Los Angeles police arrested Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo for DUI following a collision. Her high BAC and the crash have drawn public attention.

Examining the Incident:

Facing the Charges:

1. DUI (CVC 23152(a)): Police arrested Carrillo on suspicion of DUI, a breach of California Vehicle Code 23152(a), which prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol. Her failed field sobriety test and slurred speech provided probable cause for the arrest.
2. Excessive BAC (CVC 23152(b)): Carrillo’s BAC, reported at over twice the legal limit, which brings Excessive BAC into play. The breathalyzer test results, if properly obtained, will be central to this charge.
3. High BAC Penalties (CVC 23578): With a BAC well over 0.08%, Carrillo could face harsher penalties under California Vehicle Code 23578. A BAC of 0.15% or more can lead to more severe punishment due to the increased risk posed to the public.

Carrillo’s Connection to the Charges:

The crash and the tests link Carrillo to these charges. Her claim “I’m sorry, I sneezed and lost [control] of the vehicle,” does not negate the DUI charges. Her driving, the collision, and her high BAC create a direct link to the charges under California law.

Defense Strategies:

Carrillo’s defense will likely challenge the BAC test’s reliability, suggesting potential errors in the equipment or its handling. They may also question the field sobriety test’s administration, looking for procedural errors that could invalidate the results.

Mitigating factors, such as medical conditions or unusual reactions to alcohol, may be presented to lessen the severity of sentencing. Carrillo’s clean record and public service might be used to argue for leniency, framing the incident as an isolated mistake.

Legal Defense Tactics:

1. Procedural Challenges: The defense will scrutinize the field sobriety and BAC tests for any legal standard deviations.
2. Questioning Probable Cause: They will examine the initial police interaction to challenge the evidence’s basis.
3. Contesting BAC Accuracy: The breathalyzer’s calibration and maintenance records will be under scrutiny to question the BAC findings.

Potential Sentencing Outcomes:

1. Fines: Offenders face fines from $390 to $1,000, which can increase with assessments.
2. DUI Education: Attendance at DUI school is mandatory, with the length depending on BAC levels and the court’s decision.
3. Probation: This may be offered instead of jail, with conditions like avoiding new offenses and abstaining from alcohol while driving.
4. Jail Time: A first DUI offense can result in 48 hours to six months in jail, with longer sentences for higher BACs, accidents, or injuries.

Carrillo’s DUI case underscores the gravity of such offenses, particularly for public figures, and the possibility of enhanced penalties. Anyone facing similar charges should seek an experienced criminal defense attorney.

For experienced  legal representation for DUI charges, contact The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi by calling (310) 448-1529 or scheduling a consultation. Our dedicated attorney will diligently defend your case and guide you through every step of the legal proceedings. Visit us at our Westside Towers office in LA, where we offer flexible scheduling and jail consultations.

In Riverside County, the case of Kendall Clark has become a focal point of legal scrutiny. At 25, Kendall Clark faces 18 felony charges for allegedly masterminding a complex theft ring targeting luxury vehicles.

Detailed Charges Against Clark

Grand Theft Auto Charges

Under the specific provisions of California Penal Code Section 487(d)(1), Kendall Clark faces serious allegations of grand theft auto. Prosecutors accuse Clark of executing a calculated scheme by renting and then failing to return high-end vehicles, including a 2022 Chevrolet Corvette and a 2015 Lamborghini Huracán. They allege that Clark did more than just retain the vehicles; he purportedly engaged in ‘title washing’—fraudulently altering the vehicle’s title documents to mask the ownership history, thereby laundering the vehicles’ legal identities for sale or retention under false pretenses.

Embezzlement Allegations

In line with California Penal Code Section 503, the embezzlement charge against Clark paints a picture of deliberate betrayal. As the narrative goes, Clark rented luxury vehicles under standard commercial agreements with the expectation of return, only to allegedly convert these vehicles for his own use. Prosecutors claim Clark breached the fiduciary trust of the rental companies by converting the vehicles for his own use. The original owners, seeking to reclaim their property, discovered the titles had been unlawfully altered. According to the prosecution, these weren’t clerical errors but deliberate acts of misappropriation, indicating a clear motive and method behind Clark’s alleged embezzlement.

Legal Ramifications and Sentencing Possibilities

Conviction on these charges could lead to severe legal consequences for Clark. Grand theft auto can carry a state prison sentence of up to three years, while embezzlement sentences may vary based on the property’s value. Conspiracy charges could compound the sentence, dependent on the gravity of the planned crimes.

Exploring Defense Strategies

Contesting Alleged Intent

In challenging the grand theft auto charge, the defense is likely to contest the claim of intent. They may argue that Clark had no permanent ownership ambitions for the vehicles in question.

Examining the Embezzlement Accusation

Regarding embezzlement, the defense might scrutinize the alleged fraudulent intent. They could propose that Clark held a bona fide belief in his entitlement to the vehicles.

Conclusion

The case against Kendall Clark underscores the gravity of car theft and embezzlement charges in California. Such serious allegations demand an experienced criminal defense attorney. At The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi we are adept at handling complex cases. If you’re up against similar charges, call (310) 448-1529

Our strategically situated office in the Westside Towers of Los Angeles ensures easy access for clients from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood, with the Expo/Bundy Station just a short walk away. We understand the urgency of legal matters and offer accommodating scheduling options, including consultations for those currently in custody, to discuss the specifics of your case.

Photo Credit: (Free photo wife and husband having a fight) www.freepik.com

Understanding Domestic Violence Laws in California

California’s legal framework has specific provisions addressing domestic violence. One such provision, Penal Code 273.5(a), focuses on the act of causing corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant.

Essential Aspects of Penal Code 273.5(a)

1. Nature of Relationship: The law requires a confirmed domestic relationship between the defendant and the victim. This relationship can be between current or former spouses or those dating.
2. Injury Criteria: The law mandates that the victim must have a visible injury. This injury can range from external wounds to internal ones, like those from strangulation.

Real-life Scenarios

1. A Heated Dispute: Consider a couple returning from an event. They start arguing over trust issues. The husband, in a fit of rage, hurls a vase at his wife, causing a deep cut. Such actions could lead to charges under this provision.
2. A Family Feud: Imagine a family holiday dinner. The wife questions her husband about a dubious text. The argument intensifies, and he grabs her wrist, causing a bruise. Although this might not lead to corporal injury charges due to the minor injury, he could still face domestic battery charges.

Decoding the “Wobbler” Nature of Penal Code 273.5(a)

The unique aspect of Penal Code 273.5(a) is its “wobbler” status. This means the prosecution can classify the offense as either a misdemeanor or a felony. The decision hinges on the incident’s details and the defendant’s previous record.

Misdemeanor Consequences:

1. Jail Time: Those convicted might spend up to one year in a county jail. The duration often depends on the severity of the injury and the judge’s discretion.
2. Probation:  The court might grant misdemeanor probation, also known as summary or informal probation. This could last for up to three years and may come with conditions like attending counseling sessions or community service.
3. Fines: The court might impose financial penalties, and first-time offenders could face fines up to $6,000. However, additional assessments and fees might increase the total amount owed.
4. Restitution: The court may order the defendant to compensate the victim for medical bills, therapy sessions, or other related expenses stemming from the injury.

Felony Consequences:

1. State Prison: A felony conviction can result in a more extended incarceration period, ranging from two to four years in a California state prison.
2. Formal Probation: This is a supervised probation where the defendant might have to regularly report to a probation officer and adhere to stricter conditions.
3. “Strike” on Record: A felony conviction under this code can be considered a “strike” under California’s Three Strikes Law. Accumulating three strikes can lead to life imprisonment.
4. Mandatory Counseling: The court might mandate convicted individuals to attend and complete a one-year batterer’s treatment program to address and rectify violent behaviors.
5. Loss of Rights: Felony convictions can lead to the loss of certain rights, such as the right to own or possess firearms. Additionally, it can have adverse effects on future employment opportunities and housing applications.

Defense Strategies for PC 273.5(a) Charges

Charges under this code can be intimidating. However, a robust defense can change the outcome. Here are some strategies:

1. Questioning Injury Severity: The defense can challenge the injury’s seriousness by examining medical records and expert opinions.
2. Analyzing Relationship Details: The defense might argue that the relationship doesn’t meet the legal criteria.
3. Claiming Self-Defense: If the defendant felt threatened, they might have acted in self-defense. The defense needs to prove the defendant’s genuine belief of danger.
4. Arguing Accidental Injury: If the injury occurred accidentally, the court might reduce or dismiss the charges.
5. Examining Evidence Collection: The defense can question the collection and presentation of evidence.

Penalties for Corporal Injury to a Spouse Convictions

Depending on the specifics of the case and the defendant’s past, the prosecution can classify it as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Misdemeanor Consequences:

• Jail Time: Up to one year in county jail.
• Probation: Possible misdemeanor probation with mandatory counseling.
• Fines: Up to $6,000 for first-time offenders. Higher fines apply for repeat offenders.

Felony Consequences:

• Prison Time: Two to four years in state prison.
• Strikes: A felony conviction can count as a strike under California’s Three Strikes Law.
• Fines: Up to $6,000.

Seek Expert Legal Counsel

If you or someone you know faces charges of corporal injury to a spouse, ensure your rights are protected with an experienced criminal attorney. The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi offers extensive experience in such cases. Located conveniently in Westside Towers in LA, we’re here to help. Call us at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation.

CALABASAS, CA — Former NFL star Terrell Owens became the focal point of a legal incident in Calabasas. On October 16, after a disagreement post a basketball game, an individual reportedly targeted Owens with his car, specifically aiming for his knee. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provided a statement on the matter: “As the suspect left the location, he struck Mr. Owens on the left knee with the vehicle. He then drove away and out of view. Mr. Owens was not injured and declined medical treatment.”

The Sheriff’s Department is currently investigating this incident as an “assault with a deadly weapon.”

California Penal Code: Understanding Assault with a Deadly Weapon

In California, Penal Code Section 245(a)(1) defines assault with a deadly weapon (ADW) as an act where an individual uses a deadly weapon or force, which is likely to result in significant bodily harm. Notably, a vehicle, when used with the intent to harm, can be classified as a deadly weapon under this code.

Conviction under ADW can lead to:

• Misdemeanor ADW: Penalties can include up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000.
• Felony ADW: The accused might face a prison term ranging from two to four years and/or fines up to $10,000.

The nature of the weapon, the severity of injuries inflicted, and the intent behind the act play pivotal roles in determining the charge’s gravity.

The act of leaving the scene, as indicated by the quote, can further complicate the legal scenario. In California, hit-and-run offenses, especially those involving injuries, can lead to additional charges and penalties. If proven that the suspect intentionally hit Owens and then fled, it could be seen as an act of evading responsibility, which the courts often view unfavorably.

Defense Strategies: Navigating Vehicle Assault Cases

In serious cases like this, a strong defense strategy is essential. An experienced criminal defense attorney would:

• Review All Evidence: This includes CCTV footage, eyewitness accounts, and any other pertinent evidence.
• Determine Motive and Intent: A deep dive into the events leading up to the incident can offer invaluable context.
• Evaluate Owens’ Role: Any evidence suggesting Owens might have played a part in escalating the situation becomes critical.
• Interrogate Eyewitnesses: Detailed questioning can reveal inconsistencies in their accounts.

Conclusion

The incident involving Terrell Owens in Calabasas underscores the intricate nature of assault with a deadly weapon charges in California. When such incidents occur, understanding the legal intricacies becomes paramount.

For those navigating similar legal challenges, The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi provides exceptional legal expertise. Contact us at (310) 870-2400 or schedule a consultation. Our LA office, situated in Westside Towers, is conveniently accessible from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood.

MALIBU, CA — A heart-wrenching collision on the Pacific Coast Highway has resulted in the deaths of four Pepperdine University sorority sisters. The incident unfolded around 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17, near the 21600 block of PCH by Carbon Canyon. Fraser Bohm, 22, was at the wheel of a red BMW the evening after celebrating his 22nd birthday. He reportedly lost control, veering into three parked vehicles, as detailed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The university confirmed the identities of the victims in a statement, naming them as Niamh Rolston, Peyton Stewart, Asha Weir, and Deslyn Williams. All four were seniors at Seaver College of Liberal Arts.

Charges Loom for Bohm: Unraveling the Legal Accusations

Authorities were prompt in their response, leveling charges of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence against Bohm, as outlined in California Penal Code 191.5(a). This charge is more intricate than typical accident-related offenses. It suggests a heightened level of recklessness on Bohm’s part. Historically, in California, such charges have been levied in cases where the defendant’s actions were not just negligent but egregiously so, indicating a blatant disregard for the safety of others. Given established legal standards, the defense must intensively challenge the gross negligence factor to achieve a lesser charge or acquittal.

The High Stakes: Understanding the Potential Penalties

The stakes are high for Bohm. A conviction for vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence in California can lead to severe penalties. Bohm could face up to 10 years in state prison for each count, amounting to a potential 40 years. Additionally, he might be liable for fines up to $10,000 for each count.

Bohm’s Immediate Aftermath: Arrest and Allegations

Bohm was promptly arrested at the crash scene on Tuesday night. However, he was released from the Lost Hills police station in the early hours of Wednesday after being charged. Notably, Bohm has no prior criminal record.

Eyewitness accounts add another layer to the narrative. Some claim that Bohm attempted to flee the scene post-collision. It took the intervention of students from the nearby Pepperdine Sigma Chi fraternity to prevent his escape, as they reportedly “tackled him down.” Sheriff’s Sgt. Maria Navarro provided some clarity regarding the potential influence of alcohol, stating it wasn’t believed to be a factor. This conclusion was drawn after officers conducted a field sobriety test on Bohm. The City of Malibu has since released a statement attributing the crash to a “speeding motorist.”

Crafting a Defense: Key Strategies in High-Profile Cases

For such profound implications, a defense strategy is paramount. An experienced criminal defense attorney would:

• Thoroughly Examine Evidence: Reviewing all evidence, including CCTV recordings and forensic analyses.
• Evaluate External Influences: Arguing potential contributing factors like road conditions or vehicle defects.
• Analyze Bohm’s Mental State: Using evidence of emotional or mental distress to argue for reduced charges.
• Interrogate Eyewitnesses: Identifying inconsistencies or contradictions in their accounts.

Conclusion

The Pacific Coast Highway incident involving Fraser Bohm highlights the complexities of vehicular manslaughter cases in California. The legal system often imposes extensive ramifications for such incidents, especially when alleging gross negligence.

At The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi, we have a deep understanding of criminal law. If facing vehicular manslaughter charges or other criminal allegations, expert legal representation is crucial. Contact us at (310) 870-2400 or schedule a consultation. Our office in Westside Towers in LA is easily accessible from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood.

Alfred Labrada, a seasoned officer with the Los Angeles Police Department and a 30-year veteran, has been put on leave following allegations of stalking. Assistant Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, Labrada faces claims that he stalked a female colleague by planting an Apple AirTag tracking device in her luggage. These allegations have led to significant changes at the top of the department, with the LAPD’s decision to place Labrada on leave and consider potential termination underscoring the gravity of the situation.

California’s Stance on Stalking:

California’s Penal Code Section 646.9 defines stalking. It occurs when someone intentionally and maliciously harasses another, posing a credible threat. This threat aims to make the person fear for their safety or their family’s safety. The code elaborates:

• Harassment: It means taking deliberate actions that seriously upset, annoy, or scare a specific person without a valid reason. Using tracking devices, such as Apple’s AirTag, to monitor someone’s movements can be considered a form of harassment, especially if done without the person’s knowledge or consent.
• Course of Conduct: It refers to two or more actions over a short time, showing ongoing intent. This definition excludes actions protected by the Constitution.
• Credible Threat: It can be a spoken, written, or electronic threat. The goal is to make the person fear for their or their family’s safety. In the context of the AirTag, the act of tracking someone covertly can be seen as a credible threat to their safety, even if no explicit threat was made. Proving the intent to act on the threat isn’t necessary.

Breaking this code can result in jail time, fines, or both. If the accused has an active restraining order against them, penalties can increase.

What This Means for Labrada and the LAPD:

Although details of Labrada’s alleged actions remain hidden, the LAPD’s decision shows they take these allegations seriously. The department remains committed to upholding the law, no matter the officer’s rank or experience.

Possible Legal Defenses:

Labrada’s defense team has a tough road ahead. They might consider defenses such as:

• Mistaken Identity: Labrada’s high position could make him a target for false claims.
• No Credible Threat: The defense could argue Labrada’s actions didn’t pose a real threat.
• Insufficient Evidence: They might claim there isn’t enough proof to back the stalking allegations.

Conclusion:

LAPD Assistant Chief Alfred Labrada faces allegations of stalking and harassment. These claims highlight the need for an experienced criminal defense attorney, especially for high-profile figures.

