First-Degree Residential Burglary – California Penal Code 460 PC

In California, first-degree residential burglary is one of the most serious criminal charges a person can face. Under Penal Code 460 PC, unlawfully entering someone’s home, apartment, or another inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit theft or a felony is classified as first-degree burglary. This offense carries severe consequences, including a potential prison sentence, hefty fines, and a strike under California’s Three Strikes Law.

If you have been charged with first-degree burglary, it’s essential to understand the nature of the charges, the penalties you could face, and the legal defenses that may be available to you. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our Los Angeles criminal defense attorney provides skilled and compassionate representation for individuals accused of burglary and other serious crimes. Contact our office today at (310) 448-1529 for a confidential consultation.

What Is First-Degree Residential Burglary Under Penal Code 460 PC?

First-degree residential burglary involves unlawfully entering an inhabited dwelling—a home, apartment, or other structure where someone lives—with the intent to commit a theft or any felony inside.

Key Elements of the Crime

To convict someone of first-degree burglary, the prosecution must prove the following:

1. Entry: The defendant entered an inhabited dwelling. This entry can involve physical entry or using an object to gain access, such as breaking a window or picking a lock.
2. Intent: The defendant had the intent to commit theft or a felony inside the residence before entering.

Important Note: The crime is complete at the moment of entry if the intent to commit theft or a felony existed. Even if no property was stolen or the intended felony was not carried out, the defendant can still be charged with first-degree burglary.

What Qualifies as an Inhabited Dwelling?

California law broadly defines an inhabited dwelling as any place where someone lives, even if temporarily or intermittently. Examples include:

• Houses, apartments, townhomes, or condominiums
• Guest houses or rooms within a residence
• Attached garages
• Recreational vehicles (RVs) or trailers used as living spaces
• Houseboats or vessels designed for habitation

Importantly, the dwelling is considered “inhabited” even if the occupant is not present at the time of the burglary. For instance, breaking into a vacation home that is not currently occupied can still result in a first-degree burglary charge.

Penalties for First-Degree Residential Burglary

First-degree residential burglary is always classified as a felony in California. If convicted, the penalties can include:

• Prison Sentence: Up to 6 years in state prison.
• Fines: Up to $10,000.
• Strike Offense: First-degree burglary is considered a strike under California’s Three Strikes Law. A second strike can double the sentence, and a third strike can result in a life sentence.
• Probation: In some cases, the court may grant formal (felony) probation instead of prison time.

If someone was present in the home during the burglary, the crime is classified as a violent felony, requiring the defendant to serve at least 85% of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

Additionally, first-degree burglary is considered a crime of moral turpitude, which can have significant immigration consequences for non-U.S. citizens and may affect professional licensing.

Legal Defenses for First-Degree Residential Burglary

Lack of Intent: To be convicted of burglary, the prosecution must prove that you intended to commit theft or a felony before entering the residence. If the intent was formed after entering the home or if there was no intent at all, this element of the crime is not met.

Consent to Enter: If you had permission from the property owner or occupant to enter the home, it is not considered burglary, even if you later committed a crime inside.

The Structure Was Not an Inhabited Dwelling: For a first-degree burglary charge, the structure must qualify as an inhabited dwelling. If the location was vacant, under construction, or not being used as a residence, the charge may be reduced to second-degree burglary, which carries lighter penalties.

False Accusations or Mistaken Identity: In some cases, you may be wrongly accused due to a misunderstanding, misidentification, or malicious intent. Witness testimony, security footage, or alibi evidence can help establish your innocence.

Insufficient Evidence: The prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence against you is weak or inconsistent, your attorney can argue for dismissal or a reduction in charges.

Frequently Asked Questions About First-Degree Burglary

Can I Be Charged with First-Degree Burglary If Nothing Was Stolen?

Yes. The crime is complete once you enter the dwelling with the intent to commit theft or a felony, even if you leave without taking anything or completing the intended crime.

What’s the Difference Between First-Degree and Second-Degree Burglary?

First-degree burglary involves inhabited dwellings and is always a felony. Second-degree burglary applies to non-residential properties, such as businesses, and can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony (a “wobbler”).

Is First-Degree Burglary Considered a Violent Crime?

Yes, if someone is present in the dwelling during the burglary, it is classified as a violent felony, which carries enhanced penalties under California law.

Contact a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Today

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we understand the life-altering consequences of a first-degree burglary charge under Penal Code 460 PC. With over 20 years of experience, Attorney Arash Hashemi provides aggressive and focused legal representation to defend your rights and protect your future. Our team will thoroughly examine the evidence, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and develop a tailored defense strategy to achieve the best possible outcome.

Don’t let a burglary charge define your future. Take immediate action to safeguard your rights by consulting with a trusted Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who will fight tirelessly on your behalf.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Disturbing the Peace – California Penal Code § 415 PC

Penal Code Section 415 PC, commonly referred to as “Disturbing the Peace,” criminalizes actions that disrupt public order, provoke violence, or interfere with others’ rights to quiet enjoyment. While often seen as a minor infraction, a conviction can lead to significant consequences, including fines, jail time, and a permanent criminal record.

If you are facing disturbing the peace charges in Los Angeles, it’s essential to act quickly. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our experienced legal team is ready to defend your rights and protect your future. With a proven track record of success, we provide personalized and aggressive representation tailored to your case. Contact our Los Angeles criminal defense attorney today at (310) 448-1529 for a confidential consultation and let us help you navigate your legal challenges effectively.

What Actions Qualify as Disturbing the Peace Under § 415 PC?

California law defines disturbing the peace through three primary actions:

1. Unlawful Fighting in Public
   Engaging in a physical altercation or challenging another person to fight in a public place can result in disturbing the peace charges. It is irrelevant whether the fight was initiated by mutual consent or provoked; the mere act of fighting in a public space can satisfy this element of the statute.
2. Making Loud or Unreasonable Noise
   Intentionally creating loud and unreasonable noise with the purpose of disturbing others is also prohibited under this statute. This can include scenarios where an individual disrupts neighbors, public gatherings, or workspaces with excessive noise.
3. Using Offensive Words Likely to Incite Violence
   Using language designed to provoke a violent reaction, sometimes referred to as “fighting words,” constitutes disturbing the peace. The speech must go beyond mere insults or rude remarks and have a clear likelihood of inciting immediate violence.

Penalties for Disturbing the Peace – § 415 PC

Disturbing the peace is generally charged as a misdemeanor or an infraction, depending on the circumstances. Penalties may include:

• Infraction: A fine of up to $250 if charged as a minor violation.
• Misdemeanor:
  • Up to 90 days in county jail.
  • Fines up to $400.
  • Informal (summary) probation, which may include community service or attending anger management classes.

While these penalties may seem relatively minor, a conviction can have lasting implications, such as a criminal record that affects employment opportunities, housing, or professional licensing.

Elements Prosecutors Must Prove for a Disturbing the Peace Conviction

To secure a conviction under Penal Code 415 PC, prosecutors must establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Intentional Conduct
   The accused must have acted intentionally to engage in the conduct described in the statute. Accidental noise, unintentional fighting, or speech without the intent to provoke violence typically does not meet this standard.
2. Public Context
   The conduct must occur in a public space or an area where others are likely to be present and affected by the behavior.
3. Likelihood of Disruption or Violence
   For offensive words or noise, prosecutors must prove that the conduct had a direct likelihood of causing significant disruption or provoking a violent response.

Examples of Disturbing the Peace

• Unlawful Fighting: Two individuals engage in a brawl outside a bar, disrupting the peace in a public area.
• Loud Noise: A person intentionally blasts loud music in a residential neighborhood during late-night hours, ignoring repeated requests to lower the volume.
• Offensive Words: An individual repeatedly uses derogatory language at a protest, inciting a physical altercation with a bystander.

Legal Defenses for Disturbing the Peace Charges

Lack of Intent

Disturbing the peace charges often require the prosecution to prove that you acted intentionally or willfully to provoke or disturb others. If your actions were unintentional or accidental, this lack of intent can serve as a defense. For example, raising your voice during a heated conversation may not rise to the level of intentional disruption.

Free Speech Protections

The First Amendment protects your right to free speech, even if your words are controversial or unpopular. If your alleged conduct involved speaking out on an issue or protesting, your attorney may argue that the charges infringe on your constitutional rights. However, speech that incites violence or constitutes a direct threat may not be protected.

Self-Defense or Defense of Others

If you are accused of fighting in public, self-defense may be a valid defense. California law permits you to use reasonable force to protect yourself or others from immediate harm. Your attorney can argue that you were acting to defend yourself against aggression rather than instigating a disturbance.

Insufficient Evidence

The prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is weak, incomplete, or based solely on subjective observations, your attorney can challenge its sufficiency. For example, witness statements may be inconsistent, or there may be a lack of physical evidence supporting the allegations.

No Actual Disturbance

For a disturbing the peace charge to stand, the prosecution must show that your actions genuinely disturbed the peace. If no one was actually disturbed or if the situation was exaggerated, your attorney can argue that the legal threshold for this offense has not been met.

Related Offenses

• Battery (Penal Code 242 PC): Physical harm caused to another person during a fight.
• Trespassing (Penal Code 602 PC): Entering or remaining on someone else’s property without permission.
• Public Intoxication (Penal Code 647(f) PC): Being intoxicated in public to the point of endangering oneself or others.

Speak with a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Today

Facing charges under California Penal Code Section 415 PC, such as fighting in public, creating unreasonable noise, or using offensive words to provoke violence, can be overwhelming and stressful. These cases often involve complex legal issues, including intent, public context, and the evidence presented by the prosecution. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we understand what’s at stake—your reputation, your freedom, and your future.

Attorney Arash Hashemi has over 20 years of experience defending individuals accused of disturbing the peace and other criminal offenses. Whether you are facing allegations of public fighting, disruptive noise, or inciting violence, we will thoroughly review the facts of your case, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s claims, and craft a defense strategy tailored to your unique situation.

Don’t let a disturbing the peace charge define your future. Take immediate steps to protect your rights by contacting an experienced Los Angeles defense attorney today.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

When Does Possession Turn Into a Charge of Drug Trafficking?

In California, drug possession and trafficking are distinct criminal offenses, with trafficking carrying far more severe penalties. While possession generally refers to holding drugs for personal use, trafficking involves the sale, transportation, or distribution of controlled substances. Prosecutors often attempt to elevate simple possession charges to trafficking based on factors like the amount of drugs found or circumstantial evidence of intent to distribute.

Understanding when possession crosses the line into trafficking is critical, as the consequences of a trafficking conviction can be life-altering. If you are facing drug charges in Los Angeles, having a clear understanding of these distinctions and a strong legal defense can significantly influence the outcome of your case. Contact our experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorney at (310) 448-1529 to protect your rights and explore your defense options.

Understanding Drug Possession Under California Law

Drug possession in California is defined under Health and Safety Code § 11350 and involves having controlled substances on your person, in your vehicle, or within your control. Possession is categorized into two primary types based on the intended use of the drugs:

• Simple Possession: This applies to drugs held solely for personal use. Simple possession is often charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in county jail, probation, and fines. Certain cases may qualify for diversion programs or rehabilitation instead of incarceration.
• Possession with Intent to Sell: This charge applies when evidence suggests that the drugs were intended for distribution to others. Examples include packaging materials, scales, or large quantities of drugs inconsistent with personal use. Possession with intent to sell is prosecuted as a felony and carries harsher penalties, including longer prison sentences and substantial fines.

What Is Drug Trafficking?

Drug trafficking refers to the sale, transportation, or distribution of controlled substances and is governed by California Health and Safety Code § 11352. This offense extends beyond simple possession, requiring evidence that the accused intended to distribute or move the drugs rather than retain them for personal use.

Key elements of drug trafficking include:

• Sale of Drugs: Exchanging controlled substances for money, goods, or services.
• Transportation: Moving illegal drugs from one location to another, whether within California or across state or national borders.
• Distribution: Supplying drugs to others, even without financial transactions.

Penalties for Drug Trafficking

Drug trafficking is always charged as a felony in California, with penalties including:

• State Prison Sentences:
  • 3, 4, or 5 years for basic trafficking offenses.
  • Up to 9 years if the drugs are transported across county lines with the intent to sell.
• Fines: Up to $20,000 or more, depending on the quantity and type of drugs involved.
• Federal Charges: If trafficking involves crossing state or national borders, federal jurisdiction may apply, leading to harsher penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences.

Aggravating factors, such as trafficking near schools, using minors in drug operations, or involving large quantities of drugs, can result in enhanced sentences.

What Turns Drug Possession Into Trafficking Under California Law

Quantity of Drugs

The amount of drugs found in your possession is one of the main factors prosecutors rely on to elevate a possession charge to trafficking. Larger quantities of controlled substances often suggest intent to distribute rather than personal use.

• Threshold Amounts: There is no strict legal threshold universally defining when possession becomes trafficking in California. However, if the quantity of drugs far exceeds what is typically associated with personal consumption, prosecutors may argue that the drugs were intended for sale or distribution.
• For Example:
  • Possessing one gram of methamphetamine may align with personal use.
  • However, having 500 grams of methamphetamine, especially when accompanied by other evidence, is likely to result in trafficking charges.

While quantity alone does not automatically prove trafficking, it is a strong indicator that prosecutors often use to build their case.

Proving Intent to Distribute in Drug Trafficking Cases

Possession alone is not enough to prove drug trafficking. Prosecutors must demonstrate intent to distribute, which they often establish through circumstantial evidence. Common indicators of intent include:

• Packaging Materials: Items like small baggies, containers, or other tools used to portion drugs into smaller quantities, suggesting preparation for sale.
• Scales: Devices for measuring drugs, especially when found alongside packaging materials.
• Large Sums of Cash: Particularly in small denominations, cash is often seen as evidence of drug transactions.
• Drug Ledgers: Written notes or records documenting transactions, client lists, or amounts owed.
• Communications: Text messages, emails, or phone calls discussing the sale or distribution of drugs.

These forms of evidence can significantly strengthen the prosecution’s case, but they are not always definitive proof of trafficking. An experienced criminal defense attorney can challenge the interpretation of this evidence, arguing that it does not conclusively demonstrate intent to distribute.

How Moving Drugs Can Lead to Trafficking Charges

The act of moving drugs from one location to another can escalate possession charges to drug trafficking. Transportation suggests intent to distribute, even if no direct evidence of sales exists.

For example, driving with a trunk full of illegal substances or transporting drugs across town, between counties, or over state lines can result in trafficking charges. Prosecutors often use the quantity of drugs and the circumstances of the transportation as evidence of intent.

However, not all transportation constitutes trafficking. A skilled drug crime lawyer can argue that the movement was unrelated to distribution, such as for personal use, and challenge the prosecution’s efforts to elevate the charge.

Using Admissions as Evidence in Drug Trafficking Cases

Any admission of selling or intending to sell drugs can turn a possession charge into trafficking. Prosecutors often rely on statements made to law enforcement, witnesses, or even in casual conversations as evidence of intent to distribute.

Even seemingly harmless remarks, such as mentioning plans to share drugs with friends, can be interpreted as an admission of trafficking. For example, a comment about “splitting the cost” or “providing some” to others may be used to suggest intent to sell or distribute.

It is critical to exercise your right to remain silent when questioned by law enforcement. Avoid making any statements about the drugs or their intended use until you have consulted with a Los Angeles defense attorney to safeguard your rights and build your defense.

Defenses for Drug Trafficking Charges in California

When facing drug trafficking charges in California, a well-crafted defense strategy can challenge the allegations and potentially lead to reduced charges or even dismissal. Below are common defenses that our Los Angeles drug crime lawyer can use to protect your rights:

1. Challenging Intent to Distribute

Prosecutors must prove that you intended to sell or transport the drugs, not merely possess them. Key defenses include:

• Personal Use Quantities: Arguing that the amount of drugs found was consistent with personal use rather than distribution.
• Lack of Distribution Indicators: Highlighting the absence of evidence like packaging materials, scales, or transaction records that suggest trafficking.

2. Unlawful Search and Seizure

Evidence obtained in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights can often be excluded from trial. This could involve:

• Illegal Searches: If law enforcement conducted a search without a valid warrant or probable cause, any evidence obtained may be suppressed.
• Improper Stops: Challenging the legality of a traffic stop or detention that led to the discovery of drugs.

3. Lack of Knowledge

The prosecution must prove that you knowingly possessed or transported the drugs. Common defenses include:

• Unaware of Drug Presence: Asserting that you were unaware of the drugs in your vehicle, home, or belongings, such as in cases where someone else placed them there without your knowledge.
• Shared Spaces: Arguing that the drugs could belong to another person in a shared vehicle or residence.

4. Entrapment

If law enforcement induced you to commit a crime you would not have otherwise committed, you may have a valid entrapment defense. For example:

• If undercover officers pressured or coerced you into transporting drugs or selling them, your attorney could argue that the government overstepped its bounds.

5. Challenging the Chain of Custody

The prosecution must prove that the evidence was handled properly from the moment it was seized to when it was presented in court. Defenses include:

• Mishandling of Evidence: Showing that the drugs were not securely stored, leading to possible contamination or tampering.
• Documentation Errors: Highlighting gaps or inconsistencies in the chain of custody records that call the evidence’s validity into question.

Steps to Take If Accused of Drug Trafficking

If you are facing drug charges, protecting your rights begins with remaining silent and refusing to answer law enforcement questions without an attorney present. Speaking without legal representation can harm your case, as anything you say may be used against you. Retain a skilled drug crime lawyer to analyze the evidence, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and develop a tailored defense strategy.

Preserve any relevant evidence, such as text messages, emails, or documents, that may support your defense. Identify witnesses who can provide testimony to back your account of events. Avoid discussing your case with anyone other than your attorney, as these conversations could be used by the prosecution.

Working with an experienced drug crime lawyer ensures that your defense is built on a strong foundation while safeguarding your legal rights throughout the process.

Contact a Los Angeles Drug Crime Lawyer Today

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we understand the impact these charges can have on your future and are committed to providing an aggressive defense to protect your rights and freedom. Attorney Arash Hashemi brings over 20 years of experience to every case, offering focused legal representation for individuals accused of drug-related offenses. Our team will thoroughly review the facts of your case, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and craft a defense strategy tailored to your circumstances.

Don’t wait to take control of your defense. Protect your future by consulting with a trusted Los Angeles criminal attorney who will fight tirelessly on your behalf.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Laundering of Drug Money in California | HS 11370.9

California Health and Safety Code § 11370.9 targets money laundering activities related to drug crimes. This statute criminalizes the act of concealing, transferring, or attempting to legitimize funds derived from the illegal sale, manufacturing, or distribution of controlled substances. Prosecutors aggressively pursue these cases, as money laundering often plays a crucial role in supporting organized drug operations.

Money laundering involving drug crimes is treated as a serious offense due to its connection with large-scale criminal enterprises. A conviction can lead to harsh penalties, including significant prison sentences, hefty fines, and forfeiture of assets. Additionally, these charges are often investigated alongside federal authorities, increasing the stakes.

If you or a loved one is facing allegations under HS 11370.9, acting quickly is crucial to protect your rights and build a strong defense. Contact our Los Angeles criminal defense attorney at (310) 448-1529 for a confidential consultation and to discuss your legal options.

Understanding Drug Money Laundering Laws in California (HS 11370.9)

Health and Safety Code 11370.9 specifically addresses money laundering linked to drug-related offenses. It criminalizes the handling of proceeds from activities such as drug trafficking, manufacturing, or distribution. Unlike general money laundering statutes under Penal Code § 186.10, this law exclusively targets financial transactions involving illicit drug money.

Any efforts to conceal, disguise, or legitimize the origins of funds derived from drug-related crimes are strictly prohibited under HS § 11370.9.

Key Activities Prohibited Under HS § 11370.9

• Receiving or Acquiring Drug Proceeds: Accepting money or assets you know originate from drug-related crimes.
• Concealing Financial Transactions: Engaging in activities designed to hide the true nature, ownership, or source of funds linked to controlled substance offenses.
• Avoiding Reporting Requirements: Structuring deposits or conducting financial transactions to evade mandatory state or federal reporting laws.

This statute is part of California’s broader effort to disrupt and dismantle drug-related operations by targeting the financial networks that sustain them. Individuals found guilty of laundering drug proceeds face severe penalties and long-term consequences.

Elements Required for a Drug Money Laundering Conviction

In order to be convicted of HS 11370.9 money laundering in connection with drug crimes, the prosecutor must be able to prove all the elements of the crime:

• Receipt or Transaction: You received or conducted a financial transaction involving proceeds derived from drug-related activities.
• Knowledge of Illicit Source: You were aware that the money originated from a controlled substance offense.
• Intent to Conceal: You acted with the specific intent to hide or disguise the ownership, control, or source of the proceeds, or to evade state or federal reporting requirements.
• Threshold Amount: The total amount laundered exceeded $25,000 within a 30-day period.

Each of these elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A failure to establish even one element can result in a dismissal or reduction of the charges. A skilled defense attorney can challenge the prosecution’s evidence and work to disprove their case.

Penalties for Drug Money Laundering Under California HS 11370.9

A violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11370.9 is classified as a wobbler offense, meaning it can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony. The decision to charge the offense as a misdemeanor or felony depends on various factors, including the amount of money laundered, the quantity of drugs involved, the frequency of transactions within 30 days, and the defendant’s prior criminal record.

Misdemeanor Penalties:

• Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines up to $1,000.

Felony Penalties:

• State prison sentence of 2, 3, or 4 years.
• Fines ranging from $250,000 or twice the amount laundered, whichever is greater.
• At least 50% of the prison sentence must be served in custody.

Enhanced Penalties for Larger Amounts:

• Additional prison terms may apply if the laundered amounts exceed $2.5 million or involve substantial drug operations.

Additional Consequences

• Crimes of Moral Turpitude: Since this offense is tied to drug crimes and financial misconduct, it is considered a crime of moral turpitude. A conviction can impact immigration status, including deportation or inadmissibility for non-citizens, and may result in the loss of professional licenses for individuals in regulated professions.

Defending Against Drug Money Laundering Charges

Lack of Knowledge

To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that you knowingly handled or engaged in financial transactions involving funds derived from drug-related activities. If you were unaware that the money was connected to illegal drug operations, this lack of knowledge could be a powerful defense. For instance, if you acted on behalf of someone else without any indication of illicit activity, it may cast doubt on the prosecution’s claims.

No Intent to Conceal

One key element of money laundering is the intent to disguise the origins of illegal funds. If your actions were routine financial transactions without the purpose of hiding or disguising the source of the money, this lack of intent can be used to challenge the charges. For example, depositing money into a legitimate business account without any effort to conceal its origin could undermine the prosecution’s case.

Insufficient Evidence

The prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the threshold amount of $25,000 within 30 days. If the evidence fails to meet this threshold or lacks clarity regarding your involvement, the charges may be dismissed or reduced. Challenging the reliability or admissibility of financial records and other evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case.

Entrapment

If law enforcement pressured or coerced you into participating in money laundering activities, you may be able to argue entrapment. For instance, if undercover officers or informants induced you to engage in laundering funds that you would not have otherwise handled, this could serve as a valid defense.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

Evidence obtained through illegal searches, seizures, or other violations of your constitutional rights may be suppressed. If law enforcement conducted a search without a valid warrant or overstepped the warrant’s scope, your attorney can file a motion to exclude the improperly obtained evidence, potentially leading to a dismissal of the case.

Speak with a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

Facing charges under Health and Safety Code § 11370.9 for laundering money connected to drug crimes is a serious legal matter. These cases often involve intricate financial investigations and harsh penalties, including prison time, substantial fines, and asset forfeiture. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we are dedicated to protecting your rights and defending against these high-stakes accusations.

Attorney Arash Hashemi provides focused legal representation for individuals accused of money laundering and drug-related offenses. We will thoroughly evaluate your case, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and develop a tailored defense strategy aimed at securing the best possible outcome.

Don’t wait to take action. Protect your rights by consulting with a trusted Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who will fight for your future.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

California Penal Code Section 186.10 PC: Defending Money Laundering Charges in Los Angeles

Money laundering is a serious financial crime in California. This statute criminalizes conducting or attempting to conduct financial transactions involving monetary instruments exceeding certain thresholds, with the intent to promote illegal activity or with knowledge that the funds originated from unlawful sources. Commonly linked to offenses such as drug trafficking, fraud, and organized crime, money laundering involves making illicit funds appear legitimate by funneling them through banks or other financial institutions.

The crime of money laundering is considered a “wobbler” in California, meaning it can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the amount involved, the nature of the transactions, and the defendant’s criminal history. A conviction carries severe penalties, including jail or prison time, substantial fines, and a lasting impact on your personal and professional life.

If you or a loved one is facing money laundering charges in Los Angeles, it is essential to have an experienced money laundering defense lawyer by your side. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience defending clients against complex financial crime allegations. Call (310) 448-1529 today to schedule a consultation and start building your defense.

How Money Laundering is Prosecuted in California

To convict someone of money laundering under California Penal Code 186.10, the prosecution must establish several critical elements beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements form the foundation of the crime and are essential to the case against the defendant:

Completion of a Financial Transaction

The prosecution must prove that the defendant engaged in one or more financial transactions. A transaction can include:

• Depositing money into a bank account.
• Withdrawing or transferring funds between accounts.
• Exchanging monetary instruments, such as checks or electronic transfers.

A financial institution under this statute refers to any national or state bank, credit union, or similar entity operating in California.

Monetary Thresholds

The financial transactions in question must involve substantial amounts of money. Penal Code 186.10 specifies:

• Transactions exceeding $5,000 within seven consecutive days, or
• Transactions totaling $25,000 within a 30-day period.

If these thresholds are not met, the prosecution cannot proceed under this statute.

Involvement of Criminal Proceeds

The funds involved in the transaction must originate from illegal activities. Common examples of criminal enterprises linked to money laundering include:

• Drug trafficking.
• Fraud or embezzlement.
• Organized crime or racketeering.
  Evidence linking the money to unlawful activities is crucial for this element.

Knowledge of the Money’s Illegal Origin

The defendant must have known or reasonably should have known that the money involved was derived from criminal activities. Proving this can be challenging and often relies on circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious behavior, unusual financial activity, or recorded communications.

Intent to Promote or Conceal Criminal Activity

Finally, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant acted with intent either to:

• Facilitate or promote further illegal activity, or
• Conceal or disguise the illegal source of the funds.

This intent can be shown through actions such as structuring deposits to avoid detection or using complex financial transactions to obscure the trail of money. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. Challenging any one of these components—such as disputing the intent, knowledge, or the source of funds—can significantly weaken the prosecution’s

Penalties for Money Laundering Under Penal Code 186.10

Money laundering is considered a wobbler offense under California law, meaning it can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony. The decision to file charges as a misdemeanor or felony depends on the specific facts of the case, the defendant’s criminal history, and the amounts involved in the transactions.

Misdemeanor Penalties

If charged as a misdemeanor, penalties include:

• Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines of up to $1,000.

Felony Penalties

If charged as a felony, penalties include:

• 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in county jail.
• Fines of up to $250,000 or twice the value of the laundered amount, whichever is greater.

Enhanced Penalties for Subsequent Convictions

• Fines increase to $500,000 or five times the value of the laundered amount, whichever is greater.

Sentencing Enhancements for Larger Amounts

• 1 extra year for laundering amounts exceeding $50,000.
• 4 extra years for laundering amounts exceeding $2,500,000.

Federal Money Laundering Charges vs. State Charges

In some cases, money laundering may also be prosecuted at the federal level, especially if it involves interstate or international transactions. Federal penalties include:

• Up to 20 years in federal prison.
• Fines up to $500,000 or twice the value of the laundered funds, whichever is greater.

Legal Defenses Against Money Laundering Charges

Proving Lack of Intent or Knowledge

To be convicted of money laundering, the prosecution must prove you knowingly engaged in financial transactions involving proceeds from illegal activities or acted with the intent to promote criminal activity. If your attorney can demonstrate that:

• You were unaware the funds originated from criminal activity, or
• You did not intend to facilitate or conceal illegal conduct,
  then the charges may be reduced or dismissed. For example, if you deposited money for a family member without knowing its illegal origin, this lack of knowledge could serve as a valid defense.

Challenging Evidence Linking to Criminal Proceeds

Money laundering charges often rely on complex financial records and circumstantial evidence. Your attorney may challenge the prosecution’s evidence by:

• Identifying gaps in the chain of custody for financial documents.
• Arguing that the transaction amounts or timelines do not meet the thresholds outlined in PC 186.10.
• Showing that the prosecution lacks direct evidence linking you to criminal activity.

Legitimate Source of Funds

If the funds involved in the transactions had a lawful origin, your attorney can argue that the financial activities were legitimate. For instance:

• Transactions made with earnings from a legitimate business or investments can refute claims of laundering.
• Evidence such as tax records, bank statements, or receipts can be presented to support this defense.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

Law enforcement must follow strict legal procedures during investigations and arrests. If your constitutional rights were violated, the evidence against you may be deemed inadmissible. Common violations include:

• Unlawful search or seizure: If law enforcement obtained evidence without a valid warrant or probable cause.
• Lack of Miranda warnings: If officers failed to inform you of your rights before questioning you.
• Coerced confession: If you were pressured or threatened into making incriminating statements.

Entrapment

If law enforcement or undercover agents pressured or coerced you into participating in a transaction you would not have otherwise conducted, entrapment may serve as a defense. For example:

• If an agent persuaded you to conduct a financial transaction under false pretenses or with undue influence, this could negate criminal liability.

Amounts Below the Statutory Threshold

Money laundering under PC 186.10 requires transactions exceeding $5,000 within a seven-day period or $25,000 within 30 days. If the amounts involved in your case fall below these thresholds, the charges may be dismissed.

Speak with a Los Angeles Money Laundering Attorney for Immediate Assistance

If you or a loved one is facing charges of money laundering under California Penal Code Section 186.10, it is crucial to seek immediate legal representation.  At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we bring over 20 years of experience in defending clients against financial crime charges in Los Angeles and surrounding areas. Attorney Arash Hashemi will carefully analyze the specifics of your case, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, and develop a customized defense strategy aimed at achieving the best possible outcome.

Don’t let these charges jeopardize your future. Take proactive steps to protect your rights and freedom by contacting an experienced criminal defense attorney today for a confidential consultation.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Defending Against Penal Code 417 Charges: Brandishing a Weapon in California

California Penal Code Section 417 PC makes it a crime to brandish a weapon or firearm in a threatening, angry, or aggressive manner, regardless of whether physical harm occurs. This law aims to discourage reckless or intimidating behavior involving deadly weapons, including guns, knives, or other objects capable of causing harm. Under this statute, brandishing is not limited to physical violence; it also includes the display of a weapon in a way that causes others to feel fear or intimidation. A conviction can lead to serious legal consequences, including jail time, fines, and a permanent criminal record.

If you are facing charges for brandishing a weapon or firearm in Los Angeles, it’s essential to understand your legal options and build a strong defense. With over 20 years of experience, our Los Angeles defense attorney at The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi has successfully defended clients against weapon-related charges. Call us today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation and learn how we can help protect your rights.

Convictions under California Penal Code 417 for brandishing a weapon or firearm carry penalties based on the specific details of the offense. Below is a breakdown of potential sentencing outcomes:

Misdemeanor Penalties

• Drawing or Brandishing a Deadly Weapon (Non-Firearm): Punishable by up to 30 days in county jail.
• Exhibiting a Firearm: Punishable by up to 6 months in county jail.
• Fines: Up to $1,000 in addition to jail time.

Wobbler Offenses

Certain circumstances can elevate the charge to a felony or remain a misdemeanor at the prosecutor’s discretion:

• On Child Daycare Grounds:
  • Misdemeanor: 3 months to 1 year in county jail.
  • Felony: Up to 3 years in state prison.
• In the Presence of a Peace Officer Performing Their Duties:
  • Misdemeanor: Up to 9 months in county jail.
  • Felony: Up to 3 years in state prison.

Additional Consequences

• Criminal Record: A conviction under PC 417 will result in a permanent record, which can affect employment opportunities and firearm ownership.
• Firearm Restrictions: Convictions often lead to losing the right to own or carry firearms under California law.

Legal Defenses for PC 417 Brandishing a Weapon

Self-Defense or Defense of Others

California law allows individuals to use self-defense or defense of others if there is a reasonable belief of imminent harm. If you displayed a weapon to deter an immediate threat to yourself or someone else, our legal team can argue that your actions were justified under Penal Code 417’s self-defense exemption. We will gather evidence, such as witness statements and security footage, to demonstrate the legitimacy of your actions.

