders and Protective Orders in California

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 […]
Continue Reading
Koreatown Lawyer Faces Federal Indictment for Money Laundering, Tax Evasion, and Obstruction

Koreatown Lawyer Faces Federal Indictment for Money Laundering, Tax Evasion, and Obstruction

A federal indictment accuses 67-year-old Koreatown lawyer Paulinus Iheanacho Okoronkwo of complex financial and legal misconduct. His charges relate to a $2.1 million transaction involving Nigerian and Chinese state-owned oil companies. Detailed Charges and Legal Provisions Money Laundering Charges: Incident: Okoronkwo allegedly received a $2.1 million bribe from Addax Petroleum for influencing drilling rights negotiations […]
Continue Reading
Violating a Restraining Order: California Penal Code Section 273.6 PC

Violating a Restraining Order: California Penal Code Section 273.6 PC

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 […]
Continue Reading
 The Arrest and Charges Against Bruce Edward Bell in Los Angeles Bank Robbery

The Arrest and Charges Against Bruce Edward Bell in The Sun Valley Bank Robbery

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 […]
Continue Reading
California Penal Code § 243(e)(1) PC – Domestic Battery

California Penal Code 243(e)(1) PC – Domestic Battery

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 […]
Continue Reading
San Fernando Valley Police Arrest Convicted Felon for Ghost Gun and Counterfeit Watch Sales

San Fernando Valley Police Arrest Convicted Felon for Ghost Gun and Counterfeit Watch Sales

Photo: (photograph of the handgun recovered/photograph of the seized watches) / www.lapdonline.org   The Los Angeles Police Department’s Commercial Crimes Division, specifically the Illicit Pharmaceutical and Counterfeit Unit (IPCU), recently made a significant arrest in the San Fernando Valley. Albert Bantug, a 33-year-old ex-convict, was apprehended for selling counterfeit Rolex watches. His bail was set […]
Continue Reading
Violating a Court Order | California Penal Code 166 PC

Violating a Court Order | California Penal Code 166 PC

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, […]
Continue Reading

Moreno Valley Man Confesses to $24 Million Ponzi Scheme

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 […]
Continue Reading

California Penal Code Section 240 PC – Assault

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 […]
Continue Reading
Second Aryan Brotherhood Prison Gang Member Pleads Guilty to Murder in Aid of Racketeering

Second Aryan Brotherhood Prison Gang Member Pleads Guilty to Murder in Aid of Racketeering

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 […]
Continue Reading

California Penal Code Section 186.22 PC: Gang Enhancements

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 […]
Continue Reading
California Man Pleads Guilty to Major IRS Fraud: Nearly $900,000 in Unlawful Tax Refunds

California Man Pleads Guilty to Major IRS Fraud: Nearly $900,000 in Unlawful Tax Refunds

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. […]
Continue Reading

Two Charged in Extensive $8.5 Million Airbnb and Vrbo Fraud Scheme

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 […]
Continue Reading

Grand Theft Auto | California Penal Code 487(d)(1) PC

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 […]
Continue Reading

Father Arrested in California After Son Fatally Shoots 10-Year-Old with Stolen Gun

Photo: (arrangement at a crime scene)   Law enforcement in Sacramento County apprehended a 53-year-old man named Arkete Davis and his 10-year-old son following a tragic shooting incident. The boy, whose identity remains undisclosed, fatally shot another 10-year-old with a stolen gun he discovered in his father’s car. This incident took place in Foothill Farms, […]
Continue Reading

Los Angeles Tobacco Distributor Sentenced in $3 Million Tax Evasion Scheme

Attorney General Bonta has announced a legal victory in the case of Sadiq Mohammed, a Los Angeles tobacco distributor convicted of running a $3 million tax evasion scheme against the State of California. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) successfully secured a 32-month prison sentence for Mohammed, who had pled guilty to these charges. The […]
Continue Reading

Understanding Plea Bargains in California’s Criminal Justice System

Navigating the criminal justice system in California, particularly for first-time defendants, can be daunting. A key component of this system is the plea bargain, a tool used in the vast majority of criminal cases. This article provides a clear, professional insight into the role of plea bargains in California, offering valuable information for anyone involved […]
Continue Reading
Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in California

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in California

Drug-Impaired Driving in California In California, the law defines drug-impaired driving as operating a vehicle while under the influence of any substance, excluding alcohol, that significantly impairs your muscles, brain, or nervous system. This definition includes a wide range of substances, from illegal drugs like methamphetamine and heroin to legal medications such as marijuana, over-the-counter […]
Continue Reading

Former NFL Player Derrick Ward Arrested in Los Angeles on Suspicion of Robbery

Derrick Ward, a former NFL player with the New York Giants, found himself in police custody in Los Angeles on suspicion of robbery. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office officially confirmed Ward’s arrest, which took place on Monday evening. However, authorities had not yet formally presented the case to prosecutors for their consideration of […]
Continue Reading

Lancaster Road Rage Shooting: Man Faces Murder Charges for 4-Year-Old Boy’s Death

In Lancaster, a road rage incident has taken a tragic turn, leading to serious legal charges against Byron Burkhart. This case, progressing through the California legal system, highlights the severe consequences of such violent actions. Byron Burkhart, accompanied by his girlfriend, reportedly instigated a road rage incident on Sierra Highway. This situation escalated when Burkhart […]
Continue Reading

Arrest Made in Series of Residential Burglaries in Granada Hills and Porter Ranch

Photo Credit: (Bolton’s Photograph) Via: www.lapdonline.org Case Overview and Key Details: The arrest of 21-year-old Bobby Bolton marked a significant development in addressing a series of residential burglaries in Granada Hills and Porter Ranch, California. Devonshire detectives, after a thorough investigation, successfully linked Bolton to these crimes. This breakthrough was largely due to the diligent […]
Continue Reading

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:

  1. Visible illegal items or activities within the vehicle.
  2. Detection of illegal substances’ odor from the car.
  3. Credible tips about the vehicle’s involvement in illegal acts.
  4. The driver’s apparent nervousness or conflicting statements.
  5. 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.

Consent and Legal Grounds for Searches: Fourth Amendment in California

In California, police may ask for consent to search your vehicle during a stop, reflecting the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for reasonable searches. You can refuse, highlighting your protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Evidence from consented searches is court-admissible, emphasizing the importance of knowing your consent rights under the Fourth Amendment.

The concept of “curtilage” extends Fourth Amendment protections to the area around your home, affecting the legality of vehicle searches in driveways. Searches here and of homes generally need a warrant, with exceptions like consent and exigent circumstances, underscoring the amendment’s influence on California search laws.

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 Violations in Vehicle Searches

A vehicle search violates the Fourth Amendment if done without probable cause, a warrant, or driver consent, lacking legal exceptions. This ensures searches are reasonable and respect privacy.

Violations include:

  1. Lack of Probable Cause: No reasonable belief a crime is occurring.
  2. No Valid Warrant: Searching without a required warrant.
  3. Absence of Consent: Searching without the driver’s permission.
  4. Exceeding Scope: Searching beyond consent or warrant limits.

These principles highlight the Fourth Amendment’s role in protecting against unjustified vehicle searches in California.

Defenses to an Illegal Vehicle Search

If a vehicle search violates the Fourth Amendment, several defenses can challenge the legality of the search and the use of obtained evidence:

  1. Motion to Suppress: Argue to exclude evidence obtained from the illegal search, as it violates the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Lack of Probable Cause: Demonstrate that law enforcement lacked a reasonable basis for the search.
  3. Invalid Consent: Show consent was not freely given, was coerced, or law enforcement exceeded the consent’s scope.
  4. Warrant Issues: Challenge the search’s validity due to issues with the warrant’s issuance or its scope.

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.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

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.

