Dory Lindsay Ford, a 57-year-old caterer from Monterey, California, faces serious charges for defrauding the government of $4 million in COVID-19 relief funds. A federal grand jury indicted Ford for bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.

Background and Charges

Ford operated Aqua Terra Culinary, Inc., a catering company in Monterey. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he applied for and received approximately $4 million in loans and grants. These funds came from three key sources: the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (EIDL).

The CARES Act, enacted in March 2020, aimed to provide financial assistance during the pandemic. It authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans through the PPP for small businesses. The ARPA, passed in 2021, established the RRF with $28.6 billion for grants to food and drink businesses affected by the pandemic. The EIDL program offered low-interest financing to small businesses in disaster-affected regions.

Allegations and Misuse of Funds

The indictment alleges that Ford obtained the $4 million through false representations and omissions. He is accused of using the COVID-19 relief funds to purchase real estate in Belize, invest in the stock market, and fund other business ventures. These actions were in direct violation of the intended use of the funds, which was to cover payroll costs, rent or mortgage payments, and supplies.

Specific Charges

Ford faces multiple federal charges:

• Bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
• Three counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
• Two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.

Legal Implications

If convicted, Dory Lindsay Ford faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine for bank fraud. Each count of wire fraud carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The money laundering charges could lead to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count. Sentencing will consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Next Court Appearance

Ford is scheduled to appear in court on January 31, 2024, before United States Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi in the Northern District of California. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Neal C. Hong.

Law enforcement officials arrested four individuals in Los Angeles for operating a drug trafficking ring in the San Fernando Valley, as detailed in a 15-count federal grand jury indictment. This operation involved distributing cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl.

The Operation

The indictment reveals a structured drug trafficking network. Giselle Buraye, 23, from Van Nuys, along with Efren Meraz, Jr., 35, from Sylmar, and Oscar Alejandro Melendez, 50, from Van Nuys, were identified as the operation’s leaders. They were responsible for obtaining the fentanyl pills, methamphetamine, and cocaine. This trio, together with Sarkis Kyurkchian, 40, from North Hollywood, supplied the drugs to Robert Carlton Lavilette, 68, from Ventura, and Max Roman-Betancourt, 41, from Sunland, who then handled street-level sales. Esteban Armas, 36, from Panorama City, was allegedly responsible for storing the narcotics.

Arrests and Arraignments

Specific Incidents Linked to the Defendants

The indictment details specific incidents involving the defendants. On April 14, 2021, Buraye and Mendez allegedly sold around 1,000 fentanyl pills. In March 2022, Buraye reportedly sold over 700 fentanyl pills. In May 2022, authorities executed a search warrant at Armas’s residence, leading to the seizure of 2,504 grams of fentanyl, 57 kilograms of cocaine, 10.92 kilograms of methamphetamine, and $152,602 in drug proceeds.

California’s Three Strikes Law significantly impacts sentencing for repeat felony offenders. It mandates doubled sentences for individuals with one prior serious or violent felony upon any new felony conviction. For those with two such prior convictions, a third felony conviction leads to a minimum 25-year to life sentence, with parole eligibility determined by the Parole Board. This law underscores California’s firm stance against repeat serious or violent offenders.

In California, people often use “Restraining Orders” and “Protective Orders” interchangeably, but understanding their specific applications and legal implications is crucial. Both orders, which are judicial decrees, aim to protect individuals from unwanted behaviors like stalking, harassment, threats, or physical abuse. The court directs these orders at specific individuals, named in the orders, to stop them from engaging in harmful conduct.

Under California Penal Code Section § 273.6, violating the terms of a protective order is a criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances, such a violation can be classified as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Typically, a first-time violation, in the absence of other criminal charges, is treated as a misdemeanor. The consequences for a misdemeanor violation can include a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), a jail term of up to one year, or both.

While both restraining orders and protective orders aim to safeguard individuals from harm, they are distinct in their legal context and application. Restraining orders are generally used in civil contexts, whereas protective orders are more common in criminal cases. The choice between a restraining order and a protective order depends on the specific situation and the nature of the threat involved.

Criminal vs. Civil Orders

Criminal Protective Orders: In criminal cases, protective orders are typically requested by the district attorney on behalf of the victim. These orders are particularly prevalent in domestic violence cases. Here, the prosecuting attorney seeks a judicial decree to safeguard the victim from their abuser. The goal is to prevent further harm and ensure the victim’s safety while the criminal case is ongoing. It’s important to note that in these scenarios, the state, represented by the district attorney, takes the initiative to request the order, reflecting the seriousness of the criminal context.

Civil Restraining Orders: On the other hand, restraining orders are more common in civil matters and are requested by one of the parties involved in a civil dispute. These orders are frequently seen in family law cases, such as divorces or custody battles. For instance, a party in a divorce may seek a restraining order against their spouse to prevent harassment, ensure physical distance, or stop any other form of harmful behavior. The key aspect here is that the individual seeking protection takes the initiative to request the order, which is then considered and issued by a civil court.

Violating a Protective Order in California

In California, non-compliance with a protective order’s terms is a significant legal violation. Under Penal Code 273.6 PC, the consequences for the restrained person can be severe. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must demonstrate:

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

Misdemeanor Charges: Typically, such violations are treated as misdemeanors, with penalties including:

• Up to one year in county jail, and/or
• A fine not exceeding $1,000.

Felony Charges: In certain cases, violations can escalate to felony charges, with more stringent penalties:

• Up to three years in state prison, and/or
• A fine of as much as $10,000.

Violating a Restraining Order

Violating a restraining or protective order is a serious offense under California Penal Code 273.6. This crime occurs when an individual intentionally and knowingly disobeys a court-issued protective or restraining order. Such orders, including temporary restraining orders (TROs) in civil cases and protective orders in criminal court, are designed to safeguard victims from harm, harassment, threats, stalking, or physical abuse.

Restrictions Imposed by the Orders

The terms of these orders typically prohibit the restrained individual from making any form of contact with the protected person. This includes communication through phone calls, text messages, emails, social media, and direct face-to-face interactions.

Criminal Protective Orders (CPOs)

In domestic violence prosecutions, judges often issue Criminal Protective Orders (CPOs) to prevent defendants from engaging in harassment, abuse, stalking, or threatening behavior towards the alleged victims. These orders are common in criminal cases involving violence or credible threats of violence and are closely linked with domestic violence cases in California.

Types of California Restraining Orders

In California, courts issue various types of restraining or protective orders, each designed for specific situations. Violating any of these orders can lead to penalties under Penal Code 273.6.

Domestic Violence Restraining Order: This order is issued to protect individuals from abuse by an intimate partner. It aims to prevent physical, emotional, or other forms of abuse in intimate relationships.

Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Order: Issued to protect elders (aged 65 and above) and dependent adults (aged 18-64 with disabilities), this order safeguards against physical, emotional, or financial abuse.

Contempt of Court Charges: Violating the terms of any of these orders can result in contempt of court charges under California Penal Code 166 PC.

Emergency Protective Order (EPO): Law enforcement officers can request an EPO during a domestic violence incident response. This order is immediate and typically lasts for 7 days, requiring the alleged abuser to avoid contact with the victim.

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): After an EPO expires, or in cases of harassment, individuals can request a TRO from the court, effective for up to 3 weeks. Applicants must demonstrate they are victims of harassment, credible threats, or behavior causing substantial emotional distress.

Permanent Restraining Order (PRO): A PRO is issued following a court hearing where both parties present their arguments. The judge assesses the evidence and decides on the necessity and terms of the PRO, which can last up to 3 years and be extended if needed. Common restrictions include no contact with the victim, maintaining a certain distance, and firearm restrictions.

How Prosecution Proves a Restraining Order Violation in California

In California, to convict someone under Penal Code 273.6 for violating a restraining order, a prosecutor must establish several key elements:

1. Lawful Issuance of a Protective Order: The court must have issued a protective order in accordance with legal procedures.
2. Defendant’s Awareness of the Order: You must have been aware of the existence of the court order. This awareness is established if you had the opportunity to read the order, regardless of whether you actually did so.
3. Ability to Comply with the Order: You must have been capable of complying with the terms set out in the court order.
4. Willful Violation of the Order: The violation of the order must have been willful, meaning it was done willingly or on purpose.

Understanding ‘Willful’ Actions and Additional Charges

• An action is considered ‘willful’ if it is carried out willingly or with intent.
• Importantly, if you commit another crime while violating a restraining order, you can face charges under both PC 273.6 and the statute relevant to the other crime.

Consequences of Violating a Restraining Order

Misdemeanor Offense: Typically classified as a misdemeanor, a violation of Penal Code 273.6 involves:

• A potential jail term of up to one year in county jail.
• A mandatory 30-day jail sentence if the violation resulted in victim injury.
• Fines reaching up to $1,000.
• Compulsory participation in counseling and domestic violence classes.
• Financial contributions to a battered women’s shelter and victim restitution.

Enhanced Charges for Repeat Offenses: For a second offense within seven years involving violence or threats, the charge can escalate to a “wobbler,” allowing for prosecution as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Felony-Level Violations: In cases classified as felonies, the penalties intensify:

• State prison sentences of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years.
• Fines up to $10,000.
• Probation for a maximum of one year.
• A minimum 30-day jail term for repeat offenders within one year, especially if the violation results in victim injury.

Additional Legal Implications

• Violators lose the legal right to own or possess firearms.
• Possession of firearms can lead to further criminal charges.
• Court-mandated anger management or domestic violence counseling may be required.

Defending Against Charges of Violating a Restraining Order

1. Lack of Knowledge: If you were not aware of the restraining order, this can be a defense. It must be proven that you did not have a reasonable opportunity to learn about the order’s existence or terms.
2. Inability to Comply: Circumstances may have made it impossible for you to comply with the order. This could include situations where you were unaware of the protected person’s presence in a public place.
3. False Accusation: Sometimes, allegations of violating a restraining order are based on false accusations. Proving that the claim was fabricated or exaggerated can be a valid defense.
4. Accidental Violation: If the contact with the protected person was accidental and not intentional, this can serve as a defense. This might apply in cases where you unknowingly entered a place at the same time as the protected person.
5. Order Was Not Legally Issued: Challenging the legality of the restraining order’s issuance can be a defense. This involves showing that the order was not properly issued according to legal procedures.

Defending against a charge of violating a restraining order requires a clear and effective legal strategy. At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we focus on crucial aspects of your case, including challenging the legality of the restraining order, proving a lack of awareness about the order, and contesting any intentional violation. We also consider your ability to comply with the order and address any additional related charges. If you’re facing such charges, immediate legal assistance is essential. Contact Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Arash Hashemi at our Westside Towers office, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064, or call (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.

What is Domestic Battery?

Under California Penal Code Section 243(e)(1), domestic battery is a misdemeanor offense that involves the use of force against an intimate partner. This charge is commonly applied in cases of spousal abuse, cohabitant altercations, or other domestic violence conflicts.

Key Elements of Domestic Battery:

• Willful and Harmful Touching: The defendant must have intentionally engaged in physical contact that was harmful or offensive.
• Relationship with the Victim: The victim must be a current or former intimate partner of the defendant, which includes spouses, cohabitants, fiancés, co-parents, or dating partners.

Understanding ‘Cohabitant’: This term refers to two unrelated individuals living together, characterized by elements such as a sexual relationship, shared finances, joint property ownership, and the duration and continuity of their relationship.

Scope and Application of the Law:

• Domestic battery law applies to both same-sex and heterosexual relationships.
• The law does not necessitate that the victim sustains a physical injury. Any form of harmful or offensive contact, regardless of the presence of injury, can constitute domestic battery.

Additional Legal Considerations:

• Slight or No Injuries: Even in cases with slight or no physical injuries, charges can be filed. The mere act of using force or violence is sufficient.
• Aggravated Circumstances: In cases where the victim suffers serious injuries, charges may escalate to aggravated battery or intentional infliction of corporal injury.
• Investigative Process: Post-arrest, a police detective typically conducts interviews and gathers statements to support the allegations. It is crucial to seek legal counsel before making any statements to law enforcement.

Legal Definition and Examples:

• Domestic battery includes any willful and unlawful touching that is harmful or offensive.
• Common examples include pushing during an argument or grabbing a wrist to restrain.
• To convict, the prosecution must prove willful touching, that it was offensive or harmful, and the victim was an intimate partner.

Important Legal Note:

• Physical injury is not a prerequisite for a domestic battery charge.
• Threats or actions in an angry or disrespectful manner can lead to charges, even without physical harm.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.

