Blog

Expungement in California, particularly for expunging California criminal records, is a vital legal process for individuals aiming to conceal their criminal history from the public eye. This process, while not completely erasing the conviction, significantly lessens its impact, thereby enhancing opportunities in employment, housing, and other crucial aspects of life.

Key Penal Code Sections for Expunging California Criminal Records

• Section 1203.4a: For cases without probation in California record expungement.
• Section 17: Facilitates the reclassification of specific felonies, known as “wobblers,” to misdemeanors in the context of expunging records.
• Section 1203.4: Pertains to cases where the defendant was on probation during the expungement process.

Eligibility and Process for Expunging Records in California

To be eligible for expunging criminal records in California, one must meet certain criteria under each statute. This includes fulfilling all probation requirements and maintaining a clean record during this period.

Steps for Expunging California Criminal Records

1. Prepare the Petition: Assemble your criminal record and submit the petition to the relevant agencies.
2. Personal Statement: Provide a statement detailing the conviction and the positive changes made since then.
3. Court Hearing: A hearing is scheduled where your petition for expunging the California criminal record is reviewed and potentially approved.

Directly Addressing FAQs on Expunging Records

• General Process: Ensure eligibility and actively pursue the steps for expunging criminal records.
• Ineligible Records: Some grave offenses, such as specific sex crimes, may not be eligible for expungement.
• Expunging Felonies: Certain felonies, known as “wobblers,” can be reduced and possibly expunged.

Legal Assistance for Expunging Records

• Obtaining Records: Contact the California Department of Justice to access your records for expungement.
• Free Record Searches: Utilize state or local government resources for complimentary searches.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, Attorney Hashemi specializes in providing legal representation for cases involving expunging criminal records. If you’re considering expungement or require legal assistance, please reach out to us at(310) 448-1529 or schedule a consultation.

The question often arises: can a criminal conviction be a snake in the grass as far as your immigration status is concerned? The California Supreme Court recently considered this question in the September 11, 2013 case of People v. Martinez. In 1992, Mr. Martinez was arrested for and charged with possession of marijuana. He pled guilty and completed his probation without incident. Subsequently, he had the conviction expunged, and then married and had four children.

The problem was that, according to the record, no one advised Mr. Martinez that the criminal conviction could have immigration consequences. When he applied for an adjustment of status in 2008, his application was denied because of the criminal conviction — immigration authorities do not recognize expunction. ICE then promptly began deportation proceedings against Mr. Martinez.

Criminal Pleas and Unintended Consequences

The rule in California and elsewhere is that a plea is invalid if:

• The defendant was not advised of the immigration consequences of the plea.
• That failure of advisement created prejudice, and the defendant would not have pled guilty if properly advised.

It is so important to work with a California criminal defense attorney who sees the big picture and understands all possible ramifications of a criminal conviction. A criminal conviction for even minor offenses (Mr. Martinez’ conviction was based on about $8 worth of marijuana) can have serious implications for your immigration status. Some facts to remember:

• ICE only considers some offenses to be deportable. Your attorney needs to know which ones.
• The prosecutor cannot use your immigration status as a basis for the sentence recommendation.

The generic warning the State gives you — “this plea may have consequences on your immigration status” — is generic and almost worthless. At a time like this, you need specific and professional advice from a competent attorney before you appear before the judge.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we provide clients with passionate and experienced representation. If you have been charged with a crime and would like to schedule an initial consultation with a lawyer at our firm, contact us by phone at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. We promptly return phone calls and emails. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in West Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood. We have flexible and weekend office hours, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

As a citizen of the United States of America, it is always good to know your legal rights. Perhaps one of the most common questions that people ask is whether it is legal for police to search one’s personal property without the consent of the owner and/or a warrant? The 4th amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, but what happens when a person’s significant other gives consent to do the search? In the case of Walter Fernandez vs. California, the police searched the home of Fernandez with the consent of his girlfriend, while he was not in attendance. This case is a bit more complicated and has the lower courts split, so it is now going to the United States Supreme Court.