No Intent to Threaten

To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the weapon was displayed in a rude, angry, or threatening manner. Our law firm may argue that:

• The weapon was displayed unintentionally, without the intent to intimidate or provoke.
• Your actions were misunderstood or taken out of context, such as during a verbal dispute where no threat was made.

False Accusation or Misidentification

False accusations and misidentifications frequently occur in high-stress or chaotic situations. Our team conducts a thorough investigation to uncover evidence that supports your innocence, such as:

• Witness testimony contradicting the accuser’s version of events.
• Alibis or evidence proving you were not present at the scene.
• Motives for false accusations, such as personal disputes or bias.

Lack of Evidence

The prosecution carries the burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot provide sufficient evidence to establish that:

• A weapon or firearm was involved.
• The weapon was displayed in a threatening manner.
• You did not act in self-defense.

Our attorneys will challenge the validity of the prosecution’s case, potentially leading to a dismissal or reduction of charges.

Unlawful Police Conduct

Any violation of your rights by law enforcement during the investigation or arrest can be used to challenge the charges. This includes:

• Illegal search and seizure practices.
• Failure to follow proper arrest procedures.
• Coercion or other constitutional violations.

Understanding Defenses for Public Intoxication Charges in California

Under California Penal Code 647(f), it is illegal to be under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both in a public place if your behavior:

• Endangers your own safety or the safety of others, or
• Obstructs or interferes with the free use of public ways or sidewalks.

These charges often arise when law enforcement deems someone visibly intoxicated in a public area. However, many arrests result from misunderstandings, insufficient evidence, or overreach by police officers. Being charged under PC 647(f) does not automatically mean you will be convicted. There are several effective defenses available depending on the circumstances of your case.

If you or a loved one is facing charges for being drunk in public, our Los Angeles defense attorney can help protect your rights and build a strong defense. Call The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation.

You Were Not Intoxicated

To secure a conviction under California Penal Code 647(f), the prosecution must prove that you were under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both to the extent that your ability to function was significantly impaired. If this cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges may not hold.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we carefully evaluate the evidence to demonstrate that you were not intoxicated. Possible defense strategies include:

• Witness Testimony: Statements from individuals who can verify that you appeared sober at the time of the alleged incident.
• Medical Explanations: Certain medical conditions, such as diabetes, hypoglycemia, or neurological disorders, can mimic signs of intoxication and lead to false accusations.
• Challenging Evidence: Highlighting the absence of credible physical evidence, such as sobriety tests or blood alcohol content (BAC) results, that proves you were under the influence.

By meticulously analyzing the facts of your case, our Los Angeles defense attorney works to protect your rights and challenge any weak or insufficient evidence presented by the prosecution.

You Were Not in a Public Place

To be convicted under California Penal Code 647(f), the prosecution must prove that the alleged intoxication occurred in a public place. A “public place” is generally defined as an area accessible to the general public, such as sidewalks, streets, parks, or businesses open to the public. However, if you were on private property—like your home, a friend’s residence, or a restricted-access area—you cannot be convicted under this law.

To challenge this element, your defense may focus on demonstrating that the location of the incident does not meet the legal definition of a public place. Evidence such as:

• Photos or Maps: Showing the exact location where the incident occurred to establish it as private property.
• Witness Statements: Testimony from others present confirming that you were on private property at the time of the arrest.

If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in a public place, the charges may be dismissed or reduced.

Police Misconduct During the Arrest

Charges for being drunk in public under Penal Code 647(f) can be challenged if law enforcement engaged in misconduct during your arrest. Police officers are required to follow strict procedures, and any failure to do so can compromise the validity of the case against you.

Examples of police misconduct include:

• Improper Motivation for Arrest: Arresting you for public intoxication as a way to break up a dispute or force compliance, rather than because you posed a legitimate threat or danger.
• Failure to Investigate: Officers failing to determine whether you were genuinely intoxicated or a danger to yourself or others. For instance, no field sobriety test was conducted, or the officer ignored evidence suggesting you were not impaired.
• Violation of Constitutional Rights: Arresting officers failing to inform you of your Miranda rights or conducting an unlawful search and seizure.

If misconduct is identified, your attorney may file motions to suppress evidence obtained during the arrest or argue for the charges to be dismissed entirely. This can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case and improve your chances of a favorable outcome.

Necessity or Duress

In certain situations, being intoxicated in public may be justified under the defenses of necessity or duress. These defenses acknowledge that your actions were not willfully criminal but a response to extraordinary circumstances beyond your control.

• Necessity: This defense applies when you were intoxicated in a public place to protect yourself from a greater harm. For example, if you entered a public area while intoxicated to escape an immediate threat, such as fleeing an assault, your actions could be seen as necessary to ensure your safety.
• Duress: This defense may apply if you were coerced or forced into being publicly intoxicated. For instance, if someone threatened you and left you in a public place while intoxicated, your lack of reasonable alternatives could justify your actions.

Our experienced criminal defense attorney will investigate the circumstances of your arrest to determine whether necessity or duress applies to your case. Establishing these defenses can lead to a dismissal or reduction of charges.

Potential Penalties for Penal Code 647(f)

Drunk in Public is typically charged as a misdemeanor in California and may result in:

• Up to 6 months in county jail.
• A fine of up to $1,000.
• Informal probation.
• Participation in alcohol or drug education programs.

For repeat offenders or cases involving aggravating circumstances, the penalties can be more severe.

Contact a Los Angeles Public Intoxication Lawyer

Facing charges under California Penal Code 647(f) for public intoxication can impact your life in significant ways. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our experienced Los Angeles defense attorney is committed to protecting your rights and helping you navigate these charges effectively.

Attorney Arash Hashemi will review the details of your arrest, identify flaws in the prosecution’s case, and build a tailored defense to pursue the best possible outcome. Whether it involves challenging the evidence, addressing police misconduct, or demonstrating that your actions were justified, we are here to fight for you.

Call our office today to schedule a consultation and take the first step in defending your future.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

California Penal Code Section 32: Defending Accessory After the Fact Charges

Being charged as an accessory after the fact under California Penal Code Section 32 means you are accused of helping someone avoid arrest, trial, or punishment after they’ve committed a felony. This could involve actions like providing shelter, creating a false alibi, hiding evidence, or assisting in any way to help them evade law enforcement. These accusations can disrupt your life and have serious legal consequences.

Accessory after the fact is considered a “wobbler” offense in California, which means it can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. The penalties for a conviction can include jail time, significant fines, and a permanent criminal record.

If you or someone you know is facing these charges, having a skilled Los Angeles defense attorney is critical. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience successfully defending clients against serious accusations. Call us today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation and start building your defense.

What Does Penal Code 32 Define as Accessory After the Fact?

Under Penal Code Section 32, a person can be charged with accessory after the fact if they knowingly assist someone who has already committed a felony with the intent to help them avoid arrest, prosecution, conviction, or punishment. This offense specifically targets actions taken after the felony has occurred and does not require involvement in the underlying crime itself.

Accessory After the Fact vs. Aiding and Abetting in California

It is important to understand the difference between these two charges:

• Accessory After the Fact applies to actions that occur after the felony is complete, such as harboring the offender, providing false information to authorities, or hiding evidence.
• Aiding and Abetting involves actively assisting in the planning or commission of a crime.

This distinction is crucial because accessory after the fact focuses solely on post-crime behavior, whereas aiding and abetting holds individuals accountable for their involvement before or during the offense. If you are accused of being an accessory after the fact, the circumstances surrounding your alleged actions will play a significant role in how the case is prosecuted and defended.

Key Elements of Accessory After the Fact Under California Law

To obtain a conviction for being an accessory after the fact under California Penal Code Section 32, the prosecution must demonstrate the following elements:

1. A Felony Was Committed or Charged
   The person you allegedly assisted (the principal) must have committed a felony or faced formal felony charges. This statute does not apply to aiding someone involved in a misdemeanor.
2. Knowledge of the Felony
   You must have known that the individual committed, was charged with, or was convicted of a felony. A lack of knowledge or reasonable doubt about your awareness of the crime can serve as a defense.
3. Intentional Assistance
   After the felony was committed or charges were filed, you intentionally took actions to aid, conceal, or harbor the individual. This could include providing shelter, helping them evade law enforcement, or offering false information to authorities.
4. Intent to Help Evade Justice
   The prosecution must show that your actions were taken with the specific intent of helping the individual avoid arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment. If your assistance was unintentional or unrelated to the felony, this element cannot be proven.

Accessory after the fact charges can arise in many forms, depending on the circumstances of the principal crime and the alleged aid provided. Each case is unique, requiring an experienced criminal defense attorney to thoroughly review of the evidence to determine the best defense strategy.

Examples of Accessory After the Fact in California

• Providing Shelter: Letting a fugitive stay in your home to avoid police detection.
• Destroying Evidence: Disposing of physical evidence, such as weapons or stolen property, to protect the felon.
• False Alibi: Lying to law enforcement about the whereabouts of the felon.
• Transportation: Driving the felon to a safe location after the crime.

Penalties for Violating Penal Code 32

Being an accessory after the fact is classified as a wobbler offense, meaning it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances.

Misdemeanor Penalties:

• Jail Time: Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines: Up to $5,000.
• Probation: Summary (informal) probation may be an option in lieu of jail time.

Felony Penalties:

• Prison Time: 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison.
• Fines: Up to $5,000.
• Formal Probation: May include conditions like community service or mandatory counseling.

Offenses Related to Penal Code 32 in California

1. Aiding and Abetting (Penal Code 31): Assisting or encouraging someone in committing a crime before or during the offense.
2. Harboring a Fugitive (Penal Code 4530): Providing refuge to someone escaping custody.
3. Obstruction of Justice (Penal Code 148): Resisting, delaying, or obstructing a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties.
4. Conspiracy (Penal Code 182): Agreeing with others to commit a crime, accompanied by an overt act to further the plan.

Legal Defenses for Penal Code 32 Charges in California

Proving Lack of Knowledge of the Felony

To be convicted, the prosecution must prove that you knew the person you assisted had committed a felony. If you were unaware of their criminal actions or the severity of their offense, this element cannot be satisfied. For example, if you were misled about the nature of their situation, you cannot be held accountable as an accessory.

No Intent to Obstruct Justice

The law requires that your actions were specifically intended to help the person evade arrest, trial, or punishment. If your assistance was unrelated to the crime—such as providing aid out of compassion or without knowledge of the legal implications—you may have a strong defense.

Arguing Coercion or Dures

If you were forced to assist the individual due to threats, intimidation, or fear for your safety, you may argue that you acted under duress. For this defense to apply, it must be shown that you had no reasonable alternative but to comply with the demands.

Challenging Evidence of Assistance

The prosecution must present clear evidence that your actions amounted to assistance under the law. If they cannot prove that you actively concealed, harbored, or otherwise helped the individual avoid justice, the charges may not stand.

By analyzing the details of your case and challenging the prosecution’s claims, a skilled defense attorney can help protect your rights and work toward the best possible outcome.

Schedule a Consultation with our Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Today

If you or someone you know is facing charges of being an accessory after the fact under California Penal Code Section 32, it is critical to contact an experienced Los Angeles criminal attorney. These charges carry serious consequences, including potential jail time and a permanent criminal record.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience successfully defending clients in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and surrounding areas. Attorney Arash Hashemi will thoroughly review the specifics of your case, challenge the evidence brought by the prosecution, and craft a defense strategy tailored to your circumstances.

Don’t let these charges define your future. Take the first step toward protecting your rights and freedom—contact our office today for a confidential consultation.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Understanding the Difference Between Aggravated Assault and Attempted Murder

When facing charges for aggravated assault or attempted murder in California, understanding the distinction between these serious crimes is crucial. While both involve acts of violence and intent to cause harm, they differ significantly in the level of intent, the required actions, and the potential penalties. These differences can determine whether you face felony or misdemeanor charges, as well as the severity of the consequences if convicted. The two charges may appear similar, as both involve violent conduct and attempts to harm another person. However, under California law, aggravated assault is generally focused on causing serious injury through force or threats, while attempted murder involves a deliberate intent to take another person’s life.

The District Attorney will determine which charge to pursue based on the evidence, the circumstances of the alleged offense, and the strength of the case. Both charges carry severe penalties, including lengthy prison sentences, substantial fines, and a permanent criminal record. If you or a loved one is facing either charge, having a skilled Los Angeles criminal defense attorney by your side is essential to protect your rights and secure the best possible outcome.

What Is an Aggravated Assault in California?

Aggravated Assault, under California Penal Code § 245, occurs when an individual uses force or threats of force with the intent to cause serious bodily injury. This offense often involves the use of a deadly weapon or extreme force that could result in substantial harm.

Key Points About Aggravated Assault:

1. Intent: The intent is to harm or cause serious injury, not necessarily to kill.
2. Use of Force: The assault typically involves a weapon or action capable of causing significant harm.
3. Harm: Actual injury is not required; attempting to cause harm is enough.

Examples of Aggravated Assault:

• Striking someone with a bat or crowbar.
• Swinging a knife at someone without causing injury.
• Threatening someone with a loaded firearm.

Penalties for Aggravated Assault in California:

• Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in county jail and fines up to $1,000.
• Felony: 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison and fines up to $10,000.
• Additional Consequences: Probation, restitution, and loss of firearm rights.

Defining Attempted Murder Under California Law

Attempted Murder, under California Penal Code §§ 664/187, is the act of trying to unlawfully kill another person with deliberate intent. This crime requires a direct step toward causing death.

Key Points About Attempted Murder:

1. Specific Intent to Kill: The defendant must have a clear and conscious intent to end another person’s life.
2. Overt Act: There must be a direct action (e.g., shooting, stabbing) toward committing the murder, beyond mere preparation.
3. Premeditation: For first-degree charges, the act must be deliberate and planned.

Examples of Attempted Murder:

• Shooting at someone but missing.
• Poisoning someone’s drink with the intent to kill.
• Stabbing someone in the chest but failing to cause fatal harm.

Penalties for Attempted Murder in California:

• First-Degree Attempted Murder (Premeditated): Life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.
• Second-Degree Attempted Murder (Non-Premeditated): 5, 7, or 9 years in state prison.
• Enhanced Penalties: Additional time if the act involved a firearm, gang activity, or other aggravating factors.

Key Differences Between Aggravated Assault and Attempted Murder

Understanding When Assault Becomes Attempted Murder

The distinction between aggravated assault and attempted murder often depend on determining the attacker’s intent. When prosecutors decide whether to charge someone with assault or attempted murder, they rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to infer the accused’s intentions. Several key factors are typically examined to make this determination.

Nature of the Attack

The type of force or weapon used during the incident can indicate intent. For instance, attempting to harm someone with a dangerous substance, such as poisoning their drink, often demonstrates premeditation and intent to kill. Conversely, striking someone during a heated argument with a blunt object, such as a chair, may suggest a lack of prior planning and point toward aggravated assault.

Targeted Areas of the Body

Where the force was directed plays a crucial role in determining intent. Actions like aiming a weapon at vital areas, such as the head, chest, or neck, are more likely to be interpreted as an attempt to kill. By contrast, injuries to non-lethal areas like the arms or legs may suggest the intent was to harm rather than to end a life.

Statements or Actions Surrounding the Incident

Comments made before, during, or after the incident can provide insight into the attacker’s mindset. For example, statements expressing a desire to “end someone’s life” or threats made prior to the attack may be used as evidence to argue the assault was an intentional murder attempt. Conversely, an absence of such statements or evidence of impulsive behavior may support a lesser charge.

Legal Defenses Against Aggravated Assault or Attempted Murder Charges

If you are accused of attempting to harm or kill someone, it is crucial to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your attorney will evaluate your case, explain the key differences between assault and attempted murder, and determine the most effective defense strategy based on the circumstances. One potential defense is lack of intent. To be convicted of attempted murder, the prosecution must prove you intended to kill. Similarly, for assault charges, there must be intent to harm. If no such intent existed, the charges may not stand. Another possible defense is lack of action—even if there was intent, failing to take any steps toward carrying out the harm means no crime was committed.

Misidentification is another common defense, especially in cases where the accused is mistaken for someone else. This can often be disproven with alibis, witness testimony, or other evidence. In cases involving false accusations, the charges may stem from malicious motives or fabricated claims. Demonstrating that the accusations are baseless or contradict evidence can result in a dismissal. Each case is unique, and the right defense will depend on the specific facts and evidence. An experienced attorney will work to build a strong case, protect your rights, and achieve the best possible outcome.

Self-Defense as a Defense Strategy

In cases of aggravated assault or attempted murder, a person may argue that their actions were justified if they reasonably believed they were in imminent danger of harm or death. For this defense to apply, the threat must have been immediate and credible, with no reasonable way to avoid the danger.

The response must also be proportional to the threat faced. Using excessive force beyond what was necessary to neutralize the threat can weaken this argument. Even if the perceived danger turned out to be a mistake, the defense may still be valid if the belief was reasonable under the circumstances. A successfully established claim of acting in self-defense can result in charges being reduced or dismissed entirely. Our Los Angeles defense attorney has successfully defended clients against attempted murder charges by effectively demonstrating self-defense in court.

Case Result: Attempted Murder Charges Dismissed

In a recent case in the Superior Court of California, City of Los Angeles, our client was charged with attempted murder (PC 664-187(A)) after an alleged incident involving self-defense. During the preliminary hearing, the court raised concerns about the proportionality of the force used, resulting in the charges being reduced to attempted voluntary manslaughter (PC 664-192(A)) with an additional “gun enhancement” charge.

Attorney Hashemi filed a PC 995 motion to challenge the charges, presenting a thorough self-defense argument. After extensive review and oral arguments, the court determined that our client acted in self-defense, leading to a complete dismissal of all charges.

Outcome: Attempted Murder Charges Dismissed

With decades of experience, we fight aggressively to defend our clients and ensure their rights are protected at every stage of the case.

California Penal Code 220 PC: Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony

Under California Penal Code 220 PC, it is a serious crime to assault someone with the intent to commit certain violent or sexual felonies. This statute addresses actions where force or threats are used with the specific intent to carry out heinous acts, such as rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or mayhem. Even minimal physical contact, such as a push or grab, can qualify as assault under this law if accompanied by the intent to commit a felony.

What Does Penal Code 220 PC Prohibit?

To be convicted for assault with intent to commit a felony, prosecutors must prove the following elements:

• An assault occurred.
• The assault was committed with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or violations of Penal Code Sections 264.1, 288, or 289.
• The act was intentional and involved non-consensual or unprivileged contact.

It is important to note that the victim does not need to sustain an injury, and even slight or indirect contact, such as through clothing, may satisfy the assault element of this charge.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience defending clients accused of serious felony charges, including assault with intent to commit a felony. Our Los Angeles defense attorney meticulously evaluates every aspect of the case to identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence and develop a strong, personalized defense strategy.

If you are facing charges under Penal Code 220 PC, call our office today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation and take the first step in protecting your rights.

Elements of Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony

To secure a conviction under California Penal Code 220 PC, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Assault

You must have committed an act that was likely to result in the application of force against another person. This includes any unprivileged or non-consensual contact, even if no physical injury occurred.

Intent to Commit a Felony

At the time of the assault, you must have acted with the specific intent to commit one of the following serious crimes:

• Mayhem
• Rape
• Sodomy
• Oral copulation
• Sexual penetration
• Lewd acts with a child (as defined under Penal Code § 288)

Specific Intent

The intent to commit one of the specified felonies must have been deliberate and clear. Actions driven merely by intent to frighten or harm, without the intent to commit a specified felony, do not meet this requirement.

Each of these elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. The lack of any one element may lead to reduced charges or a dismissal of the case.

Related Offenses to Penal Code § 220

Several other crimes may be charged in conjunction with or as an alternative to Penal Code § 220:

1. Attempted Rape (Penal Code § 261): Attempting but failing to complete a rape.
2. Sexual Battery (Penal Code § 243.4): Touching an intimate part of another person without consent for sexual gratification.
3. Kidnapping (Penal Code § 207): Forcibly moving someone a substantial distance with intent to commit a felony.
4. Burglary (Penal Code § 459): Entering a structure with intent to commit a felony, often paired with assault charges.

Common Situations Leading to Assault with Intent Charges

Assault with intent to commit a felony often involves allegations of force or threats tied to violent or sexual crimes. One common scenario is physical assault with sexual intent, where an individual uses force to restrain or isolate someone, such as leading them to a secluded area, with the intent to commit acts like rape or sexual penetration. Even minimal physical contact, if combined with the intent to commit a serious crime, can result in charges under this statute.

Another frequent situation involves assault during a break-in. This occurs when someone enters a home or private property and attacks a resident with plans to commit sexual assault, mayhem, or another felony. These incidents often lead to additional charges, such as burglary or home invasion, further compounding the potential penalties. Lastly, threats or coercion combined with assault can also lead to charges. This involves using verbal threats or intimidation along with physical force to attempt crimes such as sodomy or oral copulation. The combination of threats and physical assault elevates the severity of the offense, making it a serious felony.

Penalties for Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony

Standard Penalty

• Imprisonment in state prison for 2, 4, or 6 years.

Enhanced Penalties for a Victim Under 18

If the victim was a minor at the time of the assault, the penalties increase significantly. A conviction can result in:

• 5, 7, or 9 years in state prison.

First-Degree Residential Burglary (“Home Invasion”)

When the assault occurs during the commission of a first-degree residential burglary, the penalties become even more severe. In such cases, Penal Code 220(b) imposes:

• Life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.

Sex Offender Registration

If the intent of the assault involved committing a sexual crime, such as rape or sexual penetration, the defendant may be required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code 290. This requirement can have lifelong consequences, including restrictions on employment and residency.

Additional Consequences

In addition to incarceration, a felony conviction under PC 220 can result in:

• A permanent criminal record.
• Loss of firearm rights.
• Difficulty obtaining employment, housing, or professional licenses.

Defenses Against Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony

Facing charges under Penal Code 220 PC can be overwhelming, but there are several legal defenses that may be effective in challenging these allegations. A successful defense strategy depends on the specific circumstances of the case. Our criminal defense attorney can evaluate the evidence to determine the best approach. One common defense is proving a lack of specific intent. To convict, prosecutors must show that the accused not only committed an assault but also intended to commit a specific felony, such as rape or mayhem. If it can be demonstrated that there was no deliberate intent to commit one of these crimes, the charges may not hold up in court.

Another defense is establishing false accusations or mistaken identity. In some cases, allegations arise due to personal vendettas, misunderstandings, or misidentification. For example, if the victim falsely accuses someone out of revenge or mistakenly identifies the wrong person, this can be a basis for challenging the charges. Additionally, challenging insufficient evidence is a critical defense in many assault cases. Prosecutors must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is weak, contradictory, or unreliable—such as vague witness statements or lack of physical evidence—it can create reasonable doubt, potentially leading to a reduction or dismissal of charges.

Contact a Los Angeles Defense Attorney

If you have been charged with assault with intent to commit a felony under California Penal Code 220, it is critical to act quickly to protect your rights and future. These charges carry severe penalties, including years in state prison and, in some cases, mandatory sex offender registration. Having an experienced Los Angeles defense attorney by your side can make all the difference.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience defending clients accused of serious felony charges in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and surrounding areas. Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Arash Hashemi understand the complexities of assault with intent cases and work diligently to examine the facts, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and build a strong, personalized defense strategy.

Don’t face these charges alone. Take the first step in your defense today. Contact our office to schedule a confidential consultation and learn how we can help.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

California Penal Code Section 148(a) PC: Resisting Arrest

Under California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1), it is illegal to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician (EMT) performing their lawful duties. This law covers a wide range of actions, from physically resisting an arrest to interfering with investigations or providing false information to law enforcement.

What Is Resisting Arrest Under California Law?

To be convicted of resisting arrest in California, prosecutors must prove:

• You resisted, delayed, or obstructed an officer or EMT.
• The officer or EMT was performing lawful duties at the time of the alleged incident.
• You knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person was an officer or EMT.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience defending clients accused of resisting arrest and other criminal charges in Los Angeles. Our criminal defense attorney thoroughly examines the facts of each case, identifies weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, and builds a tailored defense strategy to protect your rights.

If you are facing charges under PC 148(a)(1), call our office today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation and discuss how we can help.

Elements of a Resisting Arrest Charge

Willful Actions and Intent to Resist Arrest

The accused must have intentionally engaged in actions that resisted, delayed, or obstructed a public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician (EMT) in the course of their duties. Unintentional or accidental actions do not meet this requirement.

Specific Action That Prevented Duties

There must be evidence of a specific act that hindered or interfered with the officer’s or EMT’s ability to perform their responsibilities. General annoyance or passive non-compliance, such as remaining silent, is insufficient to constitute a violation.

Officer or EMT Status

The individual allegedly resisted must be a public officer, peace officer, or EMT acting within their professional role. Examples include police officers, sheriff’s deputies, or emergency medical technicians.

Performing Lawful Duties

The officer or EMT must have been engaged in the lawful performance of their duties at the time of the alleged offense. If the officer was acting outside their authority—such as conducting an unlawful arrest—this element is not satisfied.

Knowledge of the Officer’s Lawful Status

The accused must have known, or reasonably should have known, that the person they allegedly resisted, delayed, or obstructed was an officer or EMT performing their duties. Failure to establish any of these elements can result in the charges being dismissed or the accused being acquitted.

Example

Scenario: Alex is stopped by a uniformed police officer for jaywalking. The officer begins questioning Alex, who becomes agitated and walks away despite repeated commands to stay. The officer attempts to detain Alex, but Alex pulls their arm away and struggles, shouting that the stop is unfair. Eventually, the officer places Alex under arrest and charges them with resisting arrest under Penal Code 148(a)(1).

Conclusion: In this case, Alex’s physical struggle and refusal to comply with the officer’s commands could meet the criteria for willfully resisting or delaying an officer in the lawful performance of their duties. If Alex’s behavior was intentional and they were aware that the individual was a police officer, the prosecution may be able to prove the elements of the offense.

Common Scenarios Leading to Resisting Arrest Charges

Interactions with law enforcement or emergency personnel can sometimes escalate into allegations of resisting, delaying, or obstructing duties. Examples of situations that often lead to these charges include:

• Physical Resistance: Struggling, pulling away, or refusing to comply during an arrest.
• Providing False Information: Giving officers a fake name, false identification, or intentionally misleading details.
• Interfering with Investigations: Entering restricted areas, disrupting police activities, or refusing lawful commands.
• Obstructing EMTs: Blocking emergency responders from providing medical assistance or delaying their ability to access a scene.

Penalties for Resisting Arrest in California

• Incarceration: Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines: Up to $1,000.
• Probation: Informal (summary) probation may be granted in place of or in addition to jail time. Probation terms may include community service, counseling, or other court-ordered requirements. Violating probation conditions can result in penalties, including revocation of probation.
• Criminal Record: A misdemeanor conviction will result in a permanent criminal record, which can impact employment, housing opportunities, and professional licensing.

Legal Defenses Against Resisting Arrest Charges

Proving the Arrest Was Unlawful

If law enforcement acted outside the scope of their lawful duties—such as lacking probable cause for the arrest or conducting an illegal detention—it may serve as a defense. Demonstrating that the officer’s actions were unlawful can undermine the prosecution’s case and lead to a dismissal of the charges.

Self-Defense Against Excessive Police Force

California law allows individuals to defend themselves if an officer uses excessive or unlawful force. If you resisted only to protect yourself from harm, this can be a valid defense. Evidence such as witness statements or video footage may help establish that your actions were reasonable and justified.

Lack of Intent

A conviction under PC 148(a)(1) requires proof that the actions were willful. If your behavior was accidental, unintentional, or misunderstood, this lack of intent can be used to challenge the charges. For example, confusion during an encounter with law enforcement is not sufficient to meet the willfulness standard.

Challenging the Evidence Against You

Prosecutors must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If there are inconsistencies in the officer’s report, unreliable witness testimony, or no credible evidence, the defense can argue that the case lacks sufficient proof. Surveillance footage, body camera recordings, or testimony from bystanders may directly contradict the prosecution’s version of events.

Each case is unique, and the details of the incident play a crucial role in determining the most effective defense strategy. A skilled attorney can thoroughly investigate the facts, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and work to achieve the best possible outcome.

Negotiating a Plea Deal for Resisting Arrest Charges

For those facing resisting arrest charges under California Penal Code 148(a)(1), plea bargaining can be an effective way to reduce the severity of the charges or penalties. Plea negotiations allow the defense and prosecution to reach an agreement that benefits both parties, potentially avoiding a lengthy trial and harsher consequences.

How Plea Bargaining Works in Resisting Arrest Cases

During plea negotiations, your attorney can advocate for the charges to be:

• Reduced to a Lesser Offense: For example, negotiating to reduce resisting arrest to an infraction or non-criminal violation, which may involve only a fine and no criminal record.
• Dropped in Exchange for Certain Conditions: In some cases, the prosecution may agree to dismiss the charges if specific conditions, such as completing a diversion program or community service, are met.
• Lighter Penalties: Negotiations can also focus on reducing sentencing, such as replacing jail time with probation or removing fines.

What Should You Do If You’re Charged With Resisting Arrest?

If you are charged with resisting arrest, taking immediate action is crucial to protect your rights and secure the best possible outcome. Retaining an experienced criminal defense attorney is the first and most important step. A knowledgeable criminal defense attorney can:

• Negotiate for Lesser Charges: Work to reduce the charge to a less severe offense through plea bargaining.
• Minimize Penalties: Advocate for reduced sentencing, such as probation instead of jail time.
• Seek Dismissal of Charges: Identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case to have charges dropped entirely.

Contact a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

If you or someone you know has been arrested or charged with resisting arrest under California Penal Code 148(a)(1), it is essential to have experienced legal representation. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience defending clients in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and surrounding areas.

Attorney Arash Hashemi will carefully examine the facts of your case, challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution, and develop a defense strategy tailored to your specific circumstances. From unlawful arrests to insufficient evidence, we work tirelessly to secure the best possible outcome for every client. Take the first step in protecting your rights and future. Contact our office today for a confidential consultation.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

What to Expect After Being Arrested at LAX with Drugs

How TSA Handles Drug Discoveries

TSA officers don’t actively search for drugs during routine screenings, but they will notify law enforcement if they discover controlled substances. Drugs are typically found during:

• Baggage X-rays: Substances hidden in carry-on or checked luggage.
• Body scans or pat-downs: Suspicious items on your person.
• Secondary screenings: When TSA investigates other security concerns and discovers drugs in the process.

Once drugs are detected, your case escalates immediately to law enforcement.

Referral to Law Enforcement After TSA Alerts

If TSA alerts law enforcement, such as the Los Angeles Airport Police, you can expect the following:

• Questioning: Officers will question you about the drugs, their origin, and intended use.
• Further searches: Your person, luggage, or other belongings may undergo additional scrutiny.
• Arrest: If probable cause exists, you will be taken into custody.

At this stage, anything you say can be used against you, so it’s critical to remain silent and request an attorney immediately.

Booking and Initial Charges at LAX

After your arrest, you will be booked into custody. Depending on the circumstances, you could face charges such as:

• Drug Possession: Typically applies to smaller quantities intended for personal use.
• Possession with Intent to Sell: Larger amounts or packaging that indicates distribution.
• Drug Trafficking: Transporting drugs across state or international borders, a serious federal offense.

Each charge carries severe penalties, including jail time, fines, and a permanent criminal record. Having a skilled attorney from the outset can help you challenge the charges and work toward reducing or dismissing them.

Frequent Drug-Related Charges at Los Angeles International Airport

Simple Possession of Controlled Substances

Simple possession typically refers to small amounts of drugs intended for personal use. While marijuana is legal in California under certain circumstances, possession over the legal limit or possession of other controlled substances—such as cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy—can result in misdemeanor charges.

Penalties for Simple Possession:

• Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines, probation, or required participation in a drug treatment program.
• A criminal record that may impact employment, housing, and other opportunities.

In some cases, individuals arrested for simple possession may qualify for California’s diversion programs, which can lead to charges being dropped upon successful completion of drug education or treatment.

Possession with Intent to Distribute

Possession with intent to sell involves larger quantities of drugs or evidence suggesting distribution, such as packaging materials, scales, or large amounts of cash. Prosecutors often pursue these cases as felonies, carrying more severe penalties.

Penalties for Possession with Intent to Sell:

• 2 to 4 years in California state prison.
• Substantial fines, often in the thousands of dollars.
• Probation, asset forfeiture, or enhanced sentences for drug sales near schools or involving minors.

Drug Trafficking and Federal Offenses

Drug trafficking is one of the most serious drug-related offenses and applies to transporting drugs across state lines, internationally, or in significant quantities. Federal agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) often take jurisdiction in these cases, imposing harsher penalties than state law.