 

How Would You Like Us To Contact You? (required)

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

  1. Distribution of Child Pornography: Prosecutors claim that Aghoian knowingly distributed sexually explicit videos featuring minors during late 2020 and early 2021.
  2. 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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Potential Defenses

Zuniga Sanchez’s defense team might claim that he did not genuinely intend the threats, challenging how the prosecution interprets the emails and social media posts. They could also question if Zuniga Sanchez ever planned to act on these threats, raising doubts about his motivations. Additionally, they might dispute whether Zuniga Sanchez was actually the sender of these threats, trying to create uncertainty about their origin. Despite the case’s complexities, these defense strategies could be pivotal in the legal process.

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You? (required)

Unlawful Search and Seizure

California’s search and seizure laws strive to harmonize law enforcement practices with the protection of individual rights, safeguarding against unlawful search and seizure without valid legal grounds.

Both the Fourth Amendment and state legislation in California provide these safeguards. However, not every search and seizure is illegal. Law enforcement is permitted to perform searches under two primary circumstances:

  1. With a Valid Search Warrant: This is when officers have received authorization from a court to carry out a search.
  2. Under Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: This covers scenarios in which probable cause is established, along with other exceptions recognized by both federal and state law.

Should law enforcement execute a search and subsequently use the gathered materials as evidence against an individual, a legal recourse exists. The exclusionary rule empowers courts to dismiss evidence acquired through unlawful searches from being presented at trial, thereby serving as a countermeasure to charges derived from such searches.

Understanding Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The search and seizure laws in California protect individuals in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This expectation is not about the person but the location or situation. According to both California law and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, areas where privacy is reasonably expected include:

  • Your Home: The privacy of one’s home is a fundamental expectation.
  • Electronic Devices: This includes computers, phones, and tablets.
  • Personal Property: Items that are personally owned and used.
  • Hotel Rooms: Privacy expectations extend to temporary accommodations.

Search Warrants

Search warrants empower police officers to search a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to seize any evidence discovered. A magistrate or judge, whether at the state or federal level, can issue these warrants.

The Fourth Amendment mandates that search warrants require probable cause, serving as a safeguard against unreasonable searches. Thus, searches conducted with a properly obtained warrant are considered reasonable under the law.

In California, the Penal Code outlines specific conditions under which a judge may issue a search warrant:

  • Evidence of a Felony: If the item sought may prove that a person has committed a felony.
  • Stolen Property: When the property in question is believed to be stolen.
  • Intent to Use in a Crime: If the object is in possession of someone intending to use it for a criminal act.

For a warrant to be valid, it must not only establish probable cause but also clearly specify the location to be searched and the items sought

The Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

Despite the Fourth Amendment, not all searches require a warrant. While specifics can vary, common exceptions include:

  • Voluntary Consent: A search based on someone’s freely given permission.
  • Incident to Arrest: Searches for officer safety or to prevent evidence destruction post-arrest.
  • International Borders: Searches conducted at borders are exempt from warrant requirements.
  • Automobile Exception: If police have reason to believe a vehicle contains evidence of a crime.
  • Plain View: Items in plain sight can be seized during a lawful search.
  • Emergencies: Situations requiring immediate action for safety or to prevent evidence loss.
  • Terry Stop: A pat-down of outer clothing for weapons based on reasonable suspicion.
  • No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: Searches in areas where privacy isn’t expected.

Unlawful Searches: When They Occur

Unlawful searches happen when law enforcement conducts a search without adhering to the legal requirements set by the Fourth Amendment and California law. This includes searching without a warrant, consent, or falling within established exceptions. If officers search someone without probable cause or exceed the scope of a legal search, it constitutes an unlawful search. Victims of such searches have rights, including the possibility to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained during the search in court.

How to Challenge Unlawful Searches and Seizures

Challenge Unlawful Searches or Seizures with These Legal Steps:

  1. File a Motion to Suppress Evidence: Argue in court that evidence from an unlawful search violates the Fourth Amendment or California laws and should be excluded from trial.
  2. Prove Insufficient Probable Cause: Demonstrate that law enforcement lacked the necessary reasonable belief of criminal activity, invalidating the search.
  3. Dispute the Validity of Consent: Argue that any consent given for the search was not voluntary or informed, making the search unlawful.
  4. Point Out Exceptions Misapplication: If law enforcement claimed an exception to needing a warrant, show that the specific conditions for the exception did not apply.
  5. Contact a Criminal Defense Attorney: Consult an experienced defense attorney to identify the strongest approach for challenging the search or seizure based on your case details.

Contact An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Today

Various situations allow police to search and seize your belongings without a warrant or probable cause. If you suspect an unlawful search and seizure occurred, immediate action is crucial. Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi to speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney with over 20+ years of experience.

Document every detail of the incident before consulting with our attorney. Understanding the sequence of events is vital for assessing potential rights violations. Facing criminal charges, whether a misdemeanor or felony, carries significant consequences. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, Attorney Arash Hashemi  evaluates your case to identify any infringements on your constitutional rights and strategize the most effective defense. Contact us now at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation online.

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.

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You? (required)

Statute of Limitations in Criminal Cases

California law defines a time limit for prosecutors, both federal and state, to bring criminal charges against someone. If charges come after this time limit, courts will dismiss them. This rule protects people from the anxiety of facing charges for long-past actions. It promotes prompt legal action while upholding the rights of the accused, ensuring justice is both fair and timely.

Purpose of the Statute of Limitations in Criminal Cases

The statute of limitations for criminal cases exists to ensure fairness in the legal process. It prevents the prosecution of cases where evidence may have deteriorated over time, thereby protecting individuals from being charged with crimes when witnesses’ memories may fade, or physical evidence may no longer be available. This legal principle supports the pursuit of justice while safeguarding the rights of both defendants and the integrity of the judicial system.

The statute of limitations serves as a deadline for filing lawsuits, varying by case type. For instance, breach of contract suits and car crash claims have different time limits. In criminal law, this principle also applies, with minor crimes often subject to shorter statutes of limitations compared to major crimes, some of which may not have any time limit.

Justifications for Statutes of Limitations

The primary reason for statutes of limitations is to prevent the unfairness a delayed trial might cause the defendant. In criminal law, delays can be particularly harmful. Over time, crucial evidence that could exonerate the defendant, such as receipts, photos, or phone records, may be lost. Despite the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of such evidence can significantly impact the defense.

Civil vs. Criminal Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations differs significantly between civil and criminal cases. In civil law, the statute of limitations restricts the time frame within which a plaintiff can file a lawsuit for damages or breaches of contract. These time limits vary based on the type of civil claim.

In contrast, criminal statutes of limitations set deadlines for the government to file charges against someone accused of a crime. The length of these limitations can vary greatly, depending on the severity of the offense, with more serious crimes often having longer statutes or no limitation at all.

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.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

 

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.

UNDERAGE DUI PENALTIES IN CALIFORNIA

An underage DUI conviction in Los Angeles carries significant repercussions that can impact a young person’s future. Specifically, those under 18 or with a learner’s permit may experience delays in obtaining their driver’s license. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) enforces the penalties for underage DUI, requiring those charged to request a DMV hearing within 10 days of arrest to contest license suspension.

Penalties for underage DUI conviction may include:

  • Vehicle confiscation.
  • License suspension for up to one year.
  • Fines amounting to thousands of dollars.
  • Mandatory attendance in drug/alcohol abuse and driving safety courses.

Additionally, individuals under 21 who undergo a chemical test and register a BAC of 0.01 percent or higher face a one-year driver’s license suspension, or a one-year delay in obtaining driving privileges if they do not yet possess a California driver’s license.

Legal Defenses Against Underage DUI Charges

Facing underage DUI charges in California doesn’t mean conviction is inevitable. Several legal defenses can be employed, including:

  • Inaccurate BAC Testing: Challenges to the accuracy of Breathalyzer or blood tests can question the validity of the DUI charge.
  • Unlawful Traffic Stop: If the initial traffic stop lacked legal justification, evidence obtained during the stop can be deemed inadmissible.
  • Improper Procedure: Highlighting errors in the DUI testing process or handling of evidence may undermine the prosecution’s case.