Definition and Elements of the Crime

Under California Penal Code Section 166 PC, various behaviors are classified as contempt of court. This includes disruptive conduct during court proceedings, refusal to comply as a witness, and notably, the intentional violation of a Court Order. This statute is particularly relevant in cases involving Protective Orders, Restraining Orders, and Stay-Away Orders, often seen in domestic violence situations.

To establish a violation of a Court Order under Penal Code 166 PC, the prosecution must prove:

• A lawful written court order was issued.
• The defendant was aware of the court order.
• The defendant had the capability to comply with the court order.
• The defendant willfully violated the court order.

It’s important to note that this statute is applicable to any protective or stay-away order issued by a court. However, it does not extend to violations of probation conditions, which are legally considered court orders but are addressed separately in Probation Violation Hearings and are explicitly excluded from prosecution under Penal Code 166 PC.

Types of Contempt of Court Under Penal Code 166 PC

Penal Code 166 PC outlines several specific types of contempt:

• Disruptive Behavior: Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior during court proceedings that interrupts or disrespects the court.
• Breach of Peace: Any noise or disturbance that interrupts court proceedings.
• Willful Disobedience of Court Orders: Intentionally disobeying the terms of a court order.
• Resistance to Court Orders: Actively resisting or obstructing a court’s lawful order or process.
• Refusal to Comply as a Witness: Refusing to be sworn in as a witness or to answer essential questions.
• Misrepresentation in Court: Publishing false reports of court proceedings or presenting unauthorized information during sentencing.
• Gang-Related Injunctions: Disobeying injunctions related to criminal street gangs.

Penalties for Violating Penal Code 166 PC

Violations of California Penal Code 166 PC generally fall under misdemeanor offenses. The penalties for these misdemeanors can be substantial, including:

• Up to six months in jail.
• Significant court fines.

However, the law includes provisions for enhanced penalties and specific circumstances:

• Contacting a Victim: Enhanced penalties apply if the contempt involves contacting a victim, especially after a prior conviction.
• Protective Order Violations: Violating protective orders, particularly in domestic violence or elder abuse cases, can lead to imprisonment and fines.
• Firearm Possession: Owning or possessing a firearm when prohibited by a protective order results in additional penalties.

Legal Defenses

Defending against charges of violating a court order can involve several strategies:

• Arguing it was not a willful violation, such as in accidental encounters.
• Demonstrating a lack of awareness of the court order.
• Proving inability to comply due to circumstances beyond control.
• Challenging the legality of the court order itself.

Criminal Defense for Violating a Court Order Cases in Los Angeles

The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi are at your service to defend your rights if you find yourself facing the serious charge of violating a court order in Los Angeles.With over two decades of experience in handling both misdemeanor and felony cases, Attorney Arash Hashemi is well-versed in the intricacies of contempt of court charges, including violations of court orders, protective orders, and stay-away orders.

At our office, we understand the serious implications of being charged under Penal Code 166 PC. Whether you’re accused of disruptive behavior in court, willful disobedience of court orders, or any other form of contempt, we are here to provide the robust defense you need. Contact us at (310) 448-1529 or visit us at Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, to schedule a consultation.

Attorney Arash Hashemi will review your case, exploring every legal avenue to challenge the accusations against you. Whether it’s arguing against the willfulness of the violation, questioning the awareness of the court order, or challenging the legality of the order itself, we are committed to pursuing the best possible outcome for your case. Trust us to build a strong, effective defense strategy tailored to the specifics of your situation.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.

Paul Horton Smith Sr., 59, from Moreno Valley, California, has entered a guilty plea to a federal charge of wire fraud in connection with a Ponzi scheme. This scheme, which spanned nearly two decades, defrauded over $24 million from at least 200 investors, many of whom were elderly or retired.

Case Overview

• Charge and Penal Code: Smith pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, as defined under 18 U.S.C § 1343.
• Duration and Scope: From July 2000 to May 2020, Smith operated several companies in Riverside, including Northstar Communications LLC, Planning Services Inc., and eGate LLC, to orchestrate this scheme.

Mechanics of the Scheme

• Investment Misrepresentation: Smith falsely represented Northstar as an annuity or a similar investment, claiming involvement in real estate or the stock market.
• Guaranteed Returns: He assured investors of a fixed rate of return, falsely branding Northstar as a “safe investment.”
• Misuse of Funds: Contrary to his promises, Smith never invested the funds, instead depositing them into a non-interest-bearing checking account.
• Ponzi Scheme Operation: Smith paid earlier investors with funds obtained from newer investors, a hallmark of Ponzi schemes.

Noteworthy Incident: In a striking case, Smith persuaded a victim to invest $400,000, which was life insurance proceeds. Promising a 5% return on a “safe investment,” Smith instead diverted these funds to maintain his fraudulent scheme.

Legal Implications

• Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C § 1343): This statute criminalizes the use of interstate communications to perpetrate fraudulent schemes. Smith’s use of emails, texts, and electronic bank transfers to execute his scheme falls squarely under this law.
• Potential Sentence: Facing a maximum of 20 years in federal prison, Smith’s sentencing highlights the severe consequences of wire fraud.
• Impact on Victims: The scheme led to significant financial losses, with over 200 investors defrauded and 106 victims still awaiting full repayment, totaling a loss of about $13.3 million.

Investigation and Upcoming Sentencing: The federal investigation into this case demonstrates the commitment to prosecuting financial fraud. United States District Judge Jesus G. Bernal will preside over Smith’s sentencing on April 1.

In California, the crime of assault is defined under Penal Code 240 PC as the unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person. This law, commonly addressing what is known as “simple assault,” is fundamental in the state’s criminal justice system. It highlights the legal boundary not only against acts of violence but also against any attempts to initiate such acts.

Key Highlights of Penal Code 240 PC

• Nature of the Offense: Assault under PC 240 does not require physical contact or actual injury. The essence of the crime lies in the intent and capability to inflict harm.
• Penalties: Classified as a misdemeanor, simple assault can lead to penalties including jail time of up to six months and/or a fine up to $1,000.
• Assault vs. Battery: It’s important to distinguish assault from battery (Penal Code 242). While assault is the attempt to use force, battery involves the actual use of force on someone.

What is Assault in the State of California?

In California, assault is legally defined under Penal Code 240 PC. The law states:

“An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”

Breaking Down the Elements of the Crime:

To secure a conviction for simple assault, the prosecution must prove several critical elements, collectively known as the “elements of the crime”:

1. Willful Conduct: The accused must have engaged in a deliberate action that would likely result in the application of force to another person.
2. Intent to Injure: The act must be accompanied by the intent to commit a violent injury. The term “attempt” inherently implies an intention to cause harm.
3. Awareness of Potential Harm: The individual must have understood that their actions could potentially cause injury. This awareness is a key component of the “attempt.”
4. Capability to Inflict Injury: The accused must have had the present ability to apply force or cause harm to another person.

Understanding ‘Application of Force’:

The term “application of force” in this context refers to any harmful or offensive touching. This can include even minor contact if executed in a disrespectful or rude manner. Notably, the law does not require the touching to cause physical injury or even be direct.

The Concept of Indirect Force:

It’s important to note that actual physical contact or the successful application of force is not a prerequisite for an assault charge. The critical factor is acting in a manner that could have resulted in force being applied to another person. For instance, in a road rage scenario, aggressive actions that could lead to physical harm may constitute assault, even if no physical contact occurred.

Penalties for Penal Code 240 Simple Assault in California

In California, simple assault as defined under Penal Code 240 PC is treated as a misdemeanor offense. The legal repercussions for those convicted of this crime can be significant.

Standard Penalties for Simple Assault:

• Jail Time: A conviction can lead to a sentence of up to six months in a county jail.
• Fines: Additionally, offenders may face a fine of up to $1,000 per offense.

Consequences of Multiple Assault Charges:

• Cumulative Penalties: If an individual faces multiple assault charges, the penalties can accumulate, potentially leading to longer jail time and higher fines.

Enhanced Penalties for Assaults Against Specific Victims:

• Protected Categories: The law imposes elevated penalties when the victim of the assault belongs to designated protected categories. These categories encompass individuals such as police officers, firefighters, traffic officers, code enforcement officers, animal control officers, and process servers, among others.
• Conditions for Enhanced Penalties: For the enhanced penalties to apply, two conditions must be met:
  1. The victim must have been performing their official duties at the time of the assault.
  2. The assailant must have reasonably known or should have known the victim’s occupation.
• Increased Penalties for Protected Victims: When these conditions are met, the penalties for assaulting individuals in these categories can include:
  • Up to one year in county jail.
  • A fine of up to $2,000.

Defenses to Assault in California

In California, individuals have the right to defend themselves if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of physical harm from another person. If someone who acted in self-defense is later charged with assault, they may have a valid self-defense claim.

Moreover, because assault is a criminal offense that often lacks physical injuries or concrete evidence, false accusations made by individuals seeking to cause trouble for the defendant can lead to unjust charges.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.

Photo: (Pat Brady, 53, of Lake Forest (U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California)

Pat Brady, a 53-year-old Aryan Brotherhood member, confessed to a murder within a Northern California prison, as part of a significant investigation into the gang’s activities. This announcement was made by the U.S. District Attorney’s Office.

Details of the Prison Murder

In the July 2018 incident at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, Pat Brady, an Aryan Brotherhood gang member, admitted to the premeditated killing of a fellow inmate. This inmate had falsely represented himself as a member of the Aryan Brotherhood and had accrued a substantial drug debt. Brady committed the act to maintain and strengthen his position within the gang’s hierarchy.

Investigation Highlights

The plea is a key development in a comprehensive investigation that uncovered crimes committed by the Aryan Brotherhood between 2011 and 2016. These crimes include racketeering, murder, conspiracy, and drug trafficking. The gang orchestrated and managed these activities from their prison cells, using smuggled cell phones.

Brady’s guilty plea marks a crucial milestone in understanding the inner workings of criminal organizations like the Aryan Brotherhood. It sheds light on the extensive criminal network operating within prisons and the severe ramifications of such activities.

Upcoming Sentencing

Often referred to as ‘Gang Enhancements,’ California Penal Code Section 186.22 PC deals with criminal street gangs. It’s integral to the “Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act”(STEP) in California, addressing gang-related issues.

Active Participation in a Criminal Street Gang

Subsection (a) of Penal Code Section 186.22 PC defines the consequences for individuals actively participating in a criminal street gang. To be convicted under this section, a person must:

• Actively participate in a criminal street gang.
• Possess knowledge of the gang’s pattern of criminal gang activity.
• Willfully promote, further, or assist in felonious criminal conduct by gang members.

Penalties for this involvement may lead to one year in county jail. Alternatively, they can result in state prison for 16 months to three years.

Felony Committed for the Benefit of a Gang

Subsection (b) of Penal Code Section 186.22 PC addresses more severe penalties for individuals convicted of a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. To trigger these enhanced penalties, the following elements must be established:

• The specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members.

The consequences may include additional terms of imprisonment based on the nature of the felony:

• Two, three, or four years for non-serious or non-violent felonies.
• An additional five years for serious felonies.
• An additional ten years for violent felonies.

Enhancements Near Schools

Subsection (b)(2) provides an aggravating circumstance if the underlying felony occurs within 1,000 feet of a school during school hours or when minors are present. This circumstance can lead to more severe sentencing.

Sentencing Discretion

Subsection (b)(3) grants the court discretion in imposing sentencing enhancements, allowing judges to consider the unique circumstances of each case. The court is required to specify the reasons for its choice of enhancements on the record at the time of sentencing.

Indeterminate Sentences

Probation Conditions

Understanding Key Terms

To fully comprehend Penal Code Section 186.22 PC, it’s essential to familiarize oneself with key terms used within the statute:

• “Pattern of criminal gang activity” (Subsection (e)): This phrase refers to the commission, attempted commission, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of specified offenses by gang members, with at least one offense occurring after the effective date of this statute. These offenses require separate occurrences or involvement by two or more gang members, benefiting the gang beyond reputation.

• “Criminal street gang” (Subsection (f)): Defined as an organized association of three or more persons, formal or informal, with primary activities involving the commission of specified criminal acts, common identifiers, and a pattern of criminal gang activity.

Richard Jason Mountford, a resident of Monterey County, California, confessed to a substantial tax fraud, cheating the IRS out of nearly $900,000. His guilty plea, recorded in a federal court, acknowledges his role in a sophisticated tax scheme from 2016 to 2020.