Penalties for Drug Trafficking:

• Federal prison sentences ranging from 5 to 40 years (or more, depending on the drug type and quantity).
• Hefty fines reaching up to $5 million for individuals.
• Asset forfeiture, including cash, vehicles, or property tied to the offense.
• Mandatory minimum sentences for offenses involving large quantities of controlled substances or repeat offenders.

Key Factors That Affect Drug Charges After an LAX Arrest

• Type of Controlled Substance Involved: Controlled substances like heroin, methamphetamine, or fentanyl often result in more severe charges than marijuana or prescription medications.
• Drug Quantity and Packaging: Even a small amount of a highly controlled substance may lead to trafficking charges if transported across borders.
• Evidence Suggesting Intent to Distribute: Evidence such as packaging, scales, or communication about sales may indicate intent to sell or distribute.
• State vs. Federal Jurisdiction in Airport Arrests: Cases involving interstate or international travel are typically prosecuted under federal law, which carries harsher penalties.

Federal vs. State Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction under which your case is prosecuted—state or federal—depends on the specifics of your arrest, including the amount of drugs involved and whether interstate or international travel was a factor. Cases involving smaller quantities of drugs for personal use are generally handled at the state level. California state law often focuses on rehabilitation for minor drug offenses, offering options like diversion programs for first-time offenders. However, the penalties can still include jail time, fines, and a criminal record that affects future opportunities.

On the other hand, federal jurisdiction is triggered in more serious cases, such as when drugs are transported across state or international borders, or when large quantities of controlled substances are involved. Federal drug offenses come with mandatory minimum sentences, which can result in lengthy prison terms and substantial fines. Federal charges also carry harsher penalties compared to state-level cases, and they are prosecuted by well-resourced federal agencies like the DEA. The complexities of federal drug laws make it essential to have experienced legal representation to navigate these high-stakes cases.

Defense Strategies for Drug Arrests at LAX

Challenging Illegal Searches and Seizures

A critical defense strategy in drug cases at LAX is challenging the legality of the search and seizure. Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals are protected from unlawful searches and seizures, which means that law enforcement must follow strict protocols to ensure that evidence is obtained legally. If TSA or law enforcement officers exceeded their authority during the search—for example, by conducting an invasive search without reasonable suspicion or probable cause—your attorney can argue that your rights were violated. Similarly, if law enforcement did not have proper justification to search your luggage, person, or belongings, the evidence collected may be deemed inadmissible in court. Suppressing unlawfully obtained evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case significantly, potentially leading to reduced charges or dismissal.

Proving Lack of Knowledge of the Drugs

In some drug cases, especially at an airport like LAX, it’s possible that the accused genuinely had no knowledge of the drugs in their possession. For example, someone else may have placed the substances in their luggage without their awareness, a scenario that can occur in instances of luggage tampering or smuggling schemes. Your attorney can gather and present evidence to support this claim, such as surveillance footage, witness testimony, or documentation showing that the bag was handled by someone else. Additionally, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly possessed the drugs.

Addressing Intent to Distribute Allegations

Intent to distribute is often inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the quantity of drugs, how they were packaged, or the presence of items like scales or large amounts of cash. However, these factors do not always indicate distribution. For instance, possession of a larger quantity of drugs does not automatically mean they were intended for sale—it could simply indicate personal use. Your attorney can challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence, presenting arguments that the drugs were for personal consumption rather than distribution. By undermining the intent to distribute, an experienced criminal defense attorney can potentially reduce a felony charge to a misdemeanor, or even negotiate for alternative sentencing options, such as diversion programs or probation.

Identifying Chain of Custody Issues

In any drug case, the prosecution must establish a clear and unbroken chain of custody for the evidence. This means that the drugs seized must be properly documented, handled, and stored from the moment they are discovered until they are presented in court. Any lapses or irregularities in this process—such as missing documentation, mishandling of evidence, or gaps in the chain of custody—can raise questions about the integrity and reliability of the evidence. For instance, if the drugs were not securely stored or if the individuals handling the evidence failed to follow proper protocols, it may lead to contamination or tampering concerns. Your defense attorney can thoroughly examine the chain of custody records to identify and highlight these issues, potentially resulting in the exclusion of the evidence and weakening the prosecution’s case.

Negotiating for Reduced or Alternative Sentencing

For first-time offenders or individuals caught with small amounts of drugs, negotiating for reduced charges is often a viable strategy. Prosecutors may be open to alternatives such as reducing a felony charge to a misdemeanor or agreeing to a plea deal that involves less severe penalties. In some cases, your attorney can advocate for alternative sentencing options, like California’s diversion programs, which allow eligible defendants to complete drug education or treatment in exchange for the charges being dismissed. These programs are particularly beneficial for first-time offenders, as they can avoid a criminal record while addressing the underlying issues related to drug use. By leveraging your personal circumstances, lack of prior offenses, and the specifics of the case, our attorney can work to achieve the best possible outcome for your situation.

What to Do If You’re Arrested at LAX for Drugs

Contact an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney

Drug-related arrests at airports are complex, often involving multiple agencies and, in some cases, federal jurisdiction. Securing legal counsel from an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately after your arrest is critical. Our criminal attorney can analyze the details of your case, identify any procedural errors or constitutional violations, and challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution. Attorney Hashemi will also negotiate with prosecutors to reduce or dismiss charges where possible and ensure that your rights are protected throughout the legal process.

Avoid Discussing the Case

It’s essential to limit discussions about your case to your attorney. Avoid talking about the details of your arrest with friends, family, or colleagues, as these conversations could inadvertently harm your defense. Additionally, do not post anything about the incident on social media, as prosecutors and law enforcement often monitor such platforms for incriminating evidence. Keeping the details of your case private minimizes the risk of jeopardizing your defense strategy.

Experienced Legal Representation for LAX Drug Arrests

The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi offers over 20 years of experience in defending clients arrested at LAX with drugs. Since founding the firm in 2003, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Arash Hashemi has built a reputation for successfully handling a wide variety of cases, ranging from minor offenses to serious felonies such as murder. His expertise includes defending clients in both California state and federal courts, ensuring comprehensive representation in cases involving federal drug charges often associated with airport arrests. As the 2024 President of the Criminal Courts Bar Association, Arash’s leadership and professional reputation reinforce his commitment to protecting his clients’ rights.

Our firm is known for crafting personalized defense strategies tailored to each client’s unique circumstances. We scrutinize every aspect of the case, including potential Fourth Amendment violations, improper evidence handling, and constitutional issues, to build a strong defense. Whether facing state or federal charges, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi is dedicated to safeguarding your freedom and future. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case and start building your defense.

Contact Our Los Angeles Drug Crime Lawyer

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Understanding California Ecstasy Laws and Penalties

Ecstasy, commonly referred to as MDMA or Molly, is a Schedule I controlled substance under both federal and California law, indicating its high potential for abuse and lack of recognized medical use. Charges involving ecstasy—whether for possession, intent to sell, or trafficking—carry severe consequences, including incarceration, fines, and a permanent criminal record. These outcomes can profoundly affect your personal and professional future, emphasizing the importance of understanding defenses for California ecstasy charges to protect your rights and build a strong legal strategy

However, being charged with an ecstasy-related crime does not mean you are without options. With a well-planned legal defense, it may be possible to have charges reduced, negotiate for alternative sentencing, or even achieve a case dismissal. Below, we outline common defenses for ecstasy charges in California and how they can help protect your rights.

If you or a loved one is facing ecstasy-related charges, our Los Angeles criminal defense attorney is here to provide the guidance and advocacy you need. Call The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi today at (310) 448-1529 to discuss your case and explore your legal options.

Common Ecstasy Charges in California

Possession for Personal Use

Under California Health and Safety Code § 11377(a), simple possession of ecstasy is generally charged as a misdemeanor. This applies when the ecstasy is for personal use, with no evidence suggesting an intent to sell or distribute.

Penalties for Possession Include:

• Incarceration: Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines: Up to $1,000 in penalties.
• Alternative Sentencing: Eligibility for probation or entry into a diversion program for first-time offenders, which often includes drug education or treatment.

California’s legal system prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment in cases involving non-violent drug possession, offering pathways to treatment rather than incarceration where appropriate.

Sale or Trafficking

Selling or transporting ecstasy is a felony under California Health and Safety Code § 11379. This charge applies to activities such as distributing ecstasy to others or transporting it with the intent to sell. Offenses involving trafficking across county or state lines carry particularly severe consequences.

Penalties for Sale or Trafficking Include:

• Prison Sentences:
  • 2, 3, or 4 years for selling or transporting ecstasy.
  • Up to 9 years if trafficking occurs across county lines within California.
• Fines: Substantial monetary penalties that reflect the gravity of the offense.

Sentencing Enhancements May Apply If:

• The quantity of ecstasy exceeds statutory thresholds, resulting in additional prison time.
• Minors are involved in the sale or distribution, which can lead to heightened penalties.

Defenses for Ecstasy Charges

Unlawful Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures. In ecstasy cases, if law enforcement officers violated these protections, any evidence they obtained may be excluded from the case. For instance, officers must have probable cause to conduct a search or obtain a warrant specifying the location and items to be seized. If you did not provide consent and the officers lacked proper legal justification, the search could be deemed unlawful.

Consider a scenario where police pull you over for a routine traffic stop and search your vehicle without probable cause or your permission. If ecstasy is discovered during the search, your attorney can file a motion to suppress evidence under California Penal Code § 1538.5. This motion asks the court to exclude the evidence obtained through the unconstitutional search. If the motion is successful, the prosecution may be unable to proceed, leading to a reduction or dismissal of charges

Lack of Knowledge About the Drugs

California law requires the prosecution to prove that a defendant knowingly possessed the ecstasy in question. If you were unaware of the drug’s presence, you cannot be convicted of possession. This defense is particularly relevant in cases where ecstasy was discovered in a shared space or hidden in your belongings by someone else without your knowledge.

For example, imagine you are traveling with friends, and one places ecstasy in your backpack without informing you. During a routine traffic stop, law enforcement searches your bag and finds the drugs. In this case, your attorney can argue that you had no knowledge of the ecstasy, and thus you lacked the intent necessary for a conviction.

To strengthen this defense, your attorney may rely on witness statements, a lack of fingerprints on the drugs, or evidence demonstrating the drugs were more accessible to another individual. If successful, this defense can raise reasonable doubt about your awareness of the ecstasy’s presence, potentially resulting in reduced charges or dismissal.

No Intent to Distribute MDMA

To convict someone of possession with intent to sell ecstasy, the prosecution must present clear evidence of an intent to distribute. If such evidence is lacking, the charges may not hold. Your attorney can argue that the ecstasy found was solely for personal use, not for sale.

Indicators of personal use, such as a lack of packaging materials (e.g., baggies or containers), the absence of scales or measuring tools typically used in drug sales, and no significant cash in small denominations, can weaken the prosecution’s argument.

For instance, suppose law enforcement finds a small quantity of ecstasy in your possession, with no accompanying items like baggies or ledgers that suggest sales activity. Your attorney can present this as evidence that you did not intend to distribute the drug. This defense focuses on distinguishing personal use from distribution and can lead to reduced charges or alternative sentencing options.

Entrapment

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces an individual to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. This defense focuses on the actions of the officers rather than the defendant’s behavior, arguing that the police created the criminal opportunity and improperly influenced the individual to act.

For example, an undercover officer might repeatedly pressure you to sell ecstasy, even after you initially refuse. If the officer uses coercion, persistent requests, or offers of money to persuade you to commit the crime, your attorney can argue that the officer’s actions constitute entrapment.

In California, entrapment is evaluated based on whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have been likely to commit the crime. If your attorney can demonstrate that law enforcement crossed the line from investigation to inducement, the charges may be reduced or dismissed.

Insufficient Evidence to Prove the Charges

In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is weak, contradictory, or incomplete, your attorney can challenge its sufficiency, potentially leading to reduced charges or a dismissal.

For instance, witness testimony may be inconsistent or unreliable, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events. Additionally, the chain of custody for the drugs—documentation showing how the evidence was handled and stored—might be poorly maintained or missing altogether. Breaks in the chain of custody can lead to questions about whether the drugs were tampered with or if they are the same substances allegedly found at the scene.

Another example is the lack of direct evidence linking you to the ecstasy. If the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, such as proximity to the drugs, your attorney can argue that this does not prove possession or intent to distribute.

By thoroughly examining the evidence, your attorney can expose gaps and inconsistencies, weakening the prosecution’s case and strengthening your defense.

The Substance Was Not Ecstasy (Lab Misidentification)

In some instances, the substance seized by law enforcement may not actually be ecstasy (MDMA). Misidentification of drugs is more common than many realize, and laboratory analysis is essential to confirm the nature of the substance. Your attorney can request independent testing or challenge the prosecution’s evidence if proper testing procedures were not followed.

For example, a field test conducted at the scene may yield a false positive, which could lead to erroneous charges. These field tests are not always reliable and can mistake other substances, such as caffeine pills or over-the-counter medications, for illegal drugs. If the prosecution cannot conclusively prove through certified lab testing that the substance is MDMA, the charges may be dismissed.

This defense highlights the importance of scrutinizing the evidence presented by the prosecution to ensure accuracy and fairness in your case. Misidentification can completely undermine the foundation of the charges against you.

How Diversion Programs Can Help First-Time Offenders

For individuals facing simple possession charges and with no prior drug-related convictions, California Penal Code § 1000 offers an opportunity to avoid a conviction through pretrial diversion. These programs focus on rehabilitation over punishment, recognizing that treatment and education can be more effective for first-time offenders.

Under a diversion program, eligible participants are required to complete court-approved drug education or treatment. This might include:

• Attending Counseling Sessions: Educational programs on the risks of drug use and relapse prevention.
• Rehabilitation Treatment: Enrolling in outpatient or residential drug treatment as needed.
• Regular Check-ins: Reporting progress to the court or program administrator.

Upon successful completion of the program, the court dismisses the charges, leaving no criminal record. However, failure to comply with the program’s terms can result in reinstatement of the charges.

This defense is particularly beneficial as it not only resolves the legal matter but also helps defendants avoid the long-term consequences of a criminal record, such as difficulty obtaining employment or housing. Your attorney can assess your eligibility for diversion and advocate for this resolution if applicable.

Why You Need a Skilled Drug Crime Defense Attorney

• Investigating the Arrest: Examining whether law enforcement violated your rights during the search, seizure, or questioning process. Any misconduct, such as lack of probable cause or a defective warrant, could lead to the suppression of evidence.
• Challenging the Evidence: Filing motions under California Penal Code § 1538.5 to suppress evidence obtained unlawfully or questioning the credibility of the prosecution’s case, such as the chain of custody for seized substances.
• Negotiating with Prosecutors: Advocating for reduced charges, alternative sentencing options, or pretrial diversion programs, especially for first-time offenders.
• Representing You in Court: Developing a solid defense strategy tailored to your case and presenting clear, persuasive arguments to a judge or jury.

Why Choose The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi?

Our firm has over 20 years of experience defending clients against drug-related charges in Los Angeles. Attorney Arash Hashemi has an in-depth understanding of California drug laws and the Los Angeles court system, having successfully represented clients in hundreds of criminal cases. Our extensive experience ensures a strategic and results-driven approach to every case. We are committed to providing aggressive and personalized legal representation to protect your rights and fight for the best possible outcome in your case.

Our firm has a history of:

• Obtaining dismissals through strategic motions, including the suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence.
• Negotiating favorable outcomes, such as reduced charges and alternative sentencing options.
• Securing acquittals in court by challenging the prosecution’s case and presenting compelling defenses.

Schedule Your Consultation with a Los Angeles Drug Defense Attorney

Facing ecstasy charges can be a life-altering experience, but early legal intervention can make all the difference. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our experienced Los Angeles criminal defense team will assess your case thoroughly and explore all available options to protect your future.

Through pre-filing intervention, we may be able to engage with law enforcement and prosecutors to prevent formal charges from being filed. If appropriate, we can also determine your eligibility for a drug diversion program, offering you a chance to seek treatment rather than face incarceration, while potentially securing a dismissal of your charges upon successful completion. Take control of your defense today by contacting us for a free consultation.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Can Social Media Posts Be Used Against You in California Courts?

Yes, social media posts can be used as evidence in criminal cases. In California, publicly shared information on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook is often accessible to law enforcement, prosecutors, and private investigators without a warrant. This means that posts, comments, photos, and videos you share can be scrutinized and potentially used to support allegations against you.

What Types of Social Media Posts Are Used in Court?

• Photos or Videos: Images or videos depicting illegal activities, weapons, or cash can be presented as evidence of wrongdoing.
• Geotagging: Location data from posts or photos can place you at the scene of a crime, even if you didn’t directly mention it.
• Statements: Status updates, captions, or comments that suggest intent, motive, or acknowledgment of a crime can be used to build a case.
• Connections: Friend lists, tagged photos, or follows that show associations with co-conspirators or known criminal groups.

Social media evidence has been critical in prosecuting cases involving theft, assault, drug trafficking, and even violent crimes such as homicide. Because of its permanence and accessibility, social media content is increasingly a key focus during investigations and trials.

The Role of Metadata in Social Media Evidence

Metadata, often referred to as “data about data,” plays a critical role in social media evidence in criminal cases. It includes technical details embedded in digital posts, such as timestamps, geolocation data, and device information. In the context of a criminal investigation, metadata can provide powerful insights that go beyond the content of a post itself.

Key Metadata Elements in Criminal Cases

1. Timestamps
   Metadata records the exact time and date a post, photo, or message was created or uploaded. This information can establish a timeline of events, which may place a defendant at the scene of a crime—or help prove their absence.
2. Geolocation Data
   Many social media platforms embed GPS data in photos or posts. This geolocation information can reveal where a user was when a post was created, which law enforcement can use to corroborate—or challenge—an alibi.
3. Device Information
   Metadata can identify the device used to make a post, such as a smartphone or computer. If multiple devices are linked to the same account, this information can help pinpoint the origin of specific posts or messages.

Why Metadata Matters in Criminal Defense

For prosecutors, metadata is often used to strengthen their narrative by providing seemingly irrefutable evidence of timing, location, or intent. However, metadata is not infallible and can be challenged in court by:

• Proving tampering or alteration: Metadata can be manipulated, especially if evidence changes hands multiple times.
• Highlighting technical errors: Incorrect timestamps or missing data can arise due to system glitches, time zone differences, or device settings.
• Challenging authenticity: A skilled defense attorney can argue that the metadata does not conclusively tie the defendant to the alleged activity.

How Police and Prosecutors Monitor Social Media

Law enforcement agencies routinely monitor social media platforms to gather evidence of criminal activity. Given the vast amount of information shared online, these platforms provide a valuable resource for investigations. Authorities employ several strategies to collect and analyze social media data:

• Accessing Public Posts: Content shared publicly on platforms like Instagram, Twitter (now X), and Facebook is readily available to law enforcement without the need for a warrant. Posts, photos, and comments can be analyzed for evidence of criminal behavior or connections.
• Subpoenaing Private Data: If investigators believe private social media content is relevant to a case, they can obtain a subpoena to access private messages, deleted posts, or account activity logs from the platform’s servers. This often includes metadata, such as timestamps and location information.
• Using Fake Profiles: Officers may create fake accounts to interact with suspects, gain access to private content, or monitor activity in closed groups. While controversial, this tactic is commonly used in undercover operations.

Why Social Media Posts Can Be Dangerous

Even social media post shared casually or with friends, can become powerful tools for prosecutors when taken out of context. While you might view your posts as harmless, they can be interpreted or manipulated to support a criminal charge. Here are key reasons why social media can pose a danger in criminal cases:

• Lack of Context: Social media lacks nuance, and posts can easily be misconstrued. For example, a photo of you holding a drink at a party could be used to imply intoxication during the time of an alleged DUI or other offense, even if the photo was unrelated. Similarly, a lighthearted or sarcastic comment can be presented as incriminating evidence.
• Digital Permanence: Many people assume that deleting a post removes it from existence, but this isn’t the case. Social media companies store deleted posts, messages, and other data, which can be recovered through subpoenas or digital forensics. Your digital footprint is far more permanent than you might realize.
• Implied Intent: Posts expressing anger, frustration, or hyperbole can be interpreted as evidence of intent to commit a crime. For instance, a joking comment such as, “I’d kill to have that car,” could be portrayed as premeditation in a theft or robbery case, even if it was never meant seriously.

Steps to Protect Yourself on Social Media

If you are facing criminal charges or suspect that you are under investigation, your social media activity could become a significant factor in your case. Taking proactive measures can minimize the risk of posts being used against you. Here’s what you should do:

1. Stop Posting Immediately
   Refrain from sharing new content on any social media platform. Even innocent or unrelated posts can be misconstrued by law enforcement or prosecutors. For example, a seemingly harmless comment or photo could be twisted to suggest intent or behavior relevant to your case.
2. Adjust Privacy Settings
   Set all your social media accounts to private to limit access to your content. While private posts can still be subpoenaed, reducing public visibility can minimize exposure. Also, review your followers or friends list and remove unknown or suspicious profiles, as investigators may attempt to gain access through fake accounts.
3. Avoid Discussing the Case
   Do not post anything related to your charges, the investigation, or your legal situation. Even vague posts, such as “I can’t believe this is happening” or “Some people are so unfair,” could be interpreted in damaging ways. Discuss your case only with your attorney.
4. Consult with Your Attorney
   Your defense attorney can provide specific guidance on how to handle social media during your case. They may advise on what to avoid posting and can also take steps to challenge the admissibility of improperly obtained or irrelevant social media evidence in court.
5. Preserve Evidence
   While it may be tempting to delete incriminating posts, doing so could be considered destruction of evidence, which might lead to additional charges. Instead, take screenshots of potentially relevant content and share them with your attorney to determine the best course of action.

Defending Against Social Media Evidence in Criminal Cases

Arguing Lack of Authentication

Prosecutors must authenticate social media evidence by proving that the accused created or posted the content. This involves showing that the account belongs to you and that you were the one who uploaded the post. If the prosecution fails to establish a clear connection, the evidence can be excluded.

Challenging Relevance

Your attorney can argue that the social media content is irrelevant to the charges or unfairly prejudicial. For example, a post about unrelated activities may be presented in a misleading way to imply criminal intent. Courts may exclude such evidence if it lacks direct relevance to the case or causes undue bias against the defendant.

Proving Alteration or Misinterpretation

Social media posts can be edited, taken out of context, or intentionally misrepresented. Your attorney can use digital forensics to prove that the content has been altered or present evidence showing the true context of the post. This strategy is especially useful when a post’s meaning or intent is ambiguous.

Addressing Privacy Violations

If law enforcement obtained private social media content without following proper legal procedures, such as obtaining a subpoena or warrant, your attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence. Violations of your Fourth Amendment rights may result in the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence from court proceedings.

These strategies can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case and protect your rights when social media evidence is involved. An experienced criminal defense attorney will carefully analyze the evidence and craft a defense tailored to your circumstances.

Call a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer for Social Media Evidence Issues

If you’re facing criminal charges in Los Angeles and social media evidence is being used against you, turn to The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi for trusted legal guidance. As an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, Attorney Arash Hashemi is well-versed in the complexities of digital evidence and how it can affect your case.

Social media can be a powerful tool for prosecutors, but it’s not insurmountable with the right defense strategy. Whether the issue is improper evidence collection, misinterpretation of posts, or violations of your privacy, we’re here to protect your rights and ensure a fair process. Contact our Los Angeles office today to discuss your case and explore how we can help safeguard your future.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Understanding Penal Code 212: The Role of Fear in California Robbery Cases

Robbery is one of the most serious theft crimes under California law, involving more than simply taking property. Penal Code § 212 defines robbery as the unlawful taking of property from another person’s immediate possession through the use of force or fear. Among these elements, fear plays a crucial role in establishing the severity of the offense.

The element of fear means the victim was made to reasonably believe that they or someone else could face immediate harm if they did not comply. This aspect can include physical intimidation, verbal threats, or implied actions, and it is critical to proving a robbery charge. Without demonstrating the use of force or fear, the prosecution cannot establish robbery under California law.

Understanding how fear is evaluated in robbery cases can significantly impact your defense. If you are facing robbery charges in Los Angeles, working with an experienced robbery defense attorney can make a difference in fighting these allegations and protecting your rights. Call The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 today for a confidential consultation and start building your defense.

Understanding Penal Code § 212: The Element of Fear

Under Penal Code § 212, fear plays a pivotal role in defining a robbery charge in California. The prosecution must establish that the defendant’s actions or words caused the victim to reasonably fear harm to themselves or others. This emotional response distinguishes robbery from other theft crimes and elevates its seriousness.

What Qualifies as Fear in Robbery Cases?

1. Fear of Bodily Injury
   The victim reasonably believes they, or someone else, may suffer physical harm.
2. Fear of Death
   The victim perceives a credible threat to their life due to the defendant’s actions or statements.
3. Fear of Property Damage
   Although less common, threats to destroy or damage valuable property can establish the element of fear in certain cases.

Importantly, fear does not require physical contact or actual harm. Verbal threats, intimidating gestures, or implied actions—such as reaching into a pocket as if drawing a weapon—can all meet the standard. The critical factor is whether the victim’s fear was both genuine and reasonable under the circumstances.

How Prosecutors Prove Fear in Robbery Cases Under Penal Code 212

To convict someone of robbery under California Penal Code 212, the prosecution must demonstrate that the victim experienced actual and reasonable fear during the crime. These two components form the foundation for proving the fear element in a robbery case:

Actual Fear

The victim must genuinely have felt fear during the encounter. Prosecutors typically rely on the victim’s testimony to show that the defendant’s actions, words, or demeanor caused them to feel threatened. Evidence supporting actual fear may include:

• Statements from the victim describing their emotional state during the incident.
• Witness testimony corroborating the victim’s fear or observing the victim’s distress.
• Physical or behavioral signs of fear, such as trembling, crying, or complying with the defendant’s demands without hesitation.

Reasonable Fear

In addition to proving actual fear, prosecutors must show that the victim’s fear was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. This means that a reasonable person in the victim’s position would have also felt fear in response to the defendant’s actions. For example:

• If the defendant brandished a weapon or made a direct verbal threat, the victim’s fear is generally considered reasonable.
• If the defendant’s behavior was vague or ambiguous, such as a casual statement that did not explicitly imply harm, the court may find the fear unreasonable.

Prosecutors may introduce evidence to establish the context of the encounter, emphasizing the defendant’s actions and how they would have been perceived by a reasonable person. Conversely, the defense may challenge whether the victim’s fear was reasonable or even genuine, focusing on inconsistencies in testimony or alternative explanations for the victim’s reaction.

Ultimately, proving both actual and reasonable fear is a critical step for the prosecution to secure a robbery conviction under PC 212. Without sufficient evidence of this element, the charges may not hold up in court.

Victim’s Role in Establishing Fear in Robbery Cases

The victim’s actions, statements, and demeanor play a pivotal role in determining whether their fear was genuine and reasonable. The prosecution relies heavily on the victim’s testimony to prove that the defendant’s actions or threats caused actual and reasonable fear.

For example, a victim’s immediate compliance with a demand may demonstrate genuine fear, while a delay in responding or dismissive behavior could suggest the absence of fear. Similarly, inconsistencies in the victim’s account, such as recalling a threat differently during testimony than they did in their initial report, can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case.

Defense attorneys often scrutinize the victim’s statements and behavior to challenge the element of fear. By highlighting exaggerated reactions, misinterpretations, or ulterior motives, a skilled lawyer can cast doubt on whether the fear element was met.

This aspect is critical because even if the defendant’s actions seemed intimidating, the prosecution must show that the victim’s fear was both genuine and reasonable. The burden of proof rests with the state, and any inconsistencies in the victim’s account can weaken the case.

Defense Strategies for Robbery Charges: Challenging Fear Under Penal Code 212

In robbery cases, the element of fear is often subjective and open to various interpretations. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally induced fear in the victim to facilitate the crime. An experienced criminal defense attorney can challenge this aspect of the case using several strategic defenses:

Lack of Fear

Defense attorneys can argue that the victim did not actually experience fear during the encounter. Evidence or testimony can demonstrate that the victim’s reaction did not align with claims of being afraid. Examples include:

• Contradictory Testimony: The victim’s statements in court differ from initial reports, suggesting no genuine fear.
• Witness Observations: Bystanders testify that the victim appeared calm or unperturbed, undermining claims of distress.

Unreasonable Fear

The defense may contend that the victim’s fear was not reasonable under the circumstances. For instance:

• Ambiguous Statements: The defendant’s actions or words lacked specificity or credibility to induce fear (e.g., vague or non-threatening comments).
• Overreaction: The victim misinterpreted benign actions or words as threatening, leading to exaggerated claims of fear.

No Intent to Use Fear

Robbery charges require intent to cause fear. The defense can challenge whether the defendant intended to intimidate the victim. Examples include:

• Misunderstood Actions: The defendant’s behavior or gestures were interpreted as threatening, but no intimidation was intended.
• Lack of Forceful Interaction: The defendant engaged in no physical or verbal intimidation that could reasonably create fear.

False Accusations

Robbery accusations may be fabricated due to personal disputes, mistaken identity, or ulterior motives. A skilled defense attorney can investigate and challenge the credibility of the claim:

• Personal Disputes: Evidence of conflict or animosity between the victim and the defendant may suggest motives for false claims.
• Mistaken Identity: Eyewitness misidentification could lead to baseless charges, particularly in chaotic or stressful situations.
• Lack of Corroboration: Inconsistent or unsupported statements from the victim can raise doubts about the validity of the allegations.

Insufficient Evidence

If the prosecution fails to provide clear and convincing evidence that fear was present during the robbery, the charges may be reduced or dismissed. Defense strategies in this context include:

• Questioning Victim Credibility: Highlighting inconsistencies or biases in the victim’s testimony.
• Challenging Physical Evidence: Demonstrating gaps or errors in the chain of custody or forensic findings.
• Exposing Weaknesses in the Prosecution’s Case: Undermining the ability to prove intent, fear, or other required elements of robbery under Penal Code 212.

Contact a Los Angeles Robbery Defense Lawyer Today

Facing robbery charges under Penal Code 212 is a serious matter with life-altering consequences. These charges can result in years of imprisonment, steep fines, and a criminal record that affects your future. Whether you are accused of first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, or a robbery involving the element of fear, a strong legal defense is essential to protect your rights.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we focus on providing aggressive and strategic representation tailored to your unique case. Attorney Arash Hashemi will carefully evaluate the evidence, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and fight to secure the best possible outcome. Don’t let a robbery charge define your future. Contact Los Angeles robbery attorney for a confidential consultation and take the first step toward protecting your rights and freedom.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

What Are California’s Sexting Laws?

In California, consensual sexting between adults—those 18 years or older—is generally legal under state law. For sexting to remain lawful, two key conditions must be met:

1. Both parties must give consent to the exchange of sexually explicit material.
2. The content must not be shared with third parties without explicit permission.

While these exchanges are permissible under these circumstances, sexting can cross into criminal territory when certain lines are violated. Even between adults, California law prohibits sexting that involves:

• Non-consensual sharing of explicit content: Distributing private, explicit material without the subject’s permission (commonly known as “revenge porn”).
• Harassment or intimidation: Using sexting as a tool to harass, blackmail, or threaten someone.

When Does Sexting Become Illegal in California?

1. Sexting Involving Minors

California law strictly prohibits sexting involving minors, even when the exchange is consensual or if both individuals are minors themselves. These actions are considered serious offenses due to the legal protections surrounding minors and the criminal implications of sexually explicit content involving anyone under the age of 18.

• Sending Sexts to a Minor:
  Sending explicit messages, images, or videos to someone under the age of 18 violates Penal Code § 288.2, which criminalizes sending harmful material to a minor with the intent to arouse, gratify, or seduce.
  • Penalties:
    • Up to 3 years in state prison (if charged as a felony).
    • Significant fines.
    • Mandatory sex offender registration.

• Possessing Explicit Images of a Minor:
  Possession of sexually explicit images or videos involving minors, even without distribution, is classified as child pornography under Penal Code § 311.11.
  • Penalties:
    • Up to 1 year in county jail (misdemeanor) or 3 years in state prison (felony).
    • Fines of up to $2,500.

• Minors Sexting Each Other:
  Although minors are often treated differently from adults, they may still face legal consequences if caught exchanging sexually explicit content. Juvenile court proceedings can result in penalties such as:
  • Mandatory counseling.
  • Probation.
  • Other rehabilitation-focused measures.

Sexting involving minors is treated with significant legal scrutiny in California. Even actions that may appear harmless can result in severe consequences for all parties involved.