These defenses emphasize the importance of a skilled DUI defense attorney in navigating underage DUI charges and protecting the future of the accused.

Future Impact of Underage DUI Convictions

An underage DUI conviction in California affects more than just the present. It can:

  • Limit college admission and scholarship opportunities.
  • Reduce employment prospects, especially in roles requiring driving.
  • Increase car insurance premiums or lead to denial of coverage.

Rehabilitation Programs for Underage DUI Offenders

California offers rehabilitation programs for underage DUI offenders aimed at education and prevention of future offenses. These programs typically include:

  • Alcohol and Drug Education: Courses designed to inform offenders about the effects of substance abuse.
  • Counseling Services: Individual or group counseling to address underlying issues related to substance use.
  • Community Service: Opportunities to give back to the community while learning the consequences of DUI.

Charged With an Underage DUI? Contact An Experienced Defense Attorney Today

Navigating the legal challenges that come with an underage DUI arrest can be overwhelming, especially for first-time offenders or those who have faced charges before. Recognizing the increased severity courts may apply to subsequent offenses, it’s crucial to have expert legal representation. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we offer a team of dedicated attorneys prepared to delve into your case. With a deep understanding of criminal law and a proven track record of negotiating favorable outcomes before trial, we’re equipped to handle the complexities of your situation. If you’re dealing with underage DUI charges in the Los Angeles area, don’t hesitate to reach out for the support you need. Contact Attorney Arash Hashemi today at (310) 448-1529
How Would You Like Us To Contact You? (required)

 

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

 

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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

  1. Self-Defense: Claims he acted to protect himself from the guard’s immediate threat.
  2. Mistaken Identity: Argues he was wrongly accused due to confusion at the scene.
  3. Lack of Intent: Suggests the contact was accidental, not violent.
  4. 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.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. Challenge Traffic Stop: Argue the stop lacked legal basis, potentially invalidating evidence.
  2. Question Sobriety Tests: Dispute the accuracy or administration of tests.
  3. Dispute Impairment Signs: Suggest non-alcohol factors caused the observed impairment.
  4. Contest Felony Basis: Challenge the use of past DUIs to elevate charges.
  5. Mitigating Circumstances: Present efforts towards rehabilitation as a factor for leniency.
  6. Plea Negotiations: Explore reducing charges in exchange for rehab or other conditions.

Bryan secured his release on bail the same day of his arrest. His court appearance is slated for April 23 at the Indio Larson Justice Center.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

 

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

A court has sentenced two brothers, Martrell Patrick Shaw, 20, and Rontrell Brainell Shaw, 22, to federal prison for their roles in the armed robbery and murder of a marijuana dealer in San Bernardino in July 2021. Along with their cousin Dillion Jones, the Shaw brothers meticulously planned and carried out the robbery, which tragically ended in the dealer’s death from gunshot wounds. The Justice Department successfully prosecuted the case in Riverside, California.

Crafting a scheme to mask their robbery attempt as a mere purchase, the Shaw brothers and their cousin initiated a confrontation that fatally wounded the dealer. This robbery not only claimed the life of the dealer but also involved the theft of marijuana and the victim’s firearm, further highlighting the devastating consequences of their actions.

Charges and Convictions

Interference with Commerce by Robbery (Hobbs Act Robbery) – Martrell Shaw through his direct involvement in the armed robbery, violated the Hobbs Act, specifically under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. By orchestrating and carrying out the robbery of a marijuana dealer, he disrupted a commercial operation that, regardless of its legal status, affects interstate commerce due to the marijuana market’s extensive distribution network. His plea of guilty to this charge confirms his role in this disruption.

Discharging a Firearm During a Crime of Violence Resulting in Death – Martrell Shaw faced this charge for firing a weapon during the robbery, an action that tragically ended the victim’s life. The discharge of the firearm, which hit the victim, elevated the robbery to a violent crime with fatal consequences. This act aligns with federal laws that impose severe penalties for using a firearm in a violent crime, especially when it results in death.

Hobbs Act Robbery – The court also convicted Rontrell Shaw under the Hobbs Act for his participation in the robbery as the getaway driver. His role, although not involving direct engagement in the robbery or shooting, was crucial to the crime’s execution. Driving the escape vehicle, Rontrell Shaw enabled the completion of the robbery, implicating him in the broader scheme that interfered with interstate commerce.

Details of the Sentencing

United States District Judge Jesus G. Bernal sentenced Martrell Shaw to 20 years in federal prison for his direct involvement in the robbery and fatal shooting. Rontrell Shaw received a 14-year sentence for his role as the getaway driver. Both brothers were also ordered to pay $14,342 in restitution for the victim’s funeral expenses. Dillion Jones’s sentencing is scheduled for April 1, where he will face a statutory maximum sentence of life in federal prison, reflecting the gravity of his actions.
How Would You Like Us To Contact You? (required)

A federal grand jury has indicted 53-year-old Victoriano Romero from San Jose on charges involving a sophisticated scheme to steal high-end bicycles in the Bay Area and resell them in Mexico. Unveiled on January 23, 2024, the indictment outlines Romero’s alleged involvement in this international operation.

The indictment accuses Romero of orchestrating nighttime burglaries to steal bicycles from San Francisco and Redwood City homes. He reportedly turned his San Jose automotive shop into a center for disassembling, packaging, and shipping the stolen bikes to Jalisco, Mexico. These bikes, including high-end brands like Serotta Titanium and Cervelo C3 Carbon, had values ranging from $3,000 to $9,000 each.

Digital and Physical Evidence

Reportedly, Romero took photographs of the stolen bicycles and a co-conspirator used them for online advertisements in Mexico. This unindicted co-conspirator also reassembled the bicycles for sale and maintained a ledger of the profits.

Charges and Legal Implications

Romero is charged with conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314) and two counts of transporting stolen goods (18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2). Conspiracy may result in five years’ imprisonment; each transportation charge, ten years.

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

Romero made his first federal court appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, who released him on bond. He is scheduled to appear next on April 10, 2024, before United States District Judge P. Casey Pitts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Lagrama is prosecuting the case, which resulted from investigations by the FBI and the San Francisco Police Department.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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:

  1. Court Directive: Upon conviction, the court must inform the defendant of their firearm ownership ban and order the surrender of any firearms.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:

  1. The court informs the defendant that they can no longer legally possess firearms, ammunition, or magazines.
  2. The defendant receives an order to give up any such items in their possession.
  3. 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:

  1. Failing to submit the required paperwork within the specified timeframe results in an infraction. This carries a maximum fine of $100.
  2. 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.

Legal Defenses Against Violating Firearm Relinquishment

  1. No Conviction: If there’s no criminal conviction, the requirement to surrender firearms doesn’t apply. Dropped charges or acquittal negate the relinquishment obligation.
  2. Unclear Court Instructions: A defense can be based on the court’s failure to provide clear instructions about the relinquishment process.
  3. Good Cause for Delay: Legitimate reasons like illness or hospitalization can excuse delayed compliance with the relinquishment order.
  4. Mistake of Fact: This applies if the defendant genuinely believed they had no firearms to relinquish, due to reasons like previous sale, loss, or theft of the firearms.

Handling Firearm Relinquishment Cases

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we tackle cases involving firearm relinquishment for convicted individuals. Our strategy is direct: we assess your conviction details, ensure you received clear instructions from the court, and confirm your compliance with the relinquishment process. We also explore defenses like no valid conviction, unclear instructions, legitimate reasons for delay, and mistaken firearm ownership. Recognizing the seriousness of these charges, we provide prompt and decisive legal representation. If you’re facing issues related to firearm relinquishment, contact us for expert legal support. Reach out to 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 about your case.

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 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.

Fraudulent Scheme and Sentencing

Aghaloo and Rosas, along with other accomplices, conspired to commit health care fraud by billing Medicare for procedures that were either not performed, not necessary, or not covered. Aghaloo admitted his guilt on October 2, 2023, to conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Rosas pleaded guilty on October 13, 2023, to obstructing a federal audit.