Court documents reveal that Mountford, alongside unnamed accomplices, submitted fraudulent income tax returns. These documents falsely claimed employment and wages from a non-existent company, wrongly reported federal tax withholdings, and illicitly sought refunds.

Further Deceptions: Alimony Claims

The scheme was exacerbated by false alimony claims on most returns, inflating the refund amounts. As a result, the IRS was duped into issuing refunds totaling $873,723.53.

Personal Gains from the Fraudulent Scheme

Mountford personally benefited by depositing $757,075.53 into his accounts. His extravagant purchases included cars worth approximately $360,000. An accomplice also received significant amounts, including around $170,000 in cash and gold bars.

Legal Proceedings and Charges

Attorney General Phillip A. Talbert announced this key legal progression in the case against Mountford. The charges, led by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Tax Division, included:

1. Conspiracy to File False Claims (18 U.S.C. § 286): This charge arises directly from Mountford’s participation in submitting fraudulent tax returns. Under this statute, it is a federal offense to conspire to defraud the United States government by filing false claims for refunds. The conspiracy charge implies that Mountford and his co-conspirators agreed to commit this crime together, with each playing a role in the execution of the fraudulent scheme. The law under 18 U.S.C. § 286 makes it illegal to engage in any agreement to submit false claims, emphasizing the seriousness of Mountford’s actions.
2. Making False Statements on Tax Returns: This charge is concerned with Mountford’s deceitful tactics to inflate refund amounts through false alimony claims. By reporting false information on tax returns, particularly about alimony payments, Mountford significantly increased the refund amounts he and his co-conspirators claimed. This act of making false statements on tax returns is a violation of the U.S. tax laws. Such acts not only mislead the IRS but also unjustly enrich the fraudsters at the expense of the government and, ultimately, the taxpayers.

RS Criminal Investigation actively and thoroughly probed the case. Trial Attorneys John C. Gerardi and Charles A. O’Reilly of the Tax Division, along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Dhruv M. Sharma, led the prosecution.

Upcoming Sentencing and Potential Restitution

Photo: ( closeup shot of metal handcuffs and dollars)

The federal government has charged Shray Goel and Shaunik Raheja in a complex case involving an $8.5 million scam. This scheme, primarily executed through Airbnb and Vrbo, involved misleading property listings and discriminatory practices against Black renters.

Case Details

• Indictment Charges: Both men face allegations of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 13 counts of wire fraud. Additionally, prosecutors have charged Goel with two counts of aggravated identity theft.
• Victim Count: The fraud impacted thousands of individuals, linked to over 10,000 reservations and nearly 100 properties in 10 states.

The Fraud Mechanics

• Goel and Raheja are accused of operating a short-term rental business, Abbot Pacific LLC, used to conduct their fraudulent activities.
• They allegedly engaged in a double-booking strategy, creating multiple listings for the same property on Airbnb and Vrbo.
• Utilizing fabricated excuses like plumbing issues, they canceled or moved guests to less desirable accommodations.
• A bidding war mechanism was employed to maximize profit from these properties.
• The indictment also highlights racial discrimination, with the defendants accused of selectively canceling reservations based on racial biases.

Charges and Penal Codes

• Wire Fraud: The charge of Wire Fraud, under 18 U.S.C § 1343, is a federal offense that targets the use of interstate communications for carrying out fraudulent schemes. In the current case, this relates to the supposed use of online platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo to deceive renters.
• Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud: Under the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, as outlined in 18 U.S.C § 1349, the indictment alleges a joint effort by Goel and Raheja to perpetrate wire fraud. This suggests that both individuals coordinated their actions to defraud renters, as per the provisions of this statute.
• Aggravated Identity Theft: The accusation against Goel for Aggravated Identity Theft under 18 U.S.C § 1028A alleges that he unlawfully used another person’s identity to commit felony wire fraud. This statute applies when identity theft aids or occurs in conjunction with a felony offense.

Potential Legal Consequences

• Convictions could lead to up to 20 years in prison for each wire fraud and conspiracy charge. Aggravated identity theft carries an additional two-year mandatory sentence.
• Financial repercussions, including fines and restitution, are also likely.

The FBI and FDIC-OIG are leading the investigation into this case, with support from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Airbnb and Vrbo are actively cooperating with the government in this investigation, a cooperation that the government acknowledges and values. It’s essential to note that an indictment represents only an accusation. Under the law, all defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Photo: (close up on man trying to break into a car)

In California, the legal landscape surrounding grand theft auto is uncompromising. If you find yourself accused of grand theft auto, you could potentially encounter significant legal consequences.

Grand Theft Auto Laws and Penalties in California

In California, vehicle theft can lead to charges under one of two primary statutes:

1. Grand Theft Auto: Under Penal Code 487(d)(1), Grand Theft Auto charges are applied when there is an intention to permanently deprive the owner of their vehicle.
2. “Joyriding”: Alternatively, under Penal Code 10851 VC, the offense of “Joyriding” or Unlawful Taking or Driving of a Vehicle is typically charged when the vehicle is taken temporarily, without the intent of permanent possession.

Understanding Grand Theft Auto in California

Grand theft auto, a specific category of grand theft, is charged when the stolen property is an automobile. This charge implies an intent to permanently or significantly deprive the vehicle’s owner of their property. Scenarios can range from using the stolen vehicle as a getaway car in another crime, to stealing a car for parts or resale, or even intending permanent theft but later abandoning the vehicle.

Key Elements for Grand Theft Auto Conviction

For a grand theft auto conviction under California law, the prosecution must establish that the defendant:

1. Stole a Vehicle Belonging to Someone Else: The vehicle must be proven to be the property of another individual.
2. Intended Permanent or Long-Term Deprivation: There must be an intention to deprive the owner of the vehicle either permanently or for a significant duration.
3. Lacked Owner’s Permission: The vehicle’s owner did not authorize the defendant to take the vehicle.
4. Moved and Retained the Vehicle: The defendant must have moved the vehicle and kept it for some time, regardless of the distance moved or the duration of retention.

Grand theft auto is not limited to larceny. It can also include:

• Embezzlement: Stealing a car entrusted to you by its owner.
• Trickery: Deceiving someone to gain possession of their car.
• False Pretenses: Acquiring a car through lies or deceit.

Penalties for Grand Theft Auto under Penal Code 487(d)(1) PC

Grand theft auto is a “wobbler” offense in California, meaning it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, based on the crime’s specifics and the defendant’s criminal history.

Felony grand theft auto carries the following penalties:

• Jail Time: From 16 months to 3 years.
• Fine: Up to $10,000.

Enhanced penalties apply for high-value vehicles:

• Additional Jail Time: 1 extra year for vehicles worth over $65,000; 2 extra years for vehicles worth over $200,000.

Joyriding, as defined under California’s Vehicle Code Section 10851, refers to the illegal act of taking or driving a vehicle without permission. This offense is considered less severe than grand theft auto. Often treated as a wobbler offense, joyriding is usually charged as a misdemeanor for first-time offenders.

If someone takes a vehicle with the intention of using it temporarily, they may be charged with joyriding rather than grand theft auto. It’s important to note that there is no specific duration for which the vehicle must be taken or driven to warrant a joyriding charge; even a very brief period can qualify.

Penalties for misdemeanor joyriding include:

• A maximum of 1 year in jail, and/or
• A fine of up to $5,000.

For felony joyriding charges, the penalties can be more severe:

• Jail time of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years, and/or
• A fine of up to $10,000.

California Vehicle-Theft Related Offenses

In California, besides grand theft auto or joyriding, you may face charges for several other vehicle-theft related offenses:

1. Carjacking: Penal Code 215 defines carjacking as the felonious taking of a motor vehicle from another person by force or fear. It is a felony punishable by 3, 5, or 9 years in state prison.
2. Petty Theft: If the vehicle stolen is valued at $950 or less, it falls under petty theft, as per Penal Code 490. This is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or both.
3. Burglary: As per Penal Code 461, burglary involves entering a structure with the intent to commit theft or any felony. Burglary of a vehicle could be charged if you break into a garage to steal a car. Burglary in the first degree is punishable by 2, 4, or 6 years in state prison.
4. Auto Burglary: This involves breaking into a vehicle with the intent to commit theft or any felony. It’s treated under the general burglary statutes but specifically targets vehicles.

Explore Your Grand Theft Auto Defense Options

Charged with grand theft auto in Los Angeles? The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi are here to protect your rights. With more than 20 years of experience in both felony and misdemeanor cases, Attorney Arash Hashemi is equipped to handle your case’s complexities. Call us at (310) 448-1529 or visit our office at Westside Towers, 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, for a consultation. We are dedicated to building a strong defense for you.

Attorney Arash Hashemi will examine various legal strategies to help avoid a conviction or lessen your charges.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.

Photo: (arrangement at a crime scene)

The Charges Against Arkete Davis

Arkete Davis faces multiple serious charges in connection with the incident.

First, authorities have charged him with violating Penal Code Section 29800(a)(1), a law that forbids specific individuals, especially those with specific prior convictions, from owning or possessing firearms. Davis, who is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, committed a violation of this code due to his ownership of the stolen gun used in the shooting.

Furthermore, Davis is facing accusations of child endangerment under Penal Code Section 273a(a). This charge is applicable to individuals who place a child in a situation where the child’s health or safety is at risk. In this case, Davis’ failure to securely store the firearm, which allowed his son to access and use it, directly led to the endangerment and subsequent death of another child.

Furthermore, Davis is facing charges for being an accessory to a crime after the fact, as per Penal Code Section 32. This charge applies to individuals who help someone evade arrest or punishment after committing a crime. Davis’ attempt to get rid of the firearm after the shooting incident falls under this category, adding to the seriousness of his legal situation.

Legal Implications

The charges against Arkete Davis have significant legal implications. The accusation of child endangerment carries the potential for imprisonment of up to six years in a state prison. Additionally, Davis is facing charges for firearm possession by a prohibited person, which can result in imprisonment for up to three years in county jail or up to three years in state prison. Furthermore, Davis faces charges for being an accessory to a crime after the fact, which could lead to a sentence of up to three years in a state prison. Davis is being held on a $500,000 bail. Meanwhile, authorities have detained the boy at the Sacramento County Youth Detention Facility on suspicion of murder.

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

The Charges: Tax Evasion Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

Investigation and Prosecution

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

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

Photo: (www.elcamino.edu)

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

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

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

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

Understanding the Charge: Murder under California Law

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

The Prosecution’s Strategy

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

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

Defense Tactics

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

Potential Legal Defenses

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

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

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

The Role of Plea Bargains in California

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

The Process of Arrest and Arraignment

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

Why Plea Bargains Are Predominant

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

Types of Plea Bargains

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

Understanding Felony and Misdemeanor Plea Bargains in California

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

Felony Plea Bargains:

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

Misdemeanor Plea Bargains:

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

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

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

The ‘No Contest’ Plea Advantage

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

Can You Seal or Expunge a Conviction in California?

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

Is Plea Bargaining Banned in California?

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

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

Explore Your Plea Bargain Options with Attorney Arash Hashemi

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

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.

Drug-Impaired Driving in California

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

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

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

Trial Proceedings and Prosecution Requirements

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

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

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

Defending Against DUI with Drugs Charges

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

Seek Expert Legal Representation for DUI with Drugs Charges in California

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.

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

California’s Robbery Law: Understanding Ward’s Charges

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

Multiple Incidents and Legal Implications

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

Navigating the Legal System

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

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

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

Direct Charges Linked to Burkhart’s Actions:

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

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

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

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

Legal Outlook and Implications

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

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

Case Overview and Key Details:

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

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

Charges and Legal Framework: Residential Burglary

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

Legal Basis:

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

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

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

Significance of Surveillance Evidence:

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

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

Ongoing Investigation

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

Conclusion:

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

Domestic violence is a significant issue that doesn’t spare any age group, including minors. In California, the rise in domestic violence cases among juveniles has led to a more focused response from the legal system. When minors are involved in such incidents, they face a legal process that can lead to either misdemeanor or felony charges, depending on the severity of the case.

Understanding the Juvenile Process for Domestic Violence

Initial Proceedings: Detention and Hearings

The journey through the juvenile justice system begins when a minor is accused of domestic violence. Following an arrest, the first step is a detention hearing. Here, a judge decides whether the minor should be held in custody during the legal proceedings. Unlike adult cases, bail is typically not an option in juvenile cases, emphasizing the importance of having a skilled juvenile defense attorney.