2. Non-Consensual Sharing (Revenge Porn)

Non-consensual sharing of explicit images or videos, commonly referred to as “revenge porn,” is a criminal offense under California Penal Code § 647(j)(4). This law specifically prohibits distributing sexually explicit content of another person without their consent, particularly when the intent is to cause harm, embarrassment, or distress to the subject.

This crime is often associated with situations where explicit material is shared following a breakup or personal dispute, but it can apply to any unauthorized distribution of such content, regardless of motive.

Penalties for Revenge Porn:

• Up to 6 months in jail for a first offense (misdemeanor).
• Fines up to $1,000.
• Repeat offenses or aggravating circumstances may result in harsher penalties.

3. Sextortion or Harassment

Using sexting as a means to harass, blackmail, or threaten someone is strictly prohibited under California law. Such actions are considered serious offenses and can lead to criminal charges under harassment or extortion statutes.

• Harassment:
  Sending repeated, unwanted sexts or explicit material to another person—especially after being asked to stop—can result in stalking or harassment charges under Penal Code § 646.9.
  • Examples of harassment include:
    • Repeatedly sending explicit images or messages to intimidate or distress the recipient.
    • Bombarding someone with unsolicited content as a form of coercion or control.
• Sextortion:
  Demanding money, favors, or additional explicit material in exchange for not sharing previously exchanged sexts or explicit content is a violation of Penal Code § 518 (extortion).
  • Examples of sextortion include:
    • Threatening to release private images unless the victim complies with demands.
    • Using explicit material to manipulate or blackmail someone into taking certain actions.
• Penalties:
  • Up to 4 years in state prison.
  • Substantial fines.

4. Workplace Sexting

Sexting in the workplace, particularly when unsolicited, can lead to serious legal and professional consequences. Sending explicit messages, images, or videos to a colleague, subordinate, or employer without their consent is a violation of California harassment laws and may also open the sender to civil liability.

• Criminal Harassment Charges:
  Unsolicited sexting in the workplace can constitute workplace harassment under California Penal Code § 647(j)(4) or other related statutes, especially if it creates a threatening or uncomfortable environment.
• Examples of Workplace Sexting Misconduct:
  • Sending explicit material to a coworker without prior consent.
  • Using a position of power to coerce subordinates into engaging in sexting.
  • Persisting in sending sexually explicit messages after being asked to stop

Steps to Take If You’re Accused of Sexting

The first and most important step is to avoid speaking to law enforcement without an attorney present. Anything you say can be used against you, even if your intent is to explain or clear up the situation. Politely invoke your right to remain silent and request legal representation before answering any questions.

Preserving evidence is equally important. Save all relevant communications, including text messages, emails, or screenshots that may support your side of the story. Avoid deleting any content, as this could be interpreted as an attempt to destroy evidence and harm your credibility. Properly organized evidence can play a crucial role in challenging the accusations against you.

Additionally, refrain from contacting the accuser. Even if you believe you can resolve the issue directly, any interaction may be misinterpreted as harassment, intimidation, or an admission of guilt. Such actions can complicate your case and potentially lead to additional charges.

Finally, reach out to an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. A skilled lawyer can analyze the evidence, assess the prosecution’s claims, and craft a defense strategy tailored to your situation. An attorney will also ensure your rights are protected throughout the legal process, challenge weak or improperly obtained evidence, and advocate for the best possible outcome in your case. Acting promptly and with the guidance of legal counsel is essential to navigating the complexities of sexting-related charges.

Contact a Los Angeles Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer Today

With over 20 years of experience in criminal defense, Attorney Arash Hashemi has successfully defended clients against a wide range of sex-related charges. Whether the case involves accusations of sextortion, harassment, or non-consensual sharing of explicit content, our team will carefully analyze the evidence, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and develop a defense strategy tailored to your situation.

Every detail matters, and we are here to guide you through each step of the legal process. From protecting your reputation to pursuing the best possible outcome, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi fights tirelessly to defend your rights and your future.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Understanding California Cocaine Laws: Possession, Sale, and Trafficking Explained

Cocaine-related offenses are among the most aggressively prosecuted drug crimes in California. Whether you’re accused of simple possession, intent to sell, or large-scale trafficking, the consequences can be life-altering. California Health and Safety Code sections 11350–11352 set strict penalties for cocaine possession, use, sale, and transportation, with punishments ranging from probation and fines to years of incarceration. Cocaine base, commonly referred to as crack cocaine, carries similar penalties but may be treated more harshly due to its historical associations with certain criminal activities. Even first-time offenders may face severe consequences without proper legal representation.

If you or someone you care about is facing cocaine-related charges in Los Angeles, understanding California Cocaine Laws and your defense options is critical. The stakes are high, but with an experienced cocaine defense lawyer by your side, you can fight to protect your rights, freedom, and future.

Contact our Los Angeles cocaine possession defense lawyer at The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 for a confidential consultation. Our experienced team is equipped to handle even the most complex drug-related cases. Don’t leave your future to chance—call us today and take the first step toward protecting your rights.

Cocaine Possession Laws in California

Simple Cocaine Possession Under California Law

Under California Health and Safety Code § 11350(a), possession of cocaine for personal use is typically charged as a misdemeanor offense. This charge applies when the individual is found with a small amount of cocaine and there is no evidence suggesting intent to sell or distribute.

Penalties for Simple Possession Include:

• Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines of up to $1,000.
• Probation and mandatory drug treatment, often available through diversion programs.

Possession of Cocaine Base

Possession of cocaine base (commonly known as “crack cocaine”) is also prosecuted under § 11350(a) and carries penalties similar to those for powder cocaine. Despite the similarities, courts may treat crack cocaine cases more harshly due to its historical association with certain criminal activities.

Can You Avoid Conviction with a Cocaine Diversion Program?

First-time offenders may qualify for a pretrial diversion program under California Penal Code § 1000. These programs allow eligible defendants to avoid a conviction by completing a court-approved drug education or rehabilitation program. Upon successful completion, charges are dismissed, leaving no criminal record.

Diversion programs reflect California’s focus on treatment over punishment for non-violent drug offenses. An experienced attorney can assess your eligibility and help you take advantage of this opportunity if applicable.

Cocaine Use and Its Penalties Under California Law

Using cocaine, whether in public or private, is a crime under California Health and Safety Code § 11550. This statute makes it illegal to be under the influence of a controlled substance, including cocaine. Unlike possession, this charge specifically addresses the act of consuming the drug.

Penalties for Cocaine Use Include:

• Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Probation, which may include conditions such as regular drug testing.
• Mandatory drug counseling or participation in a treatment program.

In many cases, first-time offenders may qualify for alternative sentencing options, such as diversion programs or deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). These alternatives focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, and successful completion can result in dismissal of charges.

California Laws on Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell

Possession of cocaine with the intent to sell is a significantly more serious offense under California Health and Safety Code § 11351. Unlike simple possession, this charge implies that the individual planned to distribute the cocaine rather than use it personally.

Penalties for Possession with Intent to Sell Include:

• 2, 3, or 4 years in county jail under California’s realignment program.
• Fines of up to $20,000.
• Enhanced penalties for large quantities or prior convictions.

Factors Indicating Intent to Sell Include:

• Possession of large quantities of cocaine.
• Presence of packaging materials, such as baggies or containers.
• Scales or other equipment commonly associated with drug distribution.
• Large sums of cash, especially in small denominations.

Selling or Trafficking Cocaine in California: Laws and Penalties

Selling, transporting, or distributing cocaine is prohibited under California Health and Safety Code § 11352. This law applies to any movement of cocaine, even within the state, and treats such activities as among the most serious drug offenses due to their impact on communities and public safety.

Penalties for Cocaine Sale or Trafficking

• 3, 4, or 5 years in state prison for sale or transport.
• Up to 9 years in state prison if trafficking occurs across multiple counties within California.
• Fines of up to $20,000.

California’s Enhanced Penalties for Cocaine Trafficking

• Large Quantities: Under Health and Safety Code § 11370.4, trafficking significant amounts of cocaine (e.g., over 1 kilogram) triggers enhanced penalties, including additional years of incarceration.
• Drug-Free Zones: Selling or distributing cocaine near schools, parks, or other designated areas can result in harsher penalties.
• Federal Charges: Cocaine trafficking across state or national borders may lead to federal prosecution, which often involves mandatory minimum sentences and harsher penalties under federal sentencing guidelines.

How to Fight Cocaine-Related Charges in California

Was Evidence Obtained Through an Illegal Search or Seizure?

One of the strongest defenses in cocaine-related cases involves challenging how the evidence was obtained. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must follow strict rules when conducting searches and seizures. If they violate these rules, the evidence obtained may be inadmissible in court.

For example:

• Illegal Vehicle Searches: Police search your car without probable cause or your consent.
• No Warrant or Probable Cause: Officers search your home or property without a valid search warrant or exigent circumstances.
• Improper Seizure: Evidence is seized without proper legal justification, such as during an unlawful traffic stop.

Your attorney can file a motion to suppress evidence if your constitutional rights were violated. If the court agrees, the prosecution may lose critical evidence, significantly weakening their case.

What if the Cocaine Wasn’t Yours?

To convict you of cocaine-related charges, the prosecution must prove you had actual or constructive possession of the drug. A lack of knowledge defense argues that you were unaware of the cocaine’s presence or did not have control over it.

Examples include:

• The cocaine was found in a shared space like a car or home, and you had no knowledge it was there.
• The drugs were planted by someone else.

By casting doubt on your awareness or control, your attorney can weaken the prosecution’s case.

Were You Coerced into a Cocaine-Related Offense?

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers induce or coerce you into committing a crime you would not have otherwise committed. For instance:

• An undercover officer pressures you into buying or selling cocaine.
• You were threatened or manipulated into committing the offense.

To successfully argue entrapment, your attorney must show that the idea to commit the crime originated with law enforcement and not with you.

Insufficient Evidence

Prosecutors must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes showing that:

• The substance was cocaine.
• You had possession or control over it.
• You intended to commit the alleged crime (in cases of intent to sell).

An experienced attorney can challenge the credibility of witnesses, question the chain of custody of the evidence, or argue that the prosecution’s case lacks sufficient proof to meet their burden of evidence.

Can Addiction Lead to Reduced Cocaine Charges?

For cases involving simple possession or personal use, California offers opportunities for diversion or rehabilitation programs under Penal Code § 1000. These programs allow for:

• Drug counseling or rehabilitation in place of jail time.
• Dismissal of charges upon successful completion of the program.

Your attorney may argue for alternative sentencing, emphasizing that your actions stemmed from addiction rather than criminal intent.

On December 16, 2024, Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced additional charges in the murder of Dr. Hamid Mirshojae, who was fatally shot outside his Woodland Hills medical clinic on August 23, 2024. The DA’s office has filed charges against Dr. Mirshojae’s ex-wife, Ahang Mirshojae (also known as Ahang Kelk), in connection with the murder.

This update follows earlier charges against Evan Hardman, Sarallah Jawed, and Ashley Rose Sweeting, who are accused of planning and carrying out the murder. The prosecution now alleges that Ahang Mirshojae orchestrated and financially motivated the crime, leading to the death of her former husband.

Summary of Events

On August 23, 2024, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Dr. Hamid Mirshojae was fatally shot while walking from his medical office in Woodland Hills to his vehicle. The shooter, identified as Evan Hardman, allegedly carried out the attack at the direction of Dr. Mirshojae’s ex-wife, Ahang Mirshojae. Prosecutors claim that Ahang Mirshojae hired Hardman and co-defendant Sarallah Jawed to commit the murder for financial gain.

The investigation further revealed that the August shooting was preceded by an earlier assault on May 3, 2024, during which Dr. Mirshojae was attacked with a blunt object. Prosecutors allege that Ahang Mirshojae also orchestrated this earlier assault, hiring Hardman and Jawed to carry it out.

Each defendant played a distinct role in the crime. Evan Hardman is accused of being the shooter and personally discharging a firearm, causing the death of Dr. Mirshojae. Sarallah Jawed is alleged to have facilitated the murder and assisted Hardman in fleeing the state after the crime. Meanwhile, Ashley Rose Sweeting is accused of driving Hardman to and from the scene of the murder and acting as an accessory after the fact.

Prosecutors contend that the motive behind both the May assault and the August murder was financial gain, which serves as an aggravating factor in the charges. The case highlights the deliberate planning and coordination among the defendants, resulting in the tragic death of Dr. Mirshojae.

Charges Filed

Murder (California Penal Code § 187):

• Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
• The prosecution has alleged special circumstances, including:
  • Lying in Wait: The deliberate concealment of intent, waiting for an opportunity to carry out the attack.
  • Financial Gain: The murder was allegedly committed as part of a scheme for monetary benefit.

A conviction for murder with special circumstances can result in a life sentence without the possibility of paroleor even the death penalty, depending on the outcome of the case.

Assault with a Deadly Weapon (California Penal Code § 245(a)(1)):

This charge relates to the May 3, 2024, assault on Dr. Mirshojae using a blunt object.

Assault with a deadly weapon is a wobbler offense, meaning it can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor. In this case, the prosecution has charged it as a felony, which carries penalties of:

Up to 4 years in state prison.

Substantial fines and restitution.

Accessory After the Fact (California Penal Code § 32):

Ashley Rose Sweeting is charged with assisting Hardman after the crime by driving him to and from the scene and facilitating his escape.

This felony charge carries up to 3 years in state prison.

Legal Implications of Special Circumstances

The allegations of lying in wait and financial gain significantly elevate the severity of the murder charge against Ahang Mirshojae. Under California Penal Code § 190.2, special circumstances make the offense eligible for the harshest penalties available under California law.

• Lying in Wait: This aggravating factor involves deliberate planning and concealment, where the defendant waits for an opportunity to ambush the victim.
• Financial Gain: This applies when the murder is motivated by monetary benefit, such as life insurance, inheritance, or other financial schemes.

If proven, these special circumstances eliminate the possibility of parole and may result in a life sentence without paroleor a death sentence under California law.

Ongoing Investigation and Court Proceedings

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), alongside partner agencies, has been investigating this case since August. Law enforcement efforts have led to the arrests of all defendants:

• Evan Hardman: Arrested on December 10, 2024, in Texas. He is awaiting extradition to California.
• Sarallah Jawed: Arrested on December 11, 2024, and is being held without bail.
• Ashley Rose Sweeting: Arraigned on December 12, 2024, and pleaded not guilty. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for December 24, 2024, in Dept. 50 of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center.
• Ahang Mirshojae: Scheduled for arraignment today in Dept. 30 of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center. The prosecution is seeking no bail due to the severity of the charges.

The case is being handled by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Major Crimes Division, with ongoing collaboration from the LAPD. The court will now determine the next steps as the defendants move through the arraignment and preliminary hearing process.

Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Can I Be Arrested for Drugs That Aren’t Mine?

In California, being arrested for drug possession doesn’t automatically mean the drugs belong to you. Law enforcement officers may arrest anyone in close proximity to illegal substances, even if you had no knowledge of their presence or didn’t have any control over them. These situations often arise when drugs are discovered in shared spaces, vehicles, or among groups of people.

Finding yourself in this situation can feel overwhelming. An arrest for drug possession doesn’t mean you’re guilty, and it’s important to know that you have rights under the law. The prosecution must prove specific elements to convict someone of drug possession. Understanding these legal standards and working with an experienced drug defense attorney can make all the difference in challenging the charges against you. It’s not unusual to feel uncertain about your next steps, especially when facing accusations for something that isn’t yours. That’s why it’s crucial to have guidance.

When it comes to defending drug possession charges in Los Angeles, having the right legal representation can significantly impact your case. We thoroughly review every detail, challenge weak or unsupported evidence, and build a defense strategy designed to get you the best possible outcome. Call our office today at (310)-448-1529 to speak with an attorney and take the first step in your defense.

Can You Be Arrested for Drugs That Aren’t Yours in California?

California’s drug laws, outlined in the Health and Safety Code, allow law enforcement to arrest individuals for possession if they believe the following conditions are met:

• You knowingly possessed the drugs.
• You had control or access to the drugs.
• The drugs were intended for personal use or distribution.

Importantly, possession doesn’t necessarily mean the drugs were physically on you. “Constructive possession” can apply if the drugs were in a space you had control over, such as a car, apartment, or locker.

However, an arrest does not automatically lead to a conviction. For a successful prosecution, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. You were aware of the drugs’ presence.
2. You knew the drugs were illegal.
3. You had control over the drugs or the area where they were found.

If any of these elements are missing, the charges may not hold up in court. Understanding these distinctions is critical when defending yourself against drug possession allegations

Common Situations That Lead to Wrongful Drug Possession Arrests

Drugs Found in a Shared Space

If drugs are discovered in a shared space, such as a car, apartment, or dorm room, law enforcement may arrest everyone who has access to the area. This can occur even if you did not know about the drugs or if they didn’t belong to you. The key issue here is proximity—police may consider you responsible for the drugs simply because you were present in the space where they were found.
Example: A police officer searches a car with multiple passengers and finds drugs in the glove compartment. All individuals in the car may be arrested, even if only one person owns the drugs.

False Allegations

It’s not uncommon for someone to falsely accuse you of possessing drugs in an effort to deflect blame or settle a personal dispute. In these cases, a person might accuse you of possessing drugs simply to avoid facing legal consequences themselves. False accusations can significantly impact your life, especially when they result in an arrest.
Example: A roommate might claim that drugs found in your shared apartment belong to you to avoid legal consequences or to protect themselves from arrest.

Planted Drugs

Though rare, there are instances where drugs are intentionally planted by someone else—either by another individual or, in some cases, by law enforcement. In these cases, the drugs may not have been in your possession at all, but rather planted to implicate you. Investigating how the drugs ended up in your possession or surroundings is key to challenging such charges.
Example: A person may intentionally leave drugs in your bag or vehicle without your knowledge, intending to get you arrested or cause trouble for you.

Lack of Knowledge

Sometimes, drugs may be placed in your belongings or vehicle without your knowledge. You may not be aware that drugs are in your possession or near you, especially if someone else leaves them there without your consent. This scenario often plays a significant role in your defense, as you may argue you had no idea the drugs were there.
Example: A friend leaves their bag in your car, and later, drugs are discovered in that bag. You were unaware the drugs were in your vehicle, and they weren’t yours.

No Possession or Control

Simply being near drugs is not enough for a conviction. The prosecution must prove you had possession or control over the substances, meaning that you exercised authority over the drugs or had the ability to use or distribute them.

For example, if drugs are discovered in a shared space—such as a living room, dorm room, or car—you cannot be convicted unless the prosecution can tie the drugs directly to you. Proximity alone does not establish control.

Your defense attorney may challenge the prosecution’s evidence by highlighting:

• The lack of fingerprints or DNA linking you to the drugs.
• Testimony or evidence showing the drugs belonged to someone else in the shared space.

Both defenses rely on casting doubt on the prosecution’s claims and ensuring the burden of proof is not met.

Unlawful Search and Seizure

Your Fourth Amendment rights protect you from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. If the police violated these rights during the investigation, your attorney can file a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the illegal search. Suppressed evidence cannot be used in court, which could result in the dismissal of your case.

Common violations include:

• Searching your home without a warrant or probable cause: Police generally need a warrant issued by a judge to search your home. If they conducted a search without one—and without a valid exception, such as exigent circumstances—the evidence may be inadmissible.
• Conducting an illegal traffic stop: Police must have reasonable suspicion to pull you over. If the stop itself was unlawful, any evidence found as a result, such as drugs discovered during a vehicle search, can be challenged in court.

By reviewing the circumstances of the search,  an experienced criminal drug lawyer can identify procedural missteps and argue for the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence, which often undermines the prosecution’s case.

Lack of Evidence

In a criminal case, the prosecution carries the burden of proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is especially challenging in drug possession cases, where evidence must directly link you to the drugs. If the evidence is weak, contradictory, or circumstantial, your attorney can highlight these flaws to challenge the validity of the charges.

For instance:

• No physical evidence ties you to the drugs: If fingerprints, DNA, or other forensic evidence connecting you to the drugs is absent, the prosecution’s case weakens.
• Contradictory or unreliable testimony: Witness statements implicating you may be inconsistent, biased, or unreliable.
• Circumstantial evidence: The prosecution may rely solely on your presence in a shared space with drugs, which is insufficient to prove possession or control.

By carefully scrutinizing the evidence—or lack thereof—your attorney can argue that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof, potentially leading to dropped charges or an acquittal.

Ownership by Another Party

Proving that the drugs belonged to someone else can be a compelling defense in a drug possession case. Your attorney can present evidence showing that another individual was the true owner of the substances. This defense often relies on factual evidence or testimony that directly implicates another party and clears you of responsibility.

Examples include:

• Witness testimony: A statement from the person who admits to owning the drugs can demonstrate that you had no connection to them.
• Text messages or other communications: Messages, emails, or other forms of communication where another party admits to owning the drugs or makes statements implicating themselves can be used to establish your innocence.

The goal with this defense is to show that someone else’s actions—not yours—led to the discovery of the drugs, and therefore, the charges against you are unfounded.

Chain of Custody Issues

For the prosecution to successfully use drug evidence against you, they must prove that the substances were properly handled from the moment they were seized to their presentation in court. This is known as the “chain of custody.” If there are any breaks or errors in the documentation, handling, or storage of the evidence, its reliability and admissibility can be challenged.

Key issues might include:

• Improper documentation: If law enforcement failed to properly log when and where the drugs were seized or who handled them, it raises questions about the integrity of the evidence.
• Evidence tampering or contamination: If the drugs were mishandled, switched, or otherwise compromised during storage or transportation, your attorney can argue that the evidence is unreliable.

By exposing flaws in the chain of custody, we can weaken the prosecution’s case and potentially get the evidence thrown out. Without the drugs as evidence, the charges may be significantly reduced or dismissed.

Penalties for Drug Possession in California

Simple Possession
For personal use, drug possession is generally charged as a misdemeanor under Health and Safety Code § 11350. This applies to substances like cocaine, heroin, and certain prescription drugs without a valid prescription. Penalties include:

• Up to 1 year in county jail
• Fines up to $1,000

In some cases, individuals may qualify for diversion programs or alternative sentencing options, such as drug treatment programs, instead of jail time. This is often available for first-time offenders or those charged with low-level drug offenses.

Possession with Intent to Sell
If law enforcement or the prosecution believes you intended to sell or distribute the drugs, the charges escalate significantly. Under Health and Safety Code § 11351, possession with intent to sell is a felony. Penalties include:

• 2 to 4 years in state prison
• Substantial fines

The intent to sell is often inferred based on evidence such as large quantities of drugs, packaging materials, or scales. A strong defense is critical in these cases, as the consequences are far more severe than for simple possession.

How Our Attorney Can Help with Your Drug Possession Charges

We understand how stressful and overwhelming it is to face drug charges for substances that aren’t yours. A drug arrest doesn’t mean you’re guilty, and our experienced attorney is here to protect your rights and guide you through every step of the legal process.

Our team will:

• Investigate the circumstances of your arrest to uncover any weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, such as unlawful searches or lack of evidence.
• Challenge the evidence against you, ensuring it was obtained legally and meets the strict requirements for admissibility.
• Build a strong, tailored defense to fight for your rights, your freedom, and your future.

With a proven track record of securing dismissals, reduced charges, and alternative sentencing, we’ve helped countless clients achieve the best possible outcomes in their cases. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, you’re not just a case number—you’re a priority.

Let us put our knowledge, experience, and dedication to work for you.

Contact a Los Angeles Drug Crime Lawyer Today

Every detail of your case matters, from the circumstances of your arrest to the evidence presented by the prosecution. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we provide experienced legal guidance and personalized defense strategies to protect your rights and secure your future.

With over 20 years of experience as a trusted Los Angeles drug crime lawyer, Attorney Arash Hashemi is dedicated to aggressively defending clients against drug possession charges. Whether it’s challenging evidence, exposing errors in the prosecution’s case, or negotiating reduced charges, we will fight relentlessly to achieve the best possible outcome for you.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

1st Offense DUI in Los Angeles

Facing a first-time DUI charge in Los Angeles can be an overwhelming and stressful experience. Although typically classified as a misdemeanor, the penalties for a 1st offense DUI in Los Angeles may include significant fines, license suspension, mandatory DUI education programs, and even potential jail time. The outcome of your case depends on various factors, such as the specifics of your arrest, any aggravating circumstances, and the quality of your legal defense.

Understanding the legal process and the possible consequences is essential. Contact our office today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule your free consultation. Our experienced DUI attorney will thoroughly review the details of your case, analyze the evidence, and identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s claims. We will guide you through every step of the legal process, ensuring your rights are protected and working toward the best possible outcome for your situation.

Understanding Your First DUI Offense

A first-time DUI in California typically involves being arrested for driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher and having no prior DUI convictions. DUI charges can also stem from driving under the influence of drugs, including prescription or illegal substances.

California DUI Laws: Penalties for First-Time Offenders

First-time DUI offenses are usually charged as misdemeanors under California Vehicle Code Section 23152. While not considered as severe as felony DUIs, first-time DUI charges can still result in significant penalties, including:

• Jail Time: 48 hours to 6 months in county jail.
• Fines: $390 to $1,000, plus court fees and assessments.
• License Suspension: A minimum of 6 months.
• DUI School: Completion of 3 to 9 months of DUI education programs.

Can You Avoid Jail for Your First DUI Offense?

While jail time is possible for a first-time DUI, it is not always mandatory. California courts often offer alternatives, particularly for first-time offenders with no aggravating factors.

Standard Penalties for First-Time DUI Offenders

• Jail Time: Many first-time offenders avoid jail time by accepting probation or alternative sentencing programs.
• Fines and Probation: Courts often impose probation periods of 3 to 5 years in lieu of jail.
• DUI Education Programs: Completing a DUI education course is often required to restore driving privileges.

Aggravating Factors That Impact First DUI Penalties

Certain circumstances can increase the likelihood of jail time for a first-time DUI offense in California. One significant factor is having a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC). If your BAC was considerably above the legal limit—such as 0.15% or higher—the court may impose harsher penalties, including longer jail sentences. Additionally, if the DUI involved an accident, injury, or property damage, the penalties become more severe, often including mandatory jail time. Driving under the influence with a minor passenger is another aggravating circumstance. Under California Vehicle Code § 23572, having a child under 14 years old in the car during a DUI can result in enhanced penalties, including 48 hours to 90 days of mandatory jail time. Refusing to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test during your arrest can also lead to increased penalties. Such refusals may result in extended license suspensions and additional jail time due to perceived non-cooperation with law enforcement. These factors highlight the importance of addressing the charges strategically to avoid harsher consequences.

Can You Avoid Jail Time for a First-Time DUI in California?

In most cases, jail time can be avoided for first-time DUI offenses by taking advantage of alternative sentencing options or negotiating with the prosecution.

First DUI Sentencing Alternatives in Los Angeles

• Probation: Informal probation is commonly offered to first-time offenders and includes conditions such as attending DUI school, paying fines, and avoiding further offenses.
• House Arrest or Electronic Monitoring: Some defendants may qualify for house arrest or electronic monitoring instead of jail time.
• Work Release or Community Service: Courts may allow offenders to complete work-release programs or community service hours in lieu of jail.

Defense Strategies for First DUI Charges in California

• Challenging Evidence: Questioning the validity of BAC test results or the legality of the traffic stop.
• Negotiating Plea Deals: Reducing charges to a lesser offense, such as “wet reckless,” which carries lighter penalties.
• Presenting Mitigating Factors: Demonstrating rehabilitation efforts, such as completing a DUI program before sentencing.

First DUI Court Process: What to Expect and How to Prepare

Your first court appearance, or arraignment, involves the following steps:

1. Formal Charges: The court will officially charge you with DUI.
2. Entering a Plea: You will have the option to plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest.
3. Bail Conditions: The judge may impose bail or other release conditions, such as attending DUI school or avoiding alcohol.

Attorney Hashemi can guide you through this process, advise on the best plea to enter, and negotiate for reduced penalties or alternative sentencing.

How a First DUI Conviction Impacts Your Future

• Increased Insurance Rates: A DUI conviction can lead to a dramatic rise in auto insurance premiums.
• Criminal Record: A DUI conviction stays on your criminal record, potentially affecting future employment opportunities.
• Driver’s License Impact: The DUI remains on your DMV record for 10 years, which can affect your ability to hold jobs requiring a clean driving history.

Why Choose The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi for Your DUI Defense?

Attorney Hashemi will evaluate every detail of your case, starting with the circumstances of the traffic stop and arrest, to ensure law enforcement followed proper procedures. We will scrutinize the reliability of BAC test results, investigating issues such as faulty breathalyzer equipment, mishandled evidence, or procedural errors.

Our attorney will also work to negotiate reduced charges, such as pursuing a plea deal for reckless driving instead of a DUI conviction. This strategy can help lessen penalties and avoid harsher consequences. For individuals concerned about incarceration, the attorney can advocate for alternative sentencing options, including probation, house arrest, or community service, presenting strong arguments to the court to justify these alternatives.

If the case goes to trial, our attorney will provide aggressive representation, cross-examining witnesses, challenging the prosecution’s evidence, and arguing for your acquittal. With the right defense, you can protect your rights, minimize penalties, and navigate the legal process with confidence.

First DUI in Los Angeles? Protect Your Future with Expert Legal Representation

Being charged with a first-time DUI in Los Angeles can be an overwhelming and life-changing experience. While first-time offenses are generally treated as misdemeanors, the consequences can still be severe.  How your case unfolds depends largely on the circumstances surrounding your arrest, the prosecution’s evidence, and the legal representation you choose.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience defending clients against DUI charges. Attorney Arash Hashemi will carefully evaluate the details of your case, challenge the validity of field sobriety tests and BAC results, and uncover any procedural errors or rights violations. Whether through negotiating reduced charges, advocating for alternative sentencing, or providing aggressive representation in court, our goal is to secure the best resolution for your case.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Sex Crime Defense Attorney in Los Angeles

Facing accusations of a sex crime is one of the most serious and life-altering situations anyone can experience. In California, the question of consent often plays a central role in defending against these charges. Consent, when proven, can be a complete defense, as it establishes that the sexual activity was voluntary and mutually agreed upon by both parties. Understanding how the consent defense works and gathering evidence to support it are critical to building a strong case.

With over 20 years of experience, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi has successfully defended clients accused of sex crimes by demonstrating that the alleged acts were consensual. We meticulously examine the evidence, such as communications, witness testimony, and inconsistencies in the accuser’s claims, to establish the presence of consent and expose weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

If you are accused of a sex crime, acting quickly is essential. Contact our office at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a confidential consultation with an experienced sex crime attorney. We are here to fight for your rights, protect your reputation, and achieve the best possible outcome for your case.

Understanding the Consent Defense in California Law

The consent defense asserts that the alleged victim willingly and voluntarily agreed to engage in the sexual activity in question. In California, sexual activity without consent is classified as a crime, including offenses such as rape (Penal Code § 261), sexual battery (Penal Code § 243.4), and other sex-related offenses. If consent is proven, it can serve as a complete defense to these charges.

To effectively use the consent defense, the accused must establish the following:

• Affirmative Consent:
  California law recognizes the concept of affirmative consent, meaning the alleged victim must have clearly communicated, through words or actions, their agreement to engage in the sexual activity. Ambiguity or lack of resistance is not enough to establish consent.
• Voluntary Agreement:
  Consent must be freely given without coercion, force, threats, or manipulation. It cannot be obtained from someone who is legally incapable of giving consent due to intoxication, unconsciousness, or incapacity. For instance, if the alleged victim was severely impaired by drugs or alcohol, they are considered unable to consent under the law.

The consent defense requires strong evidence, such as text messages, witness testimony, or other materials that support the accused’s claim of mutual agreement. Presenting this evidence effectively is essential to building a successful defense against sex crime allegations.

What Affirmative Consent Means in California Sex Crime Cases

California adheres to an affirmative consent standard, especially in specific contexts like college campuses. This standard emphasizes that all parties must actively and clearly agree to engage in sexual activity. Under this standard:

• Silence or Lack of Resistance Does Not Equal Consent:
  Consent must be expressed through words or actions that demonstrate a clear agreement to participate. A lack of objection, resistance, or verbal denial is not sufficient to establish consent.
• Consent Must Be Ongoing and Can Be Withdrawn at Any Time:
  Even if consent was initially given, it can be withdrawn during the encounter. Once consent is withdrawn, any continued activity may be considered non-consensual and therefore unlawful.

Although the affirmative consent standard is not directly codified in California’s Penal Code, it reflects the evolving societal and legal expectations surrounding consent. In sex crime cases, this standard is often referenced, particularly in scenarios involving educational institutions or when determining whether a clear agreement was present. Understanding this standard is critical in crafting a defense and addressing allegations effectively.