U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath condemned the exploitation of patients for profit. U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta ordered Aghaloo to forfeit property worth over $1 million and pay $8,476,466.23 in restitution to Medicare.

Recruitment and False Claims

Court records showed Aghaloo’s team recruiting Medicare beneficiaries for dental services at his Imperial County offices. They falsely advertised these services as Medicare-covered, despite knowing otherwise. At Aghaloo’s offices, they conducted procedures like tooth extractions and falsely billed Medicare for non-existent services, including bone grafts.

From March 2016 to October 2018, Aghaloo’s offices filed over 7,000 false Medicare claims, amounting to over $18 million. They fraudulently received $8,476,466.23 from these claims.

Cover-Up and Obstruction

Rosas and Theresa Flores, Aghaloo’s office manager, concealed their fraudulent activities by submitting false documents to Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, a Medicare auditor, from April 2017 to October 2018. Flores, who has pleaded guilty to obstructing an audit, is scheduled for sentencing on March 8, 2024.

Charges and Legal Implications

The charges against Aghaloo and Rosas were severe:

  • Aghaloo: Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud, violating 18 U.S.C. § 371. Maximum penalty: five years in prison, $250,000 fine.
  • Rosas: Obstructing a Federal Audit, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1516. Maximum penalty: five years in prison, $250,000 fine.

Investigating Agencies

The investigation was led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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:

  1. Taking property directly from the person or in their immediate presence.
  2. 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.

Key Elements of Robbery Under California Penal Code 211

To secure a conviction for robbery as defined in PC 211, the prosecution must establish these elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

  1. The defendant took property that did not belong to them.
  2. The property was taken from another person or in their immediate vicinity.
  3. The act was against the will of the property owner.
  4. Force or fear was used to execute the property taking.
  5. The defendant had the intent to either permanently deprive the owner of the property or significantly diminish its value or the owner’s enjoyment of it.

What Is The Difference Between First and Second Degree Robbery

In California, the difference between first and second-degree robbery lies in the severity of the crime, particularly regarding the use of force or violence and specific circumstances.

First-degree robbery involves using a deadly weapon, such as firearms or knives, during the crime. It’s further elevated if committed in particular situations like inhabited dwellings, against commercial vehicle drivers, or targeting ATM users. The intent here is typically to steal with the aid of a deadly weapon or force. Conviction for first-degree robbery, a felony, leads to more severe penalties, including longer prison sentences.

Second-degree robbery, while also a felony, does not involve the use of deadly weapons or the specific aggravating factors present in first-degree robbery. The intent in second-degree robbery may be to steal, but it excludes the use of deadly weapons or specific aggravating circumstances. Penalties for second-degree robbery are generally less severe than those for first-degree robbery.

Penalties for Robbery Convictions under PC 211

A first-degree robbery conviction in California typically results in a state prison sentence ranging from three to nine years, with possible enhanced penalties for weapon use. This felony also qualifies as a “strike” under the Three Strikes law.

For second-degree robbery, the legal consequences can include a prison term of two to five years, a maximum fine of $10,000, formal felony probation, and mandatory victim restitution.

Defending Against Robbery Charges in Los Angeles

In Los Angeles, effectively contesting robbery charges depends on a detailed review of each case’s unique circumstances and evidence. Our experienced criminal defense attorney employs various strategies to create reasonable doubt:

  1. Challenge the Use of Force or Fear: We may argue that the defendant did not use force or fear, or the force used did not meet the legal threshold for a robbery offense.
  2. Mistaken Identity Defense: It’s common for robbery victims to misremember details in high-stress situations. We scrutinize police procedures for potential identification errors, which can be crucial in these cases.
  3. Questioning Intent: For a robbery conviction, the prosecution must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. We explore scenarios where the defendant might not have intended to permanently deprive the victim of their property, possibly due to a belief in their right to the property.

Los Angeles Criminal Attorney Defending Against Robbery Charges

Facing robbery charges under Penal Code 211 requires a focused legal defense, and at the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we bring expertise specifically tailored to these challenging cases. Our approach is to dissect the unique aspects of your robbery charge, from examining the alleged use of force or fear to scrutinizing identification procedures and intent. We understand the complexities of robbery cases, including the nuances of first and second-degree charges and the implications under California’s Three Strikes law. With a commitment to aggressive and knowledgeable defense, we aim to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome. If you’re confronting a robbery charge, immediate and specialized legal support is crucial. 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 discuss your defense strategy.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You? (required)

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

Authorities arrested Giselle Buraye, Efren Meraz, Jr., Max Roman-Betancourt, and Esteban Armas, who are now scheduled for arraignment in United States District Court in downtown Los Angeles. Oscar Alejandro Melendez and Robert Carlton Lavilette will face arraignment in the coming days, while Sarkis Kyurkchian is still at large as a fugitive.

Charges and Seizures

All seven defendants face charges of conspiring to distribute and possess controlled substances with intent to distribute, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846. Buraye faces additional charges related to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine and fentanyl. In the investigation, law enforcement seized 19 kilograms of methamphetamine, 58 kilograms of cocaine, and 3 kilograms of fentanyl powder. They also confiscated over $150,000 in U.S. currency. Additionally, officers found more than 14 firearms, extra narcotics, and substantial cash during searches at five San Fernando Valley locations.

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.

An indictment alleges a defendant’s criminal activity, but each defendant remains presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. Conviction on all charges could lead to a life sentence in federal prison, with a mandatory minimum of 10 years.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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.

Racketeering Conspiracy

Huizar led the “CD-14 Enterprise,” a criminal conspiracy with a pay-to-play scheme, leading to his RICO Act conviction. The enterprise solicited and received nearly $2 million in bribes from real estate developers, including cash, casino chips, prostitution services, political contributions, flights, luxury stays, meals, concert and sporting event tickets, and more.

Key instances of bribery were:

  • Huizar requested $500,000 in cash from developer David Lee to resolve an appeal against Lee’s project.
  • He accepted over $1 million in benefits from billionaire Wei Huang, in exchange for favoring Huang’s hotel project.

Tax Evasion

The tax evasion charge against Huizar stemmed from his failure to report these illicit gains to the IRS. His evasion tactics included laundering cash through his mother and brother and omitting his financial benefits on his tax returns. Additionally, to maintain his political seat amid a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2013, Huizar used $600,000 in the form of collateral from Huang, routed through a foreign shell company, to confidentially settle the lawsuit.

Sentencing Details

United States District Judge John F. Walter sentenced Huizar to 13 years in federal prison. In addition, he ordered Huizar to pay $443,905 in restitution to the City of Los Angeles and $38,792 to the IRS. Emphasizing the destructive impact of public corruption on democracy and public trust, Judge Walter highlighted the gravity of Huizar’s actions.

Huizar’s case also involved admissions of obstructing justice, including tampering with witnesses and lying to federal prosecutors and agents.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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.

The Three Strikes Law Statute

Understanding California’s Three Strikes Law requires familiarity with specific terms and categories.

  • Without Strike Enhancement: This category applies to individuals who do not receive strike enhancements for their sentence. They may, however, have other case or offense enhancements.
  • Doubled-Sentence Enhancement: This applies to individuals with prior strikes. They receive a doubled sentence for any new felony conviction. This is often referred to as a “second strike.”
  • Third-Strike Enhancement: This is for individuals with two prior strikes. They face a minimum of 25 years to life for a new serious or violent felony conviction.

A “strike” in the context of California’s Three Strikes Law refers to a conviction classified either as a violent felony, outlined in Penal Code 667.5 PC, or as a serious felony, detailed in Penal Code 1192.7 PC.

Sentence and Penalties for First Strike Offenders

  1. Initial Conviction Implications: The first strike, say for a serious offense like aggravated assault, does not trigger enhanced sentencing under the Three Strikes Law. The offender receives the standard penalty for that specific crime.
  2. Consequences of a Subsequent Felony: If the same individual is later convicted of a different felony, such as burglary, the Three Strikes Law activates. This results in enhanced penalties for the new felony conviction.
  3. Doubling of Sentence: After a first strike, the law dictates that any new felony conviction will have its sentence doubled. This is often referred to as the “second strike” scenario.