Stalking cases, like Labrada’s involving an Apple AirTag, present unique challenges. The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi specializes in such cases, ensuring thorough defense. If facing similar allegations, contact us at (310) 870-2400 for expert counsel. Our LA office is near Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood.

The hip-hop world and legal community alike were stunned when news broke: Duane Keith “Keefe D” Davis was arrested in connection with the 1996 murder of rap icon Tupac Shakur. This case, which has remained one of music’s most enduring mysteries, offers a unique intersection of entertainment and law.

The Unresolved Crime

In September 1996, the music industry was rocked by the tragic shooting of Tupac Shakur in Las Vegas. After a physical altercation with Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson, Tupac and Suge Knight were ambushed in a drive-by shooting. Tupac succumbed to his injuries days later. For years, the case remained one of the most high-profile unsolved crimes. Fast forward to 2023, and with the arrest of Davis, there’s renewed interest and hope for answers.

Public Confessions: Implications in Court

Davis’s memoir, “Compton Street Legend” provided more than just a narrative of his life. It inadvertently offered potential evidence. He admitted to being present in the Cadillac from which the fatal shots were fired. Legally, an admission, especially in a public domain, can be a powerful piece of evidence. In California, admissions made in public forums, such as books or interviews, can be admissible in court. When these admissions align with known facts of a case, they can become pivotal pieces of evidence. However, such statements can also be a double-edged sword, drawing legal scrutiny.

Statute of Limitations and Evidence

While the crime occurred in Nevada, it’s worth noting that both Nevada and California have no statute of limitations for murder. This absence means that even decades later, if new evidence emerges or if there’s a fresh perspective on existing evidence, arrests can be made. However, the defense might challenge the reliability of evidence given the time elapsed. They could argue that memories have faded, and the integrity of physical evidence might have been compromised over the years.

Potential Defense Strategies

An experienced criminal defense attorney will meticulously scrutinize all evidence, especially when there’s a significant gap between the crime and the arrest. The reasons behind Davis’s admission of being at the crime scene will be probed. Was it a genuine confession or a marketing strategy for his book? Furthermore, if there were others in the Cadillac that night, their identities and roles could introduce additional layers of complexity to the defense’s approach.

Broader Implications

Davis’s arrest doesn’t just concern him. If he was in the car, who else was? And what roles did they play? The law is clear: accomplices or conspirators can face similar charges as the primary offender. This arrest could be the first domino in a series of legal actions.

The Value of Expert Legal Counsel

Recent updates in the Tupac Shakur case are complex. Cold cases with iconic figures are challenging. This case underscores the quest for justice. It also highlights the statute of limitations. If facing a historical criminal case, seek expert legal help.

At The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi we pride ourselves on our deep understanding of criminal law and our commitment to defending our clients’ rights. For a consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, contact us at (310) 870-2400 or schedule a consultation with our team.

Our office is conveniently located in Westside Towers in LA, our premises are a short distance from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood, and just steps from the Expo/Bundy Station. We offer flexible scheduling  for those incarcerated and jail consultations concerning your case.

Mikey Williams, known for his standout performances at San Ysidro High School and his commitment to the University of Memphis, is currently facing legal challenges that have thrust him into a different kind of spotlight. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the felony gun charges, associated penal codes, and the incident that has become a significant talking point in the sports world.

The Incident in Detail

On the night of March 27, an altercation occurred at Williams’ residence in Jamul, CA. Three juveniles testified about the threats they received from Williams. Moments later, the Tesla they were in was hit by gunfire. While no one in the car was injured, the vehicle showed clear signs of bullet damage.

Charges and Penal Codes

• Assault with a Firearm (Five Counts): Under California Penal Code Section 245(a)(2), “assault with a firearm” is defined as having both the intent and the capability to harm someone using a firearm. It’s not merely about possession, but about the intent and means to use it harmfully. Facing five counts indicates the serious nature of these allegations against Mikey Williams.
• Shooting at an Occupied Vehicle (One Count): Per California Penal Code Section 246, discharging a firearm at a vehicle with people inside is deemed a serious violation, even if no one is injured. The very act carries significant risks, which the law seeks to address. The evidence from the damaged Tesla in Williams’ case could play a critical role in substantiating this charge.

Connecting the Incident to the Charges

• Assault with a Firearm: The basis for this charge stems from the statements made by the juveniles. California law requires both an intent to harm and the immediate capability to do so with a firearm. Even though no one reported seeing Williams fire the gun, some did state they saw him holding one, making them feel under threat. This perception of danger is crucial to the charge.
• Shooting at an Occupied Vehicle: The damaged Tesla is the primary piece of evidence supporting this charge. Bullet marks on the car provide clear evidence that shots were fired at it. According to Penal Code Section 246, firing at a vehicle with people inside is a violation, emphasizing the risks such actions pose, irrespective of whether anyone was hurt. The connection here is direct: the damaged vehicle ties back to the incident and supports this specific charge.

Defense’s Perspective

Williams’ defense attorney, Troy Owens, has raised questions about the direct evidence linking Williams to the shooting. He also introduced the possibility of self-defense, suggesting that Williams might have felt threatened, leading to the incident. However, prosecutors have dismissed these self-defense claims.

Legal Defenses

Given the nature of the case, several legal defenses might be explored:

1. Lack of Direct Evidence: The defense could argue that there’s no direct evidence linking Williams to the shooting.
2. Self-Defense: The possibility that Williams acted in self-defense might be further explored, especially if there were threats or provocations.
3. Witness Credibility: Given the conflicting testimonies, the defense might challenge the credibility of the witnesses.

Possible Jail Time and Sentencing Consequences

If found guilty of the felony gun charge and other counts, Williams might serve a 28-year sentence. His youth and emerging basketball career make the case’s outcome particularly significant.

Conclusion

The case surrounding Mikey Williams underscores the legal intricacies of felony gun charges in the context of sports celebrities. It showcases the challenges of merging public figures’ actions with potential legal consequences. If you or someone you know faces similar charges, expert defense is paramount. At The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi, we excel in defending against various criminal accusations. For an experienced criminal defense attorney, reach out to us at (310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation with our team.

Our office is conveniently located in Westside Towers in LA, our premises are a short distance from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood, and just steps from the Expo/Bundy Station. We offer flexible scheduling  for those incarcerated and jail consultations concerning your case.

Riverside County sheriff’s deputy Christian Heidecker’s case has drawn widespread attention. He faces 18 charges, including sexual assault, extortion, and bribery. These charges arise from his dealings with women in a home electronic detention program in California. Let’s explore the case’s key aspects.

The Charges: Sexual Assault, Extortion, and Bribery

Engaging in Sexual Acts Without Consent as a Detention Officer (Penal Code 289.6 PC – Sex with an Inmate): Christian Heidecker is charged under California Penal Code 289.6 PC. This charge arises from allegations that he engaged in non-consensual sexual acts with inmates under his supervision. The prosecution asserts that Heidecker abused his position of power to exploit vulnerable individuals in custody. If convicted, the consequences can be severe.

Engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with a detainee can lead to jail. The punishment is up to one year in county jail. Alternatively, it could be 16 months, two, or three years in state prison. Additionally, they may be required to register as a sex offender.

Extortion (Penal Code 518): Heidecker allegedly threatened to release explicit photos or videos of the victims unless they complied with his demands. A conviction under Penal Code 518 could result in imprisonment and substantial fines.

Bribery (Penal Code 67 & 68): Heidecker is also charged with bribery under Penal Codes 67 & 68. Suggesting that he might have exchanged explicit photos or videos as bribes. A conviction could lead to imprisonment and significant fines.

• According to Penal Code 67.5(a), offering a bribe to a ministerial officer or employee of the State of California, if the value of the bribe would be considered petty theft, is a misdemeanor.
• If the value of the bribe would be considered grand theft, as per Penal Code 67.5(b), the offense is a felony and is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

Key Moments and Evidence

• Days before Heidecker’s charges, three victims claim that county officials offered them compensation ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 for the acts committed against them.
• The women felt pressured into accepting these payoffs, fearing repercussions like returning to jail.
• One of the victims, a 36-year-old Coachella Valley woman, alleges that Heidecker forced her to send images of her feet and engaged in sexually inappropriate conversations.
• The same woman mentioned that after Heidecker’s sudden replacement on Sept. 7, she was interviewed by two detectives about the deputy’s behavior on Sept. 13. She felt pressured to sign a document offering her compensation, which was increased from $1,000 to $2,000 when she hesitated.
• A major revelation is that Heidecker allegedly deleted texts from his county phone. This was before uploading them to the county server.

The Defense’s Perspective

Heidecker’s defense team is expected to challenge the evidence. They may question witness statements’ reliability. Additionally, they might probe Heidecker’s mental state during the incidents.

Legal Defenses

Given the nature of the charges and the evidence presented, Heidecker’s defense team might employ several legal defenses, including:

1. Challenges to Evidence:  The defense may contest the chain of custody for physical evidence, the reliability of witness statements, or the legality of search and seizure procedures.
2. Mental State or Capacity:  The defense might argue that Heidecker was suffering from a mental disorder or emotional distress that impaired his judgment.
3. Lack of Intent: For the bribery charge, the defense might claim that Heidecker did not exchange explicit photos or videos with the intent of bribery.

Conclusion:

The case around Christian Heidecker highlights the legal repercussions of abuse of power and bribery. It underscores the challenges within law enforcement. If you or someone you know faces similar charges, expert defense is vital. At The Law Offices Of Arash Hashemi, we specialize in defending various criminal charges. Talk to an experienced criminal defense attorney, contact us today at (310) 448-1529. Schedule a consultation with our team. Located in Westside Towers in LA, our office is minutes from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and offer weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail for consultation on your case.

Photo credit: @ASphotofamily Via Freepik

On the 57 Freeway in Pomona, a DUI crash resulted in the tragic death of a 12-year-old boy. The suspected driver was his father, 33-year-old Ignacio Vazquez. Incidents like these highlight the serious legal consequences of impaired driving in California. This article examines the potential legal ramifications, referencing California’s manslaughter statutes

Manslaughter vs. Murder

In California, a DUI incident resulting in death can lead to manslaughter or murder charges, based on the case details. The primary distinction lies in the intent and prior knowledge of the risks involved:

• Manslaughter: This is a charge for unintentional killings. Regarding DUI, “vehicular manslaughter” describes negligent actions without intent to kill by the driver.
• Murder: This charge arises when a driver, aware of DUI dangers from a prior conviction, drives recklessly anyway.

Father’s Potential Charges:

1. Driving Under the Influence (Vehicle Code Section 23152):

“A person is guilty of a public offense, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or confinement in a county jail for not more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) if that person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153…” 

If the father drove under the influence during the crash, he might face charges under this section.

2. DUI Resulting in Bodily Injury (Vehicle Code Section 23153):

“If any person is convicted of a first violation of Section 23153, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not less than 90 days nor more than one year, and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

If the father’s impaired driving caused his son’s injury or death, he might face this charge. The penalties are more severe than a standard DUI due to the injury or fatality involved.

3. Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (Penal Code 191.5(b)):

This charge applies to DUI incidents causing death due to negligence, not gross negligence. If the father’s actions while driving under the influence led to the unfortunate death of his son, he could potentially face this charge.

4. Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (Penal Code 191.5(a)):

If the father acted with gross negligence, causing his son’s death, he could face this stricter charge.

5. Second-Degree “Watson” Murder (Penal Code 187):

If the father had prior knowledge of the risks of DUI (typically from a previous DUI conviction and attending DUI school) and still chose to drive under the influence, leading to a fatal accident, he could potentially face this charge.

6. Elevated Blood Alcohol Concentration (Vehicle Code Section 23578):

“If an individual is convicted under Section 23152 or 23153, the court may consider a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 percent or higher, or the refusal to take a breath or urine test, as grounds for increased penalties.”

If the father in the Pomona case had a notably high blood alcohol level, he might face heightened legal consequences.

7. Willful Infliction of Corporal Injury (Penal Code Section 273.5):

“(a) Any person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a victim described in subdivision (b) is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.”

If the father had physically harmed his son or another family member in addition to the DUI incident, he could potentially face charges under this section.

Defenses to Manslaughter Charges

In DUI-related manslaughter cases, an experienced criminal defense attorney can use various strategies to protect their client.

1. Lack of Negligence: The attorney may present evidence or arguments to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions, while perhaps mistaken, did not rise to the level of negligence or gross negligence required for a manslaughter conviction.

2. Absence of Intoxication: Through toxicology reports, witness testimonies, or other relevant evidence, the defense can assert that the defendant was not impaired or under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the incident.

3. Challenges to the Arrest Procedure: The defense might scrutinize the methods used during DUI testing or point out procedural errors. Violations of a defendant’s rights, like neglecting Miranda rights or mishandling evidence, can challenge the arrest or evidence

The incident on the 57 Freeway serves as a stark reminder of the dire consequences of driving under the influence. If you find yourself facing similar charges, it’s crucial to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney. At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we offer expert legal defense on DUI-related charges. Contact us today at (310) 448-1529 to schedule a consultation.

The Los Angeles County has recently adopted the “zero-bail policy,” a significant judicial reform that impacts the pre-arraignment process.

Understanding the Zero-Bail Policy

The zero-bail policy has been introduced to address the inherent inequities of the bail system. Particularly its disproportionate impact on economically disadvantaged individuals. Under this policy:

• Certain non-violent and non-serious offenses may not necessitate the accused to post bail for pre-arraignment release.
• The policy is rooted in the principle that “in our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial is the carefully limited exception.”

Specifics of the Policy

1. Non-Violent, Non-Serious Offenses: Offenses that qualify for this category include most theft offenses, vehicle code violations, and offenses against property such as petty theft and vandalism.
2. Serious or Violent Offenses: Offenses involving serious or violent felonies and domestic violence offenses are not eligible for non-financial terms of release prior to arraignment as per Penal Code section 1270.1. This includes offenses like capital crimes such as murder with special circumstances.
3. Felony Arrests on Supervision or Parole: Individuals in this category will require a magistrate’s review before any decision on release is made.

Public Safety and the Zero-Bail Policy

The policy is meticulously designed, keeping public safety at its forefront. Decisions regarding release will be based on an individual’s risk to the community and their likelihood of returning to court. It aims to ensure that decisions are made based on safety and fairness, rather than financial capability.

Why Having an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Matters

With this new policy, things might get a bit tricky. If you or someone you know gets arrested:

1. Understanding Your Rights: An attorney can help you understand what the zero-bail policy means for you.
2. Navigating the System: The legal system can be confusing. An attorney can guide you through the process.
3. Fighting for Fair Treatment: If you believe you should be released without bail or feel you’re being treated unfairly, an attorney can advocate for you.

The Role of a Criminal Defense Attorney

In the context of the zero-bail policy, the role of an experienced criminal defense attorney becomes even more crucial:

1. Legal Expertise: The policy introduces nuances that require a deep understanding of the legal landscape. A criminal defense attorney can provide clarity on these matters, ensuring that individuals are well-informed about their rights.
2. Navigating the System: With the introduction of this policy, navigating the legal system can become complex. An attorney ensures all legal protocols are followed and upholds the accused’s rights.
3. Advocacy and Representation: In situations where there might be disputes or concerns about bail and release, a criminal defense attorney stands as a pillar of support, representing the individual and advocating for their best interests.

In conclusion, the zero-bail policy in L.A. County signifies a transformative shift in the pre-arraignment process. For residents of California, staying informed and seeking an experienced criminal defense attorney becomes paramount in navigating this new legal system.

If you or a loved one are impacted by the recent changes in L.A. County’s zero-bail policy and need expert legal defense, don’t hesitate to contact our experienced team at The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

The Amie Harwick case has garnered significant attention due to the shocking and tragic nature of the incident. The charges brought against Gareth Pursehouse are one count each of murder and first-degree residential burglary in the death of 38-year-old Amie Harwick on February 15, 2020. This incident unfolded in California, and we will delve into the key aspects of the case.

The Charges: Murder and First-Degree Residential Burglary

Murder (Penal Code 187):

Gareth Pursehouse faces a murder charge under California Penal Code 187. This charge stems from allegations that he took deliberate actions leading to the tragic death of Amie Harwick. The prosecution contends that Pursehouse engaged in a premeditated act when he decided to end Harwick’s life. According to their argument, he meticulously planned and executed the murder by breaking into her residence, waiting for hours, physically assaulting her, and ultimately throwing her off the third-floor balcony. The special circumstance allegation of murder while lying in wait further intensifies the charge, potentially subjecting Pursehouse to a life prison sentence without parole if convicted.