Fitness Hearing: Determining the Court’s Jurisdiction

A pivotal moment in the process is the fitness hearing. The court evaluates whether the minor’s case should be heard in juvenile court, considering factors like age, rehabilitation potential, and the nature of the alleged crime. This decision significantly impacts the trajectory of the case and the potential outcomes.

Jurisdiction Hearing: The Juvenile Trial

Charges, Protective Measures, and Rehabilitation in California’s Juvenile Domestic Violence Cases

Misdemeanor vs. Felony Charges

Protective Orders and Probation

In both juvenile and adult domestic violence cases in California, courts commonly issue protective orders to safeguard the victim. The specific conditions of these orders vary, reflecting the unique circumstances of each case. They can range from complete no-contact orders, which prohibit any form of communication or interaction with the victim, to more lenient Level 1 orders that allow peaceful contact. Probation is another frequent component of the juvenile’s sentence, providing a structured framework for monitoring and supporting the minor’s rehabilitation and reintegration.

Unique Opportunities for Juveniles

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a prediction of outcomes, as individual circumstances vary and laws may change over time. Those contemplating legal action should seek advice from a qualified attorney to understand how current laws apply to their specific situation. For detailed legal guidance on the topics discussed, please reach out to the author directly.

Palmdale Mayor Pro Tem Andrea Alarcón, is currently facing legal challenges stemming from a recent DUI Arrest. Around 3 a.m. in downtown Glendale, California, law enforcement officers observed Alarcón’s vehicle displaying erratic driving behavior. Her actions included making wide turns into opposing lanes, prompting officers to intervene. This led to her arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI).

Charges Against Alarcón: DUI Penal Codes

California Vehicle Code Section 23152 classifies driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs as a misdemeanor. Andrea Alarcón’s arrest for erratic driving aligns with this statute. Her actions directly led to the DUI charge, emphasizing the law’s role in promoting road safety.

Alarcón’s Arrest: Linking Behavior to DUI Charges

Alarcón’s Defense: Contesting DUI Allegations

In confronting the DUI charges, Andrea Alarcón might employ several legal tactics. Key strategies could involve disputing the reliability of the DUI test, scrutinizing the legitimacy of the traffic stop, and challenging the observations made by the police officers. These defenses are grounded in ensuring that all procedures and tests were conducted in compliance with California law and that her rights were not violated during the arrest process.

DUI Penalties: What Alarcón Faces

If Alarcón is convicted of the misdemeanor DUI charge, she may encounter penalties, including fines, license suspension, probation, and mandatory participation in alcohol education programs. It’s essential to note that the specific penalties may vary based on the circumstances and any prior convictions.

Case Summary

The sentencing of Alan Hostetter, the former La Habra police chief, to over 11 years in prison is a pivotal development in the legal proceedings following the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. This analysis delves into the case specifics, the charges, and the broader legal implications of this high-profile sentencing.

Alan Hostetter was convicted for his role in the January 6th riot aimed at obstructing Congress from certifying the 2020 election results. As a member of the “DC Brigade,” Hostetter faced federal court conviction on four felony counts, including conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and unauthorized entry into a restricted area with a deadly weapon.

Charges and Legal Context

Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding: In Alan Hostetter’s case, he faced two serious federal charges. The first was conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, signifying his involvement in a coordinated effort to disrupt a legitimate governmental function. This conviction underscores the gravity of scheming against the orderly conduct of government operations.

Entering a Restricted Area with a Weapon: The second charge was entering a restricted area with a weapon, as per 18 U.S.C. § 1752. Hostetter’s charge escalated because he carried a hatchet while illegally entering the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. The presence of the weapon considerably increased the seriousness of his offense.

Sentencing Overview

Hostetter, 58, now residing in Poolville, Texas, received a sentence exceeding 11 years from a Washington, D.C., judge. This sentence encompasses a $2,000 restitution and a $30,000 fine, highlighting the severe legal consequences of such national security breaches.

Evidence and Prosecution Strategy

The prosecution leveraged Hostetter’s speeches and social media activities to establish his intent and active participation in the riot. This multimedia evidence was critical in demonstrating his incitement and involvement in the events of January 6th.

Conclusion

This high-profile case underscores the gravity of the charges and the determination to uphold the law, regardless of one’s prior roles. If you require expert legal representation for similar charges, contact the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi today at (310) 448-1529. With over 20 years of experience, our attorney is ready to provide expert guidance and representation.

Incident Description

In California, understanding the difference between murder and manslaughter is crucial for anyone facing homicide charges. This analysis provides insights into the state’s legal framework, highlighting the significant implications of these distinctions.

Overview of Murder in California

Express Malice:

Express malice is present when there is a clear and deliberate intention to kill. This intention must be unequivocal and can be inferred from the accused’s actions, statements, or circumstances surrounding the act. For example, planning a killing, lying in wait, or purchasing a weapon for the purpose of committing the crime can all point to express malice. In court, prosecutors often rely on evidence such as communications, witness testimony, or actions leading up to the killing to establish this intent.

Implied Malice:

Implied malice, on the other hand, does not require a specific intent to kill. It occurs when an individual engages in an act with a high probability of resulting in death and does so with a conscious disregard for human life. This form of malice is often inferred from the nature of the act itself, rather than from a preconceived plan to kill. For instance, firing a gun into a crowded room or driving at high speeds through a pedestrian area might demonstrate implied malice. The key factor is the defendant’s awareness of the grave risk their actions pose and their decision to proceed regardless.

California law classifies murder charges into first and second degrees. First-degree murder involves willful, deliberate, and premeditated killings, or those committed during certain felonies like burglary or kidnapping. Second-degree murder includes intentional killings without premeditation or planning.

Comprehensive Understanding of Manslaughter

California Penal Code Section 192 defines manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a person without malice aforethought. This lack of malice sets manslaughter apart from murder, dividing it into two main categories: voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary Manslaughter:

Voluntary manslaughter occurs in situations of a sudden altercation or in the heat of passion. This type of manslaughter involves an intentional act of killing without the premeditated intent to kill, which distinguishes it from murder.

Key elements of voluntary manslaughter include:

• A Provoking Situation: The circumstances leading to the killing must be such that they would provoke a reasonable person into a state of intense emotional disturbance.
• Acting in the Heat of Passion: The defendant must have acted under the direct influence of this intense emotion, without having had a reasonable amount of time to cool off.
• Causal Connection: There must be a direct causal link between the provocation, the emotional state, and the act of killing.

Legal defenses in cases of voluntary manslaughter often revolve around proving the intensity of the provocation and the lack of time to cool off, thereby reducing the culpability from murder to manslaughter.

Involuntary Manslaughter:

Involuntary manslaughter involves an unintentional killing resulting from reckless or criminally negligent behavior. This form of manslaughter typically arises from engaging in unlawful acts that are not inherently felonious, or from performing lawful acts in an unlawful manner.

• Negligent Conduct: The defendant’s actions must demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life or a failure to exercise reasonable care.
• Unintentional Killing: The death must be an unintended consequence of the defendant’s negligent or reckless behavior.

Involuntary manslaughter cases often hinge on the degree of negligence or recklessness involved. Defense strategies may focus on disputing the level of recklessness or arguing that the defendant’s actions were not the direct cause of death.

Penalties for Murder in California

The penalties for murder in California are among the most severe in the criminal justice system, reflecting the seriousness of the crime.

1. First-Degree Murder: Conviction for first-degree murder typically results in life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In certain cases, especially those involving aggravating factors like multiple victims, hate crimes, or killings of law enforcement officers, the sentence can escalate to the death penalty.
2. Second-Degree Murder: Those convicted of second-degree murder face 15 years to life in prison. This sentence may increase under certain conditions. For instance, using a firearm can add 10 to 20 years. If the victim was a peace officer, it could result in life imprisonment without parole.

Penalties for Manslaughter in California

Manslaughter sentences in California are comparatively less severe than murder but still carry significant legal consequences.

1. Voluntary Manslaughter: A conviction can lead to up to 11 years in state prison. Factors like the use of a weapon can influence the length of the sentence. Additionally, a voluntary manslaughter conviction can also lead to a “strike” under California’s Three Strikes law, impacting sentencing for any future felonies.
2. Involuntary Manslaughter: This typically results in a prison term of 2 to 4 years. However, if the act was committed in the driving context (vehicular manslaughter), the penalties can vary based on whether alcohol or gross negligence was involved, potentially leading to longer sentences.

Legal Implications Beyond Sentencing

Beyond prison sentences, convictions for murder or manslaughter have profound legal and social implications. They can lead to loss of certain civil rights, like voting and firearm ownership, and significantly impact future employment opportunities.

In summary, the legal landscape of murder and manslaughter in California is complex, with penalties varying widely based on the degree of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. Understanding these nuances is crucial for anyone navigating the criminal justice system in California.

Navigating the Legal System

Grizzlies’ star Ja Morant, recently testified in a Memphis courtroom. He stated that his altercation with teenager Joshua Holloway at his home was an act of self-defense. This testimony marks Morant’s first court appearance in the lawsuit. In July 2022, at Ja Morant’s home, an altercation occurred during a pickup basketball game involving Morant and teenager Joshua Holloway. The altercation began when Holloway, reportedly frustrated by consecutive losses threw a one-handed pass at Morant during a check ball situation striking Morant in the left side of his face..

The incident escalated when Morant’s friend, Davonte Pack, also struck Holloway, leading to Pack’s arrest for misdemeanor assault. After the disclosure of Holloway’s injuries through medical records, the focus has shifted to Morant’s role in the altercation and his legal defense. This stance is critical as it shapes the legal narrative around the incident and its consequences for both Morant and Pack. The case continues to be a subject of public and legal scrutiny, particularly regarding how self-defense laws apply in such situations.

Assessing the Perception of Threat

The key issue is whether Morant saw Holloway’s basketball throw as an immediate, legitimate threat. The basketball game’s context is vital, involving inherent physical contact and competition. This setting may alter how one perceives actions; aggressive moves elsewhere might seem normal in the game. Thus, the court needs to assess if Morant’s reaction matched the usual behavior expected in such a game.

In the realm of sports, behaviors that might be aggressive in other settings can be part of the game. It’s essential to examine whether the standards of reasonable behavior in a sports setting, like a basketball game, differ from those in everyday life, and whether Morant’s physical response was in line with these sports-specific norms.

Key Elements of Self-Defense

Immediacy of Threat: Essential to self-defense is the presence of an immediate threat. In evaluating Morant’s case, the focus is on whether he had a reasonable belief that Holloway’s actions were an imminent threat to his safety.

Reasonableness of Response: A critical aspect is determining the appropriateness of Morant’s reaction. This assessment includes reviewing the intensity of the altercation and how Morant perceived Holloway’s behavior at that moment.

Tennessee Self-Defense Law

Under Tennessee law, as outlined in Tennessee Code § 39-11-611 the right to self-defense is clearly defined. This statute provides that an individual may use force, including deadly force, under certain conditions for self-protection. The key aspects of this law relevant to the Ja Morant case are:

1. Reasonable Belief of Imminent Harm: The law allows the use of force when an individual reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent harm. In Morant’s case, the court will closely examine whether his belief that Holloway posed an immediate threat was reasonable under the circumstances.
2. No Duty to Retreat: The statute specifies that if a person is lawfully in a place, they are not required to retreat before using force in self-defense. This aspect is particularly relevant as the incident occurred at Morant’s residence, a place where he had a right to be.
3. Assessment of Unlawful Activity: The law also considers whether the person claiming self-defense was engaged in any unlawful activity at the time of the incident. The court will evaluate Morant’s conduct during the basketball game to determine if his actions were lawful up until the point of the altercation.

California’s Comparative Legal Framework

California’s approach to self-defense, particularly under California Penal Code Section 198.5, offers a comparative perspective to the Ja Morant case. This law emphasizes the “reasonable person” standard in determining the legitimacy of a self-defense claim. Key aspects of this statute relevant to Morant’s situation are:

1. Reasonable Fear of Imminent Peril: The law presumes that a person who uses force within their residence did so out of a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. In the context of Morant’s case, this would involve assessing whether his response to Holloway’s actions would be considered reasonable by an average person in similar circumstances.
2. Use of Force in Residence: The statute specifically addresses the use of force within one’s residence, aligning with the fact that Morant’s incident occurred at his home. This aspect of the law supports the right to defend oneself in one’s own home without the duty to retreat.
3. Scope of Reasonable Response: California law would require an analysis of whether Morant’s punch was a reasonable response to the perceived threat. This involves considering the severity of Holloway’s actions and whether Morant’s response was proportionate to the threat he believed he faced.