Sentence and Penalties for Second Strike Offenders

The second strike in California’s Three Strikes Law significantly escalates the consequences for repeat felony offenders. Here’s an overview of what a second strike entails:

  1. Activation of Enhanced Sentencing: When an individual with one prior serious or violent felony (the first strike) is convicted of any new felony, the law triggers enhanced sentencing. This is irrespective of whether the new felony is serious or violent.
  2. Doubling of the Sentence: The key feature of a second strike is the doubling of the sentence for the new felony conviction. For example, if the standard sentence for a new felony is five years, under a second strike, it becomes ten years.
  3. Cumulative Impact: The second strike underscores the cumulative nature of the Three Strikes Law. It serves as a significant deterrent, aiming to prevent repeat offenses by imposing harsher penalties.
  4. Broad Application: The second strike rule applies to any new felony conviction, not just serious or violent ones. This broad application reflects the law’s intent to reduce recidivism among individuals with prior serious or violent felony convictions.

Sentence and Penalties for Third Strike Offenders

The third strike in California’s Three Strikes Law represents the most severe level of sentencing under this statute. Here’s what it involves:

  1. Severe Sentencing for the Third Strike: When an individual with two prior serious or violent felony convictions (two strikes) is convicted of a new serious or violent felony, they face an indeterminate life sentence.
  2. Minimum Sentence of 25 Years: The law mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for third strike offenders. This means the individual must serve at least 25 years before becoming eligible for parole.
  3. Impact on Parole Eligibility: The decision for parole in third strike cases is not automatic and involves a thorough review by the Parole Board, considering the offender’s behavior and rehabilitation while incarcerated.

Removing/Appealing a Strike under California’s Three Strikes Law

In California, there are legal avenues to challenge or appeal a strike on a criminal record under the Three Strikes Law. Here’s an overview of these processes:

  1. Romero Motion: A defendant can file a Romero motion, named after a landmark California Supreme Court case. This motion requests the court to dismiss a prior strike conviction for sentencing purposes. The decision to grant a Romero motion is at the judge’s discretion and typically considers factors like the nature of the previous strikes, the current offense, and the defendant’s overall criminal history and rehabilitation efforts.
  2. Appeal Process: If a defendant believes there was a legal error in their case, such as improper application of the Three Strikes Law, they can file an appeal. This process involves a higher court reviewing the original trial’s proceedings to determine if there were errors that significantly affected the outcome.
  3. Resentencing Under Proposition 36: Passed in 2012, Proposition 36 allows some third-strike offenders serving life sentences for non-serious, non-violent felonies to petition the court for a reduced sentence. Eligibility depends on the nature of the current and past offenses and requires that the offender does not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.
  4. Habeas Corpus Petitions: In some cases, defendants may file a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of their imprisonment. This can be based on new evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, or other constitutional violations.

 

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?

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

The key difference between protective orders and restraining orders lies in their issuance in either criminal or civil courts. This distinction is crucial for understanding how each order functions and the specific circumstances under which they are applied.

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:

  1. A judge legally issued the protective order.
  2. The defendant was aware of the order.
  3. 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

In California, courts issue both protective and restraining orders with specific expiration dates, and it’s crucial for all involved parties to understand these timelines.

Protective Orders: Typically issued in criminal cases, these orders often last as long as the criminal case is active. However, the duration can vary based on the case specifics and judicial discretion. Some protective orders may extend beyond the conclusion of the criminal case, especially in situations involving domestic violence or ongoing threats.

Restraining Orders: Restraining orders in civil cases vary in duration, depending on the order type and case circumstances. Temporary restraining orders (TROs) typically last a few weeks, often until a court hearing for a more permanent order. Meanwhile, permanent restraining orders can extend for several years.

 

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

A federal indictment accuses 67-year-old Koreatown lawyer Paulinus Iheanacho Okoronkwo of complex financial and legal misconduct. His charges relate to a $2.1 million transaction involving Nigerian and Chinese state-owned oil companies.

Detailed Charges and Legal Provisions

  1. Money Laundering Charges:
    • Incident: Okoronkwo allegedly received a $2.1 million bribe from Addax Petroleum for influencing drilling rights negotiations in Nigeria.
    • Charges: He is charged with three counts of engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, violating Title 18 United States Code Section 1957. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison.
  2. Tax Evasion:
    • Incident: The indictment accuses Okoronkwo of excluding the bribe payment from his 2015 federal income tax return.
    • Charge: This results in a charge of tax evasion under Title 26 United States Code Section 7201, which could lead to a maximum of five years in federal prison.
  3. Obstruction of Justice:
    • Incident: Allegedly, Okoronkwo provided false statements to investigators in 2022.
    • Charge: This has led to an obstruction of justice charge under Title 18 United States Code Section 1503, with a potential maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison.

Context of the Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme

In 2015, while an NNPC officer, Okoronkwo received a payment from Addax Petroleum, disguised as consulting fees. Investigators allege this was a bribe for securing drilling rights. In 2017, Okoronkwo used used $983,200 of the illegally obtained funds to buy a Valencia property, indicating money laundering involvement.

If found guilty on all counts, Okoronkwo could receive up to 10 years in federal prison for each money laundering and obstruction of justice charge, and 5 years for tax evasion.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You? (required)

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:

  1. Lawful Issuance of a Protective Order: The court must have issued a protective order in accordance with legal procedures.
  2. 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.
  3. Ability to Comply with the Order: You must have been capable of complying with the terms set out in the court order.
  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You? (required)

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

  1. 209(A) PC – Kidnapping: Bell’s action of forcing an employee to move under the threat of violence constitutes kidnapping as per California Penal Code 209(A). This statute is particularly severe when associated with another felony, like robbery, potentially leading to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.
  2. 211 PC – Robbery: Bell’s demand for money under threat brings into play Penal Code 211, governing robberies in California. The use of a firearm in this context could lead to enhanced sentencing due to California’s stringent gun laws.

Prior Convictions and Three Strikes Law

California’s Three Strikes Law mandates significantly harsher sentences for individuals who have been convicted of three or more serious or violent felonies. In Bell’s case, with four prior bank robbery convictions, this law could result in an escalated sentence, potentially leading to life imprisonment due to his repeat offender status.

Consequences and Sentencing Possibilities

Given the severity of the charges, especially under California’s stringent laws on kidnapping and robbery, Bell faces the possibility of life imprisonment. The involvement of a firearm and his past convictions further complicate his case, potentially leading to a harsher sentence.

How Would You Like us To Contact You?

 

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.

Penalties for Domestic Battery Conviction

Domestic battery under California Penal Code Section 243(e)(1) PC is classified as a misdemeanor. The penalties for a conviction can include:

  • Up to one year in a Los Angeles County jail.
  • Court fines, which can be substantial.
  • Mandatory completion of community service and/or community labor.
  • Enrollment in domestic violence classes, including anger management programs.
  • Issuance of protective or stay-away orders.

In addition to these direct penalties, a domestic battery conviction may have broader implications, potentially affecting employment opportunities, particularly in fields involving the care of children or the sick. Convicted individuals also lose the right to own or acquire firearms.

For more severe cases, such as aggravated domestic battery or intentional infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (California Penal Code Section 273.5 PC), the penalties are more stringent. These can include:

  • Up to four years in state prison.
  • Probation, which may require the defendant to cover the victim’s expenses related to the offense, such as counseling costs.

A domestic battery conviction significantly impacts non-citizens’ immigration status, as federal immigration laws categorize it as a deportable crime.