First-Degree Residential Burglary (Penal Code 459):

Pursehouse also faces a charge of first-degree residential burglary in accordance with California Penal Code 459. This charge is rooted in the assertion that he unlawfully entered Amie Harwick’s home with the intent to commit a felony or theft. The specific intent behind this entry was to confront or harm Harwick. The first-degree designation is due to the fact that the burglary occurred within a dwelling, which is a more serious offense than entering a non-residential property.

The Prosecution’s Case

During the trial, prosecutors argued that Pursehouse had planned to end Harwick’s life. They alleged that he broke into her home, waited for several hours, physically attacked her, and ultimately threw her off the third-floor balcony. Evidence showed Pursehouse’s anger after Harwick’s rejection and her fear conveyed in text messages and emails to friends.

Key Pieces of Evidence

Several pieces of evidence were presented during the trial, including:

1. Text messages and emails indicating Harwick’s fear of Pursehouse.
2. A syringe found on the balcony containing a lethal dose of nicotine, which the defense claimed was not intended as a weapon.
3. Autopsy results that revealed blunt force injuries and evidence of manual strangulation as the cause of Harwick’s death.

The Defense’s Perspective

Pursehouse’s defense countered by suggesting that he lost control of his emotions and impulsively broke into Harwick’s home to talk with her. They emphasized that he was in a state of emotional upheaval after a chance encounter with Harwick. Which had a profound impact on him. The defense argued that his actions were not premeditated, and his primary goal was not to cause her harm.

Legal Defenses

In the Amie Harwick case, an experienced criminal defense attorney will play a crucial role in the proceedings. The defendant will likely rely on a defense strategy to counter the charges brought against him. Which include murder and first-degree residential burglary. Here are potential legal defenses that may come into play:

1. Self-Defense or Lack of Premeditation: Pursehouse’s defense team may argue that he did not have the intent to commit murder and that his actions were prompted by a perceived threat or confrontation. The attorney might assert that the incident was not premeditated. That Pursehouse acted in self-defense or without a prior plan to harm Amie Harwick.

2. Challenges to Evidence: Pursehouse’s defense team may challenge the validity or admissibility of certain evidence presented by the prosecution. This could include contesting the chain of custody for physical evidence, the reliability of witness statements, or the legality of search and seizure procedures.

3. Mental State or Capacity: The defense might explore Pursehouse’s mental state at the time of the incident. They could argue that he was suffering from a mental disorder or emotional distress that impaired his judgment.

4. Accident or Lack of Intent: For the first-degree residential burglary charge, Pursehouse’s defense might claim that he did not enter Amie Harwick’s home with the intent to commit a felony or harm her. They could assert that his actions were accidental or driven by other motives not related to criminal intent.

Possible Jail Time and Sentencing Consequences

Murder Charge (Penal Code 187):

Murder is a grave offense in California. Pursehouse is facing a murder charge with a special circumstance. If convicted of first-degree murder with the special circumstance allegation, Gareth Pursehouse could face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Which is the most severe punishment for murder in California.

First-Degree Residential Burglary Charge (Penal Code 459):

First-degree residential burglary is a felony charge with serious legal implications. If convicted of first-degree residential burglary, the defendant may face a state prison sentence. The length of the sentence will depend on factors such as prior criminal history and the circumstances of the crime.

Conclusion

The case is now in the hands of the jury. The jury must carefully consider all the evidence and arguments presented during the trial. This verdict will either find Pursehouse guilty of murder and burglary or acquit him of these serious charges. An experienced criminal defense attorney will play a crucial role in this challenging legal battle. If  find yourself navigating the complexities of murder and first-degree residential burglary charges, don’t hesitate to reach out to our legal team at The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

In a tragic incident that unfolded in Jurupa Valley, California, a driver and his passenger are facing serious legal consequences following a fatal collision. On Wednesday, September 20, a car struck and killed 42-year-old Jamie Pruitt in the 5000 block of Mission Boulevard. This unfortunate event led to the arrest of the driver, 23-year-old Jose Manuel Aguilar-Acosta, and his passenger, 24-year-old Erika Guevara. The charges brought against Jose Manuel Aguilar-Acosta are one count of gross vehicular manslaughter and one count of fleeing the scene of a traffic collision involving death. Erika Guevara has been charged with being an accessory after the fact.

Jose Manuel Aguilar-Acosta’s Charges

Gross Vehicular Manslaughter (Penal Code 192(c)(1)):
Gross vehicular manslaughter is a serious offense in California. It occurs when an individual, while operating a vehicle, unintentionally causes the death of another person due to reckless driving. In this case, Jose is accused of hitting Jamie Pruitt with his car, resulting in his tragic death.

Fleeing the Scene of a Traffic Collision Involving Death (Penal Code 20001):
Fleeing the scene of an accident, especially one involving a fatality, is a grave violation of the law. Penal Code 20001 makes it clear that a driver involved in an accident must stop and provide assistance to any injured parties. Leaving the scene can lead to severe consequences, as Jose is now facing this charge.

Erika Guevara’s Charges

Erika Guevara, as the passenger in the car driven by Jose, also faces legal repercussions. She has been charged with being an accessory after the fact.

California Penal Code Section 32 PC: Accessory After The Fact:
Being an accessory after the fact involves assisting someone who has committed a crime, with the knowledge that they have done so. In this case, Erika may have taken actions to aid Jose after the collision or might have possessed knowledge of his involvement in the incident.

Evidence Presented in Court

During the legal proceedings, both the prosecution and the defense will present various forms of evidence to support their arguments. In the case of Jose and Erika, evidence that can be presented includes:

Witness Testimonies: Eyewitness accounts can provide crucial information about the events leading up to and following the collision. These testimonies may shed light on Jose’s actions, Erika’s involvement, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Accident Reconstruction: Experts in accident reconstruction may be called upon to analyze the collision. They use scientific methods to recreate the accident and provide insights into factors such as vehicle speed, impact angles, and potential contributing factors.

Possible Jail Time and Sentencing Consequences

Gross Vehicular Manslaughter (Penal Code 192(c)(1)):

Gross vehicular manslaughter is a serious felony offense in California.
Possible Penalty: Up to six years of state prison time.
Additional Sentencing Enhancements: Depending on the case’s circumstances, such as prior convictions or other charges, the sentence may be extended.

Fleeing the Scene of a Traffic Collision Involving Death (Penal Code 20001):

Leaving the scene of an accident involving a fatality is also a serious offense.
Possible Penalty: Up to four years in state prison.
Additional Consequences: Jose may also face fines and a driver’s license suspension.

California Penal Code Section 32 PC: Accessory After The Fact:
Being an accessory after the fact can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony in California, depending on the circumstances.
Misdemeanor Penalty: Up to one year in county jail, fines, and probation.
Felony Penalty: Up to three years in state prison, fines, and probation.

Legal Defenses

In any criminal case, an experienced criminal defense attorney plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights of the accused. In this case, potential defenses for Jose and Erika could include:

Accidental Killing: If the defense can demonstrate that Jamie Pruitt’s death was truly accidental and not a result of gross negligence or recklessness, it could mitigate the charges.

Lack of Knowledge: Erika Guevara’s defense might argue that she had no knowledge of Jose’s actions or involvement in the collision, thus negating the accessory after the fact charge.

Other Exculpatory Evidence: The defense may present additional evidence, such as alibis or surveillance footage, to challenge the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

Jose Manuel Aguilar-Acosta and Erika Guevara are now navigating a complex legal process. Facing charges that could significantly impact their futures. As this case unfolds, it underscores the importance of understanding the legal implications of vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and aiding and abetting a suspect.

The court will rely on evidence, expert testimonies, and the proper interpretation of the law to determine the outcome of this tragic incident. An experienced criminal defense attorney and the exploration of viable defenses will play a crucial role in this challenging legal battle. Should you or anyone you know require assistance in navigating the complexities of vehicular manslaughter charges, don’t hesitate to reach out to our legal team at The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

Isaac Jacob Galvan finds himself entangled in serious legal troubles. The former Compton City Councilman is facing grave allegations related to a bribery scheme concerning marijuana permits. Isaac Galvan, along with Arcadia businessman Yichang Bai, face a 10-count indictment.

The Allegations:

The indictment suggests that Galvan and Bai engaged in a scheme to influence Ricardo Pacheco, then a Baldwin Park councilman, with monetary bribes in exchange for securing marijuana permits. This alleged corruption casts a shadow over the integrity of the permitting process. Both Galvan and Bai were charged with one count of conspiracy, one count of bribery and eight counts of honest services wire fraud.

The Charges:

Conspiracy (Penal Code Section 182):
Conspiracy is a criminal offense involving individuals conspiring to commit unlawful acts. In Galvan’s case, it implies a deliberate agreement and coordinated effort to carry out illegal activities, including the bribery scheme and acts of fraudulent wire communication.

Isaac Galvan stands accused of conspiracy under California Penal Code Section 182. The conspiracy charge alleges that Galvan actively collaborated with others in orchestrating illicit activities, specifically, bribery and honest services wire fraud.

Bribery (Penal Code Section 86):
Bribery entails offering something of value with the intention of influencing the actions or decisions of a public official. In this instance, Galvan is accused of providing financial incentives to Ricardo Pacheco, a public official, to sway his decisions in favor of granting marijuana permits. Such actions subvert the integrity of public office and the fairness of decision-making.

Isaac Galvan faces a bribery charge, governed by California Penal Code Section 86. This charge revolves around allegations that Galvan offered bribes amounting to $70,000 to a public official in exchange for the official’s support and votes concerning marijuana permits.

Honest Services Wire Fraud (Penal Code Section 1343):
Honest services wire fraud involves the use of electronic communications, such as phone calls or emails, to advance fraudulent schemes that undermine the public’s trust in honest and impartial services from public officials. In Galvan’s case, it is alleged that wire communications were employed to facilitate the bribery scheme, thus breaching the trust of his constituents.

Isaac Galvan is up against eight counts of honest services wire fraud. An offense spelled out in California Penal Code Section 1343. These charges revolve around deceitful actions carried out through wire communications, all aimed at undermining the public’s trust in fair and unbiased services.

Galvan’s Role:

In August 2017, Galvan purportedly paid Pacheco $10,000 to secure support for a future consulting client’s marijuana permit. Subsequently, Bai hired Galvan as a consultant. It is alleged that Galvan facilitated $70,000 in payments from Bai to Pacheco. Pacheco, in turn voted in favor of Bai’s marijuana permit and the relocation of Bai’s business to Baldwin Park. This payment is a critical element of the bribery charge, illustrating Galvan’s direct involvement in attempting to influence a public official’s decision. Galvan’s alleged use of wire communications to facilitate the bribery scheme is central to the honest services wire fraud charges. Wire communications were employed to conceal payments and execute fraudulent activities. This emphasizes Galvan’s active participation in the fraudulent acts that breached the trust of his constituents.

Legal Consequences:

Isaac Galvan’s conspiracy charge, as per California Penal Code Section 182, holds significant legal ramifications. If convicted, Galvan could face up to five years in federal prison. The bribery charge against Galvan, governed by California Penal Code Section 86, carries substantial penalties. A conviction may lead to a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison. This underscores the gravity of attempting to influence a public official’s decisions through financial incentives. Isaac Galvan’s eight counts of honest services wire fraud come with severe consequences. Each count carries a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison.

Conclusion:

The case serves as a stark reminder of the legal consequences when involved in corrupt activities. As the legal proceedings unfold, the court will closely examine the evidence and apply the relevant penal codes to determine the outcome of this complex case.

Legal charges related to conspiracy, bribery, or wire fraud charges carry serious consequences. Navigating the  legal landscape of such cases demands the expertise of a professional. Secure the guidance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Should you require assistance in understanding and addressing the complexities of these charges, don’t hesitate to reach out to our legal team at The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

In the early morning hours of  Monday, September 11, 2023 a disturbing incident unfolded at a Manhattan hotel in New York City, leading to the arrest and charging of Houston Rockets guard Kevin Porter Jr. The allegations against him include assault and strangulation, and the incident involved his girlfriend, former WNBA player Kysre Gondrezick. Let’s delve into the distressing domestic violence incident.

The Incident:

The New York City police responded to a 911 call reporting an assault, which ultimately led to Porter’s arrest. Gondrezick, Porter’s girlfriend, suffered a laceration to her face and complained of neck pain. A preliminary investigation revealed that she had been struck multiple times on her body, and her neck had been subjected to pressure. This incident transpired at the Millennium Hilton near the United Nations, where Gondrezick sustained severe injuries, including a fractured neck vertebra and a cut over her right eye.

Kevin Porter Jr. and His Charges:

Kevin Porter Jr. is now facing grave charges stemming from the incident at the Manhattan hotel. The defendant has been charged with assault and strangulation based on the following allegations:

Assault Charge:

Specifically for willfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon his girlfriend, Kysre Gondrezick. The evidence indicates that Porter physically assaulted Gondrezick, causing significant harm, including a laceration to her face and neck pain.

Strangulation Charge:

In addition to the assault charge, Porter faces a strangulation charge under New York law, specifically New York Penal Law § 121.13, “Strangulation in the First Degree.” Prosecutors allege that Porter intentionally obstructed Gondrezick’s ability to breathe or have proper blood circulation, leading to a traumatic condition. This is a serious offense, and the evidence points to Porter’s direct involvement in this act, causing life-threatening injuries to the victim.

Comparing Charges: New York vs. California Legal Perspectives

It’s important to note that if this incident had occurred in California, Porter could have potentially faced different charges. In California, a similar offense would likely be prosecuted under California Penal Code § 273.5, which defines the willful infliction of corporal injury. This hypothetical California charge would be based on allegations of Porter causing injury to Gondrezick. The specific charges and penalties may differ, but both New York and California emphasize the seriousness of such offenses.

Penal Code 273.5 (California):

Penal Code § 273.5 defines willful infliction of corporal injury in California. To establish guilt in such cases, prosecutors must prove:

1. The defendant willfully inflicted corporal injury.
2. The victim is among the specified categories, such as spouses, cohabitants, or former cohabitants.
3. The injury resulted in a traumatic condition.

Penal Law 121.13 (New York):

New York Penal Law § 121.13 defines strangulation in the first degree. A defendant can be charged if they intentionally obstruct another person’s ability to breathe or blood circulation, resulting in physical injury. This charge reflects the gravity of the act, as it implies a direct threat to the victim’s life.

Conclusion:

As this legal process unfolds, Porter and his legal representation will have the opportunity to present their case. The court will ultimately weigh the evidence and determine his guilt or innocence. While the legal framework varies between California and New York, both states emphasize the seriousness of such offenses.

If you or someone you know faces similar charges, it is essential to seek the counsel of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Navigating the complexities of such cases requires professional expertise. Should you find yourself with the complexities of a assault or strangulation charge, Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

In the early morning hours of July 22, 2023, tragedy struck on the scenic Angeles Crest Highway in Pasadena, California. 32-year-old Jessie Munoz of Los Angeles lost his life during a robbery  while he was inside a vehicle with a female companion. The Pasadena Police Department launched a comprehensive investigation into the incident.  Eventually the investigation led to the arrest and charging of five individuals. Each facing serious charges related to the crime for murder and robbery.

The Defendants and Their Charges

The five individuals charged in connection with the Angeles Crest Highway murder and robbery case are as follows:

Luis Ventura (DOB 04/23/99): Charged with one count of Penal Code 187 (Murder) and two counts of Penal Code 211 (Robbery).

• Actions Taken: Luis Ventura is charged with murder and robbery based on allegations that he took property that did not belong to him while using force during the commission of the crime. The evidence suggests that Ventura played a central role in the robbery that ultimately led to the tragic death of Jessie Munoz.

Marco Antonio Hernandez (DOB 09/21/04): Charged with one count of Penal Code 187 (Murder) and two counts of Penal Code 211 (Robbery).

• Actions Taken: Marco Antonio Hernandez faces murder and robbery charges stemming from his alleged involvement in the robbery that occurred on Angeles Crest Highway. The evidence suggests that he actively participated in the theft of property and used force during the commission of the crime.

Abraham Ernesto Alvarenga Cortez (DOB 06/16/02): Charged with one count of Penal Code 187 (Murder) and two counts of Penal Code 211 (Robbery).

• Actions Taken: Abraham Ernesto Alvarenga Cortez is charged with murder and robbery, with an additional allegation that he personally used a handgun during the commission of the offense. This suggests that he played a direct role in the robbery and used force, possibly with the firearm, which resulted in the death of Jessie Munoz.

Wendy Cerritos (20 years old): Charged with two counts of Penal Code 211 (Robbery) with handgun allegations.

• Actions Taken: Wendy Cerritos faces robbery charges, specifically related to incidents of robbery that occurred on Angeles Crest Highway in the week leading up to Jessie Munoz’s murder. The allegations involve her use of a handgun during these robberies.

Rossel Josue Hernandez (21 years old): Charged with two counts of Penal Code 211 (Robbery) with handgun allegations.