Situations Where Consent Is Legally Invalid in California

In California, consent is not a valid defense in certain situations where the law deems the alleged victim incapable of providing voluntary agreement. These circumstances include:

• Incapacity:
  If the alleged victim was unconscious, asleep, or so impaired by drugs or alcohol that they were unable to make rational decisions, their consent is considered invalid under the law. Sexual activity in these situations can result in charges of rape or sexual assault, as the alleged victim is deemed incapable of agreeing to the act.
• Coercion or Force:
  Consent obtained through threats, physical force, or intimidation is not valid. If the alleged victim agreed to the sexual activity under duress or fear of harm, the law considers this coerced agreement and does not recognize it as legitimate consent.
• Age of Consent:
  In California, the legal age of consent is 18. Even if the alleged victim verbally agreed to the sexual activity, such consent is not valid if they were under 18 years of age. Engaging in sexual activity with a minor can lead to statutory rape charges, regardless of the minor’s willingness.

How California Law Defines Lack of Consent

California law recognizes specific circumstances where consent is legally invalid, even if it appears to have been given. Any sexual activity involving physical force, threats, intimidation, fraud, or power imbalances is considered non-consensual and can result in serious criminal charges. Understanding these scenarios is essential for navigating sex crime cases effectively.

Sexual activity obtained through physical force or fear is categorically non-consensual. If someone is coerced into agreeing to sexual activity because they are physically overpowered or threatened with harm, the law does not recognize this as valid consent. Even implied threats or intimidation that create fear of retaliation or danger can nullify consent in these cases.

Consent gained through fraudulent acts is equally invalid under California law. For instance, if a person impersonates someone else to gain consent, misrepresents the nature of the act, or deceives the alleged victim about critical facts, any agreement obtained under these circumstances is not legitimate. Fraud undermines the voluntary nature of consent and is treated as a serious offense.

Power dynamics also play a significant role in determining whether consent was valid. Situations where one person holds authority or influence over the other—such as a teacher-student, employer-employee, or doctor-patient relationship—can make it difficult for the other person to freely refuse or withdraw consent. California law considers such power imbalances to inherently invalidate consent, even if no overt coercion is involved.

Key Strategies for Using the Consent Defense

Effectively using the consent defense in California sex crime cases requires a thorough and strategic analysis of the evidence. Key strategies include:

• Witness Testimony:
  Statements from both the accused and the alleged victim are critical in establishing the presence of consent. Testimony from third-party witnesses who observed interactions before, during, or after the alleged incident can also provide valuable context or refute claims of non-consensual activity.
• Text Messages or Communication:
  Digital communications, such as text messages, emails, or social media exchanges, can be powerful evidence to demonstrate mutual agreement or willingness. These messages may show that the alleged victim consented to the activity or that their claims of coercion or force are inconsistent with their prior actions or statements.
• Physical Evidence:
  Medical reports, photographs, or other physical evidence can be used to challenge allegations of force or coercion. For instance, if no injuries are present despite claims of violence, this evidence can support the argument that the interaction was consensual.

Successfully employing the consent defense requires a methodical review of all available evidence and careful presentation in court. An experienced defense attorney will gather and analyze this evidence to demonstrate that the sexual activity was consensual and refute the prosecution’s claims.

Common Challenges in Proving Consent

Proving consent in sex crime cases is often difficult, particularly when the alleged victim disputes it. These cases frequently come down to a he said/she said dynamic, as they often lack witnesses or concrete evidence to support either party’s account. This makes credibility a central issue, requiring a detailed examination of statements, behavior, and supporting evidence. Additionally, cultural stigmas and biases can complicate matters, as jurors may bring personal assumptions or preconceived notions about consent, the accused, or the alleged victim into the courtroom. These biases can unfairly influence how evidence is interpreted or how credibility is assessed.

Another challenge is the emotional impact of testimony in these cases. Alleged victims often provide highly emotional accounts, which can sway a jury’s perception and shift focus away from factual evidence. This can make it more difficult for the defense to ensure that the case is judged solely on its legal merits. Addressing these challenges requires an attorney with the experience and skill to navigate credibility disputes, counter biases, and present a compelling, evidence-based argument to the court.

What to Do If You’re Falsely Accused of a Sex Crime

Facing false accusations of a sex crime can be overwhelming, but how you respond in the early stages can significantly impact your case. Taking the right steps is crucial to protecting your rights and building a strong defense.

Avoid Self-Incrimination
Do not speak to law enforcement, the accuser, or anyone else about the allegations without your attorney present. Anything you say can be misinterpreted or used against you in court. This includes social media posts or messages that could be taken out of context. Remaining silent and consulting with an attorney first is the safest way to avoid unintentional self-incrimination.

Preserve Evidence
Immediately gather any evidence that supports your claim of consent or innocence. This may include text messages, emails, or social media exchanges that show the alleged victim agreed to the activity. Collect witness information from anyone who can verify your version of events or provide context about the accuser’s behavior. Physical evidence, such as clothing, photos, or surveillance footage, may also be critical to your defense. Preserve all evidence carefully and share it with your attorney.

Consult an Attorney Immediately
Contacting a skilled criminal defense attorney as soon as possible is essential. An experienced attorney can guide you through the legal process, advise you on your rights, and develop a defense strategy tailored to your situation. Early legal intervention allows your attorney to protect your interests, challenge the prosecution’s narrative, and mitigate potential damage to your reputation.

Acting quickly and decisively with the help of a qualified attorney can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Federal Tax Fraud and Evasion Defense Attorney in Los Angeles

Facing federal tax fraud or tax evasion charges is an incredibly serious matter. These offenses can result in prison time, substantial fines, and long-term damage to your reputation. Often, these charges stem from extensive investigations by the IRS or the Department of Justice, leaving you feeling overwhelmed and uncertain about your next steps.

If you are under investigation or have been charged, having an experienced federal tax fraud defense attorney by your side is crucial. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we specialize in defending individuals and businesses against complex federal tax allegations. Our priority is to protect your rights, fight the charges, and minimize the impact on your life and future.

Call us today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a confidential consultation. We are here to help you navigate these challenging circumstances and secure the best possible outcome for your case.

Penalties for Federal Tax Fraud and How They Can Be Reduced

Federal tax fraud and evasion carry severe penalties designed to punish offenders and deter others from violating tax laws. If convicted, you may face both criminal and civil consequences that can have life-altering effects. Criminal penalties include significant prison time and steep fines. For example, a conviction for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 can result in up to 5 years in federal prison per offense, while tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 carries a maximum of 3 years per offense. Individuals can also face fines of up to $100,000, and corporations can be fined up to $500,000, along with the cost of prosecution.

In addition to prison time and fines, restitution is often required, which means you must repay the full amount of unpaid taxes, along with interest and penalties. Civil penalties may also be imposed, such as an accuracy-related penalty of 20% of the underpaid taxes or a civil fraud penalty of up to 75% of the unpaid amount for intentional fraud. These penalties can compound the financial strain caused by a criminal conviction.

However, penalties can often be reduced with the right legal strategy. For instance, the IRS’s Voluntary Disclosure Program allows individuals who self-report discrepancies before an investigation begins to potentially avoid criminal charges and reduce penalties. Additionally, an experienced attorney can negotiate settlements with the IRS or DOJ, challenge the validity of evidence, or argue that the alleged violations were unintentional rather than willful. By employing these strategies, it may be possible to lessen the consequences and protect your future.

Warning Signs of a Federal Tax Investigation: Are You at Risk?

Federal tax investigations are rarely sudden; they are often the result of extensive review by the IRS or Department of Justice (DOJ). Recognizing the warning signs early can be critical in protecting your rights and preparing a defense.

One of the first indicators is receiving an audit notice or summons from the IRS. While audits are not always criminal in nature, they can escalate if the IRS uncovers discrepancies suggesting fraud or evasion. Subpoenas for financial records, such as bank statements, tax filings, or communications, are another red flag that your activities are under scrutiny.

In more serious cases, investigators may interview employees, accountants, or business partners as part of their inquiry. These interviews are often aimed at gathering information to build a case against you, and statements made during these interactions can be used as evidence. In some instances, the IRS or DOJ may take aggressive actions, such as the seizure of bank accounts or assets, signaling the investigation is moving toward criminal charges.

If you notice any of these warning signs, it is crucial to consult with an experienced federal tax defense attorneyimmediately. Acting quickly can help protect your rights, prevent mistakes during the investigation, and allow your attorney to begin building a strong defense strategy.

Early Steps to Take When Facing Federal Tax Evasion Charges

1. Do Not Speak to Investigators Without Legal Representation

One of the biggest mistakes individuals make is speaking to IRS agents or DOJ investigators without first consulting an experienced tax defense attorney. Anything you say can be used against you, even casual remarks or seemingly innocent explanations. Before providing any information, contact a qualified attorney to ensure your rights are protected and that any communication with investigators is handled strategically.

2. Preserve All Financial Records

Start organizing and securing all relevant documentation, including tax returns, bank statements, invoices, and communications with accountants or financial advisors. These records will be essential in analyzing the allegations against you and building a defense. Do not alter or destroy any documents, as this could be viewed as obstruction of justice and lead to additional charges.

3. Avoid Further Missteps

Do not attempt to correct or “fix” potential issues in your tax filings without legal guidance. For example, filing amended returns or making payments without understanding the full scope of the investigation could be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Instead, consult with your attorney to develop a comprehensive strategy that addresses the allegations while protecting your interests.

Taking these steps early can help you avoid critical mistakes and set the foundation for a strong defense. Federal tax investigations are serious, and having experienced legal representation from the start is essential.

Can You Resolve Tax Fraud Without Criminal Charges?

The Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) allows taxpayers to self-report errors or omissions in their tax filings before an investigation begins, potentially avoiding criminal charges. By coming forward voluntarily, you demonstrate good faith and a willingness to comply, which can result in reduced penalties and civil rather than criminal resolution. In many cases, tax fraud allegations can be handled through civil penalties instead of criminal prosecution. Civil resolutions often involve paying fines, interest, and penalties but avoid the severe consequences of a criminal conviction, such as imprisonment and a permanent criminal record.

Our defense attorney can also negotiate settlements with the IRS to resolve tax liabilities. Options include offers in compromise, which settle debts for less than the full amount owed, or installment agreements, allowing repayment over time. These approaches can address outstanding liabilities without escalating to criminal charges.

Common Defenses Against Federal Tax Evasion Charges

Lack of Willful Intent

To secure a conviction for tax evasion, prosecutors must show that you intentionally and knowingly violated tax laws. If the alleged misconduct was the result of an honest mistake, misunderstanding, or negligence, this lack of willful intent can be a strong defense. For instance, you may have misinterpreted complicated tax codes, made an error in calculating income, or failed to report income unintentionally. Without evidence of deliberate fraud, the prosecution’s case weakens significantly.

Reliance on a Tax Professional

Many individuals rely on certified accountants or tax professionals when preparing their taxes. If you sought advice from a competent tax professional and fully disclosed all relevant facts, errors made as a result of their guidance could demonstrate that you acted in good faith. This defense emphasizes that you followed expert advice and had no intention to evade taxes.

No Tax Deficiency Exists

To prove tax evasion, the prosecution must establish that taxes were actually owed. If there is no tax deficiency—meaning no unpaid taxes existed due to deductions, credits, or legitimate losses—then there can be no tax evasion. This defense is particularly useful if IRS calculations are flawed or if you can show that your taxable income was accurately reported.

Lack of Financial Motive

Tax evasion charges often rely on the assumption that the accused sought to illegally avoid paying taxes to save money. If you can demonstrate that there was no financial gain from the alleged actions—such as a situation where tax benefits were not realized or the alleged evasion resulted in overpayment—this can undermine the prosecution’s case.

Inability to File or Pay Taxes

Circumstances beyond your control, such as severe financial hardship, illness, or a lack of access to critical records, may have prevented you from filing or paying taxes on time. While inability to file or pay does not erase the tax obligation, it can serve as a defense against allegations of willful evasion.

Procedural Errors or Illegal Search and Seizure

The IRS and Department of Justice must follow strict legal procedures during investigations. If your rights were violated—such as through an illegal search, coercion to produce documents, or breaches of attorney-client privilege—your attorney can challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully. Suppressing such evidence can weaken or dismantle the prosecution’s case.

Legitimate Interpretation of Tax Laws

Tax laws are notoriously complex, and reasonable interpretations of ambiguous provisions may be used as a defense. For example, you may have believed that an expense was deductible or that a tax credit applied to your situation. Even if your interpretation was ultimately incorrect, demonstrating that it was reasonable and made in good faith can negate claims of willful misconduct.

Statute of Limitations

The IRS generally has a limited time frame—typically three years after a tax return is filed—to assess taxes or initiate criminal charges. If the statute of limitations has expired, the government may be barred from prosecuting the case. However, certain exceptions, such as failing to file a return or committing fraud, may extend this timeframe.

Voluntary Disclosure

If you voluntarily disclose errors or discrepancies to the IRS before an investigation begins, you may be eligible for the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program. This program encourages taxpayers to self-report issues, potentially avoiding criminal charges and reducing penalties. Acting proactively shows good faith and may result in more favorable treatment.

Each defense strategy depends on the specifics of the case, the evidence presented, and the actions taken before and during the investigation. By working with an experienced federal tax defense attorney, you can evaluate the government’s case, challenge its weaknesses, and build a tailored defense to protect your rights and freedom.

Contact Our Los Angeles Tax Fraud Defense Attorney

If you are being investigated or have been formally charged, it is essential to act quickly and secure experienced legal representation to protect your rights.

Attorney Arash Hashemi has over 20 years of experience handling federal cases, including allegations of tax evasion and fraud. We will carefully examine the details of your case, scrutinize the government’s evidence, and identify any procedural errors or weaknesses that can be used to your advantage. Whether negotiating with federal authorities or advocating on your behalf in court, We will work tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome for your case.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Federal Weapons Offenses: Key Laws and Regulations

The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act (NFA) form the foundation of federal laws regulating the sale, possession, and use of firearms. These statutes impose strict guidelines and severe penalties for violations, targeting activities such as unlawful possession, illegal firearms trafficking, and the use of firearms in connection with federal crimes.

Federal prosecutors pursue these cases aggressively, often involving offenses that cross state or national borders or are tied to other criminal activity. Violations of these laws can result in mandatory minimum sentences, substantial fines, and lifelong consequences for those convicted.

Here are the most common federal gun charges:

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), certain individuals are prohibited from possessing firearms. These include:

• Convicted Felons: Individuals with felony convictions cannot legally own or possess firearms.
• Domestic Violence Offenders: Those subject to restraining orders for domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms.
• Undocumented Immigrants: Individuals unlawfully in the U.S. are barred from firearm possession.
• Dishonorably Discharged Military Personnel: A dishonorable discharge disqualifies individuals from legally owning firearms.

Violating these prohibitions can result in up to 10 years in federal prison, with enhanced penalties for repeat offenders under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)).

Firearms Trafficking

Firearms trafficking involves transporting, selling, or distributing firearms illegally across state or national borders. It also includes:

• Straw Purchases: Buying firearms on behalf of individuals prohibited from owning them.
  Violations of federal trafficking laws can result in severe penalties, including lengthy prison sentences and substantial fines, particularly if the offense involves organized crime or large quantities of firearms.

Possession of a Firearm in Connection with a Federal Crime

Using or carrying a firearm during the commission of a federal crime, such as drug trafficking or robbery, triggers mandatory sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c):

• 5 years for possession during a crime.
• 7 years if the firearm is brandished.
• 10 years if the firearm is discharged.
  These sentences must be served consecutively to the underlying crime, leading to significantly longer incarceration periods.

Possession of Illegal Firearms or Modifications

The National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5861) makes it a federal offense to possess certain prohibited or unregistered firearms, including:

• Machine guns.
• Silencers or suppressors.
• Short-barreled rifles or shotguns.

Violations of the NFA can result in up to 10 years in federal prison and substantial fines.

Lying on a Federal Firearms Application

Providing false information on a federal firearms application to a licensed dealer violates federal law and can lead to serious charges. For example, failing to disclose a felony conviction or using false identification during a purchase may result in criminal prosecution. Penalties include prison time and fines, depending on the severity of the offense

What Makes Federal Gun Charges More Severe?

Aggravating factors can significantly increase the penalties in federal weapons cases, often resulting in harsher sentences or additional charges. These factors are specific circumstances that make the offense more severe in the eyes of federal prosecutors and courts. Understanding how these factors apply is critical to crafting an effective defense.

Common aggravating factors in federal gun cases include:

• Prior Convictions:
  Individuals with prior felony convictions may face enhanced penalties under federal laws, such as 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (Armed Career Criminal Act), which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for repeat offenders.
• Involvement of Minors:
  Providing firearms to minors or involving minors in firearm-related offenses can lead to additional charges and harsher penalties. For example, using a minor to traffic weapons can result in enhanced sentencing under federal statutes.
• Links to Terrorism or Organized Crime:
  If a firearm is tied to organized crime, gang activity, or acts of terrorism, prosecutors may pursue maximum penalties and additional charges under statutes related to national security or racketeering.
• Use of High-Capacity or Illegal Firearms:
  Possession or use of prohibited firearms, such as machine guns or silencers, under the National Firearms Act, or the use of firearms with high-capacity magazines in crimes, may lead to enhanced sentences.
• Connection to Violent Crimes:
  The use or brandishing of a firearm during violent crimes, such as robbery, assault, or kidnapping, often triggers mandatory minimum sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

How Federal Weapons Charges Differ From State Charges

Jurisdiction
Federal weapons cases are prosecuted in federal court by U.S. Attorneys and typically involve violations of federal statutes, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act. These cases often arise when firearms are involved in interstate commerce, trafficking, or federal crimes. In contrast, state weapons charges are prosecuted in state courts and governed by local laws, which may vary significantly from federal statutes.

Penalties
Federal penalties are generally harsher than those imposed at the state level, often including mandatory minimum sentences. For example, using a firearm during the commission of a federal crime can result in a mandatory consecutive sentence, such as 5 years for possession, 7 years for brandishing, or 10 years for discharging a firearm. These mandatory minimums often leave little room for leniency, making federal convictions more severe.

Investigative Agencies
Federal weapons cases are investigated by powerful federal agencies with extensive resources, including:

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which focuses on violations of firearm regulations, trafficking, and unregistered modifications.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), particularly in cases involving organized crime or firearms linked to terrorism.
• The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in instances where firearms are tied to drug trafficking or related activities.

Because federal weapons charges often involve more severe penalties and thorough investigations, a skilled defense attorney is essential. An experienced federal defense attorney will know how to navigate the complexities of federal court, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and build a defense tailored to the unique aspects of federal firearms laws.

Common Defenses Against Federal Gun Charges

Illegal Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures. If law enforcement obtained the firearm without a valid warrant, probable cause, or through improper methods, the evidence could be suppressed. For example, if federal agents searched your home without obtaining a warrant or exceeded the scope of a warrant during the search, any firearms they recovered may be inadmissible in court. Suppressing this evidence can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case and may lead to a dismissal of the charges.

Lack of Knowledge

To convict you of unlawful firearm possession, federal prosecutors must prove that you knowingly possessed the firearm. If the firearm was found in a shared space, such as a vehicle or a residence, and you were unaware of its presence, this defense could apply. For instance, if a firearm was discovered in a car you borrowed or in a roommate’s belongings, your lack of knowledge about the firearm can be used to challenge the charges. This defense requires a detailed examination of the circumstances to show you did not intentionally possess the weapon.

No Intent to Commit a Crime

Federal gun charges, such as using a firearm during a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), require proof that the firearm was knowingly used in connection with a specific crime, such as drug trafficking or robbery. If prosecutors cannot establish that you intended to use the firearm unlawfully, this can serve as a strong defense. For example, simply having a firearm present in your vehicle during an unrelated activity may not satisfy the intent requirement. This defense often involves demonstrating that the firearm was not tied to any criminal activity.

Improper Evidence Handling

Law enforcement and federal agencies, such as the ATF, are required to follow strict protocols when collecting, storing, and presenting evidence. If there are errors in the chain of custody, such as mishandling the firearm or failing to properly document its transfer between officials, the evidence’s reliability may be called into question. For example, if the firearm’s serial number is altered or records are incomplete, your attorney can challenge its admissibility. Improper evidence handling can cast doubt on the prosecution’s case and create opportunities to negotiate reduced charges or dismissal.

Mistaken Identity

In cases involving multiple suspects or large-scale investigations, such as gun trafficking operations, mistaken identity is a common issue. For example, if several individuals are arrested during a federal sting operation, prosecutors must prove that the firearm or alleged crime is directly tied to you. Presenting an alibi, identifying inconsistencies in witness testimony, or challenging evidence linking you to the firearm can undermine the prosecution’s claims. Mistaken identity defenses require careful investigation and strategic presentation to the court.

Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Weapons Charges

Can I Be Charged With Both State and Federal Firearm Crimes?

Yes, it is possible to face dual prosecution for the same firearm offense under both state and federal laws. For example, a gun trafficking case may be prosecuted at the federal level for crossing state lines and at the state level for violating local firearm laws.

What Is a “Straw Purchase” and Why Is It Illegal?

A straw purchase occurs when someone buys a firearm on behalf of a person prohibited from owning one. It is illegal under federal law and can result in serious penalties, including prison time and significant fines.

Can Federal Gun Charges Be Dropped or Reduced?

Yes, federal gun charges can be dropped or reduced depending on the circumstances. This often involves challenging the evidence, demonstrating procedural violations (e.g., illegal searches), or negotiating with prosecutors for lesser charges in exchange for cooperation or mitigating evidence.

How to Fight False Rape Accusations in California

Being accused of false rape accusations in California or sexual assault is one of the most serious and life-changing accusations a person can face. Even if the allegations are completely false, the damage to your reputation, career, and personal relationships can be devastating

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience defending clients against serious criminal charges, including those involving allegations of sexual assault. We understand the high stakes involved in these cases and provide dedicated, thorough representation to challenge the evidence against you, expose inconsistencies, and protect your reputation.

If you’ve been accused of rape or sexual assault, it is critical to act quickly. Call our office at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a confidential consultation with our Los Angeles criminal defense attorney. We are here to fight for you and help secure the best possible outcome in your case.

What Are False Rape Allegations?

False rape allegations, though not common, can have devastating consequences for the accused. These accusations can arise from a variety of motives or circumstances. In some cases, the claims stem from revenge or jealousy, where a personal grudge, relationship dispute, or jealousy leads to false accusations as a form of retaliation. In other situations, false allegations may result from misunderstandings or misinterpretation of consent. Miscommunication during an encounter can lead to accusations that, while not based on malicious intent, still carry serious repercussions.There are also instances where regret following a consensual encounter may lead one party to make claims of non-consensual activity. This often occurs when one individual experiences guilt, embarrassment, or other personal regrets after a consensual act. Finally, external pressure or coercion can play a significant role in false allegations. An individual may file a claim due to influence or pressure from friends, family, or other external sources, even if they know the accusation is false. Regardless of the motive, false allegations can cause significant harm to the accused, highlighting the importance of building a strong defense to protect your rights and reputation.

Legal Consequences of False Rape Accusations in California

Rape is classified as a serious felony under California Penal Code § 261, and a conviction carries severe penalties that can have life-altering consequences. These penalties include:

• Prison Sentence:
  A conviction can result in up to 8 years in state prison, with additional time if aggravating factors are present, such as the use of a weapon or causing significant bodily injury to the accuser.
• Mandatory Sex Offender Registration:
  Under Penal Code § 290, individuals convicted of rape must register as sex offenders for life. This requirement significantly impacts personal freedom and limits employment and housing opportunities.
• Permanent Damage to Reputation and Career:
  A conviction can permanently damage your reputation, ruin professional opportunities, and create lasting social stigma, even after you’ve served your sentence

Steps to Defend Against False Rape Allegations

Hire an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Immediately

The first and most critical step in defending against false rape allegations is to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. These cases require swift action to protect your rights and ensure that your defense is handled effectively from the outset. An attorney will serve as your advocate during police interrogations, protecting you from making statements that could inadvertently harm your case. They will also start working on your defense immediately, reviewing evidence, analyzing the accuser’s claims, and identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

Having skilled legal representation early in the process can make all the difference in securing the best possible outcome. By acting quickly, your attorney can help preserve crucial evidence, interview witnesses, and build a defense strategy designed to expose the truth and protect your rights.

Gather Evidence and Witnesses

A crucial part of defending against false rape allegations is gathering evidence and witness testimony that supports your innocence. This process involves collecting key materials that challenge the accuser’s claims and establish the facts. Text messages, emails, or social media exchanges between you and the accuser can be used to demonstrate consent or expose inconsistencies in their version of events. These communications often serve as powerful evidence in refuting false allegations.

Witness testimony from individuals who were present before, during, or after the alleged incident is also vital. Witnesses can provide context that undermines the accuser’s claims, confirm details that align with your defense, or highlight contradictions in the accuser’s account. Additionally, physical evidence such as photos, video footage, or forensic reports can directly contradict the allegations. For example, video footage might show behavior inconsistent with the accuser’s claims, or forensic evidence could fail to corroborate the accusations. Gathering and preserving this evidence is essential for building a strong defense and demonstrating your innocence.

Investigating Motives Behind False Allegations

False rape allegations often stem from ulterior motives, and uncovering these motives is a critical part of your defense. We will thoroughly investigate the accuser’s background and the circumstances surrounding the allegations to identify possible reasons for making a false claim. This may involve determining whether the accuser has a history of making false accusations, which could establish a pattern of behavior that calls their credibility into question. Our attorney will also examine any personal or financial incentives the accuser may have, such as a grudge, desire for revenge, or an attempt to gain money through a settlement. Identifying these motivations can expose why the allegations may not be truthful.

Additionally, we will analyze the accuser’s statements for inconsistencies or contradictions when compared to evidence, witness testimony, or earlier accounts. Highlighting these discrepancies is vital to weakening the prosecution’s case and demonstrating the unreliability of the accusations. Investigating the accuser’s motives allows us to build a strong defense and challenge the validity of their claims effectively.

Challenge the Prosecution’s Case

The burden of proof in a criminal case lies entirely with the prosecution, and our attorney will meticulously examine their evidence for any weaknesses or inconsistencies that can help build your defense. This includes identifying a lack of corroborating evidence, such as cases where the accusations are unsupported by physical evidence or witness testimony.

We also scrutinize the accuser’s testimony for inconsistencies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If their statements change over time or conflict with other facts, we will use this to challenge the validity of their claims. Additionally, we review all forensic evidence to expose any flaws, errors, or mishandling by law enforcement that could cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Present Your Case Effectively in Court

An effective courtroom strategy is essential to defending against false rape allegations. Your attorney will focus on cross-examining the accuser to expose inconsistencies or contradictions in their testimony, which can significantly undermine their credibility.

Additionally, expert witnesses, such as forensic specialists or psychological experts, may be called to challenge the prosecution’s evidence or provide alternative explanations that support your defense. These experts can offer critical insights that weaken the prosecution’s case.

If applicable, your attorney can also present evidence of your good character and lack of criminal history to show the court that the allegations do not align with your behavior or reputation. A strong and well-executed courtroom strategy can make all the difference in securing a favorable verdict and protecting your future.

Common Mistakes to Avoid When Accused of Rape

Do Not Contact the Accuser:
Any direct communication with the accuser, whether by phone, text, email, or in person, can be misconstrued as harassment, intimidation, or an admission of guilt. This contact could be used against you in court, so avoid any interaction entirely and let your attorney handle all communications.

Do Not Discuss the Case Publicly:
Refrain from talking about the allegations on social media, with friends, family, or anyone other than your attorney. Public statements, posts, or comments can easily be taken out of context and used by the prosecution to build their case against you. Keep all details confidential and let your attorney control the narrative.

Do Not Ignore the Charges:
False allegations are serious and must be addressed immediately. Ignoring the charges will not make them go away and could lead to an arrest warrant or weaken your defense. Act quickly by contacting an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights and begin building your case.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

California Self-Defense Laws: Top Misconceptions You Should Know

California’s self-defense laws are complex, and misunderstandings about what is legally allowed can lead to serious criminal charges. Many assume they have greater rights to use force than the law permits or misinterpret critical legal protections, such as the Castle Doctrine. Acting on these misconceptions may result in charges such as assault, manslaughter, or even murder.

To help clarify these misconceptions, we’ve outlined the most common myths surrounding self-defense in California and the realities of what the law actually upholds. By understanding these distinctions, you can protect yourself and your loved ones while staying within legal boundaries.

Misconception #1: Deadly Force Is Always Justified Against Trespassers

One of the most misunderstood aspects of California self-defense laws is the belief that deadly force is always legally justified when dealing with trespassers. Many assume that simply being on private property without permission grants homeowners the unrestricted right to use firearms or other deadly means to remove an intruder. However, California’s Castle Doctrine (Penal Code 198.5) has critical limitations that are often overlooked.

Reality: Deadly Force Is Justified Only When There Is an Immediate Threat of Death or Serious Injury

The Castle Doctrine in California provides legal protection for individuals defending themselves within their home. It allows for the use of deadly force, but only when you reasonably believe the intruder poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to you or someone else in the home. For example, if an armed individual breaks into your house at night and you fear for your life, you may be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself and others. However, deadly force cannot be used automatically against every trespasser. If the intruder is unarmed and does not pose an immediate threat—for instance, someone walking across your lawn or stealing a package from your porch—using deadly force may be deemed excessive and could lead to serious legal consequences, including charges of manslaughter or murder.

Proportionality Matters

California law requires that your response to an intruder’s actions be proportional to the level of threat posed. For example, if a person enters your yard to steal a bicycle and does not endanger anyone’s life, using a firearm or other deadly means would likely be considered disproportionate and unlawful. In these situations, non-lethal methods, such as calling law enforcement or asking the trespasser to leave, are typically the legally appropriate options.

Deadly force is legally justifiable under the Castle Doctrine only when there is a clear and present danger to your life or the lives of others inside your home. Misunderstanding this distinction can result in criminal charges and severe penalties, including prison time. It is vital to remember that the right to protect your property does not automatically include the right to use deadly force, and any excessive response could lead to prosecution.

Misconception #2: Any Physical Response Qualifies as Self-Defense

A common misunderstanding in California self-defense law is the assumption that any physical response to an attack automatically counts as self-defense. Many individuals wrongly believe that being physically assaulted entitles them to retaliate with any level of force. However, California law imposes specific limits on when and how self-defense can be lawfully claimed.

Reality: Self-Defense Requires Proportionality and Imminent Danger

Under California law, self-defense is only valid when the force used is proportional to the immediate threat of harm faced by the individual. To claim self-defense, you must have a reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of being harmed. Furthermore, your response must be limited to what is necessary to protect yourself from that danger.

For example, if someone shoves you during a heated argument, responding by punching them or pulling out a weapon would likely be considered excessive and could result in criminal charges such as assault or battery. Courts carefully evaluate whether your use of force was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. If the force used exceeds what was necessary to stop the threat, a self-defense claim may be rejected.

Proportionality in Action

California law stresses the importance of proportionality when determining whether a response qualifies as self-defense. If someone attacks you with a weapon, using similar force to defend yourself may be justified. However, if the threat is minor—such as a push or verbal insult—using deadly force or any extreme physical retaliation would be disproportionate and unlawful. For instance, if someone lightly shoves you during a disagreement and you respond by pulling out a knife or striking them with a weapon, a court is likely to find that your actions far exceeded what was necessary to prevent harm. Such a response would not be protected under self-defense laws.

To claim self-defense under California law, your actions must reflect reasonable fear of imminent harm and the force used must be proportional to the threat. Acting disproportionately to a minor threat can lead to serious legal consequences, including assault or battery charges. Misunderstanding this critical principle could result in criminal liability, even if you were initially the victim.

Misconception #3: California Law Does Not Require You to Retreat

A common misunderstanding is that California has a “Stand Your Ground” law like some other states, where individuals can use deadly force in any setting without considering the possibility of retreating or de-escalating the situation. This belief often leads people to assume they can use force under any circumstances without evaluating whether retreat was a safer or more appropriate option.

Reality: No Duty to Retreat, But Force Must Be Necessary

California law does not impose a legal duty to retreat if you are faced with imminent danger. You have the right to defend yourself or others if you reasonably believe you are in immediate danger of harm. However, the absence of a duty to retreat does not give you unlimited permission to escalate the situation or use unnecessary force. Courts will closely examine whether your response was proportional to the threat and whether using force was truly the last viable option.

Public Spaces: Retreat as a Factor in Reasonableness

While California law does not require you to retreat in public, the court may still consider whether avoiding the confrontation was possible. For example, if someone threatens you in a public place and you have a clear opportunity to walk away safely, using force might be seen as excessive or unjustified. Courts could determine that your response was unnecessary because the threat could have been avoided without risk to your safety.