In 2009, there was a report of a robbery and stabbing in which Los Angeles Police Department responded to. The victim described the attacker as a man with a tattoo on his head, and when officers spotted a man running from the crime scene to an apartment, they pursued. After hearing shouts and yells they knocked on the door to find Fernandez’s bleeding and bruised girlfriend holding a baby. Upon seeing the officers, Fernandez began to angrily yell and scream stating: “You don’t have the right to be here. I know my rights.”

The officers then took Fernandez into custody, removing him from his property. They then returned to the apartment and with the consent of the girlfriend, entered and searched the property. Amongst Fernandez’s belongings, they found Drifters gang paraphernalia, along with a knife and a gun. After being positively identified by the victim, Fernandez was then taken to jail and ultimately convicted of robbery while acting as part of a street gang and of illegal gun possession. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Fernandez then appealed his case citing Georgia vs. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). In this case, a man from Georgia objected police entering and searching his home, while his estranged wife gave consent. The husband then filed a case stating that the police had violated his rights, and the courts ruled in his favor. Fernandez, however, lost his case in the California Court of Appeals.

When Fernandez’s attorney filed another appeal, the U.S Supreme Court agreed to hear the case due to the overwhelming fact that the lower courts are split on this issue. Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher will argue for Hernandez and feels that the court should not weaken the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches. Louis Karlin, a deputy state attorney general from Los Angeles, will join with an Obama administration attorney and argue to uphold the decision of the previous courts.

In conclusion, the case of Walter Fernandez vs. California has the lower courts split. Because of this, the U.S Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Depending on what the Supreme Court rules, this could further define American’s 4th Amendment and the protections under it.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we provide clients with passionate and experienced representation. If you would like to schedule an initial consultation with a lawyer at our firm, contact us by phone at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. We promptly return phone calls and emails. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in West Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood. We have flexible and weekend office hours, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

After the arrest and before the trial, there are a number of important events that take place in the life of a felony criminal case. Once a person is arrested, a judge determines the amount of bail. Bail cannot be tied to the evidence against the person — instead, the judge determines the likelihood that the defendant will appear at trial, if released. The judge may consider things like the defendant’s ties to the community, the severity of the offense and the flight risk of the defendant.

Once bail is set, the defendant may generally either post cash bail for the full amount, which is refunded after the trial, or pay a bondsman a nonrefundable fee, usually 10 percent of the bail amount. In other instances, especially in nonviolent misdemeanors and traffic citations, a judge may release a defendant on OR (own recognizance) bond, meaning the defendant simply promises to return for trial.

It is usually best that the defendant be out of jail, pending trial (if at all possible), because it is much easier for the attorney to meet with the defendant and prepare a vigorous defense.

Preliminary Hearing

A felony prosecution usually begins with an indictment returned by a grand jury. A grand jury is a group of people that meets to determine whether the prosecutor has enough evidence to proceed against a defendant — the grand jury returns a true-bill or no-bill.
Most Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys prefer a preliminary hearing to a grand jury hearing in felony cases. This is because the defendant’s lawyer may appear at a preliminary hearing and question witnesses.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we provide clients with passionate and experienced representation. If you have been charged with a felony or any other crime and would like to schedule an initial consultation with a lawyer at our firm, contact us by phone at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. We promptly return phone calls and emails. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in West Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood. We have flexible and weekend office hours, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

A sudden passion can separate murder from manslaughter, in a legal sense — but, where is that line drawn? On June 3, 2013, the California Supreme Court delivered People vs. Beltran, (124 Cal.App.3d 335). Mr. Beltran shared a residence with Claire Joyce Tempongko and Ms. Tempongko’s son. While the son called Mr. Beltran “Dad,” Mr. Beltran was extremely physically abusive. Witnesses stated that there were death threats in addition to the severe physical violence. After he locked Ms. Tempongko in her bedroom and barricaded the door, Ms. Tempongko obtained a restraining order against Mr. Beltran. But, Mr. Beltran kept an apartment key.