• Actions Taken: Rossel Josue Hernandez is also charged with robbery, similarly related to incidents that transpired on Angeles Crest Highway before the murder. The charges against him involve the use of a handgun during these robberies.

Understanding Penal Code 211 (Robbery)

Penal Code 211 defines robbery in California as a theft involving force or fear. To prove a defendant’s guilt in a robbery case, the following elements must be established:

1. The defendant took property that did not belong to them.
2. The property was taken from another person’s possession and immediate presence.
3. The property was taken against the other person’s will.
4. The defendant used force or fear to take the property or to prevent resistance.
5. The defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

Robbery convictions can lead to substantial prison sentences, with first-degree robbery, in particular, carrying sentences of up to nine years. Other factors, such as the use of a firearm, can significantly increase penalties.

Understanding Penal Code 187 (Murder)

Penal Code 187 defines murder in California as the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought. Murder charges can result from premeditated acts or occur during dangerous felonies under the Felony-Murder Rule.

For a murder conviction under Penal Code 187(a), the prosecution must establish the following elements:

1. Committing an act that caused a death.
2. Having a legal duty to help a person who died and failing to perform that duty.
3. Causing the person’s death.
4. Having malice aforethought (express or implied) and no lawful excuse.

Murder convictions can lead to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, fines, and potential classification under California’s “Three Strikes” system.

Defenses Against Murder and Robbery Charges

Defendants facing murder and robbery charges may assert various defenses, such as:

1. The killing was accidental.
2. The act was in self-defense or defense of another.
3. Mistaken identity.
4. Lack of capacity due to insanity.

These defenses highlight the importance of legal representation and the need to protect one’s rights when facing such serious charges.

Conclusion

The court carefully considered the evidence provided by the Pasadena Police Department’s Robbery/Homicide Unit, the LAPD. The proper use of evidence, led to the charges filed against each of these individuals.

This case is a grim reminder of the devastating consequences of murder and robbery. The incident also underscores the importance of a fair and thorough legal process. As the legal proceedings continue, the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. The court will ultimately determine their guilt or innocence based on the presented evidence and the principles of justice.

If you or someone you know faces such charges, it is crucial to seek the counsel of a knowledgeable and experienced criminal defense attorney. Consult with an experienced attorney to navigate this challenging legal terrain effectively. Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

The Los Angeles Dodgers‘ pitcher, Julio Urias was arrested and charged with a felony domestic violence. The incident took place after a Major League Soccer match in Los Angeles and has sparked discussions about domestic violence, its legal consequences, and the policies in place to address such cases in California.

Julio Urias Arrested On Felony Domestic Violence:

On the evening of Sunday, September 3rd, at BMO Stadium, a physical altercation between Julio Urias and his wife led to his arrest on charges of domestic violence. The altercation occurred shortly after a soccer match, as reported by Assistant Chief Chris Carr of the Exposition Park Department of Public Safety, which manages the stadium and surrounding area.

Julio Urias, 27 got arrested past 11 p.m. and posted $50,000 bail.

Administrative Leave And MLB’s Domestic Violence Policy:

Following his arrest, Major League Baseball (MLB) placed Julio Urias on administrative leave. A MLB player on administrative leave is still paid but is not allowed to participate in games.

The MLB has opened an investigation into the incident, and the outcome could lead to suspension. In a 2019 incident, MLB suspended Urias for 20 games under its policy, despite him not being charged following an alleged domestic battery arrest.

The Role of Video Evidence:

A key element in Urias’ case is bystander-recorded video evidence, crucial for both law enforcement and MLB’s investigation. A bystander recorded the incident on a cell phone and authorities have that video footage.

The Legal Implications Of Domestic Violence In California:

In California, a domestic violence charge can range from felony to misdemeanor. There are significant differences between felony and misdemeanor level offenses. The state of California defines domestic violence as abuse committed against an intimate partner. If someone intentionally or recklessly uses or threatens the use of physical force against an intimate partner, they have committed domestic violence. An intimate partner includes a present or past spouse, domestic partner, or fiancé.

There are several potential criminal charges an alleged perpetrator can face: battery, abuse, threats, and neglect.

Some factors that are taken into consideration when determining whether or not to charge someone with a misdemeanor are:

1. the circumstances of the offense.
2. the seriousness of the alleged victims’ injuries (if any).
3. and the defendant’s criminal record (if any).

Authorities arrested Julio Urias on suspicion of “corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant”.

By definition, corporal injury means you caused injury an injury to an intimate partner, which includes a current or former spouse, fiance, a cohabitant, or parent of your child. It’s important to note a “cohabitant” is described as two unrelated people who have been living with each other for a significant amount of time that resulted in some type of relationship.

Corporal Injury:
Defendants can be charged with corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant. Corporal injury is any physical injury to an intimate partner. Corporal injury is a felony (California Penal Code §273.5).

The Department of Public Safety officers offered no details Wednesday on the circumstances of the arrest but asked for any witnesses with information regarding the incident to contact them. Julio Urias is stated to appear in court on September 27.

Conclusion:

The Julio Urias case serves as a stark reminder of the legal consequences of domestic violence in California. Domestic violence allegations can lead to arrest, charges, and even suspension from a high-profile career in professional sports.

Domestic violence cases are complex, and understanding your rights and options is crucial. Consult with an experienced attorney to navigate this challenging legal terrain effectively. Should you find yourself with the complexities of a domestic violence charge, Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

Mark Ridley-Thomas, a prominent Los Angeles political figure is sentenced to 42 months in Federal prison by Judge Dale Fischer. This follows his conviction on seven felonies, including conspiracy and fraud charges. The former politician demanded benefits for his son from a USC dean in exchange for political support for lucrative Los Angeles County business. Let’s examine the case, charges, and sentencing in detail.

The Case Unfolds With a 20-Count Indictment

Mark Ridley-Thomas and former university dean Marilyn Louise Flynn were accused of a bribery scheme. Ridley-Thomas is a member of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. He sought benefits for a relative in exchange for supporting lucrative county contracts and amendments.  In exchange, the indictment alleges, Ridley-Thomas supported contracts benefiting the University’s School of Social Work.

Ridley-Thomas and Marilyn Louise Flynn Conspired For Personal Gain

They secured benefits for Ridley-Thomas’ relative. The benefits included graduate school admission, a full-tuition scholarship, a paid professorship, and a campaign fund mechanism. In return, Ridley-Thomas endorsed contracts benefiting the School of Social Work. These contracts encompassed services to DCFS and Probation Department, along with a lucrative DMH contract amendment, generating millions in revenue.

The Indictment Outlined A Scheme In 2017, and 2018

Ridley-Thomas, then a supervisor, sought benefits for his relative, known as “MRT Relative 1” in the indictment. During this period, MRT Relative 1 faced an internal sexual harassment investigation in the California State Assembly, was likely to resign from elected office, and was significantly in debt. Ridley-Thomas aimed to secure paid employment for his relative to minimize potential public fallout from the resignation.

The Charges Against Mark Ridley-Thomas

Bribery: Under California law, the actions of Ridley-Thomas and Flynn constitute a violation of bribery statutes. By concealing, disguising, and covering up the bribes and benefits they received. They engaged in a deliberate effort to commit corruption. Their intent was to illicitly influence Ridley-Thomas, who held an official position. The goal was to alter his decisions and judgments. This was done with the aim of obtaining advantages that were not rightfully attainable through legitimate means. Their actions violated the fundamental principle of honest and unbiased decision-making in official capacities.

Conspiracy: Under California law, Ridley-Thomas and Marilyn Louise Flynn’s actions constitute a violation of conspiracy laws, particularly California Penal Code Section 182(a)(1). The indictment alleges that they conspired to commit several unlawful acts. Including providing graduate school admission, a full-tuition scholarship, a paid professorship, and a mechanism to funnel campaign funds through a university to a non-profit in exchange for Ridley-Thomas supporting various contracts and amendments benefiting the university. This agreement to commit multiple offenses demonstrates their clear intent to collaborate for unlawful gain and to manipulate official decisions for their own advantage.

Fraud: Ridley-Thomas was charged with four counts of honest services wire fraud. He was also charged with one count of honest services mail fraud. Each of the mail fraud and wire fraud charges carry a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years. Both defendants perpetrated a fraud against USC and various parties. They accomplished this by concealing their covert arrangement and providing false information to the university. This involved Ridley-Thomas’ $100,000 donation of campaign funds to USC and Flynn’s request for the university to make an exact amount payment payment to PRPI.

The Final Sentence:

Despite Ridley-Thomas’ request for probation and other alternatives, Judge Fischer sentenced him to 42 months in federal prison, along with a $30,000 fine and three years of supervised release. The judge emphasized that Ridley-Thomas had committed serious crimes, showed no remorse, and had not accepted responsibility for his actions. Fischer, appointed by George W. Bush in 2003, stated unequivocally that Ridley-Thomas knew his actions were wrong and that there was no justification for monetizing his office. In the end, Mark Ridley-Thomas’ fall from power to prison serves as a warning, emphasizing that no one is above the law, and public officials must always act in the best interests of their constituents, not their personal gain.

Federal corruption charges that allege a bribery scheme carry substantially harsher penalties than state crimes. Should you find yourself with the complexities of bribery, fraud or conspiracy charges, Contact The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

Tragedy struck in the heart of South Los Angeles when a fatal crash claimed the lives of three Uber passengers. The three victims were identified as Juvelyn Arroyo, 23, Veronica Amezola, 23, and Kimberly Izquierdo, 27. Two of the three were sisters. The incident has brought to light to the harsh consequences of reckless driving.  The suspect, 31-year-old Gregory Black, is facing three counts of vehicular manslaughter. He pleaded not guilty at his arraignment at the Compton Courthouse on Tuesday, August 29th, and is due back in court next week.

The Horrific Crash

The incident unfolded at the intersection of Vermont Avenue and Century Boulevard. On August 26th, around 5:30 a.m. A speeding Mercedes-Benz crashed into an Uber vehicle, leaving three passengers dead. The driver and another passenger where hospitalized. The collision was so severe that the aftermath resembled that of a bomb explosion, according to LAPD Detective Ryan Moreno.

Criminal History and Charges

The suspect behind the wheel, 31-year old Gregory Black, has a deeply concerning criminal history. At the time of the crash, he was on probation for attempted murder, shedding light on his propensity for violence. Black’s past included 11 felony bookings and three convictions.  He was a “well-known local gang member”.  This lead to him having accumulated two criminal “strikes,” one of which was a “super strike.” According to the district attorney’s office.

Understanding California’s Three Strikes Law

California’s “Three Strikes” law is designed to impose harsher penalties on individuals with multiple serious felony convictions. In Black’s case, having accumulated two criminal strikes implies that his punishment could be significantly amplified under the state’s sentencing guidelines. A “super strike” signifies that one of his previous convictions falls under a particularly severe category, making him subject to even more serious consequences.

Gregory Black Charged With Vehicular Manslaughter and Penal Code 192(c) PC

Penal Code 192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

(c) Vehicular—

(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 191.5, driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.

(2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.

(3) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and proximately resulted in the death of any person. This paragraph does not prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime of murder.

Vehicular manslaughter, as defined under Penal Code 192(c) PC. involves causing the death of another person while driving a vehicle unlawfully, but without gross negligence. In this case, Black’s alleged actions of reaching speeds of up to 100 mph in a 35-mph zone and running a red light constitute unlawful driving behavior. His reckless actions resulted in the tragic deaths of three innocent individuals, making him liable for vehicular manslaughter charges.

The Importance of Criminal Strikes

In California, accumulating criminal strikes has profound legal implications.  A first strike results in a doubled sentence for the current conviction. A second strike leads to a sentence that is twice as long as the ordinary term. However, a third strike triggers a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life in prison, regardless of the nature of the third offense. Black’s “super strike” makes his situation even more dire, potentially subjecting him to a longer sentence than typical “Three Strikes” cases.

Conclusion

The devastating incident that unfolded in South Los Angeles serves as a grim reminder of the potential consequences of reckless driving. In the midst of this tragedy, let us remember  and extend our thoughts to their grieving families.  Gregory Black’s alleged actions have not only resulted in the loss of innocent lives but have also exposed him to severe legal penalties under California’s “Three Strikes” law and the charges of vehicular manslaughter. As the legal proceedings unfold, this case underscores the importance of adhering to traffic laws and the potential gravity of the legal consequences for those who choose to disregard them. 

Should you ever find yourself in the unfortunate circumstance of being charged with vehicular manslaughter, at the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi we are here to help. To schedule a consultation about your case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

Photo Credit: Fulton County Sheriff’s Office / AP News

Introduction:

Former President Donald Trump faces serious felony charges for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. These charges center on racketeering and conspiracy, causing significant change  in the political landscape. Remarkably, this is the first time a former U.S. president, has appeared in a mugshot. This is Trump’s fourth arrest since April 2023.

These acts alleged are in a state that played a pivotal role in Trump’s claims of election theft. Trump’s consistent denial of election results contributed to the Republican loss of control over the U.S. Senate in the January 5, 2021 runoff election. Despite disagreement from the state’s Republican governor and top election officials. He now faces a total of 91 felony charges across four different locations.

Trump’s Indictment:

The narrative: “Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.“ Spanning 98 pages, the indictment meticulously outlines numerous alleged schemes aimed at achieving this goal. Strategies ranged from pressuring state officials to manipulate results to gaining access to voting machines and data. The indictment also accuses the defendants of harassing election worker Ruby Freeman with baseless fraud claims.

Unveiling the Charges:

Charges result from probing Trump’s role in influencing Georgia’s 2020 election. Fulton County District Attorney Willis launched the investigation in February 2021, due to Trump’s interference with secretary of state. Willis aims for swift trial in next six months.

Understanding the Georgia RICO Act:

The Georgia (RICO) Act, is designed to combat organized crime. Unlike its federal counterpart, which requires proof of ongoing criminal enterprise, the Georgia RICO Act offers a broader approach. It effectively prosecutes individuals and short-term schemes, addressing complex criminal scenarios with flexibility. The Act’s application showcases its relevance in confronting modern challenges and upholding the legal system’s integrity.

Key Charges Against Trump:

The indictment details multiple charges against Trump and co-defendants:

Count 1: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) :

The charge is rooted in alleging that those involved, including Trump, agreed to actions defrauding the US government. The indictment asserts defendants conspired to spread false claims and actions to overturn the 2020 election, constituting fraud.

Count 2: Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(k))

The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to disrupt the certification of electoral votes in January 2021. The defendants face charges of conspiring to obstruct the official proceeding by planning and coordinating interference with its proper functioning.

Count 3: Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2)

The accused are alleged to have carried out specific actions aimed at preventing the lawful conduct of an official proceeding, as described in the indictment. This can include actions such as pressuring officials, spreading misinformation, or interfering with the proper functioning of the process.

Count 4: Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241)

This charge is rooted in the accusation that the defendants conspired to violate the civil rights of individuals. Specifically, the indictment asserts that they plotted to oppress, threaten, and intimidate individuals’ rights to vote in an election. Section 241 makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. In this case, the indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to deprive individuals of their right to participate in the democratic process through intimidation and suppression.

Future Proceedings and Implications:

The indictment also places a spotlight on the involvement of what are being termed as “fake electors”. These individuals signed a certificate falsely claiming Trump’s victory in Georgia’s 2020, election and asserting themselves as the state’s official electors. Recent court filings reveal that several of these false electors have reached immunity agreements with Willis’ office. In the indictment, prosecutors have identified over 30 unindicted co-conspirators, a significant portion of whom are alleged to have participated in the deceptive fake elector scheme.

According to the indictment, the fraudulent documents were strategically crafted to disrupt and impede the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021. The ultimate goal was to unlawfully alter the outcome of the November 3, 2020, presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Consequently the indictment lays out the unfolding plot, documenting various attempts by both Trump and the alleged co-conspirators to overturn Georgia’s election results. Alongside the charged defendants, the indictment highlights the presence of 30 additional unindicted co-conspirators who played a role in these events.

Last year, Willis convened a special grand jury to meticulously examine evidence and question witnesses relevant to the case. They had faced pressure from Trump and his allies to influence the election’s outcome. These ongoing legal proceedings mark Trump’s fourth encounter with criminal charges since March, which is a pivotal aspect of his presidential campaign. Despite these legal challenges, Trump has pleaded not guilty in each case. He maintains his innocence amid a complex legal landscape that continues to evolve.

Conclusion:

The legal saga involving Trump and his associates resonates as an unprecedented chapter in American political history. Rooted in allegations of racketeering and conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results, the intricate indictment exposes a meticulously orchestrated campaign that spans from pressuring state officials to casting doubts on election legitimacy. As these legal proceedings unfold, they invite contemplation on the boundaries of political conduct, the responsibilities of public figures, and the enduring strength of democratic norms, potentially setting lasting precedents for justice and leadership accountability.