Potential Legal Outcomes

Should Morant’s actions align with Tennessee’s self-defense law, the court may dismiss the lawsuit against him. However, if deemed disproportionate, he may face legal repercussions, including possible civil liability for assault.

Broader Implications and Legal Guidance

The case involving Ja Morant raises pivotal questions about self-defense, particularly in sports settings. It prompts a reevaluation of how threats and appropriate responses are perceived in competitive sports environments. This incident not only highlights the complexities of self-defense laws but also underscores the importance of skilled legal interpretation and advocacy, especially in cases involving athletes.

Morant’s self-defense claim is a nuanced legal matter that could set a significant precedent in sports law. The outcome of this case will have implications for Morant’s legal standing and could influence broader discussions and legal interpretations in similar scenarios.

If you find yourself in a situation involving self-defense, contact our office at (310) 448-1529. Obtaining expert legal representation is essential, At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we offer more than 20 years of experience in criminal defense, with a focus on self-defense cases. Attorney Arash Hashemi specializes in these complex scenarios and has a proven track record of successful case results.

Mikey Williams, a prominent basketball recruit, recently navigated a crucial phase in his legal proceedings. By entering a plea deal in a high-profile gun case, Williams marked a significant shift in a case that has garnered extensive attention.

The Plea Deal in Detail

Williams faced nine felony charges, arising from a shooting incident at his home on March 17, 2020. These charges included six counts of assault with a weapon, one count of firing into an occupied vehicle, and two counts of making threats. In a strategic move, Williams pleaded guilty to one felony count of making a criminal threat and to using a firearm during the threat, leading to the dismissal of the other eight charges.

Legal Implications of the Plea Deal

As part of the plea agreement, Williams is required to complete:

1. A gun safety course.
2. Attend anger management sessions.
3. Perform 80 hours of community service.

Felony to Misdemeanor: The plea deal’s potential to reduce Williams’ charge from a felony to a misdemeanor is significant. Misdemeanors typically result in lighter sentences and fewer long-term impacts than felonies, offering Williams a chance for a less burdensome future.

Community Service and Rehabilitation: The deal includes community service and rehabilitation courses, highlighting a rehabilitative approach. This is often favored for first-time offenders, aiming to encourage positive change rather than solely punitive measures.

Avoiding Jail Time: A notable condition of the plea deal is the avoidance of jail time, provided Williams adheres to the agreement’s terms. This contrasts starkly with the initial risk of a lengthy prison sentence, representing a substantial shift in potential outcomes for Williams.

Trial Process

Evidence Presented in Preliminary Hearing: At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution presented key evidence, including eyewitness accounts of Williams with a gun. These testimonies crucially did not confirm Williams firing the weapon, despite his presence at the scene.

Photographic Evidence and Its Implications: Photographs showing bullet holes in an Uber driver’s Tesla were introduced, evidencing gunfire but not directly linking Williams to shooting. These images confirmed violence but did not conclusively implicate Williams.

Challenges in the Trial Process: The trial faced a significant hurdle: the absence of direct evidence proving Williams fired the gun. While evidence suggested his involvement, definitively proving he was the shooter remained a substantial challenge for the prosecution.

Impact on Plea Deal Negotiations: The gap in evidence crucially influenced plea negotiations. The final agreement recognized Williams’ involvement in the threatening situation but fell short of confirming his responsibility for the gunfire, highlighting the intricacies of legal procedures.

Evidence suggested Williams’ involvement in a threat, but lacking proof of him shooting influenced the court proceedings and plea deal.

Navigating Legal Challenges in High-Profile Cases

The plea deal in Mikey Williams’ case underscores the complexities of legal strategy in high-profile cases. Expert legal representation is essential, especially when facing the possibility of significant jail time. At the Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi, we specialize in complex self-defense cases, backed by over 20 years of experience. We focus on crafting strong defense strategies for each unique case. For expert legal support, contact us at (310) 730-2811 or schedule a consultation.

Gareth Pursehouse Receives Life Sentence

On Wednesday, December 6, Hollywood sex therapist Amie Harwick’s ex-boyfriend received a life sentence without parole. This decision was announced by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Gareth Pursehouse, 45, was convicted of murder in September. He threw Harwick over a balcony at her Hollywood Hills home on February 15, 2020. Pursehouse was also found guilty of first-degree residential burglary.

Legal Basis for Sentencing

Pursehouse faced two serious charges: first-degree murder (Penal Code 187) and first-degree residential burglary (Penal Code 459).

First-Degree Murder (Penal Code 187)

The prosecution’s case against Gareth Pursehouse for first-degree murder was comprehensive and detailed. They argued that Pursehouse meticulously planned and executed the murder of Amie Harwick. Key evidence included:

1. Digital Evidence: Harwick’s texts and emails were pivotal. They revealed her growing fear of Pursehouse, painting a picture of intimidation. These communications suggested a history of threats, crucial in establishing Pursehouse’s motive and premeditation.
2. Forensic Evidence: The autopsy results were critical. They showed blunt force injuries and manual strangulation, indicating a violent encounter. This evidence was essential in demonstrating the nature of the attack and countering the defense’s narrative.
3. Witness Accounts and Prosecutor’s Argument: The prosecution highlighted Pursehouse’s actions on the night of the murder. They argued that he broke into Harwick’s home, waited for hours, and then attacked her. Deputy District Attorney Victor Avila emphasized that Pursehouse had decided to end Harwick’s life, indicating a premeditated and deliberate action. This narrative was supported by the evidence of Pursehouse’s behavior leading up to the incident, including Harwick’s restraining order against him in 2012.

First-Degree Residential Burglary (Penal Code 459)

The prosecution effectively substantiated the first-degree residential burglary charge against Gareth Pursehouse. They presented evidence that demonstrated Pursehouse’s unlawful entry into Amie Harwick’s home with the intent to commit a felony. Key aspects of this evidence included:

1. Illegal Entry: The prosecution presented concrete evidence, such as security footage or witness statements, to establish Pursehouse’s unauthorized access to Harwick’s residence. This evidence was crucial in demonstrating that Pursehouse entered the property without permission, a fundamental element of the burglary charge.
2. Intent to Harm: The prosecution linked Pursehouse’s actions inside Harwick’s home to a premeditated plan to confront and harm her. This was evidenced by the nature of the attack and the circumstances under which it occurred. The prosecution argued that Pursehouse’s actions were not merely a spontaneous or impulsive reaction but were part of a calculated plan to inflict harm on Harwick.

The evidence for the burglary charge was critical in painting a comprehensive picture of Pursehouse’s actions on the night of the murder. It supported the narrative that Pursehouse had broken into Harwick’s home with a specific and felonious intent, further solidifying the case against him.

Dynamics of Sentencing

The life sentence imposed on Gareth Pursehouse underscores the gravity of his crimes. Central to this sentencing was the special circumstance of murder while lying in wait, a critical factor that elevated the severity of the case. This specific allegation indicated that Pursehouse not only premeditated the murder of Amie Harwick but also executed it with a heightened level of calculation and deliberation. By lying in wait, Pursehouse demonstrated a level of planning and intent that goes beyond the act of murder itself. This aspect of the crime significantly influenced the court’s decision to impose the maximum penalty. The life sentence without the possibility of parole reflects the judicial system’s stance on such calculated and heinous acts, emphasizing the seriousness with which California law treats premeditated murder, especially under such aggravated circumstances.

Jury’s Decision

The jury decisively favored the prosecution’s narrative. They found strong evidence of premeditation and malice. The defense argued for impulsive actions by Pursehouse. However, this seemed weak against evidence of a planned crime. The prosecution’s detailed presentation included digital and forensic evidence. It also featured witness testimonies. These elements painted a picture of a calculated crime. The defense’s narrative of emotional impulsiveness struggled against these facts. The jury’s verdict reflected a thorough evaluation of all evidence. It upheld justice and accountability principles.

The sentencing of Gareth Pursehouse underscores the severe consequences of serious crimes under California law. It demonstrates the legal system’s unwavering commitment to justice. This case highlights the critical role of evidence in resolving complex criminal cases. It also aligns with the public’s demand for accountability in serious criminal matters.

In Los Angeles, those facing DUI charges might plead to a lesser “wet reckless” charge. This option often arises when evidence is weak or the defendant’s BAC is low. This article examines the distinctions between DUI and wet reckless charges in California.

What is a “Wet Reckless” Charge?

A wet reckless charge, as outlined in California Vehicle Code Sections 23103 and 23103.5 VC, serves as a plea option in DUI cases and is not the initial charge. This plea agreement involves the reduction of a DUI charge to reckless driving while acknowledging alcohol involvement. It constitutes a misdemeanor offense characterized by unsafe driving conduct in conjunction with the presence of alcohol.

 What is a DUI Charge?

A DUI (Driving Under the Influence) charge, as defined under California Vehicle Code Sections 23152(a) and 23152(b), is a criminal offense that occurs when an individual operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This charge is a direct accusation and not a result of a plea agreement like a wet reckless charge.

The DUI law in California is comprehensive and covers two main aspects:

• Section 23152(a) addresses driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This section focuses on the impairment of the driver. It requires the prosecution to prove that the alcohol or drugs consumed by the driver have substantially affected their driving ability, making them unable to drive with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care.
• Section 23152(b) specifically targets driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher. This is often referred to as the “per se” DUI law. It allows for a DUI charge based solely on the BAC level, regardless of the actual impairment or driving ability of the individual. This means that even if a person’s driving ability is not noticeably impaired, they can still be charged with a DUI if their BAC is at or above the legal limit.

A DUI charge in California is typically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders, but it can escalate to a felony under certain circumstances, such as causing injury to another person or having multiple DUI convictions. The penalties for a DUI conviction can include fines, jail time, mandatory DUI education programs, and suspension of driving privileges. Additionally, a DUI conviction carries significant long-term consequences, including increased insurance rates and potential impacts on employment and professional licensing.

Key Differences Between Wet Reckless and DUI

• Criminal Record and Employment Impact: A wet reckless conviction is not classified as a DUI. This distinction holds significant importance in employment or licensing scenarios, as it enables the individual to accurately disclose their conviction for reckless driving, which is the information that will be evident on criminal background checks.
• Driver’s License Suspension and IID Requirement: Unlike a DUI conviction, which automatically triggers a driver’s license suspension and the requirement to install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) in Los Angeles County, a wet reckless conviction does not have these automatic consequences. However, the DMV may still impose an administrative suspension.
• Jail Time and Fines: The maximum jail time for a wet reckless conviction is 90 days, significantly lower than the up to six months for a first-time DUI offense. Additionally, fines associated with wet reckless are typically lower.
• Impact on Driving Record and Insurance: A wet reckless conviction adds two points to the defendant’s driving record, potentially affecting “good driver” discounts and increasing insurance rates.

Wet Reckless and Future DUI Offenses

Wet reckless charges are enhanceable, meaning they count as prior DUI offenses for future DUI charges within ten years. This can lead to mandatory jail sentences and other enhanced penalties for subsequent DUI offenses, unlike other reduced charges like “dry reckless” or exhibition of speed.

Seeking Expert DUI Defense in California

Understanding the differences between a DUI and a wet reckless charge is essential for anyone facing DUI charges in Los Angeles. Each option carries its own set of consequences and implications, affecting everything from criminal records to future driving privileges. An informed decision, ideally made with the assistance of an experienced DUI attorney, can significantly impact the outcome of your case and your future.

If you or a family member has been charged with a DUI in California, take the first step toward resolving your case by scheduling a consultation with Attorney Arash Hashemi at The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi today. With Over 20+ years of experience, our criminal defense attorney is ready to provide expert guidance and representation for all DUI Charges.

Case Overview

Sasha Lizette Jimenez, a 26-year-old from Riverside County, California, received a sentence for her involvement in a major unemployment insurance fraud case. This case showcases the serious legal consequences of large-scale financial fraud. Jimenez and her accomplices, including her boyfriend Meshach Samuels, defrauded the California Employment Development Department (EDD) of over $2.8 million.

Key Details of the Case

Incident Description: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Jimenez and her group initiated a fraudulent scheme. Over two years, they applied for unemployment insurance benefits using stolen personal identifying information (PII). The group targeted non-California residents, deceased individuals, and others ineligible for UI benefits.