Conversely, if the threat is imminent and there is no realistic way to retreat safely, using reasonable force to protect yourself may be justified. The key question is whether your actions were truly necessary to prevent harm.

At Home: The Castle Doctrine

Under California’s Castle Doctrine (Penal Code 198.5), you are not required to retreat when you are inside your own home. If an intruder enters your residence and you reasonably believe they pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, you are permitted to use deadly force to protect yourself or others in the home. However, the threat must be immediate and serious—the mere presence of an intruder alone is not enough to justify deadly force.

Acting on the mistaken belief that California has unrestricted “Stand Your Ground” protections can lead to serious legal consequences. If the force used is deemed unnecessary or excessive, you could face criminal charges, such as assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, or even murder. While California law does not require you to retreat in the face of danger, your actions must still be necessary and proportional to the threat. Understanding the distinctions between reasonable self-defense and excessive force is critical to ensuring that your actions are legally protected.

Misconception #4: Using Deadly Force Is Legal to Protect Property

Many people mistakenly believe that California law allows the use of deadly force to protect personal property, such as cars, belongings, or even pets. This misconception can lead individuals to overreact in non-violent situations, potentially resulting in serious criminal consequences.

Reality: Deadly Force Is Only Justified to Protect Life

In California, you may use reasonable force to protect your property, but deadly force is only legally justified when there is an imminent threat to your life or the lives of others. Simply defending property is not enough to warrant the use of lethal measures, such as firearms or other deadly weapons. For example, if someone attempts to steal your car or vandalize your property, you may take non-lethal actions to stop them, such as calling law enforcement or physically intervening in a way that does not escalate the situation. However, using a firearm or any deadly force in these circumstances—where there is no immediate threat to your life—could result in criminal charges, including manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, or even murder.

Proportionality of Force Is Key

The force you use must be proportional to the level of danger. For instance, if someone is trying to steal a package off your porch, it would be considered an excessive response to use a gun, as there is no imminent danger to your life. California law does not allow the use of deadly force to prevent theft or property damage unless you or someone else is facing an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death.

Exceptions Within the Home: The Castle Doctrine

If someone breaks into your home, the rules may differ. Under California’s Castle Doctrine (Penal Code 198.5), you may use deadly force if you reasonably believe the intruder poses an immediate threat to your safety or the safety of others in your home. This applies only when there is a clear and present danger to your life, not just to your possessions. For example, if someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and appears to be threatening your life, deadly force may be justified. However, if the person is simply trying to steal a television and poses no physical threat, lethal action could still lead to legal consequences.

Acting on the mistaken belief that you can use deadly force to protect property can lead to severe criminal penalties, including loss of freedom, a criminal record, and financial liability. Courts closely evaluate whether the force used was necessary and proportional to the threat posed, and any use of excessive force may result in charges against you. Deadly force should only be used as a last resort when there is an immediate and serious threat to human life. While protecting property is important, California law emphasizes the use of reasonable force in these situations. Understanding these legal limits can help you avoid unnecessary criminal liability.

Misconception #5: Self-Defense Is Always Valid, Even If You Started the Fight

One of the most common misunderstandings about self-defense is the belief that it can be claimed even if you were the one who initiated the conflict. Many assume that starting an altercation does not disqualify them from later invoking self-defense, but California law places clear limits on this defense.

Reality: Self-Defense Is Not Available to the Initial Aggressor

If you were the initial aggressor—meaning you started the physical altercation or used force first—you generally cannot claim self-defense under California law. Self-defense is designed to protect individuals who act to safeguard themselves from unprovoked threats, not those who create the danger. For example, if you throw the first punch in a confrontation, you typically cannot later argue that you acted in self-defense.

Exception: Regaining the Right to Self-Defense

There is an important exception to this rule. If you initiated the conflict but then made a clear attempt to withdraw or de-escalate the situation, and the other person continued to attack you, you may regain the right to claim self-defense. In such cases, the law recognizes that you no longer pose a threat and have taken steps to stop the violence, making your subsequent actions defensive rather than aggressive.

For instance, if you push someone during an argument but then step back and attempt to walk away, only to have the other person escalate the conflict by attacking you, you could potentially claim self-defense. However, the courts will closely scrutinize the circumstances to ensure that you made a genuine effort to retreat or stop the altercation before resorting to further force.

Burden of Proof

Proving that you withdrew from the confrontation can be challenging. You will need to show evidence—such as eyewitness accounts, video footage, or other supporting details—that you attempted to end the conflict before acting defensively. Without such evidence, your claim of self-defense may be rejected. Self-defense is not an automatic right for individuals who initiate a conflict. While exceptions exist, the burden of proving a valid claim falls on you. If you find yourself in a situation where this defense may apply, it is crucial to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney to evaluate your case and present a compelling argument in your favor.

Successful Outcomes: How We’ve Helped Clients Win Self-Defense Cases

Attempted Murder Charges Dismissed
In Los Angeles, our client faced attempted murder charges under Penal Code 664-187(A) following an incident where they claimed self-defense. Although the court initially raised concerns about the proportionality of force, Attorney Hashemi filed a successful PC 995 motion challenging the charges. After extensive arguments and evidence review, the court concluded that our client acted in self-defense, leading to the dismissal of all charges.

Robbery, Assault, Extortion, and Criminal Threats Charges Dismissed
In Riverside, our client was charged with multiple serious offenses, including robbery (PC 211), assault with a gun (PC 245(a)), extortion (PC 524), and criminal threats (PC 422), along with enhancements. Facing a potential 15-year sentence, Attorney Hashemi conducted a year-long investigation, establishing that the client’s actions were justified under self-defense laws. The District Attorney reviewed the evidence and dismissed all charges, clearing our client completely.

Felony Battery with Serious Bodily Injury Charge Dismissed
In another Los Angeles case, our client was charged with felony battery under Penal Code 243(d), carrying a possible four-year prison sentence. At the preliminary hearing, Attorney Hashemi presented evidence that the client acted in self-defense or in defense of another. The court agreed, dismissing the charge and exonerating our client of any wrongdoing.

How California Courts Evaluate Self-Defense Claims

When asserting self-defense in California, courts thoroughly examine whether the use of force was legally justified based on the unique facts of the case. Several key factors guide the court’s assessment:

• Immediacy of the Threat: The threat must be immediate and unavoidable. Courts will consider whether the individual reasonably believed they were in imminent danger of serious harm or death. A hypothetical or future danger is insufficient.
• Proportionality of Force: The force used must match the level of the threat. For instance, using deadly force in response to a non-deadly threat is likely to be deemed excessive and unjustified.
• Role in the Confrontation: Courts will analyze whether the individual provoked or escalated the conflict. If someone initiated the confrontation, their ability to claim self-defense may be significantly limited unless they clearly attempted to withdraw.

If the court finds that the use of force was unreasonable or excessive, the self-defense claim may be rejected. This could result in serious criminal charges such as assault, manslaughter, or even murder. California law requires that actions taken in self-defense be reasonable under the circumstances and directly tied to preventing the perceived threat.

Defending Your Right to Self-Defense in Los Angeles

If you’ve been involved in a self-defense incident in California, understanding your legal rights is crucial. Misconceptions about self-defense laws can lead to serious criminal charges, including assault or even homicide. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we bring over 20 years of experience in defending clients involved in self-defense cases. Attorney Hashemi is dedicated to providing personalized legal strategies to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome for your case.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Check fraud is a serious financial crime in California, prosecuted under Penal Code 476 PC. This offense involves creating, using, or possessing a forged, altered, or counterfeit check with the intent to defraud another party. A conviction can lead to severe penalties, including jail or prison time, hefty fines, and long-term consequences such as a permanent criminal record that may impact your future employment and housing opportunities.

If you are facing check fraud charges in Los Angeles, it’s essential to understand the law, the potential penalties, and the defenses available to you. With the right legal representation, you may be able to fight the charges, secure a reduction, or even have your case dismissed.

Don’t wait to seek help. Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule your free consultation and take the first step toward protecting your rights and future.

Check Fraud – California Penal Code Section 476

California Penal Code 476 PC defines check fraud as knowingly creating, using, or attempting to use a forged, altered, or fraudulent check to unlawfully obtain money, goods, or services. This offense is considered a type of forgery, and it can involve various fraudulent activities, including:

• Counterfeiting Checks: Designing fake checks that replicate authentic ones issued by legitimate financial institutions.
• Altering Checks: Modifying valid checks by changing key details, such as the amount, date, or recipient information, to deceive others.
• Passing Bad Checks: Presenting or using checks that you know are invalid, such as those drawn from closed accounts or with insufficient funds.

Even attempting to commit check fraud—such as presenting a counterfeit check that is caught before payment—can result in criminal charges. The prosecution must prove that the defendant knowingly intended to defraud another party.

Felony vs. Misdemeanor Check Fraud

Check fraud charges may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the specifics of the case, including the value involved and the defendant’s prior criminal record.

• Misdemeanor Check Fraud:
  Applies when the fraudulent amount is less than $950 and the defendant has no significant criminal history. Convictions may result in penalties such as jail time of up to one year and fines of up to $1,000.
• Felony Check Fraud:
  Charged when the fraudulent amount exceeds $950 or if the defendant has previous convictions for similar offenses. Penalties include 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison, along with higher fines and restitution obligations.

The decision to charge check fraud as a misdemeanor or felony often depends on the unique circumstances of the case. Prosecutors may also consider whether the defendant’s actions were part of a larger financial scheme or involved other crimes, such as identity theft.

Penalties for Check Fraud in California

Misdemeanor Penalties

If the fraudulent amount is less than $950 and the defendant does not have a significant criminal record, check fraud may be charged as a misdemeanor. Potential penalties include:

• Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines of up to $1,000.
• Court-ordered restitution to reimburse victims for financial losses.

Felony Penalties

Felony charges typically apply when the amount involved exceeds $950, or the defendant has prior forgery or theft-related convictions. Felony penalties may include:

• 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison.
• Substantial fines, often exceeding $10,000.
• Restitution payments to compensate victims for their losses.
• Enhanced penalties for cases involving significant financial harm or organized criminal activity.

Defenses to Check Fraud Charges

Lack of Intent to Defraud

Intent is a critical element of check fraud under Penal Code 476 PC. Without proof that the defendant knowingly tried to deceive or defraud another party, a conviction cannot stand. For example:

• Mistaken Use of a Fraudulent Check: If you cashed or deposited a counterfeit check without realizing it was fake, this lack of knowledge negates the required criminal intent.
• Clerical or Bank Errors: If the check was flagged as fraudulent due to an error beyond your control, this misunderstanding could serve as a defense.

Insufficient Evidence

The prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. An experienced attorney can challenge the strength and credibility of the evidence against you. Weak or unreliable evidence can lead to a dismissal of charges. For instance:

• Unclear Surveillance Footage: Video evidence may fail to clearly identify the defendant.
• Unreliable Witness Testimony: Witness accounts may be inaccurate, biased, or lack sufficient detail.
• Lack of Physical Proof: The prosecution must establish a direct connection between the defendant and the fraudulent activity.

Coercion or Duress

If you were forced or threatened into committing check fraud, you may be able to use coercion or duress as a defense. To successfully use this defense, evidence must support your claim, such as text messages, emails, or witness testimony corroborating the threats. Examples include:

• Being compelled to pass a fraudulent check under threat of harm.
• Acting out of fear for your safety or that of your loved ones.

Procedural Violations by Law Enforcement

Police and investigators must follow strict procedures when gathering evidence or questioning suspects. Violations of your constitutional rights can weaken the prosecution’s case. For example:

• Unlawful Search and Seizure: If the police obtained evidence without a proper warrant or probable cause, that evidence may be excluded from court.
• Failure to Provide Miranda Warnings: If you were not informed of your rights during custodial interrogation, any statements made could be inadmissible.
• Chain of Custody Errors: Mishandling of evidence by law enforcement can cast doubt on its authenticity.

Alternatives to Traditional Sentencing for Check Fraud

California recognizes that incarceration is not always the best solution for low-level financial crimes, particularly for first-time offenders. Instead, the state offers several alternatives to traditional sentencing, focusing on rehabilitation, accountability, and restitution. These options allow defendants to avoid harsh penalties while making amends and addressing the underlying issues that led to the offense.

Pretrial Diversion Programs

Pretrial diversion programs are designed to help eligible defendants avoid a conviction by completing specific court-approved requirements. Upon successful completion of the program, charges are typically dismissed, leaving the defendant with a clean criminal record. Diversion programs are particularly beneficial for those with no prior criminal history or those who committed a minor financial offense. These programs emphasize education, restitution, and community involvement rather than punishment.

Common components of pretrial diversion programs include:

• Financial Counseling: Participants may attend classes focused on money management and ethical decision-making to prevent future offenses.
• Community Service: Completing a set number of hours volunteering for nonprofit organizations or community projects.
• Restitution Payments: Fully repaying victims for their financial losses.

Restitution Agreements

Restitution agreements allow defendants to directly compensate victims for their financial losses in exchange for reduced penalties or case dismissal. Courts often look favorably on defendants who take responsibility for their actions and work to make victims whole.

Key benefits of restitution agreements include:

• Charge Reduction: Courts may reduce felony charges to misdemeanors or dismiss the case entirely upon full repayment.
• Avoidance of Incarceration: Defendants can often avoid jail or prison time by making restitution.
• Positive Impact in Court: Demonstrating genuine remorse and cooperation can influence the judge’s sentencing decisions.

Restitution agreements are particularly valuable in cases involving financial misunderstandings or minor fraudulent transactions where the defendant shows a willingness to resolve the matter quickly and fairly.

Why Consider Alternative Sentencing?

For eligible defendants, alternative sentencing options provide a second chance to move forward without the burden of a permanent criminal record. By avoiding incarceration, participants can maintain employment, support their families, and work toward a brighter future.

An experienced criminal defense attorney can evaluate your eligibility for these programs, negotiate on your behalf, and help you navigate the process to achieve the best possible outcome for your case.

Why You Need an Experienced Los Angeles Defense Attorney

Check fraud cases can be legally complex, often involving detailed analysis of evidence such as surveillance footage, financial records, and witness testimony. Successfully navigating these cases requires a thorough understanding of California law and a strategic defense approach. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our criminal defense attorney is committed to protecting your rights and pursuing the best possible outcome for your case.

Here’s how our firm can help:

• Thorough Case Analysis: We will carefully review the facts of your case, including the evidence against you, such as documents, communications, or transaction histories, to identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s arguments.
• Strategic Defense Planning: Attorney Hashemi will develop a personalized defense strategy tailored to the specific circumstances of your case, whether it involves proving a lack of intent, challenging evidence, or negotiating for alternative sentencing options.
• Negotiation with Prosecutors: Our legal team is skilled at negotiating with prosecutors to reduce charges, secure pretrial diversion, or pursue restitution agreements to avoid incarceration and minimize the impact on your life.
• Aggressive Court Representation: If your case goes to trial, Attorney Hashemi will present a strong and persuasive defense, challenging the evidence presented by the prosecution and advocating for your rights at every stage.

Contact Our Los Angeles Check Fraud Attorney

Facing check fraud charges can be overwhelming, but you don’t have to face this alone. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience successfully defending clients against check fraud and other financial crime charges in Los Angeles and surrounding areas. Our team understands the high stakes of these cases, and we are committed to protecting your rights, your reputation, and your future.

The sooner you contact our firm, the sooner we can begin crafting a strong defense strategy tailored to your case. Whether negotiating with prosecutors, pursuing alternatives to incarceration, or fighting for a dismissal in court, Attorney Hashemi and our legal team will be with you every step of the way.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Duress Defense in California: Can It Get Your Charges Dismissed?

Facing criminal charges in California can feel overwhelming, especially when you acted under extreme pressure or threats. The duress defense—also known as “coercion”—is a legal argument that recognizes that some crimes are not committed out of free will, but because the defendant was forced to act under the immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.

This defense is not about denying the crime itself; instead, it shifts the focus to the circumstances that left the defendant with no choice but to act unlawfully. In such cases, the blame for the crime lies not with the defendant but with the person or situation that applied the coercion.

If successfully argued, the duress defense can lead to the dismissal of charges or an acquittal. However, this defense has strict requirements and applies only in very specific situations. Understanding when the duress defense is applicable and how it works is critical for anyone facing criminal charges under these circumstances in California.

What Is the Duress Defense?

The duress defense is a legal argument that excuses criminal conduct when the defendant was coerced into committing the crime due to immediate and credible threats of harm or death. Unlike other defenses that justify actions, such as self-defense, the duress defense acknowledges that the unlawful act occurred but argues that it was committed under circumstances that eliminated the defendant’s free will. The blame, therefore, shifts to the person or situation that applied the coercion.

This defense falls under the category of an affirmative defense. This means the defendant does not deny the criminal act but instead asserts that the conduct was excusable because of the external threats. It is based on the principle that survival instincts can override moral and legal obligations when faced with extreme danger.

When arguing the duress defense, the defendant essentially acknowledges:

• Yes, I committed the crime as alleged.
• But I was forced to act to avoid immediate harm or death to myself or someone I care about.

In California, the duress defense can be raised in various cases, but it has strict legal requirements and does not apply to all crimes. If successfully argued, it can result in a dismissal of charges or an acquittal. However, the burden is on the defendant to provide sufficient evidence of coercion, and the defense is only viable in specific circumstances where the threats were immediate, credible, and left no room for escape.

Example Scenario

Imagine being forced at gunpoint to drive a vehicle for a robbery. The perpetrator threatens to kill you on the spot if you refuse. In such a case, you acted under duress, and this defense could apply to argue that you lacked the intent to willingly commit the crime.

How Does the Duress Defense Work?

The duress defense operates as an affirmative defense, meaning you admit to committing the crime but argue that your actions were excused because of extreme circumstances. It focuses on the external forces that coerced you into breaking the law, rather than your intent to commit the crime. Specifically, this defense asserts that you only acted unlawfully because you were threatened with immediate and credible harm to yourself or someone close to you.

In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed the offense willfully and with criminal intent. The duress defense negates this intent by demonstrating that you acted under compulsion. When successfully argued, the duress defense shows that you did not have a genuine choice and were forced to act against your will, leaving no room for reasonable alternatives.

Key Points About How the Duress Defense Works:

1. Acknowledgement of the Act
   You do not deny committing the alleged crime. Instead, you acknowledge your involvement but argue that the decision was not voluntary due to the external threats.
2. Coercion and Lack of Free Will
   The defense is built on the premise that the coercion was so overpowering that it stripped you of free will. The court will examine whether you were placed in a situation where complying with the demand was the only realistic option to avoid immediate harm.
3. Compulsion Negates Criminal Intent
   Since intent is a cornerstone of most criminal prosecutions, the duress defense challenges this element by asserting that the act was not committed willfully but under duress.
4. Focus on Immediate Harm
   To succeed, the defense must show that the harm threatened was not only serious but also imminent—leaving no opportunity for safe escape or intervention.

Key Elements of the Duress Defense in California

Immediate Threat

The duress defense requires that the threat you faced was both imminent and credible. This means the danger of death or serious bodily injury had to be immediate and unavoidable at the time you committed the crime. Vague threats, such as “I’ll hurt you tomorrow,” or generalized fears do not qualify under California law.

• Example: Someone points a loaded gun at you and orders you to break into a house, warning they will shoot you if you don’t comply. The immediacy of the threat satisfies this requirement.

Reasonable Belief

Your fear of harm must be reasonable under the circumstances. This means you must genuinely believe the threat is real and that the harm will occur if you do not comply. Furthermore, a reasonable person in your situation must also have perceived the threat as credible. Courts will evaluate whether your reaction to the threat was proportionate and justifiable.

• Example: If someone brandishes a knife and demands you shoplift for them, your belief that you would be harmed for refusing would be reasonable.

No Reasonable Escape

The duress defense applies only if there was no realistic or safe alternative to committing the crime. If there was a way to escape the threat or seek help without violating the law, the defense will not succeed. Courts expect you to explore all viable options before resorting to unlawful actions.

• Example: If you were held at gunpoint in a crowded public place and had an opportunity to alert authorities or flee safely, the defense would likely fail.

Lack of Free Will

You must prove that the coercion was so overwhelming that it completely overpowered your free will, leaving you with no choice but to comply. The law recognizes that in extreme circumstances, survival instincts can override personal judgment and moral obligations.

• Example: If someone threatens to kill your child unless you commit fraud, the coercion would overpower your ability to act freely and lawfully.

Importance of Meeting These Elements

California courts require all four elements to be clearly established for the duress defense to succeed. Even if one of these criteria is missing—such as the absence of an immediate threat or the presence of a reasonable escape route—the defense will not hold up in court.

Limitations of the Duress Defense in California

The duress defense, while compelling in specific circumstances, is subject to important limitations under California law. These restrictions are designed to prevent misuse of the defense and ensure accountability where appropriate. Below are the key limitations:

1. Murder Charges:
   The duress defense generally does not apply to murder charges. California law holds that taking another person’s life is never legally excusable, even when done under the threat of death. However, in some cases, the existence of duress may be considered a mitigating factor, potentially reducing a murder charge to manslaughter.
2. Lack of Immediate Threat:
   The defense requires an immediate and credible threat of death or serious bodily harm. Threats pertaining to future harm—such as “I’ll hurt you tomorrow”—do not meet the legal standard for duress. Only situations involving a clear and present danger can satisfy this requirement.
3. Voluntary Association with Criminals:
   If the defendant willingly placed themselves in a situation where coercion was likely—such as by joining a criminal gang or participating in illegal activities—the duress defense will not apply. Courts argue that such actions demonstrate an assumption of the risks associated with criminal environments.

Evidence Needed to Prove Duress

To successfully assert the duress defense in a California criminal case, the burden falls on the defendant to present credible evidence showing that the unlawful act was committed under immediate and compelling coercion. Courts require strong, reliable proof that supports the claim of duress. This evidence collectively works to raise reasonable doubt about whether you acted voluntarily or with intent, which is essential for mounting a strong duress defense. Below are common types of evidence that can strengthen a duress defense:

1. Surveillance Footage:
   Video recordings from security cameras, dashcams, or similar sources that capture the coercion or threats in action can be invaluable. Such footage directly demonstrates the circumstances surrounding the crime.
2. Eyewitness Testimony:
   Statements from individuals who observed the threats or coercion can provide corroboration. Witnesses can testify to the immediate danger you faced or the behavior of the person who coerced you.
3. Recorded Communications:
   Text messages, voicemails, phone call recordings, or other forms of written or verbal communication containing explicit threats can serve as crucial evidence. These documents or recordings show the intent and immediacy of the coercion.
4. Expert Testimony:
   Testimony from psychologists, behavioral experts, or other specialists can help explain the psychological impact of coercion on your ability to make free and rational decisions. They can provide insight into how immediate threats influenced your actions.

Duress Defense vs. Necessity Defense

Although the duress defense and necessity defense both aim to excuse unlawful conduct, they differ in significant ways under California law. The duress defense revolves around external human threats, while the necessity defense focuses on preventing a greater harm, often without a direct human element.

The duress defense applies when a defendant commits a crime due to immediate threats of death or serious bodily harm from another person. The key aspect of duress is coercion, where the unlawful act is carried out under direct pressure from an individual, leaving no safe or reasonable alternative. For example, someone forced at gunpoint to rob a bank to save their family could invoke duress. The defense requires proof that the threat was immediate, credible, and unavoidable.

In contrast, the necessity defense justifies a crime committed to avert a greater harm, even when no direct human threat is involved. It relies on the principle that the illegal action was the only reasonable way to prevent significant danger to oneself or others. For instance, a driver who breaks traffic laws to rush an injured person to the hospital could argue necessity. This defense requires the defendant to show that the harm prevented was greater than the harm caused by the crime, and no legal alternatives were available.

While both defenses seek to explain why a crime was committed, they rest on distinct legal principles: duress focuses on immediate, human-imposed threats, while necessity addresses broader situations of imminent harm where breaking the law was the only solution.

Self-Defense vs. Duress

Although self-defense and duress both address situations involving imminent harm or threats, they are fundamentally different legal defenses under California law. Self-defense is a justification defense, meaning the defendant’s actions are considered lawful under the circumstances. It applies when someone uses force—sometimes deadly force—to protect themselves or others from imminent physical harm. To successfully argue self-defense, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable belief that they or someone else were in immediate danger and that the force used was necessary and proportional to prevent the harm. For example, fighting back against an attacker to stop an assault would be justified under self-defense. If the defense succeeds, the defendant is entirely excused from criminal liability because the law recognizes the act as lawful.

Duress, on the other hand, is an excuse defense, which acknowledges that the defendant’s actions were unlawful but argues that they were compelled by an external threat. It applies when a person is forced to commit a crime due to an immediate and credible threat of serious harm or death. Unlike self-defense, duress involves compliance with a demand rather than direct resistance to the source of the threat. To invoke the duress defense, the defendant must prove that the threat was specific, immediate, and credible, and that there was no reasonable escape or alternative to avoid committing the crime. For instance, if someone is coerced at gunpoint to commit a robbery, the duress defense could excuse the unlawful act by shifting blame to the coercive circumstances or individual.

The key distinction lies in the type of response and the nature of the act. Self-defense justifies actions taken to directly resist harm, whereas duress excuses unlawful acts committed under coercion. Additionally, self-defense does not involve committing a separate crime, while duress inherently does. Self-defense is a justification that renders the act lawful, while duress is an excuse that acknowledges the act’s illegality but argues it was unavoidable under the circumstances. Understanding these differences is critical for determining the appropriate defense in California criminal cases.

How a Criminal Defense Attorney Can Help

The burden of proving duress lies with the defendant, but the standard is relatively low—it requires only raising a reasonable doubt about criminal intent. A skilled attorney ensures that all evidence and legal arguments are effectively presented to achieve the best possible outcome. Our firm’s criminal defense attorney can strengthen your case by:

• Collecting Evidence: Securing documentation of threats, coercion, or other proof of duress, such as surveillance footage, texts, or emails.
• Presenting Expert Testimony: Utilizing experts, such as psychologists, to explain the effects of coercion on your decision-making.
• Negotiating with Prosecutors: Advocating for reduced or dismissed charges by demonstrating the validity of your duress defense.

The felony murder rule in California, established under Penal Code Section 189, allows for murder charges when a death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of certain felonies, even if there was no intent to kill. Historically, the felony murder rule held all participants in a qualifying felony equally liable for any resulting death, regardless of their role. However, significant reforms introduced by Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437) have narrowed the scope of this law. These changes emphasize the importance of intent and the level of participation, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly punished for murder if they were not directly involved or acted without reckless disregard for human life.

Understanding how the felony murder rule applies under California law is essential for anyone facing these charges. With the right legal representation, it is possible to challenge the prosecution’s case, address the severity of the charges, or explore options for resentencing under the revised legal framework.

What is the Felony Murder Rule in California?

The California felony murder rule applies to specific felonies considered inherently dangerous, including:

• Robbery
• Burglary
• Arson
• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Carjacking

Scope of Application

The felony murder rule applies even in cases where the death was unintended or accidental. For example:

• If a bystander dies during a carjacking due to a car crash, all participants in the carjacking could face felony murder charges.
• In a burglary where a homeowner suffers a fatal injury while attempting to stop the crime, the individuals involved in the burglary may be charged with felony murder.

Key Elements of the Felony Murder Rule

Committed or Attempted a Felony

To be charged under the felony murder rule, the defendant must have either committed or attempted to commit one of the listed qualifying felonies. For example:

• If someone is in the process of robbing a store and a bystander is killed during the robbery, the participants in the robbery can be charged with felony murder.
• Similarly, if the felony is interrupted before completion (e.g., an attempted carjacking), but a death still occurs, felony murder liability can still apply.

Major Participant in the Felony

The prosecution must show that the defendant was a major participant in the felony. This means they played a significant role in planning, executing, or facilitating the crime. A major participant might include:

• The person who orchestrated the robbery.
• Someone who provided critical assistance, such as acting as the getaway driver. By contrast, individuals with minimal involvement (e.g., being present without contributing meaningfully to the crime) may argue that they were not major participants and thus should not be held liable under the felony murder rule.

Aiding and Abetting

A defendant can also face felony murder charges if they aided and abetted the felony. This involves intentionally assisting, facilitating, or encouraging the commission of the crime. For example:

• A person who serves as a lookout during a burglary can be charged with felony murder if a death occurs during the burglary. To establish aiding and abetting, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew about the felony, willingly provided support, and intended to help the crime succeed.

Intent to Kill (Limited Cases)

Under California’s revised felony murder rule (following Senate Bill 1437), intent to kill is typically not required. However, in cases where a defendant is accused of directly committing the murder, intent to kill may be an element the prosecution must prove. For instance:

• If a defendant intentionally shoots a victim during a robbery, the prosecution may argue that the killing was intentional, making the defendant both the direct perpetrator and liable under felony murder.

How SB 1437 Changed California’s Felony Murder Rule

In 2019, Senate Bill (SB) 1437 introduced sweeping reforms to California’s felony murder rule, narrowing its application to ensure that individuals who lacked intent or reckless indifference are not unjustly convicted of murder. These changes reflect a significant shift in California law, emphasizing fairness and the evaluation of each defendant’s specific role in the crime.

Key Changes Under SB 1437:

• Revised Liability Standards: Convictions for felony murder now require proof that the defendant:
  • Directly committed the killing.
  • Aided and abetted the felony with reckless indifference to human life.
  • Acted as a major participant in the underlying felony that resulted in death.
• Resentencing Opportunities: Individuals previously convicted under the broader, pre-2019 felony murder rule can file a petition for resentencing if they no longer meet the revised criteria for liability. This allows for potential sentence reductions or even case dismissals for those who were not directly responsible for the death.

Felony Murder Penalties Under California Law

• Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole (LWOP): Common in cases involving first-degree murder.
• 25 Years to Life in Prison: For second-degree felony murder.
• Three Strikes Law: A felony murder conviction counts as a strike, which can lead to enhanced sentences for subsequent offenses.

Collateral Consequences:

• Permanent criminal record.
• Loss of civil rights, including the right to vote or own firearms.
• Challenges in securing employment, housing, and professional licenses.

Defenses for Felony Murder Charges

No Major Participation

One of the most effective defenses is demonstrating that the defendant was not a major participant in the underlying felony. The prosecution must prove that the defendant played a significant role in planning, executing, or facilitating the crime that led to the death. If the defendant’s involvement was peripheral—such as merely being present without active participation or acting as a lookout with no knowledge of the felony’s full scope—this can weaken the prosecution’s case. A skilled attorney can highlight the defendant’s minimal role to argue for reduced charges or dismissal.

Lack of Reckless Indifference

Reckless indifference to human life is a key element in felony murder cases. The prosecution must establish that the defendant acted with a conscious disregard for the potential loss of life. A strong defense may argue that the defendant was unaware their actions posed a significant risk of death or that they took steps to minimize harm. For instance, evidence showing the defendant tried to de-escalate the situation, discourage violence, or remove themselves from the scene can demonstrate a lack of reckless indifference. Successfully proving this can lead to a reduction in charges or an acquittal.

Challenging the Evidence

Many felony murder cases hinge on witness testimony, forensic evidence, or circumstantial evidence. A defense attorney can thoroughly scrutinize this evidence to identify weaknesses, such as:

• Inconsistent Witness Testimony: Highlighting contradictions or biases in witness accounts.
• Forensic Evidence Issues: Challenging the reliability of forensic methods, such as DNA or ballistics, if there are concerns about contamination or improper testing.
• Procedural Violations: Demonstrating that the evidence was obtained through unlawful searches, improper collection, or other procedural errors that violate the defendant’s rights.

By undermining the prosecution’s evidence, the defense can cast doubt on the defendant’s alleged involvement and build a strong case for dismissal or reduced charges.

Alibi Defense

An alibi defense focuses on proving that the defendant was not present at the scene of the felony and therefore could not have participated in the crime. This defense relies on credible evidence, such as:

• Surveillance Footage: Videos showing the defendant at a different location at the time of the crime.
• Witness Testimony: Statements from credible individuals, such as coworkers, family members, or friends, verifying the defendant’s whereabouts.

Petitioning for Resentencing Under SB 1437

For those already convicted under the old felony murder rule, Senate Bill 1437 provides a pathway for relief. This law allows defendants to petition for resentencing if they do not meet the revised criteria for felony murder liability. To qualify, the defendant must show that they:

• Did not directly commit the killing.
• Were not a major participant in the felony.
• Did not act with reckless indifference to human life.