Should you find yourself with the complexities of these charges, we extend an invitation to schedule a consultation about your case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious offense with significant legal consequences, especially in California. A recent news article sheds light on the severity of penalties for multiple DUI offenses and related violations. This article explores the news piece’s details while examining California’s rules on interlock violations, secondary aggravated DUI, and driving with a suspended license. This analysis is vital for drivers and anyone seeking insight into DUI laws.

Breaking Down the Case

A recent incident on Interstate 80 near Lincoln, Nebraska highlights the results of repeated DUI violations. In the early hours, law enforcement noticed a white Jeep Grand Cherokee weaving and changing lanes erratically. They discovered that the driver, 39-year-old Justin Nelson of Omaha, was under the influence of alcohol.

Upon stopping the vehicle, a deputy detected a clear smell of alcohol from the driver. Small alcohol bottles were also found in the vehicle. Nelson’s blood alcohol level was a staggering 0.229, well above the legal limit. In California, it is illegal for you to drive if you have a BAC of: 0.08% or higher if you are over 21 years old. 0.01% or higher if you are under 21 years old.

First Charge: Interlock Violation

A key part of this case is the mention of an “interlock violation.” An interlock system is a device installed in a vehicle to measure the driver’s blood alcohol content before starting the engine. This technology is often mandatory for those with DUI convictions. In Nelson’s case, having three previous DUI convictions, he was legally required to have an interlock system in his Jeep. Not adhering to this requirement led to a charge of interlock violation.

California Law for Interlock Violation:

As per California Vehicle Code Section 23575, anyone convicted of a DUI offense, especially with multiple convictions, must install an interlock device. Not following this rule could result in additional penalties, including fines and extended license suspension.

Second Charge: Secondary Aggravated DUI

Justin Nelson’s arrest also included a “second aggravated driving under the influence” charge, indicating a prior DUI conviction. The “aggravated” element of the charge could result from factors such as a very high blood alcohol concentration, reckless driving, or endangering others on the road. This label intensifies penalties due to the heightened risk they pose to public safety.

California Law for Aggravated DUI:

Under Vehicle Code Section 23578, California deems aggravated DUI a serious offense, outlining increased penalties for those with prior convictions, excessive blood alcohol levels, or other aggravating factors. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, mandatory DUI programs, and license suspension.

Third Charge: Driving Under Suspension

In addition to the interlock violation and aggravated DUI charges, Nelson was apprehended for “driving under suspension.” This charge implies that his driver’s license was already suspended due to prior violations. Operating a vehicle with a suspended license compounds legal consequences for individuals who continue to drive despite revoked driving privileges.

California Law for Driving Under Suspension:

California Vehicle Code Section 14601 outlines penalties for driving with a suspended or revoked license, including fines, potential imprisonment, extended license suspension, and a blemished driving record.

In Conclusion

The case recounting Justin Nelson’s fourth DUI arrest serves as a stark reminder of the strict penalties linked to repeated DUI violations in California. Interlock violations, secondary aggravated DUI charges, and driving under suspension reflect the complex legal landscape that offenders confront. These consequences discourage individuals from endangering lives by driving under the influence.

Understanding the seriousness of these legal outcomes is vital for all drivers. Being aware of DUI laws and their consequences not only signifies personal responsibility but also safeguards individuals and the broader community.

Whether you find yourself entangled in a first-time DUI case or facing the repercussions of a repeated offense, schedule a consultation about your case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online.

Photo Credit: Noelskeez/Twitter

The rising incidence of organized retail theft in Los Angeles has prompted the establishment of a collaborative task force comprising multiple law enforcement agencies. This united effort is dedicated to curbing the rise of organized retail crime within the region. This article delves into the intricacies of organized retail crime and theft, shedding light on the corresponding legal framework in California.

Understanding Organized Retail Crime

Organized retail theft involves meticulously planned criminal activities targeting retail establishments. These illicit undertakings often encompass large-scale thefts, flash robberies, and strategic maneuvers. Such actions contribute significantly to the financial losses endured by retailers. An alarming incident exemplifies this: a “flash rob” style theft saw a group of over 30 individuals orchestrating the theft of merchandise exceeding $300,000 from a Nordstrom store in Canoga Park. In another daring instance, a mob targeted the YSL store at Americana in Glendale, making off with an estimated $300,000 worth of clothing and handbags. Importantly, a suspect involved in the YSL store incident was released to a local hospital to address health issues following his arrest, raising concerns about the efficacy of current legal procedures. It’s essential to acknowledge that these crimes entail violence and jeopardize innocent lives, underscoring the gravity of the situation.

Consequences and Legal Measures

In response to the surging threat of organized retail crime, Los Angeles has introduced a task force featuring a coalition of law enforcement agencies, including the LAPD, LASD, U.S. Marshals Apprehension Task Force, and FBI Apprehension Task Force. This endeavor aims to investigate these crimes aggressively and hold the responsible parties accountable. The participation of 22 full-time investigators underscores the seriousness of the issue at hand.

Navigating California’s Theft Laws: Understanding Legal Implications

When addressing the multifaceted issue of organized retail theft, a thorough comprehension of potential legal repercussions is crucial. Perpetrators engaged in such activities may face substantial penalties under California law. This segment elucidates the theft laws pertinent to these cases, encompassing organized retail theft , breaking and entering, grand theft, and conspiracy.

1. Organized Retail Theft (PC 490.4):

California Penal Code 490.4 addresses organized retail theft, also referred to as shoplifting or retail burglary. This statute centers on the deliberate act of stealing merchandise from retail establishments through coordinated efforts. This category encompasses incidents involving multiple individuals engaging in planned thefts, often resulting in more severe penalties due to their organized nature.

2. Breaking and Entering (459 PC – California Breaking and Entering):

Breaking and entering, defined by California Penal Code 459 PC, entails unlawfully entering a structure with the intent to commit theft or another offense. Individuals breaking into retail establishments with the intention to steal merchandise could face charges for breaking and entering. This offense not only addresses theft but also the unlawful access to premises.

3. Grand Theft (Penal Code 487 PC):

Governed by Penal Code 487 PC, grand theft pertains to the unlawful taking of property exceeding a specified value. This encompasses stolen merchandise in organized retail theft cases. California law categorizes grand theft, including grand theft auto involving vehicles, and grand theft of other property. Theft of substantial value falls within the realm of grand theft.

4. Conspiracy (Penal Code 182 PC – California’s Criminal Conspiracy Laws):

Under California Penal Code 182 PC, conspiracy involves the collaboration of multiple individuals in planning and executing criminal acts. Regarding organized retail crime, conspiring to execute coordinated thefts is a punishable offense. The premeditated and orchestrated nature of these crimes aligns with conspiracy elements, potentially leading to charges against those involved.

California’s Response:

Despite the county’s zero-cash bail policy, the task force remains steadfast in holding suspects accountable. Deputy Chief Kris Pitcher emphasizes the careful selection of charges to maximize the legal extent of holding these individuals responsible.

Collaborative Efforts and Deterrence:

The task force’s comprehensive approach involves collaborations with prosecutors from various legal offices. This includes the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, and the California Attorney General’s Office. By closely collaborating with retailers to enhance safety measures, the task force aims to effectively deter organized retail crimes.

Conclusion: Upholding Security and Accountability

The launch of the task force in Los Angeles underscores the earnestness with which organized retail crime is being addressed. This article underscores the ramifications and legal measures associated with such crimes, highlighting the importance of safeguarding businesses and communities. California’s robust legal framework, spanning theft laws, burglary statutes, and conspiracy provisions, endeavors to combat organized retail crime and ensure accountability. With law enforcement agencies and legal entities working in tandem, the goal is to create safer communities and deter criminal activities effectively.

If you’re accused of the crime of theft, we are right by your side, To schedule a consultation about your case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments.

In a recent and tragic incident at a Hollywood Ralph’s supermarket, a security guard employed at the store shot and killed a woman who had armed herself with a fire extinguisher and a screwdriver. The incident took place near the entrance of the store on Hollywood Boulevard, when the woman allegedly made an aggressive move toward the security guard. While this event is certainly unfortunate, it serves as a real-world example of when self-defense can be legally justified under California state law.

What is Self-Defense?

Self-defense is a legal concept that allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves, others, and sometimes their property from imminent threats of harm or danger. The key element here is “reasonable force.” This means that the force used in response to the threat should be proportionate to the danger faced.

When Can Self-Defense Be Used as a Legal Defense?

Self-defense can be used as a legal defense when certain criteria are met. Firstly, the threat must be imminent, meaning that the danger is immediate and not a hypothetical or potential future threat. Secondly, the person defending themselves must have a genuine and reasonable belief that they or someone else is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Lastly, the force used in self-defense must be proportional to the threat.

Defense of Others and Property

In addition to self-defense, California law also permits the use of force to protect others and, to a certain extent, one’s property. If an individual witnesses someone else facing imminent harm, they can use reasonable force to intervene and protect the victim. When it comes to protecting property, the use of force is generally limited to preventing or stopping a forcible felony, such as a burglary or robbery.

Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

California law recognizes the use of deadly force in self-defense scenarios, but the circumstances are tightly regulated. Deadly force can only be used when there’s a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault. This is a critical point to understand, as using deadly force when it’s not justified can lead to criminal charges.

California’s Self-Defense Laws and Specific Crimes

In the case of the Hollywood Ralphs shooting incident, the security guard’s actions will likely be evaluated based on California’s self-defense laws. If the investigation determines that the woman posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that the security guard’s response was proportional to the threat he faced, his actions might be legally justified under self-defense laws. This evaluation will also consider whether the security guard followed the appropriate protocols and exercised restraint before resorting to lethal force.

If you’re involved in a self-defense case, we are right by your side, To schedule a consultation about your self-defense case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments.

In a highly publicized incident that garnered immense attention within the music industry and spurred discussions about violence against women, Canadian rapper Tory Lanez was handed a 10-year prison sentence for the 2020 shooting of rapper Megan Thee Stallion during a heated altercation. The legal proceedings took place in Los Angeles and revolved around three serious charges — assault involving a semi automatic handgun, possession of a loaded, unregistered firearm in a vehicle, and negligent discharge of a firearm. In this article, we delve into the details of the case, its implications, and take a closer look at the principle of reasonable force within the realm of self-defense, as defined by California law.

A Closer Look at the Case’s Background:

The incident in question unfolded amidst a dispute between Tory Lanez, known by his birth name Daystar Peterson, and Megan Thee Stallion, whose real name is Megan Pete. The disagreement centered on their music careers and personal relationships. The confrontation led to Megan Thee Stallion sustaining gunshot injuries to her feet, igniting a prolonged legal battle that culminated in Tory Lanez being convicted on the aforementioned charges.

Understanding Reasonable Force in Self-Defense:

The case’s defense team for Tory Lanez contended that his actions were driven by self-defense. Grasping the concept of reasonable force within the context of self-defense is paramount in comprehending the verdict. According to California law, the use of force is permissible if an individual reasonably believes it’s necessary to shield themselves or others from imminent harm or danger. However, the level of force exerted must align with the perceived threat’s magnitude.

Analyzing the Verdict’s Significance:

The court’s decision to convict Tory Lanez signifies that the presented evidence failed to substantiate his claim of acting in self-defense. The gravity of the charges, particularly assault involving a semi automatic handgun, underscores the court’s stance that the employed force went beyond reasonable limits and couldn’t be justified under self-defense principles. This verdict highlights the crucial nature of scrutinizing the circumstances surrounding an incident to ascertain the reasonableness and necessity of force use.

Implications for Firearm Laws in California:

Furthermore, the case casts light on California’s firearm regulations. Carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in a vehicle and recklessly discharging a firearm are considered serious offenses in the state. California’s stringent firearm laws are designed to deter gun-related criminal activities and enhance public safety. The presence of an unregistered firearm and the negligent discharge of a firearm emerged as pivotal factors amplifying Tory Lanez’s legal predicament.

The Sentencing and Beyond:

Tory Lanez’s conviction entails a substantial 10-year prison term, with a maximum possible sentence of 22 years and eight months due to the multiple felony charges. The court weighed various factors, including Megan Thee Stallion’s vulnerability as the victim, in arriving at the sentencing decision. Although Tory Lanez’s defense team advocated for leniency based on mitigating circumstances like his challenging upbringing and struggle with alcohol use disorder, the court ultimately pronounced a significant sentence.

In conclusion, the Tory Lanez case stands as a vivid demonstration of the intricate dynamics entwined with self-defense and the measured application of force. Even though Californian law empowers individuals to shield themselves from impending peril, it remains paramount to align with the bedrock principles of proportionality and reasonableness. The court’s verdict stands as a resolute testament to the pursuit of justice, particularly in addressing violence against Black women and ensuring accountability for actions taken.

Furthermore, this case casts an illuminating spotlight on the critical importance of comprehending California’s firearm statutes and regulations. The gravity of consequences stemming from firearm-related transgressions is evident, underscored by Tory Lanez’s conviction on a spectrum of felony charges.

As discourse surrounding self-defense, firearm legislation, and the ethical obligations of public figures persists, the constancy of the legal system’s dedication to justice and the protection of all individuals remains vividly evident.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our legacy of providing exceptional legal counsel to the Greater Los Angeles community dates back to 2003. With more than two decades of unwavering commitment, Attorney Hashemi has earned trust as a seasoned legal expert. Our unparalleled record instills confidence in our clients, entrusting us to adeptly navigate the intricate legal landscape and steadfastly safeguard their rights, from probation or parole issues to criminal litigations, self-defense scenarios, and an array of misdemeanor to felony cases.

In the event that you are involved in a self-defense legal matter, please be assured that we are steadfastly committed to providing our support. We are prepared to engage in a consultation that is precisely attuned to the unique aspects of your case. To initiate this consultation, we invite you to contact us at (310) 448-1529. Our office, situated within the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, strategically positions us in proximity to Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and conveniently close to the Expo/Bundy Station.

Photo Credit: yo_folkers

In a recent incident that caught the attention of social media users, two 7-Eleven workers in Stockton, California, found themselves facing a would-be robber who attempted to steal cigarettes from the counter while making threats. What followed was a confrontation that exemplifies the concept of reasonable force in self-defense under California law.

The Incident: Defending Against a Threat

The incident unfolded when a suspect, later identified as Tyrone Frazier, entered the 7-Eleven store with the intent to steal tobacco products. As he began to fill a trash can with valuable items, he escalated the situation by threatening to shoot the store clerks. Despite attempts to verbally reason with the suspect, the threat remained imminent.

Faced with an immediate danger to their safety, the two store clerks took matters into their own hands. They utilized physical force to subdue the suspect, ultimately causing him to end up on the floor in a state of distress. A video capturing the incident was shared on social media, leading to discussions about the appropriate use of force in self-defense situations.

Reasonable Force in Self-Defense: The Legal Framework

California law recognizes the right of individuals to defend themselves when faced with a threat of imminent harm. This principle, often referred to as the right to self-defense, allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves, others, and their property. The key element here is the notion of “reasonable force.”

What Constitutes “Reasonable Force”?

In the case of the 7-Eleven workers, their actions are a prime example of how reasonable force can be applied in a self-defense scenario. The store clerks were confronted with a clear threat – a suspect who not only attempted to steal valuable items but also verbally threatened to use deadly force. Faced with this immediate danger, the clerks responded with a level of force that was proportionate to the threat.

Applying the Law: Analyzing the Incident

Under California law, individuals are not required to retreat from a threat if they have a lawful right to be present in the location where the confrontation occurs. This aligns with the actions of the store clerks, who were simply performing their job duties when the incident unfolded.

The decision of the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office not to pursue charges against the store clerks further emphasizes the concept of reasonable force. The clerks were not viewed as suspects; instead, the focus of any potential investigation shifted toward holding the individual who threatened and attempted to rob them accountable for his actions.

Conclusion: A Lesson in Self-Defense

The case of the 7-Eleven workers in Stockton provides a valuable lesson in understanding the concept of reasonable force in self-defense situations. While the right to defend oneself is fundamental, it comes with the responsibility to use force only when it is necessary and proportionate to the threat. The incident serves as a reminder that individuals have the right to protect themselves and others from harm, especially when faced with immediate danger.

In situations like these, the law recognizes that individuals should not be punished for taking necessary actions to defend themselves and others. The outcome of this case reinforces the importance of a balanced approach to self-defense, where individuals are empowered to protect themselves while respecting the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

If you’re involved in a self-defense case, we are right by your side, To schedule a consultation about your self-defense case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments.

Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about self-defense laws in your jurisdiction, it is recommended to consult with a qualified legal professional.