On the night of her death, Ms. Tempongko was bludgeoned and stabbed 17 times. Mr. Beltran was almost immediately arrested for and charged with the crime. According to Mr. Beltran, he argued with Ms. Tempongko on the night she was killed, and that heated argument drove him to commit the crime. Essentially, the jury was faced with the question of what motivated that heinous crime: the past history of violent abuse or the heated argument just prior to the event?

The Rule

The rule that the Court gave Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers to apply in such situations is that provocation is adequate only when it would render an ordinary person of average disposition liable to act rashly or without due deliberation and reflection, and from this passion rather than from judgment. The mere fact that the jury received a manslaughter instruction was highly offensive to many advocacy groups, as well as the California Attorney General.

You should expect nothing less than total commitment and zealous representation from your attorney, which is what we strive to provide at The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we provide clients with passionate and experienced representation. If you have been charged with murder or any other crime and would like to schedule an initial consultation with a lawyer at our firm, contact us by phone at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. We promptly return phone calls and emails. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in West Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood. We have flexible and weekend office hours, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

Los Angeles, CA – The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi announced that it has launched a fundraiser in support of Homeboy Industries and the wonderful job they do for the Los Angeles community. The goal is to raise Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for men and women looking to leave their gang lives behind by joining the Homeboy community, a place that will help them redirect their lives to become better mothers and fathers, reliable and responsible employees, and contributing members of our communities. To donate please visit: HashemiLaw Fundraiser for Homeboy Industries

About the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi

The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi is a leading criminal defense firm, handling all types of misdemeanor and felony cases. For over a decade, the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi has fought passionately to defend the rights of our clients facing criminal prosecution in Los Angeles and surrounding counties.

About Homeboy Industries

Homeboy Industries is a non-profit organization and provides hope, training and support to formerly gang-involved and previously incarcerated men and women helping them redirect their lives and become contributing members of the community.
Over the course of 25 years, Homeboy Industries has become the largest gang intervention and rehabilitation site in the country. Because of Homeboy Industries, Southern California is safer. Men and women are breaking the cycle of poverty and incarceration.

Contact

To learn more about this fundraiser please contact:

The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi
11845 W Olympic Blvd, Suite 520
Los Angeles, California 90064
Office: (310) 448-1529
Email: info@hashemilaw.com

To learn about Homeboy Industries please contact:

Homeboy Industries
HomeboyIndustries.org
130 W Bruno St
Los Angeles, California 90012
Tel: (323) 526-1254
Fax: (323) 526-1257
Email: info@homeboyindustries.org

###

Traditionally, discovery in criminal cases was a one-way proposition: the prosecutor had a duty to disclose evidence to the defense, but the defense had no duty to reciprocate. That dynamic changed with Proposition 115.

Proposition 115, narrowly approved by voters on June 5, 1990, made reciprocal discovery the rule in California criminal cases. While the law may not mean much in many misdemeanors and low-level felonies, the discovery rules can mean quite a bit for Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys in larger cases.

Types of discovery

Just as in a civil case, there are a number of discovery devices available to learn more information about the other side’s case and avoid “trial by ambush:”

• Interrogatories: These questions are propounded to the prosecutor by the defense, or vice versa, and must be answered truthfully under oath.
• Depositions: Each side may want to depose the fact witnesses in a case, including both the lay witnesses and peace officers, as well as any expert witnesses.
• Document requests: Document requests work a bit differently in criminal cases. The parties may exchange requests and, in addition, the prosecutor has a duty to turn over other evidence, whether it is requested or not.