Filing a resentencing petition involves a detailed review of trial records, evidence, and the defendant’s role in the crime. A skilled attorney can prepare a strong case to demonstrate eligibility for relief under SB 1437, potentially leading to reduced penalties or even dismissal.

Entrapment or Coercion

In certain cases, a defense may argue that the defendant was coerced or entrapped into participating in the felony. This defense applies when:

• Entrapment: Law enforcement induced the defendant to commit the crime through manipulation or undue pressure. For example, an undercover officer encouraging criminal behavior during a sting operation.
• Coercion: Other participants in the felony threatened, intimidated, or otherwise forced the defendant to act against their will.

Evidence such as communication records, testimony, or recordings can demonstrate that the defendant’s participation was not voluntary. Successfully proving entrapment or coercion can result in reduced charges or a complete dismissal of the case.

The Importance of Causation in Felony Murder Cases

Contact Our Los Angeles Felony Murder Defense Attorney Today

Felony murder charges are among the most serious and life-altering accusations an individual can face. Whether you are confronting charges under Penal Code 189 or seeking resentencing under SB 1437, your future depends on having the right legal team by your side. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we bring decades of experience in navigating the complexities of felony murder cases, from challenging the evidence to advocating for reduced sentences under California’s reformed laws.

Attorney Hashemi understands that no two cases are the same. We will thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding your situation, examine the prosecution’s evidence, and craft a personalized strategy designed to protect your rights. Whether you need an aggressive defense at trial or assistance with filing a resentencing petition, we are here to guide you through every step of the legal process. Reach out to our office today to schedule a confidential consultation. We will listen to your story, explain your options, and fight to achieve the best possible outcome for you or your loved one.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Penalties for Felony DUI with Injury:

• Imprisonment: Up to 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison for a first offense. Additional years may be added depending on the number or severity of injuries.
• Fines: Ranging from $390 to $5,000, excluding court fees.
• License Suspension: A minimum of 1 year, with potential for revocation.
• DUI Programs: Enrollment in alcohol or drug education programs.
• Restitution: Compensation for victims’ medical bills, lost wages, or property damage.

Aggravating Factors That Increase Penalties

• High BAC Levels: A blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeding 0.15%.
• Multiple Victims: Additional penalties apply for each injured person.
• Prior DUI Convictions: A history of DUI offenses significantly increases the likelihood of harsher sentencing.
• Serious Injuries or Fatalities: Cases involving life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, or fatalities carry more severe consequences, including possible vehicular manslaughter or second-degree murder charges.

When Can a Felony DUI Be Reduced to a Misdemeanor?

Under California Penal Code Section 17(b), certain felony charges, including a felony DUI with injury, can be reduced to misdemeanors under specific circumstances. A felony DUI with injury is classified as a “wobbler,” meaning the prosecutor has the discretion to charge it as either a felony or a misdemeanor based on the facts of the case and the defendant’s background. Several key factors influence this decision.

Severity of Injuries

The extent of injuries caused by the DUI plays a significant role in determining whether a felony charge can be reduced. Minor injuries, such as bruises or scrapes, may lead to a misdemeanor charge, especially if the injured party recovers quickly and without lasting harm. However, cases involving severe injuries—such as those causing permanent disfigurement, loss of a body part or organ, or life-threatening conditions—are more likely to remain felonies. The evaluation of injury severity is often subjective, and medical records, along with the defense attorney’s negotiations, can be critical in influencing how the charges are pursued.

Prior Criminal History

The defendant’s criminal history, particularly regarding prior DUI offenses, also heavily impacts the possibility of charge reduction. California law mandates felony charges if the defendant:

• Has three or more prior DUI convictions, even if those incidents did not involve injuries.
• Has two prior DUI convictions involving injuries.

For defendants with one or two non-injury DUIs or no prior DUI history, prosecutors may have more flexibility to pursue a misdemeanor charge. A clean criminal record increases the likelihood of a reduction, while repeat offenders face more severe scrutiny.

Circumstances of the Arrest

The details surrounding the DUI arrest can also influence whether a felony charge is reduced. Courts and prosecutors may consider factors such as:

• The defendant’s behavior during the arrest (e.g., cooperation versus resisting arrest).
• The level of intoxication, especially if the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was significantly over the legal limit.
• Whether the defendant violated additional traffic laws, such as reckless driving, during the incident.

If the defendant acted responsibly after the incident, such as cooperating with law enforcement or seeking immediate medical attention for the injured party, this may support a reduction to a misdemeanor.

Post-Arrest Rehabilitation Efforts

Demonstrating responsibility and remorse through post-arrest actions can be a compelling factor for charge reduction. Participation in DUI education programs, alcohol or drug counseling, and community service shows a commitment to rehabilitation. Paying restitution to the injured party or engaging in other voluntary actions to address the harm caused can further support the case for a misdemeanor charge.

Legal Strategies to Reduce Felony DUI Charges

Reducing a felony DUI with injury to a misdemeanor often involves a combination of tailored legal strategies. One common approach is to prove that the driver was not solely at fault for the accident. The defense can argue that another party’s negligence contributed to the injuries, which can shift liability and reduce the severity of the charges.

Another strategy involves challenging the accuracy of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test results. Breathalyzer and blood tests can sometimes yield incorrect readings due to improper calibration, contamination, or procedural errors during testing. Discrediting this evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case and create opportunities for reduced charges.

Negotiating for lesser charges is also a key tactic. A skilled attorney may work with the prosecution to secure a plea bargain, potentially lowering the charges to a misdemeanor or a “wet reckless” offense, which carries significantly lighter penalties than a felony conviction.

Lastly, demonstrating rehabilitation efforts can positively influence the court’s decision. Actions such as completing DUI education programs, performing community service, or attending counseling show accountability and a commitment to avoiding future offenses. These efforts can help convince the court that a reduced charge is appropriate.

How Our Criminal Defense Attorney Will Help

Thorough Case Analysis: We will review every aspect of your case, including police reports, BAC test results, and injury documentation, to uncover weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence. Any procedural errors, such as improper testing methods or unlawful arrests, will be identified and used to strengthen your defense.

Challenging Evidence: Our attorney will scrutinize the prosecution’s evidence, including questioning the accuracy of BAC tests, eyewitness reliability, and other key elements. By exposing flaws in the evidence, we can reduce the strength of the case against you.

Negotiating Lesser Charges: We will work tirelessly to negotiate with prosecutors to reduce your charges from a felony to a misdemeanor or explore alternative sentencing options, such as probation or community service.

Aggressive Court Representation: If your case proceeds to trial, our attorney will present a compelling and strategic defense, fighting to have your charges reduced or dismissed.

Contact Our Los Angeles DUI Defense Lawyer

Facing a felony DUI with injury charge can feel overwhelming, but you don’t have to handle this alone. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have over 20 years of experience successfully defending clients against DUI charges. Our team understands the serious consequences of these cases, and we are dedicated to protecting your rights, minimizing penalties, and helping you move forward.

The sooner you reach out, the sooner we can begin building a personalized defense strategy tailored to your unique circumstances. Whether negotiating for reduced charges, advocating for alternative sentencing, or aggressively representing you in court, Attorney Hashemi and our legal team will guide you through every step of the process.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Understanding 995 Motions to Dismiss in California: Process, Strategy, and Case Results

A 995 motion, as defined under California Penal Code, is a powerful legal tool for challenging the evidence presented during a preliminary hearing. This motion allows defendants to argue that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause or made procedural errors, which can result in charges being dismissed before trial. For those facing serious criminal charges, a successful 995 motion can save them from the stress, expense, and risks of a lengthy trial or a potential conviction. The strength of this legal strategy lies in the ability of a skilled criminal defense attorney to identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and present compelling arguments for dismissal.

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Los Angeles, a 995 motion could make all the difference. Call The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi today at (310) 448-1529 to learn more about your legal options and how we can help protect your future.

What Is a 995 Motion to Dismiss?

A Penal Code 995 motion is a pretrial legal tool used to challenge a judge’s decision to hold a defendant to answer for trial after a preliminary hearing. This motion argues that errors during the hearing—such as insufficient evidence or procedural violations—render the charges invalid and warrant dismissal.

Grounds for Filing a 995 Motion

A 995 motion is appropriate when there are significant flaws in the preliminary hearing process, such as insufficient evidence or procedural mistakes. If the prosecution cannot present enough credible evidence to establish probable cause for the charges, this can serve as grounds for dismissal. Additionally, errors like using inadmissible evidence or failing to follow court procedures can undermine the legitimacy of the hearing. These issues not only weaken the prosecution’s case but also provide a strong basis for challenging the decision to hold a defendant to answer for trial.

Key Objectives of a 995 Motion

The primary goals of a 995 motion are to challenge the prosecution’s case and prevent unnecessary trials. By highlighting weaknesses in the evidence, the defense aims to show that the prosecution has failed to provide sufficient justification for proceeding with the charges. Successfully arguing a 995 motion can lead to the dismissal of charges, sparing the defendant from the financial burden, emotional toll, and potential risks of a lengthy trial. This strategic tool is often used to ensure that only cases with a solid legal foundation move forward in the criminal justice process.

When Can a 995 Motion Be Filed?

A 995 motion is filed after the preliminary hearing, typically within a specific timeframe. It is particularly applicable when:

• Evidence Is Questionable: The prosecution relies on weak or circumstantial evidence that does not establish probable cause.
• Errors Were Made During the Hearing: Procedural or constitutional violations compromised the fairness of the hearing.

By filing a 995 motion, defendants have the opportunity to challenge the foundation of the prosecution’s case and potentially end the legal proceedings before they escalate to trial.

How Does the 995 Motion Process Work in California?

The 995 motion process provides defendants with a chance to challenge the validity of a judge’s decision after a preliminary hearing. This strategic legal maneuver involves the following steps:

Filing the Motion

The defense attorney begins by drafting a detailed motion that outlines the reasons for dismissing the charges. This document often includes:

• Legal precedents supporting the dismissal.
• Identified gaps in the prosecution’s evidence, such as insufficient probable cause or reliance on inadmissible material.
• Analysis of inconsistent or unreliable testimony presented during the preliminary hearing.

Judicial Review

Once the motion is filed, the judge reviews the transcript of the preliminary hearing along with the arguments made by both the defense and prosecution. The review focuses on whether the evidence presented at the hearing legally justifies proceeding to trial.

Possible Outcomes of a 995 Motion

The judge’s ruling on the motion can result in:

• Dismissal of Charges: If the court determines that the prosecution failed to meet the legal standard for probable cause, the charges may be dismissed, ending the case.
• Case Proceeding to Trial: If the judge finds sufficient evidence to support probable cause, the charges will remain, and the case will move forward to trial.

This process is a critical opportunity for defendants to challenge weak or procedurally flawed cases, potentially avoiding a trial and its associated consequences.

Case Result: Attempted Murder Charges Dismissed

Attorney Arash Hashemi successfully utilized a Penal Code 995 motion to secure the dismissal of attempted murder charges for a client in Los Angeles. The client had been accused of attempted murder (PC 664-187(A)) during a physical altercation but maintained that their actions were in self-defense. Initially, the prosecution reduced the charges to attempted voluntary manslaughter (PC 664-192(A)) but added a firearm enhancement, significantly increasing the potential penalties and creating a high-stakes situation.

During the preliminary hearing, the court scrutinized whether the client’s actions were proportional to the perceived threat they faced. Attorney Hashemi strategically challenged the prosecution’s case by filing a 995 motion. The motion argued that the evidence presented failed to demonstrate intent to kill, a critical element of the charges, and further established that the client’s actions were legally justified as self-defense.

Following extensive oral arguments and a detailed review of the evidence, the judge ruled in favor of the defense, finding that the prosecution lacked sufficient probable cause to proceed. The court dismissed all charges, including the firearm enhancement, sparing the client from the severe consequences of a conviction and preserving their future.

Benefits of Filing a 995 Motion

Why Hire an Experienced Defense Attorney in Los Angeles?

Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles can make all the difference when challenging the charges against you. Successfully filing a Penal Code 995 motion requires a deep understanding of California criminal law, meticulous case analysis, and the ability to craft persuasive arguments. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we specialize in identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, such as insufficient evidence or procedural errors, and leveraging those flaws to your advantage. Our legal team drafts compelling motions backed by case law and evidence, ensuring the strongest possible presentation in court.

With over 20 years of criminal defense experience, Attorney Arash Hashemi has built a reputation for securing dismissals in high-stakes cases, including attempted murder and other serious felonies. His dedication to protecting clients’ rights and future drives his strategic approach to every case. Whether you’re facing severe criminal allegations or seeking to avoid the stress and cost of a trial, our firm is here to help you navigate the legal system with confidence. Contact us today to discuss how a 995 motion could benefit your case.

Take Action with an Experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Los Angeles, a Penal Code 995 motion could be the key to securing a case dismissal. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we have the knowledge and experience to effectively challenge probable cause and fight for the best possible outcome.

With over 20 years of defending clients in high-stakes cases, we understand the importance of crafting a strong legal strategy tailored to your situation.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

On November 26, 2024, Raj Matharu, a 31-year-old resident of Northridge, California, was indicted on charges of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Federal prosecutors allege that Matharu attempted to smuggle drugs disguised as residue on clothing items, including a cow-print pajama onesie, while preparing to board a flight from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to Sydney, Australia.

According to court documents, the incident occurred on November 6, 2024, when Matharu checked two pieces of luggage—a pink suitcase and a gray suitcase—at the LAX ticket counter. During routine screening, airport security detected irregularities in the suitcases through X-ray imaging. Officers conducted a secondary inspection, revealing more than a dozen clothing items that appeared stiff and were coated in a white residue. Field tests of the residue confirmed the presence of methamphetamine. The total weight of the meth-caked clothing was approximately 32.4 kilograms (71.5 pounds). After chemical extraction, authorities recovered over one kilogram of methamphetamine residue from the garments.

Law enforcement officers intercepted him at the jet bridge as he was about to board his flight and arrested him on the scene.

Understanding Federal Charges for Methamphetamine Trafficking

Matharu has been charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S. Code § 841(a)(1) under federal law. This statute makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Methamphetamine is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, due to its high potential for abuse and severe psychological or physical dependence.

Proving Methamphetamine Trafficking Under Federal Law

To convict someone of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, the prosecution must establish several key elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, they must prove possession, meaning Matharu had either physical or constructive possession of the methamphetamine. In this case, the clothing coated with methamphetamine residue found in the suitcases serves as the alleged evidence of possession. Second, the prosecution must demonstrate knowledge, showing that he was aware that the substance in question was a controlled substance. Evidence such as his behavior at the airport, any statements he made, or other circumstantial details could be used to support this element. Finally, the prosecution must prove intent to distribute, which requires showing that he intended to deliver or distribute the methamphetamine. The volume of methamphetamine residue extracted—over one kilogram—is a critical factor, as quantities of this size typically exceed what would be considered for personal use and strongly suggest intent to distribute. Each of these elements must be backed by credible evidence to secure a conviction.

Federal Sentencing for Methamphetamine Trafficking: Mandatory Minimums

Under 21 U.S. Code § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), the penalties for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine vary based on the quantity involved. In this case, federal law prescribes:

• A mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years if the quantity of methamphetamine exceeds 50 grams of pure substance or 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine.
• A maximum sentence of life imprisonment, particularly for cases involving substantial quantities or aggravating circumstances, such as smuggling across international borders.
• Fines of up to $10 million for individuals.

Evidence in Connection to the Charge

The evidence in connection to the charge includes several key components. Physical evidence consists of the clothing items coated in methamphetamine residue, which weighed over 32 kilograms in total and contained more than 1 kilogram of extractable methamphetamine. This serves as strong material proof of possession. Additionally, forensic testing, including field tests and laboratory analyses, confirmed the presence of methamphetamine in the residue, bolstering the case against him.

Circumstantial evidence also plays a critical role, particularly the method of concealment. Hiding methamphetamine within clothing to avoid detection suggests both knowledge of the substance and intent to distribute it. Finally, statements or conduct by Matharu during his arrest or any suspicious behavior observed by authorities could be used to establish his awareness of the drugs and his intent to distribute them. Collectively, these pieces of evidence will likely form the foundation of the prosecution’s case.

While the charge is serious, Matharu’s defense may challenge several key elements of the case. One potential argument is lack of knowledge, where the defense could assert that he was unaware the clothing contained methamphetamine. This strategy would shift the burden on the prosecution to prove that Matharu knowingly possessed and intended to distribute the drug. Another defense could involve procedural errors, specifically challenging the legality of the search and seizure of the luggage. If law enforcement violated Fourth Amendment protections during the investigation, any evidence obtained unlawfully could be excluded. Finally, the defense might dispute the quantity and purity of the methamphetamine, questioning the accuracy of the weight calculations and forensic testing. This is particularly significant because the quantity directly affects sentencing guidelines, including the mandatory minimum sentence.

The investigation is being handled by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in collaboration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Both agencies reaffirmed their commitment to combatting drug trafficking and its associated risks. Matharu, who was released on a $10,000 bond, is scheduled to be arraigned in the United States District Court in Los Angeles on December 2, 2024. Possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine is a serious federal offense with significant penalties. Defendants convicted under these charges may also face additional consequences, such as asset forfeiture, supervised release, and substantial fines. An indictment is a formal charge and does not imply guilt; Matharu is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

If you or someone you know is facing serious criminal allegations, contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at 310-448-1529. With over 20 years of experience in criminal defense, we are dedicated to protecting our clients rights and providing effective representation.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

What Does It Mean to Have a Criminal Case Dismissed?

When a criminal case is dismissed, the charges against the defendant are dropped, and the case does not proceed to trial. This spares the defendant from potential penalties, including jail time, fines, and the lasting impact of a criminal record. In Los Angeles, dismissals can occur in one of two ways. A dismissal “with prejudice” permanently prevents the prosecution from refiling the case, ensuring the matter is fully resolved. Alternatively, a dismissal “without prejudice” allows prosecutors to refile charges if new evidence emerges. Achieving a dismissal is vital for protecting a defendant’s future, as it clears their name and shields them from the personal and professional repercussions of a conviction.

Reasons a Criminal Case May Be Dismissed in California

Lack of Evidence

For a criminal case to proceed, the prosecution must establish sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is weak, inconsistent, or incomplete, the defense can argue for dismissal. Common examples include:

• Weak or Inconsistent Witness Testimony: Witness accounts that are contradictory, unreliable, or influenced by external factors (e.g., coercion or bias) can weaken the prosecution’s case.
  Example: A key witness changes their statement multiple times, casting doubt on their credibility.
• Insufficient Physical Evidence: Cases often rely on tangible evidence, such as forensic results, video recordings, or physical objects linking the defendant to the crime. When such evidence is missing or inconclusive, it creates reasonable doubt.
  Example: No fingerprints, DNA, or surveillance footage ties the defendant to the alleged crime scene.

Procedural Violations

Procedural errors by law enforcement or the prosecution can undermine the legitimacy of a case. California law requires strict adherence to procedural rules to ensure fairness. Key violations include:

• Statute of Limitations Violations: Criminal charges must be filed within a legally specified timeframe. If the prosecution files charges after the statute of limitations expires, the case can be dismissed.
  Example: For most misdemeanors, charges must be filed within one year of the alleged offense.
• Improper Service of Court Documents: The defendant must be properly notified of charges and court proceedings. Failure to serve documents in accordance with California law can render the case invalid.
  Example: A defendant is not informed of their arraignment due to improper notification, violating their right to a fair process.

Constitutional Violations

The U.S. Constitution guarantees certain protections to individuals accused of crimes. Violations of these rights can lead to the exclusion of evidence or dismissal of the entire case. Examples include:

• Unlawful Arrests: Arrests made without probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment. Evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest may be inadmissible in court.
  Example: A police officer arrests a suspect based solely on a hunch, without credible evidence or a warrant.
• Miranda Violations: Under Miranda v. Arizona, law enforcement must inform defendants of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. Failure to do so can render statements inadmissible.
  Example: A suspect confesses to a crime during interrogation but was not informed of their Miranda rights.

Police Misconduct

Unethical actions by law enforcement can severely compromise a case. Examples of police misconduct include:

• Falsifying Evidence: Altering or fabricating evidence undermines the integrity of the investigation and violates the defendant’s rights.
  Example: An officer plants illegal drugs on a suspect during a search.
• Illegal Searches and Seizures: Evidence obtained without a valid search warrant or outside the scope of probable cause is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.
  Example: Police search a suspect’s home without a warrant or consent and seize incriminating items.
• Entrapment: Law enforcement cannot induce a person to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed.
  Example: An undercover officer pressures a reluctant individual into selling drugs.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Prosecutors are required to follow ethical guidelines and present cases based on evidence. Misconduct can include:

• Withholding Exculpatory Evidence: The prosecution must disclose evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence (as required by Brady v. Maryland). Failure to do so can result in dismissal.
  Example: The prosecution possesses DNA evidence that excludes the defendant as the perpetrator but fails to share it with the defense.
• Filing Charges Without Sufficient Justification: Cases must be supported by probable cause. Filing baseless charges to pressure a plea deal violates due process.
  Example: A prosecutor files multiple serious charges based on minimal evidence, hoping to intimidate the defendant into accepting a plea bargain.

Defense attorneys can file motions to dismiss or sanctions against the prosecution for ethical violations, potentially resulting in case dismissal or reduced charges. Each of these reasons represents an opportunity for a skilled defense attorney to challenge the prosecution’s case. By identifying and leveraging weaknesses, procedural errors, or misconduct, defendants can significantly improve their chances of achieving a dismissal and protecting their future.

Legal Strategies to Dismiss a Criminal Case in California

Filing a Motion to Dismiss

Under Penal Code Section 995 in Los Angeles, defendants can file a motion to dismiss if the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing is insufficient or if procedural errors occurred. This motion is a powerful defense tool to prevent a case from proceeding to trial when the legal basis for the charges is weak or flawed. A common reason for filing a 995 motion is insufficient evidence. The defense can argue that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing fails to establish probable cause for the charges. For instance, Attorney Arash Hashemi successfully used this strategy in an attempted murder case, demonstrating that the evidence was inadequate to support the charges. The court agreed, leading to the dismissal of the case.

Procedural or constitutional errors during the preliminary hearing also serve as grounds for a 995 motion. For example, if a judge admits hearsay evidence that unfairly influences the hearing’s outcome, the defense can challenge the error through this motion. Filing a motion to dismiss under Penal Code Section 995 ensures that defendants are not unfairly subjected to trial when significant legal flaws exist in the prosecution’s case.

Challenging Evidence

Defense attorneys often challenge evidence obtained unlawfully by filing motions to suppress under the Fourth Amendment or other legal protections. If the prosecution’s case relies heavily on evidence acquired through improper methods, excluding that evidence can significantly weaken their position, often resulting in a dismissal. Unlawful searches or seizures are a common basis for suppression. For instance, if police conduct a vehicle search without a valid warrant, probable cause, or the driver’s consent, any contraband found may be excluded from the case. Attorney Arash Hashemi successfully demonstrated this in a recent case where the court ruled the search unconstitutional. With the critical evidence removed, the charges were dismissed.

Coerced confessions or violations of Miranda rights also present strong grounds for challenging evidence. If a defendant confesses under duress or without being properly informed of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present, such statements can be excluded. In one case, after hours of aggressive interrogation without Miranda warnings, a defendant’s confession was deemed inadmissible. This critical exclusion led to the case’s dismissal, as the prosecution could no longer prove its claims. By challenging improperly obtained evidence, skilled defense attorneys ensure that constitutional rights are upheld and defendants receive fair treatment under the law.

Negotiating with Prosecutors

Negotiating with prosecutors is a vital strategy employed by criminal defense attorneys in Los Angeles to reduce or dismiss charges before trial. This collaborative approach often relies on presenting mitigating circumstances, highlighting the defendant’s lack of criminal history, or offering alternative resolutions that align with the interests of justice.

One effective tactic involves diversion agreements, particularly for first-time offenders. For instance, in a DUI case, Attorney Arash Hashemi successfully negotiated for a client to complete an alcohol education program and community service. Upon fulfilling these requirements, the charges were dismissed, sparing the client from a criminal conviction and its long-term consequences.

Restitution agreements are another powerful tool in non-violent cases where financial harm is at issue. By arranging for the defendant to compensate the victim, the prosecution may agree to dismiss or significantly reduce the charges. This approach not only resolves the matter efficiently but also demonstrates the defendant’s willingness to take responsibility, which courts and prosecutors often view favorably. Prosecutorial negotiations require both legal expertise and a deep understanding of the nuances of criminal law, making experienced representation essential to achieving the best possible outcome.

Pretrial Diversion Programs

Pretrial diversion programs offer eligible defendants an opportunity to avoid prosecution by focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment. These programs are designed to address the underlying issues contributing to criminal behavior, such as substance abuse or lack of judgment, and can lead to case dismissal upon successful completion. For individuals facing drug-related charges, diversion programs often involve court-supervised treatment or counseling. For instance, a client charged with possession of a controlled substance might enroll in a state-approved drug treatment program. After completing the program, the charges are dismissed, enabling the individual to move forward without a criminal record.

First-time misdemeanor offenders also frequently qualify for pretrial diversion. These programs allow individuals with no prior convictions to participate in rehabilitative efforts, such as community service or educational courses, as an alternative to traditional prosecution. By fulfilling these requirements, defendants can achieve a dismissal, avoiding the long-term impact of a criminal conviction. Pretrial diversion is an invaluable legal option for eligible defendants, helping to mitigate the consequences of criminal charges while fostering personal growth and accountability.

Proving No Intent or Lack of Mens Rea

Proving the absence of intent, or “mens rea,” is a critical strategy in challenging criminal charges. Many criminal offenses require the prosecution to establish that the defendant knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful conduct. If the defense can demonstrate that the defendant lacked intent, the foundation of the prosecution’s case can crumble.

In cases involving accidental actions, the defense might argue that the alleged conduct was not deliberate. For example, a defendant accused of theft could present evidence showing that they genuinely believed the item they took was their own property. This lack of criminal intent can lead to a dismissal of charges.

Similarly, misunderstandings or innocent mistakes can often explain conduct that might otherwise appear suspicious. For instance, a shoplifting charge might be dropped after the defense proves the defendant absentmindedly left a store with unpaid merchandise while distracted, without any intention to steal. By highlighting the absence of criminal intent, skilled attorneys can undermine the prosecution’s case, increasing the likelihood of a dismissal or reduction of charges.

Case Examples: Successful Criminal Case Dismissals

Attempted Murder Charges Dismissed

Court: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles (Case SA104*)
Charge: Attempted murder under Penal Code 664/187(A)

Case Overview:
Our client faced life-altering consequences after being charged with attempted murder. The allegations stemmed from an altercation where the client claimed self-defense. Despite raising the issue during the preliminary hearing, the prosecution argued that the force used was disproportionate and warranted an attempted murder charge. Attorney Hashemi meticulously reviewed the evidence, including witness testimony and forensic reports. He filed a Penal Code 995 motion, challenging the prosecution’s evidence and arguing that the self-defense claim was valid. During extensive oral arguments, Attorney Hashemi highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and emphasized the lack of evidence supporting intent to kill. The court agreed with the defense, ruling that the evidence did not justify holding the client to answer for attempted murder. All charges were dismissed, clearing the client of wrongdoing and avoiding a lengthy prison sentence.

Robbery and Assault Charges Dismissed

Court: Superior Court of California, Riverside (Case RIF2104*)
Charges: Robbery, assault with a firearm, and extortion under Penal Codes 211, 245(a), and 524

Case Overview:
Our client was accused of multiple serious offenses, including robbery, assault with a firearm, and extortion. The potential sentence exceeded 15 years in state prison. The charges arose from a confrontation during which the client claimed they acted in self-defense. Attorney Hashemi conducted a thorough year-long investigation, gathering evidence to corroborate the self-defense claim. This included obtaining witness statements, surveillance footage, and expert testimony regarding the circumstances of the incident. He also demonstrated that the prosecution’s narrative relied on weak and contradictory evidence. After reviewing the defense’s findings, the District Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges. The client was completely exonerated, avoiding the severe penalties associated with a conviction.

Felony Battery Charge Dismissed

Court: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles (Case BA336*)
Charge: Felony battery with serious bodily injury under Penal Code 243(d)

Case Overview:
The client was charged with felony battery following an incident that resulted in serious bodily injury. If convicted, the client faced a potential sentence of up to four years in state prison. The defense argued that the client acted in defense of another during a heated altercation. During the preliminary hearing, Attorney Hashemi presented evidence supporting the defense of another claim. He introduced eyewitness testimony and physical evidence showing that the client’s actions were both reasonable and necessary to protect another person from imminent harm. The court ruled in favor of the defense, dismissing the felony battery charge entirely. The client avoided a prison sentence and was cleared of all allegations.

Common Scenarios Where Cases Are Dismissed

Criminal cases can be dismissed for a variety of reasons, depending on the charges and the specific details of the case. Traffic infractions, for example, are often dismissed due to administrative errors. These might include tickets issued with incorrect information, improperly filed citations, or insufficient evidence to support the violation. These cases usually hinge on procedural issues, and dismissals can occur when the prosecution fails to meet basic legal requirements. Misdemeanor offenses, such as petty theft or minor drug possession, are often eligible for dismissal under specific conditions. First-time offenders may be offered the chance to participate in pretrial diversion programs, which focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment. Successful completion of these programs—such as attending treatment sessions or completing community service—can result in the charges being dropped. Additionally, a misdemeanor case might be dismissed if key evidence is unavailable or if witness statements are unreliable, leaving the prosecution unable to move forward.

For felony cases, dismissals are less common but can occur under specific circumstances. These cases usually require the defense to identify major procedural or constitutional violations. For example, charges might be dismissed if evidence was obtained through an unlawful search or if the defendant was arrested without probable cause. Serious legal errors, such as violations of a defendant’s Miranda rights, can also lead to dismissal. In more complex cases, including those involving violent felonies, strategic legal advocacy can uncover weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, creating opportunities to have charges dismissed before trial.

Why You Need a Skilled Criminal Defense Attorney

A skilled attorney knows how to thoroughly analyze the evidence presented by the prosecution, identifying weaknesses that can be exploited to your advantage. This includes:

• Exposing inconsistencies or inaccuracies in witness testimony.
• Challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal searches or procedural violations.
• Highlighting gaps in the prosecution’s ability to prove intent or causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Achieving Dismissals Through Strategic Motions

An experienced defense attorney doesn’t wait for trial but takes proactive measures to resolve cases early. This includes filing strategic motions to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence, disputing probable cause, and leveraging California Penal Code Section 995 to challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution’s case. These legal tools can often lead to a case dismissal before it ever reaches trial.

Preventing Refiled Charges

One of the critical advantages of skilled legal representation is ensuring that a dismissal is final. An experienced attorney will fight for a dismissal “with prejudice,” meaning the prosecution cannot refile the same charges. This provides peace of mind and certainty that the matter is fully resolved.

With over 20 years of experience in criminal defense, Attorney Hashemi has a proven record of securing dismissals for clients facing a range of charges, from robbery to attempted murder. His meticulous approach to building defenses, combined with his deep understanding of California’s criminal justice system, ensures that clients receive the strongest possible representation.

How California Gun Laws Affect Domestic Violence Offenders

California law imposes strict firearm restrictions on individuals convicted of domestic violence. Under Penal Code §29805, anyone convicted of a domestic violence offense faces a lifetime ban on owning, possessing, or purchasing firearms. This prohibition is in line with both state and federal laws, reflecting California’s commitment to reducing gun-related violence. Understanding the full scope of firearm restrictions is the first step toward restoring your Second Amendment rights. If you have questions about your specific case or want to explore your legal options, contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a confidential consultation.

Penal Code §29805: California’s Domestic Violence Firearm Ban Explained

Penal Code §29805 outlines the firearm restrictions for individuals convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. Since January 1, 2019, this law enforces a lifetime ban on firearm possession for all domestic violence convictions, whether misdemeanor or felony.

For older convictions, the firearm restriction may be temporary depending on the nature of the offense and whether it was classified as a misdemeanor or felony. However, most individuals convicted of domestic violence after 2019 face permanent firearm restrictions, regardless of the severity of the charge.

Types of Firearm Possession Prohibited

California law defines firearm possession broadly, making it essential to comply with all aspects of the restriction. Violations can lead to further criminal charges.

• Actual Possession: Having a firearm on your person, such as carrying a gun in public or at home.
• Constructive Possession: Maintaining access to firearms stored in your home, vehicle, or another location, even if the firearm is not physically in your possession.