In a shocking turn of events, Britney Spears‘ ex-husband, Jason Alexander, has once again found himself in trouble with the law. On August 2, 2023, TMZ recently that Alexander was arrested for stalking, marking the latest in a series of legal issues he has faced over the years. This time Alexander was taken into custody in Tennessee, but let’s suppose he was accused of stalking in California. What sentence would he face if he was arrested and convicted in the Golden State?

According to court documents obtained by TMZ, Alexander was arrested in Tennessee around 10:30 a.m. local time on. It was not immediately clear whom Alexander was accused of stalking, nor if bail had been set. Back in June 2022, Jason Alexander broke into Britney Spears’ home on her wedding day, even though he was not invited to the event. He repeatedly insisted that he needed to speak to Britney, and it was later revealed that he was armed with a knife. Fortunately, he never came face-to-face with Britney, as employees setting up for the wedding quickly subdued him until the authorities arrived and took him into custody.

Legal Consequences:

As a result of this alarming incident, Britney Spears obtained a three-year restraining order against Jason Alexander. He faced multiple charges, including felony stalking, vandalism, trespassing, and battery. However, during the legal proceedings, two charges were dismissed – felony stalking and misdemeanor vandalism. Jason pleaded no contest to aggravated trespass and battery, both of which are misdemeanors. He was ultimately sentenced to 128 days in jail for his actions during the wedding fiasco.

California Stalking Laws:

In California, stalking is a serious criminal offense, as it involves willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing, threatening, or intimidating another person. This could include actions like unwanted communication, showing up at the victim’s home or workplace uninvited, or engaging in any behavior that causes the victim to fear for their safety or the safety of their loved ones.

Penalties for Stalking Conviction in California:

If convicted of stalking in California, the penalties can vary based on the specific circumstances of the case and the defendant’s prior criminal record. Generally, stalking is considered a wobbler offense, which means it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Misdemeanor Stalking:

• Up to 1 year in county jail.
• Fines of up to $1,000.
• Probation and counseling or restraining orders.

Felony Stalking:

• 16 months to 5 years in state prison.
• Fines of up to $1,000.
• Probation and counseling or restraining orders.

The incident involving Britney Spears’ ex-husband, Jason Alexander, highlights the seriousness of stalking and the potential consequences individuals can face if convicted of such offenses in California.

Being accused and charged with stalking is an incredibly serious matter that should not be underestimated. Being implicated in such a crime can have significant and long-lasting consequences on one’s personal and professional life. If someone finds themselves facing stalking charges, seeking legal counsel immediately is of utmost importance. A skilled attorney can provide crucial guidance, ensure that the accused’s rights are protected throughout the legal process, and work to build a strong defense strategy. With the potential for harsh penalties, including jail time and fines, it is essential to have knowledgeable legal representation to navigate the complexities of the legal system and strive for the best possible outcome.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we are dedicated to fighting aggressively for our clients’ rights. If you were defending yourself and have been charged with a crime give us a call: (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Our office is located in Westside Towers in Los Angeles, minutes from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and offer weekend appointments.

Everyone loves a good sandwich, but what if you could enjoy free Subway sandwiches for life? The world-famous restaurant chain Subway has launched an intriguing and attention-grabbing contest to find their most dedicated fan. If you are willing to take a unique step and legally change your first name to “Subway,” you could be the fortunate winner who receives this extraordinary prize. Let’s delve into the details of the Subway Name Change contest and explore how one can legally change their name with the help of the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, which is located in Los Angeles, California.

The Subway Name Change Contest:

Subway’s latest promotional campaign is indeed one for the history books. To participate, devoted Subway fans can visit SubwayNameChange.com between August 1, 2023, 9 a.m., and August 4, 20223,  11:59 p.m. and enter the contest. However, there’s a twist – entrants must agree to legally change their first name to “Subway” if they win. The idea behind this creative initiative is to identify and reward the most dedicated Subway fan in a truly unique and unforgettable way.

The lucky winner, chosen via a random drawing on August 7,2023, will receive a generous reward. To support the name change process, Subway will provide $750 to cover the associated legal expenses. Moreover, the winner will be endowed with a whopping $50,000 worth of Subway gift cards, ensuring a lifetime of delicious sandwiches from the popular chain. If you decide to enter and win, the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi can help with the legal process of changing your name.

Subway’s Previous High-Stakes Promotion:

This isn’t the first time Subway has organized an attention-grabbing promotional campaign. In July 2022, they introduced the “Subway Series” lineup and offered free subs for life to those brave enough to get a 12-by-12-inch tattoo showcasing the promotion. James Kunz, a Subway fan from Colorado, boldly got the massive tattoo and secured a lifetime of sandwiches. Eight other individuals who opted for smaller 3-inch by 3-inch tattoos were also rewarded with free subs for a year.

Legal Name Change with the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi

For those intrigued by the prospect of winning a lifetime supply of Subway sandwiches but unsure about the legal name change process, the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, can provide expert assistance. Changing one’s name legally involves specific steps and legal requirements, and it’s crucial to navigate this process smoothly.

The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi has a proven track record of guiding clients through various legal matters, including name changes. We understands the complexities of the legal system and ensures a seamless and efficient name change process. Whether you seek to participate in the Subway Name Change contest or are considering a name change for other reasons, we can assist you every step of the way

Subway’s Name Change Contest offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for devoted fans to win an endless supply of their favorite sandwiches. While the prospect of legally changing one’s name may seem unconventional, it underscores the extent of loyalty and passion Subway fans hold for the brand. If you’re considering participating in the contest, remember to visit SubwayNameChange.com between August 1 and August 4 and follow the official rules.

Should you require assistance with the legal name change process, the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, stands ready to help. You can call us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/ Bundy Station. We have flexible and weekend office hours.

In a recent lawsuit against Ja Morant, a basketball star for the Memphis Grizzlies, allegations of assault during a pickup basketball game have led to a complex legal battle. The crux of the case revolves around Morant’s claim of self-defense and the potential immunity he could receive under Tennessee law. But how would self-defense be claimed if the venue was California? Also, let’s compare the application of self-defense laws in Tennessee and California, highlighting their key differences.

Ja Morant stands accused of assaulting Joshua Holloway, a teenager, during a pick-up basketball game at Morant’s home in July 2022. Morant’s lawyers argue that he acted in self-defense after Holloway threw a basketball at him, striking him in the chin. Morant’s legal team asserts that he should be immune from liability under Tennessee’s “stand your ground” law, which allows individuals to use force when feeling threatened at their homes. The judge has granted Morant’s lawyers the ability to proceed with their self-defense argument, and further discussions will take place to determine the applicability of the law to the case under that state’s Constitution.

If the venue of this case was California instead of Tennessee, the claim of self-defense would be subject to different legal standards. California follows a self-defense law based on the concept of “reasonable belief” and the right to defend oneself from imminent harm. To establish a valid self-defense claim in California, the following elements need to be proven:

1. Imminent Threat: The person claiming self-defense must reasonably believe they were facing an imminent threat of bodily harm or death.
2. Proportional Response: The force used in self-defense should be reasonably proportionate to the perceived threat. It means one cannot respond with excessive force that goes beyond what is necessary to protect oneself.
3. Reasonable Belief: The belief that one’s safety is in immediate danger must be objectively reasonable. The jury or court will evaluate whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have had the same belief.
4. No Duty to Retreat: California does not impose a “duty to retreat” before resorting to self-defense. Individuals have the right to stand their ground and defend themselves when facing an imminent threat, even outside their homes.

While both Tennessee and California allow self-defense claims, there are notable differences in their laws. In Tennessee, the “stand your ground” law specifically grants individuals immunity when feeling threatened at their homes, allowing the use of force in certain situations. On the other hand, California’s self-defense law focuses on the reasonable belief of imminent harm and proportional response, without a specific provision for immunity.

Additionally, Tennessee’s “stand your ground” law seems to be applicable to civil cases as well, as argued by Morant’s lawyers, while California’s self-defense law primarily applies to criminal cases. In California, the concept of self-defense is more commonly utilized as a defense against criminal charges, such as assault, battery, or murder.

The lawsuit against Ja Morant highlights the complexities surrounding self-defense claims and the potential for immunity under different state laws. While Morant’s case is being debated under Tennessee’s “stand your ground” law, it is essential to recognize the contrasting legal framework that would apply if the case were in California. Understanding the nuances of self-defense laws in different jurisdictions is crucial to comprehending the legal landscape and how such claims are evaluated.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we are dedicated to fighting aggressively for our clients’ rights. If you were defending yourself and have been charged with a crime give us a call: (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Our office is located in Westside Towers in Los Angeles, minutes from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and offer weekend appointments.

In recent news, comedian and actor Pete Davidson has been charged with reckless driving following an accident earlier this year. The incident, which involved crashing a car into a Beverly Hills home, allegedly occurred while Davidson was speeding through a residential neighborhood. In this blog post, we will delve into the concept of reckless driving as defined by California law, explore the elements of the charged crime, and shed light on the potential penalties that could await Davidson if convicted.

What is Reckless Driving in California?

Reckless driving, according to California Vehicle Code Section 23103, refers to operating a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others or property. It involves driving in a manner that displays a conscious disregard for the potential consequences, such as excessive speed, dangerous maneuvers, or aggressive driving behaviors.

Elements of Reckless Driving:

To establish the offense of reckless driving, certain elements must be proven by the prosecution. These typically include:

1. Willful or wanton disregard: The driver must demonstrate a deliberate or intentional disregard for the safety of others or property.
2. Risk of harm: The driver’s actions must create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to others or their property.

Penalties for Reckless Driving Convictions:

If Pete Davidson is convicted of reckless driving, he could face the following penalties under California law:

1. Misdemeanor charge: Reckless driving is generally classified as a misdemeanor offense in California, which carries potential consequences such as fines, probation, and/or imprisonment.
2. Monetary fines: A conviction for reckless driving can result in fines ranging from several hundred to several thousand dollars, depending on the circumstances of the case and any prior driving offenses.
3. Probation: The court may impose probation as an alternative to or in addition to fines. Probation typically involves certain conditions, such as attending driving school, completing community service, or refraining from further traffic violations.
4. License suspension: In some cases, a reckless driving conviction may lead to a driver’s license suspension. The duration of the suspension depends on various factors, including prior convictions and the severity of the offense.

The recent charges of reckless driving against Pete Davidson highlight the importance of responsible and safe driving practices. Reckless driving, as defined by California law, involves a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others and can lead to severe consequences if convicted. While it remains to be seen how Davidson’s case will unfold, it serves as a reminder of the potential dangers and legal ramifications associated with reckless driving.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our team of expert criminal defense lawyers is dedicated to fighting aggressively for our clients’ rights. To schedule a consultation with a lawyer at our firm, call us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Located in Westside Towers in LA, our office is minutes from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and offer weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail for consultation on your case.

In a recent incident captured on Instagram Live, Memphis Grizzlies star Ja Morant, aged 23, was seen waving what appeared to be a gun from the driver’s seat of a slowly moving vehicle. This is not the first time Morant has been involved in such a situation, as he previously faced suspension for a similar incident. As the NBA gathers more information regarding the recent incident, it is crucial to examine the penalties for gun possession in California.

According to reports, the Instagram Live video allegedly captured Morant waving a gun while driving. The NBA is currently in the process of gathering more information, and a suspension for Morant seems likely, given his previous suspension for a comparable situation. In the previous incident, Morant went live on Instagram from a Colorado strip club and displayed a gun, which was later determined to belong to someone else.

Previous Suspension and Counseling: In response to the Colorado incident, Morant received an eight-game suspension without pay. The NBA investigated and concluded that Morant did not possess the gun while traveling with the team. He met with NBA Commissioner Adam Silver to discuss his conduct, which was deemed detrimental to the league. Morant spoke to reporters about undergoing counseling in Florida during his time away from the team and expressed the need to be more responsible.

Allegations and Legal Issues: The Colorado incident occurred shortly after allegations surfaced that Morant had assaulted a teenager and threatened him with a gun during a pickup game at his house the previous summer. Additionally, he was accused of threatening the head of security at a Memphis mall in a separate incident. The Washington Post published a timeline of alleged events, suggesting that the Memphis police mishandled reports involving Morant and his family.

Now, let’s shift our focus to the penalties for gun possession in California. The state of California has strict gun laws in place, and unlawful possession of a firearm can lead to severe consequences. The penalties vary depending on factors such as the type of firearm, prior convictions, and the specific circumstances of the case.

Under California law, the illegal possession of a firearm is generally a felony offense. The penalties can include imprisonment, fines, and probation. Possessing a loaded firearm in public without a concealed carry license is prohibited, and violating this law can result in additional penalties.

Ja Morant’s recent suspension due to an Instagram Live video showing him waving a gun raises concerns about responsible behavior, both on and off the court. While the specific penalties for his actions are yet to be determined, it is essential to remember that gun possession laws in California are strict. Understanding these laws and their potential consequences is crucial for promoting safety and responsible gun ownership.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our team of expert criminal defense lawyers is dedicated to fighting aggressively for our clients’ rights. To schedule a consultation with a lawyer at our firm, call us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Located in Westside Towers in LA, our office is minutes from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and offer weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail for consultation on your case.

Former NBA star Shawn Kemp made headlines recently when he was arrested by Tacoma police for investigation of a drive-by shooting. However, his attorneys claim that Kemp acted in self-defense when he exchanged gunfire in a parking lot while trying to retrieve a stolen cell phone and other items.

Kemp, who is 53 years old, was released from jail without charges having been filed. The Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office said it would not file charges pending further investigation. Kemp’s attorneys are grateful that the police didn’t rush to judgment.

In a written statement, Kemp’s attorney W. Scott Boatman said that Kemp’s vehicle was broken into on Tuesday night, and several items were taken, including an iPhone. Kemp tracked the phone’s location to an occupied car at the Tacoma Mall. When Kemp confronted the individuals inside the car, they shot at him, and he returned fire.

Boatman also said that there was not a drive-by shooting as previously reported, and that Kemp’s actions were reasonable and legally justified. “Mr. Kemp met with law enforcement at the scene in an attempt to assist in the matter,” Boatman added.

Tacoma police said they recovered a gun at the scene. The case is still under investigation.

Self-Defense Laws in California

If the events had occurred in California, self-defense laws would have come into play. California law allows people to use deadly force in self-defense if they reasonably believe that they or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.

California law also allows people to use deadly force in defense of their home, but only if they reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a violent felony or poses an imminent threat of great bodily harm.

In addition, California law has a “stand your ground” rule, which means that people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. However, this rule only applies if the person is in their home or workplace, or if they are in a public place and are not engaged in criminal activity.

In conclusion, Shawn Kemp acted in self-defense when he exchanged gunfire in a Washington parking lot while trying to retrieve a stolen cell phone and other items. His attorneys are confident that his actions were reasonable and legally justified. If the events had occurred in California, self-defense laws would have come into play, and Kemp may have had a strong case for self-defense.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our team of expert criminal defense lawyers is dedicated to fighting aggressively for our clients’ rights. To schedule a consultation with a lawyer at our firm, call us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Located in Westside Towers in LA, our office is minutes from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and offer weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail for consultation on your case.

In a recent ruling, a California appeals court overturned a murder conviction and ordered a new trial for a man accused of California murder in 2002. The court cited the state’s flawed interpretation of the law and improper use of evidence as reasons for the reversal. Additionally, the court referred to California’s new “Decriminalizing Artistic Expression Act,” which played a role in the decision.

The case involved William Richards, who was convicted of murdering his wife in 1993. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a jailhouse informant who claimed that Richards had confessed to the crime. However, in 2016, new DNA evidence emerged, which suggested Richards’ innocence. The DNA found on the victim’s clothing did not match Richards’ DNA, but instead matched that of another man who had a history of violence against women.

The appeals court found fault with the state’s use of the rap murder doctrine, which allows prosecutors to use evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts to prove their guilt in a current case. In this case, the prosecution had introduced evidence of Richards’ alleged abuse of his wife, including a 911 call she made several years before her death in which she claimed that Richards had threatened to kill her. However, the court found that this evidence was not sufficiently similar to the murder itself to be admissible.

The court also cited California’s new “Decriminalizing Artistic Expression Act” as a factor in its decision. The law, which went into effect in January 2021, prohibits the use of rap lyrics, poetry, or other forms of artistic expression as evidence of a defendant’s guilt in a criminal trial, unless the evidence is directly related to the crime charged. This law is intended to protect the First Amendment rights of artists and to prevent the use of creative expression as a proxy for criminal behavior.

In Richards’ case, the prosecution had used his lyrics and other artistic expressions as evidence of his guilt. The appeals court found that this use of creative expression was improper under the new law and contributed to the flawed interpretation of the evidence against Richards.