Defenses Against Domestic Battery Charges

When charged with domestic battery, several defense strategies can be effective:

  1. False Accusation: Especially in cases where allegations might stem from personal disputes or misunderstandings, it is crucial to challenge the credibility of the accusation.
  2. Self-Defense: Arguing that the actions were necessary and reasonable to protect oneself or another person from immediate harm.
  3. Accidental Contact: Demonstrating that any physical contact was unintentional and not meant to cause harm or offense.
  4. Insufficient Evidence: Underlining the lack of substantial evidence to support the charges, which is crucial as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Defending Against Domestic Battery Charges in Los Angeles

California law recognizes the right to self-defense in situations where there is a reasonable belief of imminent physical harm. This defense can be crucial in cases where someone is charged with domestic battery under Penal Code Section 243(e)(1). Additionally, domestic battery charges can sometimes stem from false accusations, where the alleged victim may have motivations other than the truth.

If you are facing domestic battery charges, it’s essential to have an experienced defense attorney who can navigate these complex issues. At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we understand the serious implications of these charges and are dedicated to exploring every legal avenue to protect your rights. For expert legal counsel and a robust defense strategy, contact Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Arash Hashemi. Our office is located at Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064. Reach us at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation today. Your rights and future are our primary concern, and we are committed to providing the support and representation you need during this challenging time.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You ? (required)

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: (photograph of the handgun recovered/photograph of the seized watches) / www.lapdonline.org

 

The Los Angeles Police Department’s Commercial Crimes Division, specifically the Illicit Pharmaceutical and Counterfeit Unit (IPCU), recently made a significant arrest in the San Fernando Valley. Albert Bantug, a 33-year-old ex-convict, was apprehended for selling counterfeit Rolex watches. His bail was set at Zero Bail.

  • Arrest Details: On January 11, 2024, at approximately 11 a.m., law enforcement officials apprehended Albert Bantug near the 20000 block of Vanowen Street.
  • Discovery of Illegal Items: Upon arresting Bantug, detectives discovered a semi-automatic loaded handgun in his front waistband. Authorities identified this firearm as a ‘ghost gun’ because it lacks serial numbers. Additionally, they seized several counterfeit Rolex watches that he possessed.

Charges and Legal Implications

  1. Felon in Possession of a Firearm (29800(a)1 PC): Bantug faces this charge due to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. California Penal Code 29800(a)(1) strictly prohibits felons from owning, purchasing, receiving, or having in their custody or control any firearm. If convicted, he could face up to three years in county jail.
  2. Trademark Infringement (350(a) PC): The counterfeit Rolex watches led to a charge of trademark infringement under California Penal Code 350(a). This law makes it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess for sale any counterfeit mark registered with the California Secretary of State or the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Conviction could lead to up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $10,000

Consumer Safety Warning

  • Health Risks of Counterfeits: The LAPD warns that counterfeit products, like the seized watches, can be hazardous to health. Reports have surfaced of counterfeit watches and jewelry containing dangerous levels of lead and other harmful metals. Counterfeit manufacturers often bypass the rigorous materials and safety testing standards adhered to by legitimate brands.

Prevention Tips

  • Safe Purchasing Practices: Consumers should buy only from authorized dealers or directly from manufacturers to avoid fake products. They need to carefully research the suppliers’ names and locations.
How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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”:

  1. Willful Conduct: The accused must have engaged in a deliberate action that would likely result in the application of force to another person.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.”
  4. 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:
    1. The victim must have been performing their official duties at the time of the assault.
    2. 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.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges related to assault under California Penal Code Section 240 PC, it is essential to seek guidance from an experienced legal professional. A skilled Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney can explore various legal strategies to help prevent a conviction or mitigate the charges you face. For more information and expert legal counsel, contact Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Arash Hashemi at the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, located at Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064. You can reach our office at (310) 448-1529 Your rights and future are our top priority, and we are here to provide you with the support and legal representation.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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

U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller will sentence Brady on March 25, where he faces a mandatory life sentence. Brady and four defendants – Ronald Yandell, Billy Sylvester, Danny Troxell, and Jason Corbett – are scheduled for trial in February. The law presumes their innocence until proven guilty.

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

Under Section 186.22(b)(4) of the Penal Code, the law imposes indeterminate life sentences for serious felonies committed in connection with gang activities. These sentences differ from fixed-term ones as they lack a predetermined end date. Their length varies based on factors including the inmate’s conduct in prison and decisions made by the parole board.

Probation Conditions

Subsection (c) mandates that if probation or suspended sentence occurs for Subsection (a) violations or Subsection (b) enhancements, the defendant serves a minimum 180 days in county jail.

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.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges with Gang Enhancement allegations, it is crucial to consult with an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney. Our Attorney will explore multiple legal approaches to prevent a conviction or reduce your charges. For more information, contact Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Arash Hashemi at The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, located at Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064. You can reach our office at (310) 448-1529

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley will sentence Mountford on April 11, 2024. Mountford faces a possible maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The court might also order him to pay restitution of $873,723, the amount he fraudulently obtained from the government.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

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:

  1. 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.
  2. “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.
The critical factor distinguishing these offenses is the perpetrator’s intent regarding the duration of possession. Short-term intentions, such as taking a vehicle for a brief drive, generally fall under joyriding. Conversely, intentions to permanently or long-term possess the vehicle escalate the charge to grand theft auto.

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:

  1. Stole a Vehicle Belonging to Someone Else: The vehicle must be proven to be the property of another individual.
  2. 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.
  3. Lacked Owner’s Permission: The vehicle’s owner did not authorize the defendant to take the vehicle.
  4. 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.

Understanding Joyriding Charges

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

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)

 

Law enforcement in Sacramento County apprehended a 53-year-old man named Arkete Davis and his 10-year-old son following a tragic shooting incident. The boy, whose identity remains undisclosed, fatally shot another 10-year-old with a stolen gun he discovered in his father’s car. This incident took place in Foothill Farms, a community near Sacramento.

Sacramento County sheriff’s deputies responded to the shooting report and found the victim unresponsive and bleeding in a parking lot. The victim later succumbed to his injuries at a hospital. Witnesses directed the deputies to a nearby apartment where they located Davis and two children, including the shooter.

The investigation unveiled that the boy had taken the gun from Davis’s car while retrieving cigarettes. He reportedly boasted about his father’s possession of the gun before shooting the other child. Detectives found the firearm, reported stolen in 2017, in a nearby trash can, indicating that Davis may have attempted to discard it. Davis is now facing several felony firearm charges, along with child endangerment and accessory to a crime after the fact.

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.

How Would You Like Us To Contact You?(required)

Attorney General Bonta has announced a legal victory in the case of Sadiq Mohammed, a Los Angeles tobacco distributor convicted of running a $3 million tax evasion scheme against the State of California. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) successfully secured a 32-month prison sentence for Mohammed, who had pled guilty to these charges.

The Charges: Tax Evasion Scheme

Sadiq Mohammed faced multiple charges related to his elaborate tax evasion scheme:

Mohammed was charged with tax fraud under Penal Code Section 186.11. This charge stemmed from his underreporting of sales from his tobacco distribution business, L.A. Trading and Distribution, Inc., located in the Los Angeles area. Between 2017 and 2018, Mohammed knowingly filed tax returns that misrepresented the actual sales figures, concealing his taxable income.

Mohammed also faced charges under Penal Code Section 72 for making false statements on his tax returns. By falsely claiming that the tobacco products he imported from Florida and Illinois were interstate sales, he attempted to unlawfully evade California’s excise taxes, which are mandatory for out-of-state products. This charge reflects the deceptive nature of his financial activities.

The tax evasion charge, under Penal Code Section 19705, was a direct consequence of Mohammed’s actions. He intentionally evaded paying the appropriate excise taxes to the State of California, undermining the state’s revenue and financial resources.

The charges against Mohammed are serious and reflect a deliberate attempt to defraud the state through a sophisticated tax evasion scheme. By underreporting sales, making false statements, and unlawfully evading taxes, Mohammed not only committed financial crimes but also jeopardized essential state services funded by tax revenue.