Discovery is so important in criminal cases because it very often helps to level the playing field. The prosecutor is at a tremendous advantage in terms of the resources available to prosecute the case. Make no mistake: the prosecutor wants to convict you, not to see that “justice” is done.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we provide clients with passionate and experienced representation. If you have been charged with a crime and would like to schedule an initial consultation with a lawyer at our firm, contact us by phone at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. We promptly return phone calls and emails. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in West Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood. We have flexible and weekend office hours, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

When one thinks of the Civil Rights Movement two names might come to mind. The first, without a doubt, is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; and the other may be Malcolm X. These two people were both huge contributors to the movement, and moved the public with famous and powerful speeches. However, one important and significant name is often overlooked: Thurgood Marshall.
Thurgood Marshall attended Lincoln University along side such famous people as poet Langston Hughes and musician Cab Calloway. After graduating from college, Thurgood Marshall decided to attend law school. During this time the University of Maryland School of Law, which was Marshall’s school of choice, had a strict segregation policy in place and he could not apply. Instead Marshall ended up attending Howard University School of Law, and graduated first in the class of 1933.

The year after, Thurgood Marshall began a private practice in Baltimore, and commenced servicing as an attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Not long after, he went on to win the case of Murray v. Pearson, 169 Md. 478 (1936). A case which focused on the strict segregation policy at University of Maryland Law School, the very school which he himself was unable to apply to. After this important victory Marshall founded and was the executive director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Soon he began arguing (and winning) cases in the United States Supreme Court. Such as the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka – 347 U.S. 483 (1954), where the Supreme Court ruled in Marshall’s favor, stating that the “separate but equal” law could no longer be applied to public schools. Brown vs. Board of Education is considered one of the most important legal cases of the century. Marshall ended up winning 29 out of the 32 cases that he argued before the Supreme Court.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Later President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed him to be the United States Solicitor General, the first black man to hold the office. Marshall would go on to win 14 out of the 19 cases that he argued. Then in 1967, President Johnson nominated Marshall to be an Associate Justice in the Supreme Court, which the Senate confirmed with a vote of 69-11. Marshall was the 96th person in this position, and the first black man in history. He stayed in this position for the next 24 years where he made significant contributions to civil rights, criminal procedure, along with many other areas of law.

Some would argue that Thurgood Marshall was the initial spark which ignited the flame of the civil rights movement. He forever changed segregation in the United States, and believed that integration was the only way that equal rights would ever truly take hold. After his death in 1993, Marshall has had numerous memorials built in his honor. Including: statues, schools, libraries, and airports, which will ensure that his legacy will forever live on.

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” That line was made famous during the O.J. Simpson trial by a man who himself became a household name in America. His name was Johnnie Cochran. However, few seem to know that Johnnie Cochran was a well accomplished attorney and famous in his own right prior to the Simpson Trial.

Johnnie Cochran graduated from Los Angeles High School in 1955 first in his class. Afterwards he attended UCLA, and in 1959 received a Bachelor of Science in business administration. One of Cochran’s heroes was Thurgood Marshall, so Cochran decided to pursue a career in law. He enrolled in Loyola Marymount Law School and obtained his Juris Doctor in 1962.

After passing the bar in 1963, Johnnie Cochran began working as a Deputy Los Angeles City Attorney in the criminal division. After two years later he decided to open up his own firm: Cochran, Atkins & Evans in Woodstock, Illinois. It was during this time that he represented a woman named Leonard Deadwyler whose husband has been shot and killed by several police officers. Although Cochran lost the case, he stated that this trial had been a turning point in his career. He realized that these kind of cases brought a lot of attention, which established his reputation in the black community as a champion of civil rights.

In 1978 Cochran left Illinois and returned back to Los Angeles where he became the first Black Assistant District Attorney for Los Angeles County. However after serving as a DA for five years, he went back to private practice opening the first of now twenty six Cochran Firms. His reputation as a trial attorney was almost untouchable, because of all of his great successes and theatrical trials wins.

Johnnie Cochran represented countless celebrities and high profile clients during his time. The most high profile case was of course the O.J Simpson, where he managed to get an acquittal for Mr. Simpson on multiple counts of murder. He was highly scrutinized for his help in this trial by many of the major media outlets, along with the general public. Later, he was accused of tampering with the evidence, but to date there has been no evidence to support that accusation.