Overall, the decision to overturn Richards’ conviction is an important reminder that the legal system must constantly strive for justice and fairness. By acknowledging the flaws in its interpretation of the law and recognizing the importance of new evidence, the appeals court has taken an important step towards ensuring that justice is served in this case. Additionally, California’s new law protecting artistic expression will play a crucial role in preventing the use of creative works as evidence of guilt in criminal trials.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, our team of expert criminal defense lawyers is dedicated to fighting aggressively for our clients’ rights. To schedule a consultation with a lawyer at our firm, call us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Located in Westside Towers in LA, our office is minutes from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and offer weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail for consultation on your case.

The world of sports is no stranger to controversies, and the recent accusation against Memphis Grizzlies’ star player Temetrius Jamel “Ja” Morant is the latest in the line of such incidents. According to a report by Sports Illustrated, Morant has been accused of punching a teen in a Florida restaurant. The incident reportedly took place on July 7, 2021, but the details have only come to light recently. Morant’s agent claims that the player acted in self-defense, but the victim’s father has disputed the claim. In this post, we will examine the law of self-defense in California and how it would apply to the facts of this case.

The Law of Self-Defense in California

California law allows individuals to use reasonable force to defend themselves against an imminent threat of harm. The force used must be proportionate to the threat posed, and the individual using force must have a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to protect themselves. Under California law, there is no duty to retreat before using force if the individual has a right to be in the place where the threat is occurring.

Applying the Law of Self-Defense to Ja Morant’s Case

Based on the information available in the news article, it is difficult to determine whether Ja Morant’s actions constitute self-defense under California law. However, we can apply the principles of self-defense and examine how they might apply in this case.

According to Morant’s agent, the player was defending himself against a group of people who were harassing him and his family at a Florida restaurant. The agent claims that one of the people in the group, a 17-year-old, made a threatening move towards Morant, which led the player to punch him in self-defense.

If we assume that the facts as presented by Morant’s agent are true, then the use of force by Morant could potentially be justified under California law. Morant had a right to be in the restaurant and was facing an imminent threat of harm from a member of the group harassing him. If Morant believed that punching the 17-year-old was necessary to protect himself and his family, and the force used was proportionate to the threat posed, then his actions could be considered self-defense.

However, if it is found that Morant’s use of force was not proportionate to the threat posed or if he did not have a reasonable belief that such force was necessary to protect himself, then his actions could be deemed excessive and could lead to legal consequences.

The case involving Ja Morant and the alleged incident of him punching a teen is still under investigation, and it is unclear what the final outcome will be. However, it is important to understand the law of self-defense in California and how it applies to cases such as this. Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide whether Morant’s actions were justified under the law, and we will have to wait and see how the case develops in the coming weeks and months.

If you’re involved in a self-defense case, we are right by your side, To schedule a consultation about your self-defense case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments.

How is Reasonable Force Viewed in California Self-Defense Cases?

Self-defense is a crucial concept in criminal law and is often used as a defense in cases involving the use of force. In California, the law permits individuals to use reasonable force to defend themselves or others from harm. However, the definition of reasonable force can sometimes be unclear, and it is essential to understand what it means when it comes to self-defense.

Reasonable force refers to the amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in a similar situation to defend themselves or others from harm. It is crucial to note that the use of force must be proportional to the threat, meaning that the amount of force used should not be excessive or go beyond what is necessary to protect oneself.

For example, if an attacker is unarmed and poses no immediate threat, the use of a deadly weapon in self-defense may not be considered reasonable. On the other hand, if an attacker is armed and poses a significant threat, the use of a deadly weapon may be considered reasonable.

It is essential to understand that the determination of reasonable force is subjective and depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Factors such as the size, strength, and weapon of the attacker, the presence of bystanders, and the environment in which the incident occurs may all play a role in determining whether the use of force was reasonable.

In conclusion, when it comes to self-defense in California, the use of reasonable force is permitted but must be proportional to the threat and not excessive. Understanding what constitutes reasonable force is crucial, and individuals should be familiar with the laws and guidelines in their state to ensure they are acting within the bounds of the law.

It is recommended to consult with a criminal defense attorney if you have questions or concerns about the use of reasonable force in self-defense, as laws and definitions can vary by state and case.

If you’re involved in a self-defense case, we are right by your side, To schedule a consultation about your self-defense case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments.

Robbery Suspect Not Charged with Murder due to Self-Defense

The recent story of a robbery suspect in California who killed a store clerk, but was not charged with murder because of self-defense, is an important reminder of the complexities involved in criminal cases. It’s natural to assume that if an individual has committed a crime and someone is killed as a result, then they will be charged with murder. But it’s not always that simple. Let’s look at why this particular robbery suspect was not charged with murder under the circumstances and the importance of understanding the details when it comes to criminal cases.

What Happened?

The incident occurred in the early morning hours of November 26, 2022, at an Antioch, California gas station. Two suspects entered the store with guns and attempted to rob it. The clerk pulled out his own gun, at which time the robbers ran out of the store. While fleeing the store, one of the robbers was shot by the clerk and fell to the floor. The clerk continued to pursue the robbers while shooting. At which point the robber on the ground returned fire and killed the store clerk. When police arrived, they found the deceased clerk in the store with a gunshot wound to his head.

Why Wasn’t the Robber Charged With Murder?

Despite having been responsible for shooting and killing the clerk, the suspected robber did not end up being charged for murder or manslaughter since it was determined by prosecutors that there were no grounds for such charges due to self-defense laws. The reasoning behind this decision is because the clerk pursued the robber despite the threat of bodily harm or injury having subsided. Meaning, once the clerk pulled out his gun and shot and the robbers ran away, the threat was no longer there. So, by chasing after the robbers and shooting at the wounded one who was on the floor, the store clerk had now become the attacker.

The Importance of Knowing Details

The above story serves as an example of how complex criminal law can be and how important details are when determining guilt or innocence in a case like this one. In this particular instance, even though it seemed obvious at first glance that the robber should have been charged with murder, further research revealed that there were mitigating circumstances present which meant he was not charged due to self-defense laws. This case also highlights why anyone facing criminal charges should always make sure they receive experienced legal representation; without detailed knowledge of criminal law and experience handling similar cases, you may end up facing more severe consequences than necessary or deserved due to lack of understanding about certain laws or factors related to your case.

While crimes should always be taken seriously, it’s essential to understand all elements involved before assuming guilt or innocence on behalf of an accused individual. In some cases, like this one involving a robbery suspect who wasn’t charged with murder despite killing the store clerk, details must be taken into account before making any decisions regarding prosecution or punishment for crimes committed.

If you’re involved in a self-defense case, we are right by your side, To schedule a consultation about your self-defense case, please contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments.

On August 4, 2022, Nicole Linton was behind the wheel of her Mercedes, speeding as

fast as 90 miles an hour. She ran a red light and plowed into traffic at the busy intersection of La
Brea and Slauson avenues killed 6 people and hurt others. She was charged with 6 counts of
murder and 5 counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. If convicted, she could
be facing a life sentence in prison.
This tragic event was covered by the local and national press. The trial for Ms. Linton is not
scheduled yet. However, if a jury trial does take place, her defense team will have their plate
full. This is because the extensive news coverage could taint the jury pool. Even potential jurors
who may not have followed the case personally could have been exposed by their family and
or friends.
In the United States of America, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. That means
the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove a defendant is guilty. The defendant does
not have to prove he/she is innocent. But one can argue that in such a case as Ms. Linton’s the
extensive press coverage inadvertently eases the prosecution’s burden of proof. This is because
potential jurors who have read or watched the news reports may have concluded that the
defendant is guilty before the case goes to trial.
This is the classic example of the court of law versus the court of public opinion.
Therefore, the defense may want to change the venue in such cases to have access to an
untainted jury pool. If successful in changing the venue, the defense will still be facing a
daunting task. No matter the outcome, the horrific events of August 4 are a tragedy for
everyone involved.

On August 24, 2021, Kanye West officially filed a Petition for Change of Name in Los Angeles County Superior Court. After going by Ye for years, Kanye wants to make it official. He cited “personal reasons” in his Petition for wanting to change his name and now must wait for a Judge to approve the request. Once the Petition is granted Kanye, or Ye, will be able to obtain new legal documents, such as a Passport, Driver License, Social Security Card, etc. in his new legal name.

One does not have to be a celebrity to legally change their name. Maybe you want add a middle name or want a different last name. No matter the reason, you can legally change your name, and we can help. We have helped a number of client’s change their name. We can even help you change the name of your minor child.

If you or someone you know wants to file for a Name Change, contact us at (310) 448-1529 or visit us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/ Bundy Station.

If you have ever seen a TV show or a movie that involves the law, you have probably heard the term “No Contest.” But do you know what it means in legal terms and the implications that come with it?

The term itself comes from the Latin word nolo contendere, which literally means No Contest, and it is only used in criminal proceedings. When a defendant pleads No Contest, he/she is saying to the court: “I am not admitting I am guilty of the charges, but I am not going to fight them.” In a criminal proceeding this is treated just the same as a Guilty plea. Meaning the Court will use the No Contest plea to find the defendant guilty and sentence him/her to a predetermined outcome. This is because prior to the No Contest plea being entered by the defendant, the defense and the prosecution have worked out a deal in the case. This is what some refer to as a “Plea Bargain.” The deal is usually one that guarantees the defendant will get a lighter sentence than what he/she is originally facing in exchange for the No Contest plea.

So, if a No contest plea is treated the same as a guilty plea, why doesn’t the defendant just plead guilty? This is a matter of legal strategy. Let’s pretend the defendant is charged with a DUI that resulted in him/her hitting a parked car and damaging it. The defendant will be charged with a DUI in criminal court for breaking the law. If he/she pleads Guilty or No Contest the result in criminal court will be the same. But in our scenario, the defendant may also be sued in civil court by the owner of the parked car for damages. If the defendant had pled Guilty in his/her criminal proceedings, the owner of the parked car could use that Guilty plea in criminal court against the defendant and automatically win the civil suit. However, if the defendant pleads No Contest in criminal court, his/her plea may not be used in civil court to automatically find him/her guilty. Meaning, the owner of the parked car would actually have to meet the burden of proof in civil court and prove that the defendant caused damage to the parked car and should be held liable.

One must keep in mind that when it comes to No Contest pleas, the rules change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, some state courts do not accept a No Contest plea without first confirming that there is a Factual Basis for the Plea. Meaning, that certain facts relating to the event are agreed to by all parties before the plea is taken. For example, in the above example the defendant would have to agree to the facts that he/she was operating a vehicle while under the influence and caused damage to the parked car before he/she will be allowed to enter a No Contest plea. In Federal court, before accepting the plea of No Contest the court must consider the views of the defense and the prosecution AND consider the “public interest” before allowing/accepting the No Contest plea.

This is just a basic explanation of what a No Contest plea is. One must remember that each legal issue depends on its particular facts, and different jurisdictions have different laws and regulations. You should not act or rely on this information alone without seeking advice from an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.

Kissing at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s, hoping to find love in the New Year is quickly followed by the most active day for online dating sites. Love and companionship in the New Year is a top agenda for millions of Americans. Statistics show that the first Sunday of the New Year is the most active day for new online dating profiles. The odds of finding a match are increased as much as 30%!

Online sites like Match.com, eHarmony.com or OkCupid have developed apps for people to connect and meet potential companions at the touch of their phone screen. It’s now the trendiest and most convenient approach for people in hopes of breaking the cycle of singlehood.

Tinder has had quite the reputation since its launch back in 2012. The dating app has been one of the premier hook-up apps for adults to find some short-term thrills, but also claims to be the catalyst for more legitimate relationships than any other dating platform out there. Even though they boast over 50 million users worldwide, the app is not is not meant for anyone under the age of 18, and certainly isn’t common place for the profile of an 11-year-old girl.

21-year-old Travis McAdams of Greendale, Indiana met a girl on Tinder, then pursued her through Snapchat. The girl claimed she was 16 years old but in reality was only 11. According to the investigation, McAdams met the tween at a local cinema where he put his arm around her neck, covered her mouth and forced her behind the building then proceeded to rape the 11-year-old.

In the state of Indiana, the age of consent is 16, so he could have been able to stay out of facing any legal woes had the encounter actually been consensual. Even though he was made aware of her age, he continued to rape her on several other occasions before the victim’s mother found out about the incidents.

Since news broke of this heinous crime, more victims with similar stories have come forward.

McAdams is being charged with ” rape and child molesting” by the Dearborn County District Attorney. Had this crime occurred in California, Travis McAdams would face Statutory Rape charges under Penal Code 261.5 and would also face Lewd Acts with a Minor under Penal Code 288.

YouTube has become a platform where everyday people can launch themselves into a life of fame and fortune with the simple upload of a video. It is common for people to do dumb, daring, and over-the-top stunts to shock viewers in the hopes they will share the video to create a social media frenzy. All it takes is a video to go viral, and advertisement royalty money comes rolling in, along with the thrill of being a self-made internet star.

For some ‘YouTube stars’ the high of keeping their followers entertained comes at a cost, and for a local Studio City YouTube star, fighting for ‘center stage’ is now the focus of a controversy that has exposed an illegal possession of an exotic animal.

In many parts of Asia, tigers are considered the god of wealth. In western culture, tigers have been seen in countless music videos, movies, and entertainment performances to represent a lavish lifestyle, so it’s not surprising that Logan Paul created a casual video of his dog having a not-so-friendly encounter with a young exotic cat.

The cub handler, and Logan joked and laughed as the 2 animals growled at each other. This wasn’t the first time the baby tiger had been seen and associated with other social media posts. It is believed the same cub was seen with on Instagram posing with a model last year.

Although these innocent cats are cute and somewhat cuddly in their young age, they are still wild animals that shouldn’t ever be mistaken for a domesticated cat. The cat’s then owner, Nicholas Perkins is now facing 2 counts of illegal possession, as well as one count of mistreatment of an animal.

The California Department for Fish and Game regulates the list of wild animals that are illegal to keep, domesticated pet tigers being one of them. Anyone who is isn’t professionally trained or formally educated would face animal endangerment charges even if they made an honest effort to care for the animal. Other states may keep pretty lax laws regarding the welfare of animals, which is likely how the tiger was acquired, however California is one of the strictest states in the union for the protection for both domestic and wild animals.

Nicholas Perkins, was charged with four criminal counts including two counts of illegal possession of a tiger; mistreatment of a tiger, and possession of anabolic steroids. If convicted, Perkins could face up to two years and six months in jail and $4,000 in fines.

If you or someone you know has been falsely accused, contact us at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

With the NFL season in full swing, and the games full of epic wins, plays, and suspense, it hasn’t been without the disappointment of one NFL team who seems to be continually in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

The San Francisco 49ers have spent the past 2 years shrouded in controversy following the actions of then quarterback Colin Kaepernick when he took a knee during the National Anthem. Any good news about the teams wins or brilliant plays have been completely overshadowed yet again thanks to the negative spotlight of one of their linebackers.

On Saturday November 25, 2018, just hours before game time, Rueben Foster was arrested on domestic violence charges after police were called to the Grand Hyatt hotel where they found Reuben’s female companion with a scratch on her collar bone. She was allegedly slapped across the face as well as pushed in the chest. The couple have been periodically dating on and off over the past 3 years.

General Manager John Lynch made a statement implying Foster broke several ground rules set out to create a successful team and franchise that were communicated ‘exceptionally clear’ to him. The Linebacker was immediately fired before he could hit the field on Sunday morning. The decision to cut Foster from the team was absolutely justified since he has had several run-ins with the law, including a prior felony domestic battery charge, as well as weapons and drug charges.

Because this crime occurred in the state of Florida, Reuben Foster will be subject to their local jurisdictions and laws. Had the 49ers been playing a home game and the incident occurred in San Francisco, under California Penal Code 243 (e)(1) Foster would likely face domestic battery charges.

Even though Foster and his female friend weren’t officially dating at the time, the law still defines this incident as a domestic battery charge because the law includes ‘any persons with whom the defendant has or used to have a dating relationship.’

In California, domestic battery if charged as a misdemeanor has penalties that could include a fine of up to $2,000 dollars, with the potential stint of up to a year in county jail. If he had been convicted in California, Rueben Foster would also be required to complete 52 weekly classes under the Batterers’ Intervention Program.

If you or someone you know has been falsely accused of domestic violence, contact us 24 hours a day at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

As the Woolsey Fire continues to rage through some of the most expensive real estate in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, celebrities like Lady Gaga, Kim Kardashian, and Gerard Butler have been forced to flee their Malibu estates. The Pacific Coast Highway became the only route for safe evacuation, and quickly became jammed as a caravan full of cars, trucks, and SUVs packed with the most precious documents, belongings, and furry family members made the slow trek to safer places in the city.

Leaving behind their homes to the fate of the Santa Ana winds and the flames was hard enough, but in the midst of tragedy, there is always someone who is ready to take advantage of the vulnerabilities and chaos that come in the wake of a natural disaster. For some, it’s tempting to scavenge through the possible high-end treasures that could be found amongst the rubble or plunder the unscathed houses where security systems have no power.