Investigation and Prosecution

The DOJ’s Tax Recovery in the Underground Economy Task Force (TRUE) conducted the investigation into Mohammed’s activities. TRUE’s primary purpose is to combat underground economic crimes in California, specifically targeting tax evasion and wage theft. TRUE agencies collaborate across multiple agencies, working collectively to uncover and prosecute individuals engaged in these illicit activities.

Sentencing and Restitution

Sadiq Mohammed pleaded guilty to tobacco excise tax evasion on September 23, 2023. After authorities arrested him in 2022, he received a sentencing of 32 months in state prison on December 20, 2023. Additionally, the court ordered Mohammed to pay more than $3.04 million in restitution, reflecting the amount he unlawfully evaded in taxes.

California DOJ’s prosecution of Sadiq Mohammed shows commitment to holding financial crime perpetrators accountable, deterring further tax evasion.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

Photo: (www.elcamino.edu)

On December 24, at El Camino College in Torrance, California, an assailant attacked a woman in her 60s with a sledgehammer while she collected recyclables. This assault occurring after 7 p.m. in the 16000 block of Crenshaw Boulevard, led to the woman’s death.

Emergency responders transported the victim to a hospital where she succumbed to her injuries on Christmas Day. Authorities have charged 40-year-old Jeffery Davis with murder in relation to this attack.

Law enforcement officers arrested Davis near the college campus shortly after the assault. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, currently investigating the case, has yet to reveal a motive for the attack and confirms no other suspects are involved.

Davis remains in custody without bail, awaiting his arraignment on January 17 in a Torrance courtroom. Investigations into the case are ongoing.

Understanding the Charge: Murder under California Law

Under California Penal Code 187, Jeffery Davis faces a murder charge for the alleged killing at El Camino College. This charge suggests a deliberate and unlawful killing, potentially with premeditation, given the nature of the weapon used. In California, a conviction for murder, especially with premeditation, can lead to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The Prosecution’s Strategy

The prosecution will likely focus on establishing premeditation and intent. Key evidence could include:

  • Surveillance footage from El Camino College.
  • Forensic evidence linking Davis to the scene.
  • Witness testimonies and Davis’s actions before and after the incident.

Defense Tactics

Davis’s defense team may challenge the premeditation claim, suggesting a lack of planning or a spontaneous act. They might also introduce evidence regarding Davis’s mental state or propose alternate narratives to counter the intent to kill.

Potential Legal Defenses

  • Challenging Premeditation: Arguing the absence of intent to commit murder.
  • Contesting Evidence: Questioning the reliability or legality of the prosecution’s evidence.
  • Mental State Defense: Suggesting impaired mental capacity at the incident’s time.

If convicted of murder under Penal Code 187, Davis faces severe penalties, including life imprisonment without parole.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

Navigating the criminal justice system in California, particularly for first-time defendants, can be daunting. A key component of this system is the plea bargain, a tool used in the vast majority of criminal cases. This article provides a clear, professional insight into the role of plea bargains in California, offering valuable information for anyone involved in the criminal justice process.

The Role of Plea Bargains in California

A plea bargain is a negotiation between a defendant and a prosecutor where the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest to a charge. This agreement often results in reduced charges, a lesser sentence, or some charges being dropped. In California, plea bargains play a critical role in managing the high volume of cases in the courts.

The Process of Arrest and Arraignment

In California, an arrest requires reasonable belief of a crime’s occurrence. During the arrest, officers must inform suspects of their Miranda rights. The arraignment is the first court appearance where charges are read, bail is set, and the defendant enters a plea.

Why Plea Bargains Are Predominant

Plea bargaining is prevalent in California, with over ninety percent of criminal convictions resulting from plea negotiations. This approach helps expedite the legal process, as trials can be lengthy and resource-intensive. Plea bargains offer a degree of control over the case outcome, unlike the unpredictability of jury trials.

Types of Plea Bargains

  1. Charge Bargaining: Pleading guilty to a less severe charge.
  2. Count Bargaining: Pleading guilty to some charges while others are dropped.
  3. Sentence Bargaining: Agreeing to a guilty plea in return for a lighter sentence.
  4. Fact Bargaining: Pleading guilty in exchange for omitting certain case details.

Understanding Felony and Misdemeanor Plea Bargains in California

In California, the legal system differentiates plea bargains based on whether the case involves a felony or a misdemeanor. This distinction is crucial as it influences the negotiation dynamics and potential outcomes.

Felony Plea Bargains:

Felonies are more serious crimes, often carrying severe penalties including substantial prison time. In felony cases, plea bargains might involve negotiating down to a lesser felony or even a misdemeanor, depending on the case specifics. The stakes are higher, and the negotiation often focuses on reducing potential prison time and the long-term impact on the defendant’s record.

Misdemeanor Plea Bargains:

Misdemeanors are less severe offenses compared to felonies. Plea bargains in misdemeanor cases typically aim to reduce fines, avoid jail time, or obtain alternative sentences like community service. In some instances, a misdemeanor plea bargain might result in a reduction to an infraction, which carries less severe consequences.

The key difference lies in the severity of the charges and the corresponding legal strategies. In felony cases, the focus is often on minimizing severe penalties and long-term repercussions, while misdemeanor plea bargains tend to concentrate on avoiding jail time and reducing immediate penalties.

Understanding these differences is essential for defendants to make informed decisions about their plea options. Whether facing a felony or misdemeanor charge, it’s crucial to consult with a knowledgeable attorney who can navigate the complexities of the California legal system and negotiate the best possible outcome

The ‘No Contest’ Plea Advantage

A no contest plea means not admitting guilt but not disputing the charges. It’s crucial in civil cases as it doesn’t count as an admission of guilt, unlike a guilty plea.

Can You Seal or Expunge a Conviction in California?

In California, depending on the conviction and the defendant’s record, there may be opportunities to seal or expunge the conviction in the future.

Is Plea Bargaining Banned in California?

California attempted to restrict plea bargaining in 1982 with Proposition 8, particularly for serious felonies and violent crimes. However, plea bargaining still occurs under certain conditions and during specific stages of the criminal process.

The decision to accept a plea bargain rests with the defendant, often based on their attorney’s advice. While plea agreements streamline the legal process, they require judicial approval to be final. Understanding the intricacies of plea bargains in California is crucial for anyone involved in the criminal justice system.

Explore Your Plea Bargain Options with Attorney Arash Hashemi

Facing criminal charges in Los Angeles? Attorney Arash Hashemi provides aggressive legal representation to protect your rights. With more than 20 years of experience, he brings a depth of knowledge to felony and misdemeanor cases. Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation. We are located at the Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, we’re ready to stand firm for your defense.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

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.

Drug-Impaired Driving in California

In California, the law defines drug-impaired driving as operating a vehicle while under the influence of any substance, excluding alcohol, that significantly impairs your muscles, brain, or nervous system. This definition includes a wide range of substances, from illegal drugs like methamphetamine and heroin to legal medications such as marijuana, over-the-counter cold medicines, antihistamines, and even prescription drugs that don’t necessarily cause intoxication. California Vehicle Code 23152(f) explicitly prohibits driving under the influence of drugs, and Vehicle Code 23152(g) extends this prohibition to driving under the combined influence of drugs and alcohol. Notably, California doesn’t set a legal limit for drug concentration in the bloodstream, meaning any detectable amount can lead to DUI charges.

The Arrest and Investigation Process for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in California

A DUI with drugs investigation often starts with a traffic stop if an officer suspects impairment. The officer will observe for physical symptoms of drug use and may call for a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to conduct a more detailed assessment. It’s crucial to know that you have the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment during this process. Before an arrest, there is no obligation to submit to a chemical test, and refusing does not carry penalties However, under California’s “implied consent” law, refusing a chemical test after a lawful arrest can result in enhanced penalties.

Trial Proceedings and Prosecution Requirements

In a trial for DUI with drugs, the arresting officer’s testimony about your driving behavior and physical signs of intoxication plays a critical role. If a breathalyzer test shows negative results for alcohol, this can further suggest drug impairment. The DRE’s testimony, based on their training and evaluation, is often pivotal in establishing the type of drug causing impairment. Additionally, blood test results showing the presence of drugs in your system are used, though these alone don’t prove impairment. The prosecution must demonstrate that you were driving under the influence and that the drug significantly impaired your driving ability.