For example, if a firearm is stored in your home or vehicle that belongs to another household member, you could still be in violation of Penal Code §29805. This is because constructive possession includes situations where you have access to or control over a firearm, even if it is not yours. Understanding this broad definition is critical to avoiding unintentional violations of firearm restrictions. These restrictions extend to all forms of firearm ownership and access, emphasizing the importance of compliance for individuals affected by PC §29805.

Understanding Lifetime vs. Temporary Firearm Restrictions in California

While recent convictions impose lifetime restrictions, older cases or those involving plea agreements may result in temporary firearm bans. It’s critical to consult an attorney to understand the specific terms of your conviction and determine whether legal options, such as a gubernatorial pardon, could help restore your rights.

How to Restore Gun Rights After a Domestic Violence Conviction in California

Restoring your gun rights after a domestic violence conviction in California is challenging but not impossible. While the law imposes significant restrictions, there are specific legal remedies available, such as expungement or a gubernatorial pardon. Understanding these options can help you determine the best path forward.

Expungement

Expungement can clear your criminal record under California Penal Code §1203.4, allowing you to legally state that you have not been convicted of the offense in most situations. However, when it comes to domestic violence convictions, expungement does not restore your firearm rights.

California law adheres to federal firearm restrictions, which remain in effect even after expungement. This means that while expungement can improve your employment opportunities and remove the conviction from public records, it will not lift the firearm ban imposed under Penal Code §29805 or federal law.

How a Gubernatorial Pardon Can Restore Your Gun Rights

A full and unconditional pardon from the Governor of California is the only viable legal option to restore your gun rights after a domestic violence conviction. This process is complex and requires meeting strict eligibility criteria, as well as presenting a persuasive argument for why the pardon should be granted. The gubernatorial pardon process is highly selective, requiring a strong case and substantial evidence of rehabilitation. Applicants must submit thorough documentation, including proof of rehabilitation, letters of recommendation, and a detailed explanation of their community contributions. Success rates can vary significantly, as the process is competitive and subject to the Governor’s discretion.

The guidance of an experienced attorney is critical to navigating this process. An attorney can help ensure your application highlights your strengths, addresses potential weaknesses, and meets all legal requirements, giving you the best chance of obtaining a pardon and restoring your firearm rights.

Eligibility Criteria for a Pardon:

1. You must have completed your sentence, including probation or parole.
2. A significant period of time must have passed since your conviction, demonstrating that you have rehabilitated and become a law-abiding citizen.
3. You must have no pending criminal cases or charges against you.

When applying for a gubernatorial pardon, the quality of your application is critical. A compelling argument should include evidence of rehabilitation, contributions to your community, and testimonials from reputable individuals who can vouch for your character.

How a Pardon Restores Gun Rights

A gubernatorial pardon not only forgives the conviction but can also lift state and federal firearm restrictions, allowing you to legally own, possess, or purchase firearms again. However, the process is lengthy and competitive, making it essential to work with an experienced attorney who understands the nuances of California’s pardon application procedures.

Understanding the Federal Lautenberg Amendment

The Lautenberg Amendment is a federal law that permanently prohibits individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses from owning, possessing, or purchasing firearms. This lifetime ban applies nationwide, regardless of whether the conviction was expunged or the individual completed their sentence. Unlike some state laws, the Lautenberg Amendment does not provide for automatic restoration of gun rights, even if the conviction occurred years ago or involved a minor incident.

This federal restriction underscores the importance of pursuing remedies such as a gubernatorial pardon in California. A pardon not only addresses state firearm restrictions but may also help lift the federal ban, allowing individuals to legally regain their Second Amendment rights. Understanding the interplay between state and federal laws is essential for successfully navigating the rights restoration process.

Common Misconceptions About Restoring Gun Rights

Restraining Orders and Firearm Surrender

In domestic violence cases, restraining orders, including domestic violence protective orders (DVROs), frequently require individuals to relinquish their firearms as part of compliance. This is mandated under California law and reinforced by Proposition 63, which strengthened firearm surrender and reporting requirements.

Proposition 63 requires individuals subject to restraining orders to surrender any firearms they own or possess to law enforcement or a licensed firearms dealer within 24 to 48 hours of receiving the order. Proof of compliance must also be filed with the court. Even after the restraining order is lifted, the individual does not automatically regain their firearm rights if a domestic violence conviction is present. A conviction triggers additional state and federal firearm bans, which must be addressed separately.

Myths About Expungement

While expungement is a valuable tool for clearing criminal records and improving opportunities for employment or housing, it does not restore firearm rights for those convicted of domestic violence. This misconception arises because expungement removes a conviction from public records and allows individuals to state they have not been convicted in most scenarios. However, federal firearm restrictions under the Lautenberg Amendment, as well as California’s Penal Code §29805, remain in effect even after an expungement.

Restoring gun rights requires additional legal steps beyond expungement, such as obtaining a gubernatorial pardon. This process is necessary to lift both state and federal firearm bans, making it essential to understand the limits of expungement and plan accordingly.

Penalties for Violating California Gun Restrictions After a Domestic Violence Conviction

Adhering to firearm restrictions is critical to avoid additional penalties and demonstrate good faith during any legal efforts to restore your rights. Compliance measures include:

• Surrendering Firearms Promptly: California law, including Proposition 63, requires individuals subject to firearm restrictions to relinquish their firearms within a specific timeframe after a conviction or restraining order. Ensure that firearms are surrendered to law enforcement or transferred to a licensed dealer as required.
• Retaining Proof of Compliance: After surrendering firearms, retain documentation showing compliance with state and court mandates. This can include receipts from law enforcement or proof of transfer to a licensed firearms dealer.

Strict compliance with these requirements not only prevents additional legal issues but also demonstrates responsibility, which can be beneficial in any future legal proceedings to restore your firearm rights.

Legal Penalties

Under California law, individuals prohibited from owning or possessing firearms due to a domestic violence conviction who are found in possession of a firearm can face serious criminal penalties. Violations are typically charged as felonies under Penal Code §29805 and may result in:

• Fines: Significant financial penalties, often up to $10,000.
• Imprisonment: A sentence of up to three years in state prison.

If federal law under the Lautenberg Amendment is also violated, defendants may face additional federal charges, which can lead to even harsher penalties, including extended prison sentences.

Law enforcement actively enforces these restrictions, often using firearm purchase background checks or compliance checks related to restraining orders. Violations not only result in criminal charges but may also harm your ability to seek remedies for restoring your rights in the future.

Impact on Background Checks

Firearm restrictions due to a domestic violence conviction often appear in background checks conducted for employment, housing, or other critical life opportunities. Background check reports may flag the restriction itself or the underlying conviction, making it difficult to secure jobs, rental properties, or professional licenses.

In some cases, individuals may also be denied benefits or opportunities due to the stigma associated with firearm restrictions tied to domestic violence offenses. This highlights the importance of addressing these restrictions proactively through legal remedies such as expungement or a gubernatorial pardon, even if they don’t directly restore gun rights.

How Our Attorney Can Help with Gun Rights Restoration

Restoring firearm rights after a domestic violence conviction is a complex process requiring careful attention to state and federal laws. Attorney Hashemi brings over 20 years of experience in crafting strong cases for clients seeking to regain their Second Amendment rights. From evaluating eligibility for a gubernatorial pardon to preparing a compelling application that demonstrates rehabilitation and good character, Attorney Hashemi provides the dedicated representation needed to navigate this challenging legal process.

With a deep understanding of California’s gun laws and federal restrictions, Attorney Hashemi ensures every legal step is taken to maximize your chances of success. Whether addressing compliance issues or advocating for your rights, our firm is committed to achieving the best outcome for your case.

Contact a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer for Help Today

If you are seeking to restore your firearm rights after a domestic violence conviction, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi is here to help. With over 20 years of experience in criminal defense, Attorney Hashemi has the knowledge and dedication to guide you through California’s complex gun laws and explore every legal option, including gubernatorial pardons.

Restoring your Second Amendment rights requires a strategic approach and attention to detail. Our legal team will carefully analyze your case, explain your options, and build a compelling argument to help you regain your rights.

Contact us today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a confidential consultation. You can also schedule a 15-minute consultation online through our secure system. Our office is conveniently located in Los Angeles, serving clients throughout Southern California.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

DUI Crash in Rialto: Two Toddlers Killed, Driver Arrested

On November 24, 2024, at approximately 11 p.m., Alexis Garcia, a 28-year-old resident of Buellton, was involved in a fatal crash at the intersection of Walnut and Riverside drives in Rialto, California. Garcia, driving a Dodge Ram pickup truck, allegedly ran a red light and collided with a white Honda Accord carrying two young girls, ages 3 and 4, along with their parents. The force of the collision caused the Honda to crash into a tow truck.

Both girls were restrained in car seats; however, one was reportedly ejected from the vehicle. Tragically, the girls were pronounced dead at the scene. Their father sustained moderate injuries, and their mother was unharmed.

Garcia fled the scene in his vehicle but was located by authorities approximately a quarter mile away and taken into custody. Garcia now faces two counts of murder, one count of driving under the influence causing death, and one count of felony hit-and-run.

Alexis Garcia has been charged with two counts of second-degree murder under California Penal Code § 187. This statute defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Second-degree murder does not require premeditation or intent to kill, making it applicable in cases involving gross negligence or reckless behavior. In DUI cases, prosecutors often pursue second-degree murder under the legal doctrine of “implied malice,” commonly referred to as a “Watson murder.” This doctrine, established in People v. Watson (1981), allows a murder charge when the driver knew the risks of impaired driving and chose to disregard them. For example, individuals with prior DUI convictions or those who completed court-ordered DUI programs are typically considered to have been sufficiently warned about the dangers of driving under the influence. If convicted, Garcia faces 15 years to life imprisonment for each count of murder, totaling a potential 30 years to life in prison.

Garcia also faces a felony DUI charge under California Vehicle Code § 23153, which applies when a person drives under the influence of alcohol or drugs and causes injury or death to another. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that Garcia’s intoxication significantly impaired his ability to operate a vehicle safely and was a substantial factor in causing the crash. Evidence such as blood alcohol concentration (BAC) results, field sobriety tests, and eyewitness accounts will likely play a critical role. When DUI leads to fatalities, the offense can result in severe penalties, including 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison for each death or injury caused, along with fines, license suspension, and mandatory DUI education programs. Given the circumstances of this case, the DUI charge may carry additional enhancements for causing multiple deaths.

The third charge Garcia faces is felony hit-and-run, outlined under California Vehicle Code § 20001(a). This statute criminalizes leaving the scene of an accident involving injury or death without providing assistance or identifying oneself to law enforcement. In this case, police allege that Garcia fled the scene of the crash, which resulted in the deaths of two young children. Hit-and-run charges are often viewed as aggravating factors in cases involving DUI or other serious offenses because fleeing the scene demonstrates a disregard for the victims and impedes immediate medical assistance. If convicted, Garcia could face up to 4 years in state prison, along with fines, probation, and additional penalties for obstruction of justice.

In cases like this, defenses typically focus on disputing key elements of the charges. For DUI-related murder charges, legal arguments may challenge the accuracy of blood alcohol testing or whether implied malice—necessary for a second-degree murder conviction—can be established. Additionally, the defense may seek to raise reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the driver at the time of the crash.

These factors will be critical as the case progresses through the courts, with each element requiring thorough examination and evidence to support or refute the allegations. If you have questions about serious criminal charges or need legal representation, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi is here to provide skilled and knowledgeable assistance. Contact our office at 310-448-1529.

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Understanding California’s Drug Possession Laws

Being charged with drug possession in Los Angeles can have serious consequences, including jail time, fines, and a criminal record that could impact your future. California’s drug laws are strict, but that doesn’t mean a conviction is inevitable. With the right legal representation, you may be able to have your charges dropped, reduced, or resolved through alternatives like diversion programs.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we understand the challenges you’re facing and are here to help. With over 20 years of experience defending clients in Los Angeles, our firm is committed to protecting your rights and building a strong defense to achieve the best possible outcome.

If you or a loved one has been charged with drug possession, don’t wait to get the help you need. Contact us today at (310) 448-1529 for a consultation and take the first step toward protecting your future.

Legal Grounds for Dropping Drug Charges in California

Violations of Constitutional Rights

Every individual accused of a crime is entitled to constitutional protections, including the right to due process. If law enforcement violates these rights, any evidence they gather can be deemed inadmissible, and the charges may be dismissed.

• Failure to Read Miranda Rights
  Upon arrest, police are required to inform you of your rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If they fail to do so, any self-incriminating statements made during the arrest could be excluded from court proceedings.
  Example: Suppose a suspect admitted to possessing drugs during questioning after arrest but was never read their Miranda rights. A skilled defense lawyer can argue to suppress that confession, severely weakening the prosecution’s case.
• Unlawful Interrogation Practices
  Coercive or aggressive questioning tactics—such as denying access to an attorney, intimidating a suspect, or holding them for unreasonable durations—can also lead to evidence being thrown out.
• Denial of Legal Representation
  If the police prevent you from consulting with a lawyer after you’ve asked for one, this could be another serious constitutional violation.
  Case in Point: A defendant repeatedly asked for an attorney during questioning, but officers continued interrogating without granting their request. A defense lawyer could leverage this to suppress any resulting evidence.

Lack of Probable Cause

For an arrest to be valid, law enforcement must have probable cause—a reasonable belief, based on factual evidence, that you committed a crime. Without probable cause, any resulting arrest or search may be considered unconstitutional.

• What Constitutes Probable Cause?
  Probable cause is more than a hunch; it requires tangible evidence, such as a credible witness report, visible contraband, or suspicious activity that suggests illegal drug possession.
• When Probable Cause is Missing
  If the police acted on vague suspicions, such as stopping someone in a high-crime area without any other evidence of wrongdoing, the arrest might be deemed invalid.Illustration: Officers search a person’s car based solely on their presence in a “known drug neighborhood” and find narcotics. Without additional evidence, such as erratic behavior or the smell of drugs, a defense lawyer can argue that the search was unlawful and move to dismiss the charges.

Illegal Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures. Police must either have a warrant or specific circumstances justifying a search without one, such as immediate danger or visible contraband.

• Unlawful Searches Without Warrants
  A search conducted without a warrant or valid consent could render any evidence found inadmissible.
  Example: If officers search your home without a warrant and without your permission, any drugs they discover might be excluded from the case.
• Racial Profiling and Warrantless Stops
  Sometimes, stops and searches are based on discriminatory practices like racial profiling. This is not only unconstitutional but can lead to entire cases being dismissed.
  Scenario: A defendant is pulled over and searched because they “looked suspicious” but had committed no traffic violation. Any evidence discovered in the search may be invalidated.

Proof of Legal Possession

Not all possession of drugs is illegal. In certain cases, individuals may have legal authority to possess controlled substances, such as when prescribed by a licensed medical professional.

• Prescription Medications
  If you can prove that the controlled substance in question was lawfully prescribed to you, this can serve as a defense to the charges.
• Errors in Evidence
  Sometimes, substances found in possession are wrongly identified as illegal drugs. Testing errors in crime labs can also lead to dismissals.For Example: A client is arrested for possessing pills that were legally prescribed but carried in an unmarked container. Once the prescription is verified, the charges could be dropped.

Understanding the Difference Between Personal Use and Possession for Sale in California

The distinction between possession for personal use and possession with intent to sell is crucial because the penalties differ significantly. Charges for possession for sale carry harsher consequences, including longer jail sentences and higher fines, and they are not eligible for diversion programs like those under Penal Code Section 1000.

Key Factors Law Enforcement Considers:

• Quantity of the Drug: Larger quantities of drugs often suggest intent to sell, especially if the amount exceeds what is typically associated with personal use.
• Packaging: Drugs divided into individual baggies, vials, or other small containers are often viewed as evidence of intent to distribute.
• Paraphernalia: Items such as scales, cash, or ledgers documenting sales are indicators of possession for sale, whereas personal use is more likely associated with items like pipes or syringes.
• Statements Made During Arrest: Any statements or admissions made to police during questioning can be used to infer intent.

Burden of Proof:
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to sell the drugs. However, this often relies on circumstantial evidence, and a skilled defense attorney can challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of these factors.

Example:
If a person is found with multiple small baggies of a controlled substance and a significant amount of cash but claims the drugs were for personal use, an experienced lawyer can argue against the inference of intent to sell. This might involve challenging the credibility of the evidence or presenting alternative explanations, such as that the items were not related to drug sales.

Understanding this distinction is critical because it determines eligibility for diversion programs and significantly impacts sentencing. A defense attorney can help you demonstrate that possession was for personal use and fight to reduce the charges or penalties associated with your case.

Alternative Legal Options if Charges Can’t Be Dropped

Not all drug possession cases result in outright dismissal. However, California law provides alternatives that can help defendants avoid the harshest consequences of a conviction. Two common options include drug diversion programs and negotiated plea agreements, both of which can provide pathways to reduce or eliminate penalties while preserving future opportunities.

California Drug Diversion Programs

Under Penal Code Section 1000, California offers a pretrial diversion program for individuals facing certain nonviolent drug possession charges. To qualify, defendants must meet specific criteria, including no prior drug-related convictions within the last five years and no evidence of intent to sell the controlled substances involved. The program is typically available for charges involving personal drug use rather than distribution or trafficking.

The benefits of drug diversion programs are substantial. Eligible participants agree to complete requirements such as drug education, treatment programs, or counseling. Upon successful completion of the program, the charges are dismissed, leaving the defendant without a criminal record for the offense. This option is especially valuable for first-time offenders, as it focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. However, failing to meet the program’s terms can result in the reinstatement of charges and a return to traditional prosecution.

Plea Agreements

When diversion programs are not an option, negotiating a plea deal may provide an effective alternative to minimize penalties. In this process, a defense attorney works with the prosecutor to reach an agreement that reduces the severity of the charges. For instance, a felony drug possession charge may be downgraded to a misdemeanor in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to the lesser offense.

Plea agreements can help avoid harsher outcomes, such as mandatory prison time or a permanent felony conviction. While not ideal, this approach can result in reduced fines, probation instead of incarceration, or enrollment in rehabilitation programs as part of the sentence. Plea negotiations require skilled advocacy to ensure the deal reflects the defendant’s best interests and minimizes the long-term impact of the charges.

Expungement of Drug Convictions in California

California law provides individuals with the opportunity to expunge certain drug possession convictions, offering a fresh start for those who meet specific legal requirements. Expungement removes the conviction from your public criminal record, allowing you to answer “no” when asked about convictions on most job or housing applications. This relief can significantly improve your chances of rebuilding your life after a drug-related conviction.

To qualify for expungement under California Penal Code Section 1203.4, you must have successfully completed probation without any violations. Additionally, you cannot have served time in state prison for the conviction, as expungement is generally limited to cases that resulted in county jail sentences or probation. Once granted, an expungement effectively dismisses the conviction, although it does not fully erase it from all records, such as immigration-related documents or some professional licensing inquiries.

For individuals with older marijuana-related convictions, Proposition 47 offers another form of relief. This law reclassified many low-level marijuana offenses, such as simple possession, as infractions rather than felonies or misdemeanors. It also created a pathway for individuals to petition the courts to have these convictions reduced or dismissed entirely. This process applies to cases prior to California’s legalization of recreational marijuana in 2016 and ensures that past penalties no longer disproportionately affect those with minor offenses.

Defenses Against Drug Possession Charges

Self-Defense or Coercion

In some cases, individuals possess drugs because they were forced or coerced under threat of harm. California law recognizes coercion, or duress, as a valid defense when a person can demonstrate that they acted out of fear for their immediate safety. The key to this defense is showing that the possession was not voluntary and that the defendant had no reasonable way to avoid the situation.

For instance, consider a scenario where someone is threatened at gunpoint and told to hold onto a bag of drugs for a dealer. Fearing for their life, the individual complies. Later, they are arrested when police discover the drugs in their possession. In this situation, a defense attorney would argue that the defendant’s actions were not willful and that they only possessed the drugs to avoid immediate physical harm. Evidence such as witness testimony, video surveillance, or records of prior threats can strengthen this defense.

Mistaken Identity

Mistaken identity is another common defense in drug possession cases, particularly when law enforcement relies on circumstantial evidence or inaccurate descriptions during arrests. Misidentification often occurs in chaotic situations, such as group arrests or undercover operations, where it’s easy to accuse the wrong individual.

Imagine police arrest someone in a public park after witnessing what they believe is a drug deal. The officers received a vague description of a suspect but mistakenly apprehend an innocent person who happened to be in the area. A skilled attorney would challenge the identification by questioning the accuracy of the officers’ observations and presenting evidence such as surveillance footage or alibi witnesses to prove that the defendant was not involved. By casting doubt on the prosecution’s claim that the defendant was the person in possession of the drugs, this defense can lead to a dismissal.

Lack of Evidence

For the prosecution to secure a conviction, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed illegal drugs. This involves establishing two key elements: the defendant was aware of the drugs and had control over them. If the evidence falls short on either of these points, the charges may be dismissed.

For example, a person rents a car and is later stopped by police, who find a hidden bag of drugs in the trunk. The defendant has no knowledge of the drugs and no connection to the person who used the car before them. Without proof that the defendant knew about or controlled the drugs, the prosecution’s case is weak. An experienced defense lawyer could argue that mere proximity to drugs is not enough to establish possession. Evidence such as rental records, lack of fingerprints, or testimony from others who had access to the car can further support this defense.

Why You Need a Drug Possession Lawyer to Protect Your Future

A drug possession lawyer can make a critical difference in your case. They will analyze every detail of your arrest, from how the evidence was obtained to whether law enforcement followed proper procedures. If the police conducted an illegal search or lacked probable cause, your attorney can move to have the charges dismissed or the evidence thrown out.

If outright dismissal isn’t possible, an attorney can guide you toward alternatives, like diversion programs. In California, eligible individuals can avoid a conviction by completing treatment or education programs through Penal Code Section 1000. Your lawyer will help you navigate the application process and meet all requirements, giving you the best chance of a successful outcome.

An experienced lawyer can also negotiate with prosecutors to reduce charges or penalties. This could mean probation instead of jail time or even reclassifying a felony to a misdemeanor, significantly lessening the impact on your life. Drug possession charges can feel overwhelming, but you don’t have to face them alone. A dedicated attorney will work to protect your rights, challenge the accusations, and fight for the best possible result in your case. Contact our office today to learn how we can help you take control of your situation.

Contact Our Los Angeles Drug Possession Defense Attorney Today

If you or a loved one is facing drug possession charges, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi is ready to help. With over 20 years of experience defending clients against criminal charges in California, Attorney Hashemi has the knowledge and dedication to fight for your rights and achieve the best possible outcome.

Our legal team will thoroughly review the details of your case, challenge any violations of your constitutional rights, and explore every available option for dismissal, reduced charges, or participation in a diversion program. We understand the serious impact these charges can have on your future, and we’re committed to protecting your freedom and helping you move forward.

Don’t face these charges alone. To discuss your case and learn how we can assist you, contact our office today at (310) 448-1529. You can also schedule a 15-minute consultation through our secure online system. Conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, we serve clients in Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and the surrounding areas.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

California Self Defense Laws

In self-defense cases involving multiple defendants, the legal situation becomes significantly more complex. When several individuals claim self-defense during the same incident, it can be difficult to determine who acted justifiably and who may have escalated the situation. In California, courts must carefully examine the facts, witness testimonies, and available evidence to untangle these types of cases and reach a fair conclusion.

Understanding how California self-defense laws apply when multiple people are involved is essential for anyone facing such a situation. If you are one of multiple defendants in a self-defense case, you’ll need to know how the courts evaluate the actions of each individual and how to build a strong defense. Under California law, self-defense is a legal defense when an individual believes they are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death. To claim self-defense, several conditions must be met:

1. Imminent Danger: You must have reasonably believed that you or someone else was in immediate danger of being harmed.
2. Necessary Force: The force used must have been necessary to prevent harm or injury.
3. Proportional Response: The level of force you used must be proportional to the threat faced.

When multiple people are involved, each defendant must individually demonstrate that they met these conditions.

When Multiple Defendants Claim Self-Defense

In cases where multiple defendants are involved in the same incident, all of them may claim they acted in self-defense. These situations can arise from a variety of incidents, such as bar fights, group altercations, or home invasions involving more than one person. The key legal question becomes: Whose use of force was justified, and who escalated the situation?

Here’s how California courts typically approach these cases:

1. Examining Individual Actions

Each defendant’s actions will be examined separately. Just because one person in the group acted in self-defense doesn’t automatically mean that the others did too. The court will evaluate:

• Whether each defendant reasonably believed they were in danger.
• Whether each defendant used necessary and proportional force in response to the threat.

For example, in a group altercation, one person may have been defending themselves against an immediate threat, while another may have unnecessarily escalated the situation. Only the person who used reasonable force in response to an imminent threat could be justified under California law.

2. Conflicting Accounts and Testimonies

When multiple defendants claim self-defense, their versions of events may differ or even conflict with each other. In these cases, courts rely heavily on witness testimonies, physical evidence, and any available video footage. If there are conflicting accounts, the court must determine which version is more credible.

• Eyewitnesses: Neutral third-party witnesses who saw the altercation can provide crucial insights into who initiated the violence and whether each defendant’s actions were proportional to the threat they faced.
• Surveillance Footage or Video Evidence: If the incident was captured on camera, the footage can often clarify the sequence of events, helping the court determine who acted in self-defense and who might have escalated the conflict.

3. Joint Responsibility and Provocation

In some cases, the court may determine that joint responsibility applies. This occurs when all defendants are found to have contributed to the escalation of the situation, even if one or more claim self-defense. If any of the defendants provoked the conflict, they may lose the ability to claim self-defense under California law.

For instance, if two defendants were involved in a fight with another group and one of them initiated the physical confrontation, both may be held responsible for the outcome, depending on their actions. The initial aggressor doctrine states that the person who provoked the attack cannot later claim self-defense unless they attempted to withdraw from the fight and were met with continued force.

Court Evaluation in Self-Defense Cases with Multiple Defendants

Courts follow several steps to evaluate self-defense claims in cases involving multiple defendants:

• Who Was the Initial Aggressor?: Determining who started the altercation is critical. The initial aggressor typically loses the ability to claim self-defense, unless they clearly tried to retreat.
• Use of Force: The court examines whether each defendant’s use of force was proportional to the threat they faced. If someone used deadly force against an unarmed person, for example, the court may rule that their response was excessive.
• Opportunity to Retreat or De-escalate: California law generally does not require a person to retreat when they are faced with an immediate threat, especially in their own home under the Castle Doctrine. However, if the court finds that the defendants had an opportunity to retreat or avoid further conflict but chose not to, their self-defense claim could be weakened.

Penalties for Unjustified Force

If the court determines that one or more of the defendants did not act in lawful self-defense, they could face serious penalties, including charges such as:

• Assault with a Deadly Weapon: If a weapon was used during the incident and it was not justified by self-defense, this can lead to felony charges with penalties ranging from two to four years in state prison.
• Voluntary Manslaughter or Murder: If a death occurred during the incident and the defendant’s use of force was deemed excessive or unjustified, they could be charged with voluntary manslaughter or second-degree murder, depending on the facts of the case.
• Battery Causing Serious Injury: If another person was seriously injured during the incident, the defendant could be charged with battery causing serious injury, leading to significant jail time and fines.

Defending Against Charges in Self-Defense Cases with Multiple Defendants

If you are involved in a self-defense case with multiple defendants, it is critical to work with an experienced criminal defense attorney who understands California’s self-defense laws. A skilled attorney will help gather evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and demonstrate that your actions were justified under the circumstances.

Key defenses may include:

• Proving Proportional Force: Demonstrating that the force you used was proportional to the threat you faced.
• Identifying the Aggressor: Proving that you were not the initial aggressor and that you attempted to avoid the conflict.
• Challenging the Credibility of Witnesses: Discrediting conflicting accounts that do not align with the facts or evidence.

Protect Your Rights—Contact Our Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Today

If you or a loved one is involved in a self-defense case with multiple defendants, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi is here to help. With over 20 years of experience handling complex criminal cases, including self-defense claims, we understand how to build a strong defense strategy to protect your rights and secure the best possible outcome.

Attorney Hashemi and our dedicated legal team will thoroughly analyze the details of your case, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, and explore all possible defenses, including justifiable self-defense, lack of intent, and mistaken identity. We are committed to guiding you through this challenging process and protecting your future.

To discuss your case and learn how we can assist you, contact our office at today. You can also schedule a 15-minute consultation through our secure online system. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, serving clients throughout Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and surrounding areas.

Schedule Your Consultation Today

• Phone: (310) 448-1529
• Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
• Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
• Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
• Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling options available, including weekend

Disclaimer: The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to predict outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please contact our law firm directly.

Common Defenses in Voluntary Manslaughter Cases in California

Voluntary manslaughter charges in California carry serious implications, including potential prison sentences, significant fines, and a permanent criminal record. However, California law provides various legal defenses that can reduce, or in some cases, dismiss these charges altogether. Below, we’ll outline the most effective defenses in voluntary manslaughter cases and explain how an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorney can strategically approach these complex situations.

What is Voluntary Manslaughter?

Under California Penal Code Section 192(a), voluntary manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of another person without premeditated intent to kill. This offense often occurs in the “heat of passion” or as a response to intense provocation. Unlike murder, voluntary manslaughter charges lack the element of malice. Instead, these charges acknowledge that the defendant’s actions were influenced by factors that mitigate the level of intent.

Penalties for Voluntary Manslaughter in California

A voluntary manslaughter conviction can lead to up to 11 years in state prison, substantial fines, and a permanent mark on a criminal record. Given these severe penalties, it is critical to explore all available legal defenses. A skilled attorney will examine every detail of the case, working to present a defense that reduces or dismisses these charges to protect the client’s future.

Legal Defenses in California Voluntary Manslaughter Cases

Self-Defense

Self-defense can be an effective defense in voluntary manslaughter cases if the defendant reasonably believed they were in immediate danger of serious harm or death. In these situations, the law recognizes an individual’s right to use force to protect themselves. For defendants facing voluntary manslaughter charges, successfully establishing self-defense may result in dismissal or, at the very least, a reduction of the charges. Building a strong self-defense claim often involves gathering evidence to support the defendant’s perception of imminent danger. Witness statements, visible injuries, prior threats from the victim, and any relevant video footage can substantiate a self-defense argument. Success in self-defense claims hinges on demonstrating that the defendant’s actions were reasonable given the circumstances they faced.

Heat of Passion Defense

The “heat of passion” defense acknowledges that extreme emotional states—such as fear, anger, or jealousy—can temporarily impair judgment, leading someone to act impulsively. This defense applies when a defendant acted out of an intense, immediate emotional reaction to a specific incident or provocation, rather than premeditated intent. Successfully establishing this defense can reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter or lessen sentencing severity for a manslaughter charge.

In court, scenarios where “heat of passion” might apply include sudden, heated arguments, unexpected confrontations, or other provocative incidents that triggered an intense emotional response. For instance, a defendant who acted out of shock or anger after a provocation may qualify for a reduced charge if it can be shown that they were not acting with malice but rather reacting to a charged moment.

Imperfect Self-Defense

Imperfect self-defense comes into play when the defendant genuinely believed they were in imminent danger and acted to protect themselves, but this belief was deemed unreasonable by legal standards. In voluntary manslaughter cases, establishing imperfect self-defense can reduce charges from murder to manslaughter by showing that the defendant’s actions, although defensive, were not entirely justified by an objective measure of threat.

While imperfect self-defense does not lead to full acquittal, it can play a critical role in reducing the severity of penalties. This defense allows the court to recognize that the defendant’s actions stemmed from genuine, if mistaken, fear, which in turn can result in lessened charges and reduced sentencing.

Additional Defenses Used in Voluntary Manslaughter Cases

A strong defense in voluntary manslaughter cases often involves questioning the intent behind the defendant’s actions. When it can be shown that the defendant acted impulsively, without premeditation or malice, this lack of intent can weaken the prosecution’s case. This is especially effective when evidence indicates provocation, impaired judgment, or temporary emotional distress. Such factors can be supported by psychological evaluations, witness testimony, or records of impulsive behavior, all of which help clarify the defendant’s mindset and reduce perceived culpability, making a case for lesser charges or alternative sentencing.

Another defense often considered is intoxication, which may affect a defendant’s ability to exercise sound judgment and self-control. Intoxication defenses are strongest when the intoxication was involuntary, such as if the defendant was unknowingly drugged, as this can further distance them from a clear intent to harm. Courts may be less receptive to voluntary intoxication as a defense, but with substantial evidence of extreme impairment, the defense can argue that the defendant’s capacity for intent was significantly diminished, possibly leading to reduced charges.

These defense strategies, when effectively argued by an experienced attorney, can help present a more comprehensive view of the defendant’s actions and mental state, often resulting in more favorable outcomes like alternative sentencing focused on rehabilitation over punishment.