On Friday, November 9th authorities made two arrests in separate incidents of looting, one in which resulted in a police pursuit, but have made no details as to the arrests or exact location of which community was being targeted. Since the fire is devastating some of the most affluent communities in California, 200 additional deputies have been deployed to patrol the streets, private roads, and properties in hopes to deter anyone looking to take advantage of this horrific situation.

In a televised press conference on the morning of November 17th, Ventura County Sergeant Eric Buschow warned the community and viewers, “If you come here with the intent of taking advantage of the situation, we will arrest you and you will go to jail.”

Under California Penal Code 463 these looters will face misdemeanor criminal charges which could result in probation as well us up to a year in county jail.

For the person that decided to try and evade cops, he or she will also face additional charges of Reckless Evading a Police Officer, under California Vehicle Code 2800.2 which will result in fines and up to another 364 days in fail if charged as a misdemeanor, or up to a 10,000 fine and up to 3 years in state prison if charged as a felony.

On November 1, 2018, Jennifer Haymart, 39, appeared in a Sacramento, CA courtroom court. After a month-long investigation, she was accused of five felony charges, including suspicion of embezzlement, grand theft and forgery.

Haymart was accused of embezzling more than $138,000 form two organizations: the Sacramento Deterding Elementary School Parent Teacher Organization (PTO), which she took around $85,000 from, and the Carmichael Little League Baseball Club, from which she took around $52,000. Haymart was the treasurer of both the PTO and the Little League Club. She forged “legitimate statements” to try and cover her tracks, the Sheriff’s Department said. Haymart is being held at the Sacramento County Jail on $125,000 bail.

Embezzlement, under the California Penal Code,  is the fraudulent appropriation of property that:

1. belongs to someone else,
2. has been entrusted to you.

One can be charged with embezzlement even if they did not intend to permanently keep the property in question, but only intended to “borrow” it.

Punishment for embezzlement under California law depends on the value and type of property stolen or borrowed; it can either be a form of California petty theft or California grand theft.

The crime is a petty theft if the property is:

1. worth less than $950, or
2. is any other embezzlement that does not meet the definition of California grand theft.

California petty theft is punishable by:

• Misdemeanor probation;
• Up to six months in county jail; and/or
• A fine of up to $1,000.

The crime is a grand theft if the property is either:

1. worth more than nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), or
2. an automobile, or
3. a firearm.

A grand theft crime is a “wobbler” under California law, which means that it may be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstances of the case and the defendant’s criminal history, and these result in different penalties:

• Misdemeanor grand theft embezzlement is punished by:
  • Misdemeanor (summary) probation; and/or
  • Up to one year in county jail; and/or
  • A fine of up to $1,000.

• Felony grand theft embezzlement (other than cases of embezzlement of firearms) is punished by:
  • Felony (formal) probation;
  • 16 months or two or three years in county jail; and/or
  • A fine of up to $10,000

There are potential sentence enhancements for felony embezzlement of high-value property, which are added on incrementally if the property was worth more $65,000, $200,000, $1,300,000, or $3,200,000.

In Haymart’s case, she will likely be charged with California grand theft, but the decision between whether her wobbler crime is a felony or misdemeanor grand theft will have to be decided by the prosecuting agency (District attorney) to determine the harshness of her penalties she may be facing.

Haymart is also likely to face a sentence enhancement, which incurs another year due to the property being valued at more than $65,000.

Some common legal defenses to Penal Code 503 PC embezzlement include:

• A good faith belief that you had had a right to the property
• A lack of criminal intent; and
• A false accusation

If you or someone you know has been falsely charged with embezzlement, call us 24 hours a day at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

Photo: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Halloween, a night known for devious tricks and endless treats, also sees a spike of crime. People from all walks of society take advantage of being cloaked as some of the darkest creatures and characters our imaginations can conjure.  It is one of the days of the year where keeping kids safe is the pinnacle of every parent’s priority. However, for the city of Santa Monica, the decades-long dark agenda and sexually charged ‘tricks’ of a local volunteer has the community reeling over the nightmare of an ongoing threat to the safety of their children.

50-year-old Eric Wess Uller has been exposed as the local ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ as he kept the façade of safety and security for decades. Since the 1980’s, Eric Wess Uller has served as a Police Activities League volunteer where he spent years mentoring local kids with varying activities ranging from field trips to fitness and academic advancement classes. Not only has Eric Wess Uller been volunteering in the P.A.L. program, but he was also on the city’s payroll working as a public safety systems analyst, giving him the opportunity to be around hundreds of kids over the years. Eric Uller is now accused of befriending, grooming, and then sexually assaulting several young boys ranging between 13 to 14 years of age. As of right now he is charged with 5 counts of sexual crimes against minors. He is currently being charged with 3 counts of PC 288(a), 2 counts of PC 288A(b)(1), and 1 Count of 288.5. His next court date is on November 5, 2018, in Dept. W30 of Airport court.

Most likely additional charges are to follow as the horror keeps unfolding and 6 additional victims have come forward. Meanwhile the Sheriff’s Department continues its investigation to find of more victims.

Even if Eric Wess Uller didn’t actually do anything with the minor, any attempts he made may still be considered a felony under under California law. As always one must remember that under our justice system everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In the case of Eric Wess Uller, the “innocent until proven guilty” doctrine applies.

*** UPDATE *** – Eric Uller was found dead on the morning of November 15, 2018, in his apartment in what officials are saying is a possible suicide.

Photo: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

Every time “Election Day” nears, the races for political and public offices start to heat up. The bombardment of vicious ads exposing scandals, failures, and personal agendas to sway electors become intensified as single votes will determine the fate of divided communities.

Often times the ads are dramatic and exaggerated, but for the City of Fullerton, California, a serious scandal might sway local constituents during the 2018 Mayoral race. Healthy competition is a great way for the political arena from getting too monotonous, but for one candidate’s wife, a little too much competition has landed her in some serious legal trouble.

Tony Bushala paid over $1,000 for political yard signs to promote his bid for mayor. He personally put up 180 signs around Fullerton neighborhoods in hopes of swaying the local community against incumbent Mayor Doug Chaffee. However, just 3 days later, Bushala found all of his signs were gone.

Suspicious of thieves undermining his efforts, Bushala called upon some of the businesses and homes equipped with security cameras to get to the bottom of the loss. To his surprise, a prominent woman whom he had met serval times before at City Council meetings was at the center of this spiteful crime. Paulette Marshall Chaffee, the wife of his rival, was clearly seen removing signs.

What was meant to give her husband a competitive edge has undoubtedly cast a shadow on Chaffe’s Mayoral re-election campaign. Paulette, who was running for City Counsel in Fullerton, has also suspended her campaign as a result of the video footage.

Under California penal code 487, this foolish act of political revenge could land Mrs. Chaffee in court facing grand theft charges. If charged with a misdemeanor, she could face up to 1 year in county jail. If charged with a felony, Mrs. could face up to 3 years in State Prison; not to mention the fines, fees, and probation associated with a conviction.

If you or someone you know has been accused of grand theft, contact us 24 hours a day at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

One of the luxuries of living in the land of the free and the home of the brave is the fact that our American society grants us the cultural right of having solitude while going to the bathroom. We take for granted the fact that we get to lock the door behind us to ensure our privacy. As that stall door shuts behind us, the last thing we expect to worry about is being watched while we are sitting on the ‘porcelain throne.’

But crime has no bounds and it is often the quiet crimes that rock neighborhoods otherwise deemed safe.

The affluent south bay city of Rancho Palos Verdes is the last place you would imagine a municipal employee breaking the law. This beautiful peninsula enclave is the home of private horse stables, Mediterranean style estates with sweeping Pacific Ocean views, and a wild muster of roaming peacocks- certainly a far cry from L.A.’s most infamous neighborhoods.

Building inspector Andrew James Jensen was arrested on September 25, 2018, and charged with a whopping 89 counts of Criminal Invasion of Privacy.  This was after Jensen’s quarter sized spy camera was discovered by a co-worker under a tampon dispenser in a unisex employee bathroom at Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall. Jensen also placed a camera in a nearby Starbucks to secretly record a total of 63 women and 23 men over a 3-week period between both locations over the summer.

Under California Penal Code 647(j) it is a misdemeanor to violate another person’s privacy by secretly recording someone in a private room in order to view that person’s body or undergarments.

Penalties for violating someone’s privacy can be punishable with up to 6 months in county jail and/or a fine of $1,000

With the plethora of misdemeanor counts in this case, Jensen will most likely face serious jail time and hefty fines since subsequent infractions have increased penalties including a minimum of 1 year in county jail and a minimum fine of $2,000. This misdemeanor crime could also be punishable by probation in lieu of jail time.

If you or someone you know has been falsely charged with criminal invasion of privacy, contact us 24 hours a day at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

One of America’s most recognized entertainers, Bill Cosby, was sentenced to prison for  3 to 10 years on September 25, 2018. Cosby was accused by 37 women over several years for sexual misconduct, dating back to 1964.

One specific accuser, Andrea Constand, claimed that in 2004, Cosby drugged her with pills, left her incapacitated in his Pennsylvania home, where he proceeded to sexually assault her. Constand went public about the incident a year after it took place but prosecutors did not press charges. A decade later, dozens of women also came forward about being drugged and sexually assaulted by Cosby. However Constand’s was the only case that occurred within the statute of limitations, and it was eventually taken up by a new prosecution team. In September 2018, Cosby was found guilty in Pennsylvania on the three counts of sexual assault brought against him: penetration with lack of consent, penetration while unconscious, and penetration after administering an intoxicant.

If Cosby were to be charged in California rather than Pennsylvania, California’s Penal Code 243.4, AKA “sexual assault” law, would apply. This code section prohibits non-consensual touching of the intimate part of another person for purposes of sexual gratification, arousal, or abuse. This can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Felony penalties only apply if the alleged victim was under any of the below circumstances:

1. unaware of the nature of the act because he/she was fraudulently convinced that the touching was for professional purposes (like, for example, medical or therapeutic purposes)
2. unlawfully restrained
3. institutionalized and either medically incapacitated or seriously disabled
4. forced to masturbate or touch their intimate parts or the intimate part of another person under any of the above circumstances

Conviction for felony sexual assault includes harsher penalties than misdemeanor assault, listed below:

• Two, three or four years in California state prison, and
• A maximum $10,000 fine, and
• A lifetime requirement to register as a tier three sex offender.

All other sexual assault lacking the above conditions is charged as a misdemeanor. Penalties for misdemeanor sexual assault include:

• A maximum county jail sentence of either six months or one year, and
• A fine of up to $2,000 (or $3,000 if the victim was your employee), and
• A minimum ten-year requirement to register as a tier one sex offender.

Cosby was convicted for felony sexual assault, and sentenced to three to ten years in state prison, along with a $25,000 fine, and a requirement to pay the Pennsylvania commonwealth for the cost of his prosecutions. He was denied bail due to being a flight risk, and will also be registered for his lifetime as a “sexually violent predator.”

Some legal defenses to sexual assault include false allegations, consent, and insufficient evidence.

If you or someone you know has been falsely charged with sexual assault, contact us 24 hours a day at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

Photo: Montgomery County Correctional Facility

Not every crime is common, and it seems that every day we hear of new ways our fellow man has pushed the limits of ‘law abiding citizen’ into a ‘creative’ criminal. It has been said that loneliness makes one do things out of desperation, and for one Arizona man, his desperate and dark sexual impulses have landed him into a heap of legal trouble.

In September of 2018, thirty-year-old Paul Anthony Menchaca was arrested on suspicion of felony fraud as he impersonated a ‘lifestyle of disability’ by duping professional caregivers he had Down Syndrome in order to manipulate them into changing his adult diapers as well as bathing him.

However, it wasn’t quite adding up after complaints were made by his caregivers stating that he had repeatedly made aggressive demands that his genitals needed to be cleaned more thoroughly. Additionally, the primary caregiver “Amy” had requested that Menchaca be punished if he soiled his diapers or ‘misbehaved’ in any way. Adding to suspicion, not one of the three caregivers had ever met Amy in person. She only communicated and coordinated care through text, and left cash for prompt payment of service.

After a month-long investigation into the case, it was determined that Amy was a false persona made up by Menchaca to make his devious scheme a plausible reality. Authorities traced Amy’s cell phone number back to Menchaca.

To make matters worse, Paul Menchaca was a teacher’s aid at the local junior high school in Gilbert, Arizona. Though it has been made clear that none of the children were involved or harmed, his spotless reputation as well as clean criminal history have been tainted forever.

Had this crime been committed in California, Menchaca might been charged with violating Penal Code §529 (False Impersonation). Menchaca would face up to 3 years in jail and/or a $10,000 fine depending. Even though the cleaning and touching of his genitals was part of the caregiver’s job, he was in no need of any such care and was fully capable of taking care of his own hygienic needs. Therefore, he could additionally face Sexual Battery charges under Penal Code §243.4

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, contact us 24 hours a day at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

Photo: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

After the September 11 attacks, Americans spend extra time preparing for travel by standing in TSA security lines which make our airports safer for the millions of daily travelers. Thankfully, it’s a rare sight to see a security breech; and even the faintest whisper of a threat, or the slightest break of the TSA ‘rules’ and line formations could lead to serious fines and even jail time.

However, all the powers of the Transportation Security Administration were useless against a security breech for one Delta flight traveling out of LAX on August 27, 2018.

Twenty-three year old Luis Aguilar did what many of us wish we could do to avoid the, smelly feet, body scanners, conveyor belts, and slow moving lines that rival 405 traffic: He bypassed all security measures and climbed a fence on the border of Sepulveda and Lincoln and headed straight for a plane preparing for take-off at one of the world’s busiest airports.

It wasn’t exactly clear what this mentally ill man’s motives truly were as he approached a Delta flight. Passengers looked through their windows with a front row seat to what seemed to be a Hollywood thriller stunt. Aguilar both entertained and frightened passengers as he attempted to jump around the aircraft, hoping to touch the wings and engines.  He gave gawking onlookers quite a finale when he did pushups on the tarmac just before Airport Police Officers apprehended him.

Several flights were delayed while investigators and regulators cleared the scene of any further danger to inbound and outbound flights.

As the investigation of Aguilar’s antics are wrapping up, one thing is certain: under California Penal Code 601 this man will face felony trespassing charges. Most of us don’t see trespassing as a serious criminal offence, however, because Aguilar trespassed in a way that not only threatened business at LAX, but also put lives in danger to passengers and employees alike.

This ‘wobbler‘ crime may be charged as a misdemeanor or felony and may carry the following penalties:

If charged as a Misdemeanor-

• Up to one (1) year in county jail; and/or
• A fine of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000)

If Penal Code 601 PC is charged as a felony, Aguilar can face

• felony probation
• Sixteen (16) months, two (2) years or three (3) years served in county jail
• A fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

If you or someone you know has been charged with trespassing or a TSA violation, contact us 24 hours a day at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

Photo: Chad Ridgely/Twitter

All little girls hope for the protection of a loving father, but sometimes the cost of that protection comes at a huge legal expense, as it has become the case for one Arizona father in August of 2018

While using the restroom, Melvin Harris III’s daughter was harassed by known criminal Leevon Armstrong as he entered into the women’s restroom and violently shook the stall door. The store security guard was notified of the incident and was attempting to investigate the situation under standard protocol.

However, Harris had a different protocol in mind. His paternal instincts kicked in as his daughter pointed out the perpetrator while he was walking out of the store. To add fuel to his already raging fire, Armstrong was the same man who just moments before had asked Harris for spare change, in which Harris generously obliged.

According to witnesses, Harris repeatedly stomped, punched and kicked the victim. Harris has only admitted to punching Armstrong in the face, but denied throwing the first punch. Unfortunately, Harris dealt Armstrong a blow that he would result in fatal head trauma including brain swelling, a nasal fracture, and loss of oxygen.

Harris’s response of rage not only cost Leevon Armstrong his life, but cost Melvin Harris the freedom of life as he knew it. Making sure his daughter is always safe was clearly a top priority, but his passion for her life came at the ultimate price.

Because Harris didn’t deliberately choose to commit murder (there wasn’t expressed or implied malice) nor was the incident happening during the commission of a felony, and no weapon of mass destruction or explosive device was used, it automatically falls under the 2nd degree murder charge.

If this incident occurred in the state of California, and Harris was charged with Penal Code 187, he would face 15 years to life in state prison as penalty for his passion-filled parenting style. However, defenses for his case to reduce charges could include provocation, self-defense, defense of another person, or justification.

If you or someone you know has been falsely charged with murder, contact us 24 hours a day at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and steps away from the Expo/Bundy Station. We have flexible hours and weekend appointments, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

PHOTO: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office