Even after his unfortunate death from a brain tumor in 2005, Johnnie Cochran’s legacy continues to live on. His name is huge in both the courts, and in pop culture. Although most know him from the O.J Simposon trial, he accomplished so much more for the Black community. While he was alive he appeared in many television shows, and to this day he is mentioned in movies, music, and films. There are schools, and research centers named after him. Johnnie Cochran spoke of how inspired he was by Thurgood Marshall and how much he admired him. So it is fit that in the end Cochran himself is referred to as the Thurgood Marshall of his era.

On March 20, 2014, the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that California’s taking and storing DNA profiles from anyone arrested on suspicion of a felony is Constitutional. This caused a bit of controversy throughout the State, because some argue that this practice should not be legal. The state of Maryland practices the same process, and not long ago was faced with the same question of Constitutionality.

Last year in Maryland vs. King, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that taking DNA samples was a part of the police booking process, similar to fingerprinting. However, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) of Northern California argued that California has a completely different process than Maryland, and therefore should not be viewed as the same.

So what is the difference between the process of California and the process of Maryland? Maryland destroys the genetic evidence that was collected of those not convicted; whereas California requires people to apply to have DNA profiles expunged. Otherwise, DNA profiles are indefinitely stored in a state criminal database. That database can be used any time by police, law enforcement, forensics, etc. to match against crime scenes for potential suspects.

Another difference between the processes in the two States is that California collects evidence from “wobblers”, which are crimes that could be charged either as a misdemeanor or a felony. Maryland only collects DNA in more serious crimes which are straight felonies. In his concurring opinion, Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. of the 9th Circuit wrote that the differences in the processes between California and Maryland are “materially indistinguishable”, also stating that all felonies are serious crimes. He stated that California allows the arrestee to request an expungement if no charges are filed, the case is dismissed, or person is found not guilty.

In conclusion, there are a few differences between the California arrest process, and the Maryland arrest process. However, both states collect DNA, and both states have been questioned on the Constitutionality of this practice. Furthermore, it seems that this practice will in fact be a legitimate part of the booking, and arrest process for both states.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we provide clients with passionate and experienced representation. If you would like to schedule an initial consultation with a lawyer at our firm, contact us by phone at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. We promptly return phone calls and emails. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in West Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood. We have flexible and weekend office hours, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.

Photo: freedomsphoenix.com

In August 2009, David Riley was pulled over in San Diego, California for having expired tags on his car and a suspended driver’s license. The officer impounded Riley’s car and conducted a warrantless search of the car. The officer found two handguns that were later linked to a shooting that had taken place a few weeks prior. During the arrest, the officers confiscated and rummaged through the data on Riley’s smartphone without a warrant. Some of the data on the phone linked Riley to gang activity and the shooting and was entered into evidence at the trial, where Riley was convicted on three charges. Riley argued that allowing police officers to search through data on his cell phone without a warrant is an unacceptable intrusion on personal privacy. California argued that police officers need to be able to confiscate cell phones without first obtaining a warrant for safety reasons and to prevent destruction of evidence. The case was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

On June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police may not search a smartphone or similar device without a warrant from a judge (Riley vs. California). This decision came as a surprise to court watchers. Many think this may ultimately bring into question whether the government may routinely search all other types of electric devices, such as laptops and tablets.

Legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union said, “By recognizing that the digital revolution has transformed our expectations of privacy, today’s decision is itself revolutionary. We have entered a new world. But our values apply and limit the government’s ability to rummage through intimate details of our private lives.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, “Modern cellphones are not just another technological device. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’ ” He continued “The term ‘cellphone’ is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers.”

In conclusion, due to the fast development of technology, and the fact that most cellphones now serve as minicomputers, the Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is needed to search these types of devices. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case affects the scope of Fourth Amendment protection available to personal technology.

At the Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we provide clients with passionate and experienced representation. If you have been charged with domestic violence or any other crime and would like to schedule an initial consultation with a lawyer at our firm, contact us by phone at (310) 448-1529 or contact us online. We promptly return phone calls and emails. Our office is conveniently located in the Westside Towers in West Los Angeles, within minutes of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Westwood. We have flexible and weekend office hours, and we will visit you in jail to discuss your case.