Charges and Legal Framework

• Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud

  • Charge Details: Jimenez admitted guilt on May 22 to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
  • Legal Basis: California Penal Code Section 182(a)(4) governs this charge, involving a conspiracy to defraud a financial institution, here being the EDD, through fraudulent UI applications.

• Bank Fraud

  • Federal Jurisdiction: This case falls under federal law due to the involvement of a federally insured institution, the EDD.
  • Offense Specifics: Using stolen identities to access EDD funds, distributed via EDD debit accounts, violates federal bank fraud statutes.

• Identity Theft and Related Charges

  • Legal Reference: California Penal Code Section 530.5 covers identity theft, defined as unauthorized use of someone else’s PII for illegal purposes.
  • Application in Jimenez’s Case: The use of stolen PII in this scheme fits this statute, underscoring the gravity of identity theft in financial crimes.

Sentencing and Restitution

• • Sentence: The court sentenced Jimenez to nearly 3.5 years in federal prison.
  • Restitution: She must pay $2,304,203 to the EDD.
  • Total Fraud Amount: The fraudulent activities led to the issuance of at least $2,804,508 in benefits.
  • Additional Details: In 2020, Jimenez used an EDD card issued in victim S.S.’s name to buy luxury jewelry.

Co-Conspirator’s Sentence

• • Meshach Samuels’ Role: Samuels, Jimenez’s boyfriend, received a 7.5-year federal prison sentence for his part in the scheme.

Conclusion

Sasha Lizette Jimenez’s case is a stark warning against engaging in fraudulent activities, especially against government programs. If facing similar legal challenges, The guidance of an experienced criminal defense attorney is essential in such cases. To discuss your specific needs and schedule a consultation, please fill out our form or contact us at (310) 448-1529.

The Impact of a DUI Conviction in California

In California, driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher is illegal, with stricter limits for commercial drivers and those under 21. The consequences of a DUI conviction are substantial and long-lasting, including:

• Significant fines.
• A possible jail term of up to six months.
• A license suspension for six months, extended to a year for refusing BAC testing.
• Probation lasting three to five years, with mandatory DUI school attendance.

More than the immediate penalties, a DUI conviction results in a permanent criminal record. This record can have a negative effects on future opportunities as it may surface during background checks conducted by employers, landlords, or licensing agencies.. It can also influence sensitive matters like child custody during divorce proceedings.

A DUI conviction does not fade away with time. It remains a part of your record indefinitely. However, under certain conditions, DUI Expungement in California is possible. This process, while complex, can be navigated more effectively with the help of an experienced expungement attorney.

DUI Expungement and Its Advantages

DUI expungement, as outlined in California Penal Code 1203.4, effectively conceals a prior DUI conviction from your public record. This legal process ensures that your DUI conviction does not appear in most background checks, which can be pivotal in securing housing and employment opportunities. For many, expungement is a critical step towards rebuilding their lives and restoring their reputation.

Determining Eligibility for DUI Expungement

To be eligible for DUI expungement in California, certain criteria must be met. Key factors include the completion of probation and the absence of new criminal charges. The nature of the DUI (felony or misdemeanor) and previous criminal history generally do not impact eligibility. However, if probation was not granted, expungement is not possible, and seeking a governor’s pardon may be the next course of action.

The DUI Expungement Process

The process for obtaining a DUI expungement typically does not require a court hearing. Eligible individuals must file the appropriate legal documents and notify the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor will then verify whether the individual has fulfilled all probation requirements and remained free of new charges. Hiring an experienced expungement attorney can facilitate this process, ensuring that all legal procedures are correctly and efficiently handled.

DUI Expungement and Its Effect on Insurance Rates

It’s important to note that a DUI expungement does not remove the incident from insurance company records. Therefore, an expunged DUI will not directly influence your car insurance rates. This aspect is crucial for individuals to understand when considering the overall impact of expungement.

Conclusion

DUI expungement in California is a viable route to alleviate the long-term effects of a DUI conviction. It offers substantial benefits for housing and employment but has its limitations, especially regarding insurance rates and certain disclosure requirements. Navigating the complexities of DUI expungement warrants the guidance of a knowledgeable attorney. Attorney Arash Hashemi is dedicated to ensuring a thorough and successful expungement process for his clients, helping them move forward with their lives. To schedule a consultation, please fill out our form or contact us at (310) 448-1529.

On June 7, 2023, a traffic accident in the Pico-Robertson district of Los Angeles led to a family of three being struck. The incident, occurring on the 6100 block of West Pico Boulevard, claimed the life of 51-year-old Bing Wang. His wife, Xiaomei Wang, and their son, Wenxuan Wang, sustained serious injuries. Vladimir Tishchenko, the driver and a DoorDash employee, admitted to using his cell phone while driving, significantly contributing to the accident’s severity. Following this, a complaint was filed on August 10 in the Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Bing Wang’s wife and son.

Charges and Legal Analysis:

Under California Vehicle Code Section 20001, drivers in accidents resulting in injury or death must stop and fulfill legal requirements. In this incident, where Bing Wang was fatally injured and his family severely hurt, the driver’s responsibilities are significant. If found at fault, Tishchenko could face two to four years in prison, or fines from one thousand to ten thousand dollars, or both.

Tishchenko’s admission of using his cell phone while driving is a direct violation of Vehicle Code Section 23123.5. This law typically penalizes distracted driving with fines and points on the driver’s record. However, in this case, where cell phone use led to a fatal accident, the consequences are more severe. Tishchenko could face escalated penalties, including potential criminal charges.

Furthermore, Vehicle Code Section 23558 is relevant due to the multiple victims involved. This section enhances penalties for incidents causing injury or death to more than one person. It prescribes an additional year in state prison for each extra victim, up to three. Considering the injuries sustained by Xiaomei Wang and Wenxuan Wang, this could significantly impact the legal outcome for Tishchenko.

Tishchenko’s case, therefore, involves a complex interplay of these legal provisions. The severity of potential charges and penalties will be influenced by his admission, the extent of injuries caused, and any other contributing violations.

Impact of Admitting to Phone Use:

The admission by Vladimir Tishchenko of using his cell phone while driving is a critical factor in this case. It establishes a clear connection to distracted driving, which could heavily influence the legal proceedings. This admission, coupled with reports from four independent witnesses who observed Tishchenko speeding before losing control of the vehicle, strengthens the case against him. Together, these factors demonstrate negligence and could lead to more severe penalties under California law. In instances where distracted driving contributes to a fatal accident, the legal consequences are significantly heightened, often including criminal charges.

Potential Penalties:

Given the charges under multiple sections of the California Vehicle Code, Vladimir Tishchenko faces a range of serious penalties. Under Section 20001, for his involvement in an accident resulting in injury and death, he could be sentenced to two to four years in prison or fined between one thousand and ten thousand dollars, or both, if found at fault.

Additionally, Tishchenko’s admission of cell phone use while driving, a violation of Section 23123.5, typically results in fines and points on the driver’s record. However, due to the fatal outcome of the accident, this violation could lead to escalated penalties, including criminal charges.

Moreover, Section 23558 becomes applicable due to multiple victims being injured. This section mandates enhanced penalties for causing injury or death to more than one person, adding one year in state prison for each additional victim, up to three. Given the injuries to Xiaomei Wang and Wenxuan Wang, this could significantly increase Tishchenko’s sentence.

Overall, the combination of these charges could result in substantial fines, extended imprisonment, and the loss of driving privileges for Tishchenko, reflecting the severity of the incident and its consequences.

Potential Legal Defense:

In Vladimir Tishchenko’s case, an experienced defense attorney could consider several defense strategies:

1. Evidence of Distraction: Challenge the evidence suggesting that cell phone use was the primary cause of the accident.
2. Contributory Negligence: Argue that other factors, such as actions of the victim or external conditions, also contributed to the accident.
3. Severity of Charges: Negotiate for lesser charges that more accurately reflect the specifics of the incident.
4. Prior Record: If applicable, highlight Tishchenko’s clean driving record to argue for leniency.
5. Remorse and Amends: Demonstrate remorse and willingness to make amends, possibly through community service or safety courses.

These strategies would depend on the case’s specifics and the evidence available.

Legal Implications and Responsibility:

This incident emphasizes the importance of driver safety and adherence to traffic laws. Tishchenko’s legal challenges highlight the severe consequences of distracted driving. Additionally, his status as a DoorDash employee at the time raises questions about the company’s liability and employer responsibilities in such cases.

This case illustrates the grave consequences of distracted driving, particularly under California law. The incident not only resulted in tragic loss and injury but also led to significant legal repercussions for the driver, Vladimir Tishchenko. His admission of cell phone use, combined with witness accounts of speeding, forms the basis of serious charges that could include substantial fines, imprisonment, and loss of driving privileges. This situation also brings to light the potential liability of employers in such incidents. Overall, it serves as a critical reminder of the importance of strict adherence to traffic laws and the severe implications of their violation.

Josh Giddey, a prominent player for the Oklahoma City Thunder in the NBA, is under investigation by the Newport Beach Police Department. The probe concerns allegations of an inappropriate relationship with an underage girl.

The allegations surfaced when photos and social media posts involving Giddey and a 15-year-old girl became public. The incident reportedly took place in Newport Beach, California, drawing the attention of local authorities. The NBA is also reviewing these allegations.

Potential Charges and Legal Context

Statutory Rape (California Penal Code 261.5): Under California Penal Code Section 261.5, engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor under 18 is illegal. This law could form the basis of statutory rape charges against Giddey, given the alleged victim’s age.

Other Legal Considerations: The impact of digital evidence, like social media posts, is increasingly significant in legal cases. These types of evidence can be pivotal in establishing the nature of relationships and actions.

Analysis of Allegations

Evidence Evaluation: The authenticity and context of the social media posts and photographs are vital. Legally, the evaluation of such evidence focuses on credibility and relevance to the alleged incident.

Public Figure Aspect: As a high-profile NBA player, Giddey’s public persona may influence the investigation’s public perception, though it does not alter the legal scrutiny of the allegations.

Jurisdiction and Legal Implications

Jurisdiction Explained: The case falls under California jurisdiction due to the location of the alleged incident. Giddey’s Australian nationality and Oklahoma’s differing age of consent are secondary to where the alleged offense occurred.

Legal Consequences: The range of legal outcomes could vary from charges being dropped to prosecution, depending on the evidence. Past similar cases might offer some perspective on potential outcomes.

Giddey’s Response

Josh Giddey, addressing the media, chose not to comment in detail, stating his understanding of the public’s interest but citing the issue as a personal matter. Similarly, his coach, Mike Daigneault, echoed Giddey’s stance, offering no comment on the situation and describing it as a personal matter for Giddey.

This case involves complicated legal and ethical issues. It highlights the need to understand the laws about statutory rape and how digital evidence plays a role. The ongoing investigation reminds us that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Note

This case remains under investigation, and no charges have been filed as of yet. All parties are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

• Location: Disneyland, California.
• Time of Incident: The incident took place on Sunday, November 26, 2023, at around 1:30 p.m.
• Suspect: A 26-year-old man, identity undisclosed.
• Charges: Indecent exposure and being under the influence of a controlled substance.

A 26-year-old man caused a significant disturbance at Disneyland, California, leading to his arrest for indecent exposure and being under the influence of a controlled substance. On Sunday, he stripped naked and roamed the “It’s a Small World” attraction, drawing the attention of many park guests. Videos shared on social media show him in various states of undress, at one point wearing only glasses and underwear, and later completely naked. His actions included taking a dip in the attraction’s water, escalating the shock of onlookers.

The incident, resulted in the temporary shutdown of the ride, affecting both guests and park operations. Anaheim Police responded to the scene, arresting the man and later transporting him to the hospital as a precaution.

Charges and Penal Codes

Indecent Exposure (California Penal Code 314)

• Definition: California Penal Code Section 314 defines indecent exposure as deliberately and obscenely exposing one’s genitals in a public place or where others present may be disturbed or upset by the act.
• Application: In the context of the Disneyland incident, the suspect’s actions of stripping naked in a family-oriented theme park clearly align with this definition. The location’s public nature and the presence of individuals, including families and children, who might be disturbed or upset by such exposure, categorize this as a clear case of indecent exposure under California law.
• Potential Penalties: Authorities in California typically charge indecent exposure as a misdemeanor. The penalties for a misdemeanor conviction can include imprisonment in county jail for up to six months and a fine of up to $1,000. The law further specifies that indecent exposure can escalate to a felony if the individual has a prior conviction for the same offense or if the act occurs following unauthorized entry into an inhabited dwelling. A felony conviction for indecent exposure can lead to more severe penalties, including state prison time.

Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (California Health and Safety Code 11550)

• Definition: This law defines the offense of being under the influence of a controlled substance in a public place. The law specifically targets individuals found in public settings under the influence of drugs, including narcotics and other controlled substances.
• Application: In the Disneyland incident, if the suspect’s behavior, as reported by the police, indicated impairment due to a controlled substance, this would fall within the scope of Health and Safety Code 11550. The suspect’s actions in a public and family-oriented setting like Disneyland, while allegedly under the influence, would be a clear application of this law.
• Potential Penalties: In California, authorities typically treat a violation of Health and Safety Code 11550 as a misdemeanor. The penalties for such a misdemeanor can include up to one year in county jail and a possible fine. Additionally, the court may order the individual to undergo drug counseling or rehabilitation programs. These penalties aim not only to punish but also to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation and recovery from substance abuse.

Impact on Public and Disneyland

• The incident disrupted the “It’s a Small World” attraction, leading to its temporary closure. This disruption affected both Disneyland’s operations and its visitors. The presence of a streaker in a family-oriented environment like Disneyland could have been particularly distressing for children and other guests.
• The response of Disneyland staff was pivotal in managing the incident and safeguarding guest safety. Their actions helped contain the situation and minimize potential harm to visitors.

The Disneyland streaking case highlights the legal implications of public behavior influenced by substances under California law. It’s crucial for individuals facing similar charges to seek an experienced criminal defense attorney to navigate the legal system. At The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi, we specialize in defending against criminal charges, including public indecency and substance-related offenses. Located in Westside Towers in Los Angeles, we offer flexible scheduling, including consultations for incarcerated individuals. Contact us at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation for expert legal assistance.

Beverly Hills Police took Tiffany Haddish into custody Friday, November 24, 2023, around 5:45 a.m. They responded to a call about a car blocking the road on Beverly Drive near Dayton Way. Officers found Haddish inside the vehicle and suspected her of DUI. This incident follows her previous DUI charge in Georgia, complicating her current legal challenges.

Charges and Penal Codes

• Driving Under the Influence:

  California Vehicle Code 23152(a) prohibits operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Beverly Hills Police arrested Ms. Haddish on suspicion of DUI, aligning with this statute. Officers found her in a car blocking traffic, a key detail in her arrest. The position of her car and her condition at the time are vital in determining a DUI charge. Evidence of impairment, such as results from field sobriety tests, would support this charge. Her prior DUI history could lead to harsher penalties, reflecting California’s strict stance on repeat DUI offenses.

• Obstructing a Roadway:

  Under California Vehicle Code 23152(f), it’s illegal to obstruct a roadway. her recent arrest involved her car blocking traffic, which could lead to charges under this section. The fact that her vehicle was found impeding the flow of traffic is a significant aspect of the case. If proven, this act of obstruction could result in additional legal consequences, complementing the primary DUI charge. This scenario underscores the importance of not only DUI laws but also the broader responsibilities of road safety and traffic regulations.

Connecting the Incident to the Charges

• Evidence of Impairment:

  The DUI charge against Ms. Haddish depends on demonstrating her impairment. The key evidence includes the position of her car, which was blocking traffic, and the results of any field sobriety or breathalyzer tests conducted by the Beverly Hills Police. These tests assess motor skills and cognitive functions, crucial in determining impairment. Positive results indicating impairment would significantly support the DUI charge, especially considering her previous DUI history.

• Previous DUI History:

  Haddish’s prior DUI arrest could significantly impact her current legal situation. Under California law, penalties for DUI offenses often escalate with each subsequent conviction. A previous DUI conviction typically results in harsher consequences for a new offense. In Ms. Haddish’s case, the court will likely consider her past DUI arrest when determining potential penalties if she is convicted of the current charges. This history could influence both the severity of the sentence and the approach taken by the prosecution and defense during legal proceedings.

Legal Analysis

• Repeat Offense Concerns:

  California’s legal system is particularly stringent on repeat DUI offenders. Given her history of a prior DUI arrest, her status as a repeat offender could lead to more severe penalties if convicted in this case. The state’s laws are designed to escalate punishments for multiple DUI convictions, aiming to deter repeat offenses and enhance public safety. This means that she could face increased fines, longer jail time, mandatory DUI education programs, and possibly extended periods of license suspension. The court will likely take her previous DUI conviction into account, which could influence the severity of the sentencing and the overall strategy of both the prosecution and defense.

• Court Process:

  Tiffany Haddish is due in court within 30 days following her arrest. This appearance will involve a review of her arrest details and any evidence of impairment. Plea discussions may also take place, potentially influencing the outcome of the case. If convicted, the court will then determine appropriate sentencing, considering factors like the nature of the offense and her prior DUI history.

Potential Defenses

• Arrest Procedure:

  The defense for Ms. Haddish may question the legality of the traffic stop and subsequent arrest procedure. They could argue that the stop was not conducted in accordance with legal standards or that the arrest lacked sufficient grounds. Challenging these aspects could impact the admissibility of evidence and the overall validity of the charges against her.

• Evidence of Impairment:

  Her defense team might contest the evidence suggesting impairment. This could involve challenging the accuracy and reliability of any sobriety tests conducted during her arrest. The defense may argue that these tests were improperly administered or that their results are not conclusive indicators of impairment. This strategy aims to cast doubt on the key evidence supporting the DUI charge.

Conclusion:

The recent DUI arrest of Tiffany Haddish in Beverly Hills underscores the complexities of DUI cases, particularly for individuals in the public eye. This incident not only highlights the serious legal repercussions of driving under the influence but also emphasizes the need for a thorough understanding of DUI laws and their consequences, especially for those with prior offenses. As this case progresses, it will shed light on the nuances of handling DUI cases involving high-profile figures in the legal system.

If you or someone you know is facing DUI charges, an experienced criminal defense attorney is crucial. At The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi, we specialize in providing robust defense against a variety of criminal charges, including DUI. Our experienced team is dedicated to navigating the complexities of the legal system to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients. Contact us at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation.

Our office is strategically located in Westside Towers in Los Angeles, conveniently accessible from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood, and just a short walk from the Expo/Bundy Station. We offer flexible scheduling options, including consultations for those incarcerated, to address your legal needs effectively.

Photo Credit: (profile view of a man with a hoodie trying to pick a lock in a house and forcing his entry) Via: www.freepik.com

What Constitutes Grand Theft?

In California, the law categorizes theft based on the value and nature of the property someone takes without permission, intending to permanently deprive the owner of its value. The state’s criminal statutes distinguish between “grand theft” and “petty theft,” each carrying different legal implications.

According to California Penal Code 487, grand theft is characterized by the unlawful taking of real or personal property, labor, or money, where the total loss amounts to $950 or more. In contrast, thefts involving losses less than $950 fall under the category of petty theft. This distinction is crucial in understanding the severity and potential legal consequences of theft-related offenses in California.

Types of Grand Theft and Their Specifics

• Theft by Larceny: Taking physical property worth over $950 without consent, intending to keep it permanently.
• Theft by False Pretense: Deceiving someone to hand over property worth more than $950 through fraudulent means.
• Theft by Trick: Using deceit to gain possession of property worth over $950, with the intention of permanent deprivation.
• Theft by Embezzlement: Fraudulently using property worth more than $950 that was entrusted to you.

Legal Implications and Penalties

Grand theft is a “wobbler” in California, meaning it can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, based on the specifics of the case and the defendant’s criminal history.

• Misdemeanor Penalties: Up to one year in county jail.
• Felony Penalties: 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison.
• Restitution: Offenders may be required to pay back the value of what was stolen.
• Aggravated Circumstances: If the stolen property is a firearm, grand theft is automatically a felony, potentially leading to stricter penalties.

Defending Against Grand Theft Charges

Effective defense strategies can involve several methods. You might challenge the property’s estimated value or argue against the intent to steal. Claiming rightful ownership is another option. Also, showing that there was no intent to permanently deprive can be a good defense.

Real-World Examples and Their Implications

1. Larceny: Stealing electronics worth $1,200 could lead to felony charges, with potential state prison time.
2. False Pretense: Convincing someone to hand over a valuable painting through deceit could result in felony charges, especially if the value significantly exceeds $950.
3. Trick: Acquiring a watch worth $1,000 under false pretenses and keeping it could lead to either misdemeanor or felony charges, depending on additional factors.
4. Embezzlement: Diverting $2,000 from a company account for personal use could result in felony charges, with potential state prison time and restitution.

Conclusion

In a shocking turn of events, the Fairfax District of Los Angeles witnessed a violent shooting near The Grove shopping center. This incident, which unfolded in the afternoon hours, has raised numerous legal questions and concerns about public safety. It’s crucial to understand the potential charges and defenses under California law.

The Incident:

On Thursday, November 2, 2023, a confrontation in a parking lot escalated into a shooting, leaving one man hospitalized. Captured on surveillance video, the incident involved a group of men outside the Erewhon grocery store. The dispute quickly turned violent, resulting in gunfire and the suspect fleeing in a black Lamborghini.

Detailed Legal Analysis:

1. Assault with a Deadly Weapon:

   • Overview: Under California Penal Code 245(a)(1), this charge is relevant when an individual uses a firearm or another deadly weapon to assault someone.
   • Application to This Case: The involvement of a firearm in this incident directly aligns with this charge. A conviction could lead to substantial prison time, monetary fines, and potentially a strike under California’s Three Strikes Law.

2. Attempted Murder:

   • Overview: Defined by California Penal Code 664/187(a), this charge is applicable in situations where there is an attempt to kill another person.
   • Application to This Case: Should there be evidence indicating an intent to kill, this grave felony charge may be pursued, potentially resulting in life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.

3. Battery with Serious Bodily Injury:

   • Overview: As per California Penal Code 243(d), this charge is brought forward when an individual causes serious bodily harm to another.
   • Application to This Case: The nature and extent of the victim’s injuries will determine whether this charge is treated as a misdemeanor or a felony.

Potential Defenses:

1. Self-Defense:   Under California law, self-defense is justified when there’s a reasonable belief of imminent danger. If the suspect believed they were in immediate danger, they might use this defense.
2. Defense of Others: This applies if the suspect thought someone else was in immediate danger. The suspect could argue they acted to protect another person.
3. Accidental Shooting: The law may reduce charges for an unintentional firearm discharge. This defense could apply if the shooting was accidental.
4. Mistaken Identity: This defense is used when there’s doubt about the shooter’s identity. The suspect might contend they were wrongly identified.

Conclusion:

The Grove shooting highlights critical issues of gun violence and public safety. If You are facing similar charges Attorney Hashemi bring over 20 years of expertise. Specializing in defending Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Attempted Murder, and Battery with Serious Bodily Injury cases. Our Attorney rigorously examines evidence and explores defenses like self-defense, accidental shooting, or mistaken identity. For expert legal representation, contact us at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation.

The arrest of Dino Rojas-Moreno for Tatum Goodwin’s alleged murder in Laguna Beach marks the beginning of a complex legal case under California law.

The Incident in Detail:

On the morning of November 12, 2023, Tatum Goodwin, a 27-year-old local waitress, was found dead in an alleyway near her workplace. The discovery, made by a construction worker, revealed severe injuries indicative of a violent attack. The Laguna Beach Police Department’s investigation quickly led to the arrest of Dino Rojas-Moreno.

Charges and Penal Codes:

• Murder: Under California Penal Code Section 187(a), murder involves unlawfully killing a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. For Rojas-Moreno’s conviction, the prosecution must show he caused Goodwin’s death intentionally or with reckless disregard for human life, indicating malice.

Connecting the Incident to the Charges:

• Evidence of Malice Aforethought: The key to this charge will be establishing that Rojas-Moreno acted with malice. This could be inferred from the nature of the attack, the relationship between the parties, and any prior interactions or threats.
• Forensic Evidence: Crucial to the case, physical evidence like DNA and fingerprints may link Rojas-Moreno to the crime
• Witness Testimonies: Any eyewitness accounts or testimonies from individuals who saw Rojas-Moreno in the vicinity of the crime scene could strengthen the prosecution’s case.