Penalties and Consequences for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in California

Penalties for DUI with drugs in California vary based on the specifics of the case, such as prior offenses. They can range from jail time, fines, and license suspension for first-time offenders to more severe consequences for repeated offenses or cases involving injury or death. Beyond legal penalties, a DUI with drugs conviction can lead to long-term impacts like a criminal record, affecting employment and housing opportunities, increased insurance premiums, and the potential loss of a commercial driver’s license.

Defending Against DUI with Drugs Charges

In California, defending against DUI with drugs charges often involves challenging the legality of the traffic stop and arrest procedures. Any procedural errors can significantly impact the case. Additionally, questioning the accuracy of blood sample handling and analysis is crucial, as errors here can affect the reliability of evidence. Recognizing individual differences in how drugs affect people is also key, as the presence of drugs doesn’t always mean impairment. A focused defense in these cases requires a sharp understanding of both legal and scientific details.

Seek Expert Legal Representation for DUI with Drugs Charges in California

If you’re facing DUI with drugs charges in Los Angeles, Attorney Arash Hashemi provides aggressive legal representation to defend your rights. With over 20 years of experience in handling complex DUI cases, Attorney Hashemi offers strong and focused defense strategies, customized to meet the specific needs of your case. For dedicated legal support in these challenging cases, contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 870-2727 or schedule a consultation today. Located at the Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, our team is prepared to provide the strong advocacy you need to navigate the intricacies of DUI with drugs charges in California.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

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.

Derrick Ward, a former NFL player with the New York Giants, found himself in police custody in Los Angeles on suspicion of robbery. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office officially confirmed Ward’s arrest, which took place on Monday evening.

However, authorities had not yet formally presented the case to prosecutors for their consideration of potential criminal charges. Notably, the Los Angeles Police Department has revealed that Ward’s arrest stems from his alleged involvement in a series of robberies at various businesses within the Los Angeles area.

It has been reported that Derrick Ward utilized “force and fear” to extract money from the businesses. His bail has been set at $250,000.

California’s Robbery Law: Understanding Ward’s Charges

California law, specifically Penal Code Section 211, defines robbery as forcefully taking property against someone’s will. This law applies strictly, regardless of weapon use. In Ward’s situation, not using a firearm during the alleged robberies could influence his case, especially during sentencing if convicted.

Multiple Incidents and Legal Implications

Ward faces charges suggesting involvement in several robberies. Penal Code Section 213 differentiates between first and second-degree robbery, impacting the severity of potential penalties. First-degree robbery typically involves inhabited buildings or targeted victims, such as public transport passengers, and carries heavier penalties than second-degree robbery.

Navigating the Legal System

This shift from NFL fame to facing legal charges is a significant change for Ward. The absence of a firearm in the alleged crimes might be a factor in his defense strategy, but it doesn’t reduce the seriousness of felony robbery charges in California. Ward’s case underscores the critical need for understanding legal consequences and securing an experienced criminal defense attorney.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

In Lancaster, a road rage incident has taken a tragic turn, leading to serious legal charges against Byron Burkhart. This case, progressing through the California legal system, highlights the severe consequences of such violent actions.

Byron Burkhart, accompanied by his girlfriend, reportedly instigated a road rage incident on Sierra Highway. This situation escalated when Burkhart allegedly fired eight shots into another vehicle. In this tragic event, a four-year-old boy, seated in the backseat, lost his life.

Direct Charges Linked to Burkhart’s Actions:

Murder: Authorities have charged Burkhart with murder under Penal Code § 187 PC after the young boy’s death. This charge in California signifies an intentional and unlawful killing. Burkhart’s deliberate act of firing into an occupied vehicle fulfills the criteria for first-degree murder, marked by premeditation and malice

Attempted Murder: Burkhart faces two counts of attempted murder under Penal Code § 664/187. These charges arise from his alleged shooting at the other car occupants. His clear intent to kill, even though the victims were not struck, matches the definition of attempted murder as per California law

Shooting at an Occupied Vehicle: Burkhart faces charges under Penal Code § 26100 PC for allegedly discharging a firearm into the victims’ car. This action directly violates the statute that prohibits maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle.

Possession of a Firearm by a Felon: Under § 29800(a)(1) PC, Burkhart is charged with possessing a firearm as a felon. The charges imply the involvement of multiple firearms or several instances of possession. His felon status directly leads to this charge, stemming from his alleged possession during the incident..

Legal Outlook and Implications

Burkhart’s alleged actions have placed him at the center of a significant legal storm. If convicted of first-degree murder, he could face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The attempted murder charges could add considerable time to his sentence, potentially leading to additional decades in prison. The charge of shooting at an occupied vehicle further intensifies the gravity of his situation, while the firearms possession charges add layers of legal complexity due to his status as a felon. If convicted as charged, Burkhart will face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)

Photo Credit: (Bolton’s Photograph) Via: www.lapdonline.org

Case Overview and Key Details:

The arrest of 21-year-old Bobby Bolton marked a significant development in addressing a series of residential burglaries in Granada Hills and Porter Ranch, California. Devonshire detectives, after a thorough investigation, successfully linked Bolton to these crimes. This breakthrough was largely due to the diligent efforts of law enforcement, who employed a variety of investigative techniques, including the pivotal use of surveillance footage.

Throughout the year, the Granada Hills and Porter Ranch neighborhoods experienced a troubling pattern of residential burglaries. The detectives’ persistence and strategic use of technology led them to identify Bolton as the primary suspect in these incidents. His arrest not only signifies a major step in curbing the burglary spree but also highlights the effectiveness of modern investigative methods in solving complex criminal cases.

Charges and Legal Framework: Residential Burglary

Bobby Bolton faced arrest for residential burglary, a serious offense, leading to a notably high bail amount of $1,000,000. This bail reflects the severity of the allegations against him.

Legal Basis:

Statutory Definition: According to California Penal Code Section 459, residential burglary involves the unauthorized entry into a residence with the specific intent to commit theft or any felony. This law covers a broad range of potential entry points, including houses, apartments, and other dwellings.

Severity of the Charge: The charge of residential burglary is particularly grave due to its direct infringement on the security and privacy of one’s home, which is legally and socially recognized as a fundamental sanctuary.

Potential Penalties: Given the nature of the offense, residential burglary can carry significant legal consequences, including imprisonment. The exact penalties depend on various factors, including the circumstances of the burglary and the defendant’s criminal history.

Significance of Surveillance Evidence:

The incorporation of surveillance footage in Bobby Bolton’s case was a decisive factor for several reasons:

  1. Suspect Identification: The footage was instrumental in identifying Bolton as the suspect, providing a visual link between him and the crime scenes.
  2. Evidence Reinforcement: This visual evidence substantiated the allegations against Bolton, offering a tangible basis for the charges.
  3. Event Reconstruction: The videos aided in piecing together the sequence of events, clarifying the circumstances of the burglaries.
  4. Legal Impact: In the courtroom, surveillance footage serves as compelling evidence, often influencing the jury’s perception due to its direct and unambiguous nature.
  5. Deterrent Effect: The effective use of surveillance in this case underscores its value in both deterring and resolving criminal activities.

Ongoing Investigation

Bolton’s photograph has been released to the public as detectives believe he may be involved in additional burglaries. The investigation is ongoing, and authorities are encouraging anyone with information to come forward.

Conclusion:

Bobby Bolton’s arrest underscores the effectiveness of modern investigative techniques and the importance of community vigilance in solving residential burglaries. This case serves as a reminder for residents to remain alert and report suspicious activities to the authorities. For those facing similar legal challenges, consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney is crucial. For expert legal representation, contact us at (310) 730-2811 or schedule a consultation.

How Would You Like Us to Contact You?(required)