Defense’s Perspective:

Rojas-Moreno’s defense team may employ several strategies:

• Questioning the Evidence: Challenging the reliability and admissibility of forensic evidence.
• Alibi Defense: Providing evidence that Rojas-Moreno was elsewhere at the time of the murder.
• Mistaken Identity: Argue that the identification of Rojas-Moreno as the perpetrator is incorrect

Legal Defenses:

• Insufficient Evidence: Arguing that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Self-Defense: If applicable, claiming that Rojas-Moreno acted in self-defense, though this seems unlikely given the current details of the case.
• Mental Incapacity: If Rojas-Moreno’s mental state warrants, the defense may consider an insanity or diminished capacity plea

Possible Jail Time and Sentencing Consequences:

If convicted of first-degree murder, Rojas-Moreno could face 25 years to life in prison. The sentence may include life without parole or the death penalty. This depends on case specifics and prosecution choices. A second-degree murder conviction carries a sentence of 15 years to life in prison.

Conclusion:

The Tatum Goodwin case, with its tragic circumstances and the arrest of Dino Rojas-Moreno, underscores the intricate nature of homicide investigations under California law. As this case progresses, it serves not only in the pursuit of justice for Goodwin but also as an important part of the broader conversation on public safety and justice. In these challenging times, our thoughts are with the community and all those affected by this tragedy.

The recent arrest of Loay Alnaji, 50, in connection with the death of Paul Kessler, during a protest in Thousand Oaks, California, has brought involuntary manslaughter charges into sharp focus. This case, emerging from a pro-Israel and pro-Palestine rally, offers a critical lens to examine the complexities of involuntary manslaughter under California law.

Key Case Details:

• Location: Thousand Oaks, California.
• Incident Date: Sunday, Nov. 5, 2023.
• Victim: Paul Kessler, 69, suffered blunt force trauma to the head.
• Suspect: Loay Alnaji, 50, booked for involuntary manslaughter.
• Bail: Set at $1,000,000.

The Incident:

According to the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, during the protest, Kessler was involved in an altercation and fell backward, hitting his head. Initially responsive, he later succumbed to his injuries. The Medical Examiner’s Office ruled the death a homicide, indicating death caused by another person, but not necessarily implying criminal intent.

Legal Analysis: Involuntary Manslaughter in California:

Involuntary manslaughter, under California Penal Code 192(b), is defined as a death resulting from an unlawful act in a negligent manner or during a lawful act in an unlawful manner, without malice aforethought. This distinction from murder is crucial.

Application to Alnaji’s Case:

• Negligence: The focus is on whether Alnaji’s actions constituted criminal negligence, which is more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment.
• Causation: A direct causal link between Alnaji’s actions and Kessler’s death must be established.
• Intent: The absence of intent to kill differentiates involuntary manslaughter from murder, focusing instead on recklessness or carelessness.

Potential Defenses:

• Accident: Alnaji might argue the incident was a tragic accident without negligent or reckless behavior.
• Self-Defense: If applicable, Alnaji could claim his actions were in self-defense.
• Lack of Causation: Challenging the direct link between his actions and Kessler’s death.

Protest-Related Violence and Legal Implications:

This case highlights the legal ramifications of actions during emotionally charged protests. It raises questions about how violence or accidents are treated under the law in such contexts and could influence future protest policing and public policy.

Role of Video Evidence:

Social media and video evidence play a significant role in modern protest movements and legal proceedings, as seen in this case.

Legal Process and Next Steps:

Alnaji faces a legal journey that includes pre-trial hearings and possibly a trial. The timeline and legal challenges ahead will be pivotal in determining the outcome.

Conclusion:

The Thousand Oaks incident is a somber reminder of the consequences of actions during public demonstrations. It underscores the importance of understanding the legal definitions and implications of charges like involuntary manslaughter, especially in the context of public protests.

Anthony Farrer, 35, founder of the Timepiece Gentleman in Beverly Hills, was arrested for his alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme centered around luxury watches. This arrest, marked by Farrer’s lavish lifestyle and extensive social media influence, brings forth critical legal considerations under California law. Our analysis delves into the potential charges and their implications, focusing on the pivotal elements of Farrer’s actions and the accusations against him.

The Incident:

Adrian Burton and Tanganique Bendard are currently facing charges for allegedly orchestrating a theft at a Sephora store located on Garfield Avenue in Alhambra, California. The incident involved the theft of merchandise collectively valued at approximately $10,000.

The Alhambra Police Department quickly apprehended the suspects after the incident. Acting on detailed descriptions and rapid reporting, they arrested the suspects in a nearby area and recovered the stolen goods. This swift action underscores the local authorities’ commitment to addressing retail theft seriously and ensuring legal accountability.

Charges and Penal Codes:

Grand Theft (Penal Code 487): Under California law, grand theft, as defined in Penal Code 487, involves the unlawful taking of property exceeding $950 in value. Burton and Bendard are accused of stealing merchandise collectively valued at around $10,000. This significant amount far exceeds the threshold for grand theft. Making this charge particularly relevant. The high value of the items allegedly stolen from Sephora directly implicates the suspects under this statute, potentially leading to felony charges given the amount involved.

Burglary (Penal Code 459): Burglary, as per Penal Code 459, is defined as entering a building with the intent to commit theft or any felony. If investigations reveal that Burton and Bendard entered the Sephora store with the premeditated intention of stealing, they could face burglary charges. This aspect of the law focuses on the intent at the time of entering the premises. The fact that they allegedly left with a substantial amount of stolen goods could be used to infer this intent. Potentially elevating the legal stakes with a burglary charge.

Conspiracy to Commit a Crime (Penal Code 182): Conspiracy under Penal Code 182 involves two or more persons agreeing to commit a crime and then taking some action towards its commission. If the authorities uncover evidence that Burton and Bendard planned the theft at Sephora in advance, such as coordinating their actions or planning their escape. This could lead to charges of conspiracy. This charge would imply a level of premeditation and collaboration in the execution of the theft. Adding a layer of complexity and severity to their legal situation.

Potential Legal Outcomes:

In California, the legal consequences for grand theft, burglary, and conspiracy are indeed severe, reflecting the state’s commitment to deterring and punishing such crimes. Here’s an explanation of each offense and its potential legal repercussions:

Grand Theft (Penal Code 487): Property theft exceeding $950 triggers the application of this law. A felony grand theft charge can lead to up to three years in county jail. Courts may also impose significant fines. The defendant’s criminal history and the property’s value often determine the punishment’s severity.

Burglary (Penal Code 459): California categorizes burglary into first and second degrees. First-degree, or residential burglary, always counts as a felony, punishable by up to six years in state prison. Second-degree, or commercial burglary, can be a misdemeanor or a felony. This “wobbler” offense can result in one year in jail for a misdemeanor and up to three years for a felony. The burglary’s location and whether it was inhabited influence the charge degree.

Conspiracy (Penal Code 182): Conspiracy involves planning a crime with others and taking some action towards it. Its penalties depend on the planned crime’s nature. Often, conspiracy punishments match those of the intended crime. For example, conspiring to commit grand theft can carry the same severe penalties as grand theft itself.

Defense Strategies:

In these cases, an experienced criminal defense attorney is essential. For grand theft, they might argue against the valuation of the stolen items. If successful, this could reduce the charge from grand theft to petty theft, significantly lessening potential penalties. In burglary cases, attorneys often challenge the assumed intent to steal upon entry, a key element of the charge. Successfully disputing this intent could lead to a dismissal or reduction of the charge.

In conspiracy cases, defense strategies typically focus on disproving any agreement to commit the crime or the defendant’s involvement. This approach can be complex, as conspiracy charges add significant gravity to the case. Additionally, the attorney will meticulously review the evidence collection process. Any procedural errors or violations of legal rights during evidence gathering can lead to the suppression of key evidence.

Conclusion:

The Sephora incident highlights the stringent enforcement of retail theft laws in California. With over 20 years of legal practice, Attorney Arash Hashemi provides skilled representation to those accused of serious offenses. For dedicated defense against such charges, reach out to The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation for expert legal representation.

The Incident:

A tragic collision occurred on Saturday, November 4, around 1:15 a.m. at the intersection of Roscoe Boulevard and Lindley Avenue in Northridge, resulting in the deaths of an off-duty LAPD officer and another individual. Officer Darrell Cunningham, a nearly five-year veteran of the LAPD’s West L.A. Division, and a yet-to-be-named passenger were killed when their Infiniti sedan was struck by a BMW sedan.

The BMW, driven by 20-year-old Brian David Olivarez, was reportedly traveling over 100 miles per hour and ran a red light. An off-duty San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy, also in Cunningham’s vehicle, sustained severe injuries but is expected to survive. Preliminary investigations suggest Olivarez was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash. He remains in critical condition and faces charges of gross vehicular manslaughter, with additional charges pending. Officer Cunningham is survived by his fiancée, two young sons, his mother, and two brothers.

Suspected DUI and Legal Consequences:

If proven, Olivarez’s actions in the Northridge crash—excessive speeding and running a red light while under the influence—may constitute gross negligence. The legal consequences of such a charge are severe, with potential penalties including imprisonment in state prison for 4 to 10 years, substantial fines, the suspension or revocation of driving privileges, and the mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device on any vehicle the offender operates.

Moreover, if Olivarez has prior DUI convictions, he could face even harsher penalties under California’s Three Strikes Law. Additionally, the family of the deceased may pursue a wrongful death civil lawsuit, which could result in significant financial liabilities.

Understanding Vehicular Manslaughter:

In California, the law delineates vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code 191.5(a) PC as a grave felony offense. This statute applies when a person, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, commits an unlawful act that might cause death—such as speeding or running a red light—or a lawful act that might cause death if performed in an unlawful manner. “Gross negligence” surpasses ordinary carelessness or judgment errors, defining an act committed with severe disregard for safety.

Gross negligence involves acting in a way that creates a high risk of great bodily injury or death, with the additional factor that the individual must have known or should have known about that risk. It is this “gross” aspect that elevates the offense to a more serious level compared to ordinary negligence.

The penalties for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated are indeed severe, reflecting the seriousness with which California law treats DUI-related fatalities. Conviction can lead to imprisonment in the state prison for 4 to 10 years. In cases with particularly egregious circumstances, the term could be 15 years to life, especially if the defendant has previous vehicular manslaughter or DUI convictions.

Furthermore, the conviction carries additional consequences, such as the loss of driving privileges, mandatory DUI school, and the possible requirement to pay restitution to the victims’ families. These penalties aim not only to punish but also to deter others from committing similar offenses and to underscore the state’s commitment to road safety.

Legal Defense and Representation:

An experienced criminal defense attorney will carefully review the evidence against Brian David Olivarez, questioning the DUI charges and claims of gross negligence. The lawyer will evaluate the DUI testing process and consider factors like vehicle condition or road status to form a defense strategy.

Conclusion:

The Northridge collision is a reminder of the consequences of driving under the influence. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department posted their condolences to the LAPD and families of Officer Cunningham and the passenger while providing an update on the injured off-duty deputy.

DUI vehicular manslaughter charges carry grave consequences. For those facing similar accusations, contact The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation for expert legal guidance.

The recent Mid-City home invasion, where a homeowner fired on armed intruders, provides a real-world context for understanding California’s self-defense laws. This analysis connects the homeowner’s statements with the relevant legal statutes.

Imminent Threat and the Use of Deadly Force

The Mid-City Resident faced armed trespassers, a direct threat stated in California Penal Code Section 197. This law allows deadly force if one reasonably perceives an immediate risk of death or serious injury. His reported experience, “I felt someone run up behind me. Put a gun to me.” exemplifies the type of situation where this legal protection is applicable.

In assessing the homeowner’s response, the law considers the reasonableness of his belief in the threat posed. Therefore, the presence of a firearm in the hands of the intruders undoubtedly contributed to the perceived immediacy of the threat. California law supports the right to defend oneself in circumstances where delay could result in serious injury or death, validating the homeowner’s rapid defensive action.

Castle Doctrine: The Right to Stand One’s Ground

California’s Castle Doctrine, stated in Penal Code Section 198.5, states that residents need not retreat when facing a home intruder. The homeowner’s declaration, “If anybody else ever tries to come, they’re going to die for trying to come in this house,” is a stark articulation of this legal right. It underscores the doctrine’s allowance for homeowners to use force, even deadly force, in defense against intruders without the obligation to retreat.

This legal provision upholds a homeowner’s right to defend their residence. The homeowner’s words reflect the Castle Doctrine’s purpose: to allow residents to protect their homes firmly. The law recognizes a home’s purity, supporting necessary force to prevent illegal entry.

Proportionality of Response

Conclusion