Southern California Defense Blog

Many Californians are accustomed to driving their vehicles on a daily basis. Although it may appear that driving has become a right to all eligible citizens, the fact remains that a license to drive is a privilege granted by the state of California. One of the easiest ways to ensure that your license to drive will remain secure is to become informed. After reading this article, you will learn the many different actions that can result in loss of your driving privilege. This is the second in a series of three articles on this topic.

Miscellaneous Offenses Committed by Adults

Traffic Violation Point Count
Violation points are assigned to Vehicle Code sections involving the safe operation of a motor vehicle. If you accumulate too many points, the DMV may suspend, revoke, or place your driving privileges on probation. For instance, if you accumulate 4 points in 12 months, 6 points in 24 months, or 8 points in 36 months, your driver license may be suspended. Before you appear in court you need to make sure that pleading guilty to a traffic ticket will not lead to your license being suspended.

Racing or Reckless Driving
If you are convicted of racing or reckless driving, a court may suspend your driver license for up to 30 days for a first conviction, up to 60 days for a second conviction, and up to six months for three or more convictions. Additionally, if you are convicted of driving over 100 m.p.h. a court may suspend your driver license for up to 30 days.

Disorderly Conduct
A court may suspend your driver license for up to 30 days if you are convicted of disorderly conduct within 1,000 feet of a private residence.

Continue reading "Maintaining Your Driving Privlege - Part 2" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DMV Hearings

Bookmark:

Many Californians are accustomed to driving their vehicles on a daily basis. Although it may appear that driving has become a right to all eligible citizens, the fact remains that a license to drive is a privilege granted by the state of California. Unfortunately, many people face this harsh realization after the state of California suspends or even revokes their license. Because there are a number of criminal actions in which the state’s punishment involves the revocation or suspension of a driver license, it is important for people to be knowledgeable about ways to prevent such an inconvenience in their lives.

One of the easiest ways to ensure that your license to drive will remain secure is to become informed. After reading this article, you will learn the many different actions that can result in loss of your driving privilege. This is the first in a series of three articles on this topic.

Continue reading "Maintaining Your Driving Privilege - Actions To Avoid" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

There is a lot of confusion about cleaning up your criminal record. If you were ever convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony and did not receive a California State Prison sentence you can request a dismissal under 1203.4 of the California Penal Code.

This means that you received as a term of your sentence County Jail time, probation, fines, fees, or any combination of the above. If you request that the court dismiss your charges, the Court can withdraw your no contest or guilty plea, or guilty verdict from trial, and enter a not guilty plea on your behalf. After that, the Court will dismiss your conviction. Upon dismissal of the charges, you are considered not to have been convicted of the charges. The word “conviction” will be changed to “dismissed”, thereby cleaning up your record.

In order to get a dismissal, you must first determine if you are eligible for a dismissal. You are eligible for a dismissal if you were granted, and successfully completed probation. If your sentence did not include any probationary period, you must wait at least one year from the date of conviction to apply for a dismissal under PC1203.4. Additionally, you must have paid all fines, fees, restitution ordered by the court as part of your plea bargain or after guilty verdict at trial. Also, you must not be on probation or have any pending criminal matters.

Continue reading "Dismissal Under 1203.4 of the California Penal Code" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Clearing Your Criminal Record

Bookmark:

Weaving your way through an arrest for a first time DUI can be daunting! Dealing with the DMV and the court system is intimidating, often confusing, and sometimes a very lengthy and frustrating process.

As a California Criminal Defense Attorney, I get asked all the time by current and potential clients whether there is really anything to gain from hiring an attorney for a first time DUI arrest. Most people wonder if they should just save the money and spend it on something else. Usually the question comes from clients who are frustrated by the fact that they spent their hard earned money on an attorney to fight their case and they received the same results they would have received without an attorney.

Other times the question comes from someone who is contemplating spending their money on an attorney but is uncertain that it is worth it. Let’s face it, you know how much you had to drink that night and you know whether you were actually drunk when you were pulled over. You think: I’m guilty and would rather just face the music rather than fight, right? Wrong! There is too much to lose and you should fight!

What I try to explain to clients who are considering this decision is that an attorney can help you through this process whether the result ultimately achieved is beneficial to you or not. In addition, you never know whether an attorney will be able to get you a beneficial result until they are on the case and have had an opportunity to review all the evidence against you.

“I think I will just go to court by myself and take whatever punishment is coming!” If this is your mindset, I can outline the headaches that lie ahead and the punishment you will receive with 100% certainty. You will get a 6-10 month suspension of your driver’s license and will be required to complete a 3-9 month alcohol class ranging in cost from $400-$1500. You will be required to pay fines to the court of at least $1,500, not to mention rising insurance rates after a conviction. There will also be time spent at a MADD panel meeting, a possible unpleasant visit to the Morgue, the inconvenience of being shuttled around by friends and loved ones for a month or longer (or worse, navigating public transportation), the burden of a 3 year probationary period, and hassles with the DMV. You will waste time in line at the DMV trying to get your restricted license only to be told you didn’t follow the proper steps, or worse, you’re not eligible. You will wait for hours in court for the judge to call your case. All this time will be spent away from work, family and loved ones.

Continue reading "DUI Arrest - Do you really NEED a lawyer?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Have you and your spouse agreed to a divorce? Or have you not been married for a long period of time and want to get it done as soon as possible? As long as you and your spouse meet the appropriate criteria, a summary dissolution of marriage might be the appropriate route to take. In order to qualify for a summary dissolution of marriage:

You and your spouse must not have had any minor children
together;
You and your spouse must have been married for less than five years;
Neither of you may have any interest in any real property;
You and your spouse may not have more than $5,000 in community debt (excluding
automobiles);
The total fair market value of any community property must be less than $33,000;
Neither of you may have separate property assets totaling more than $33,000;
You and your spouse must agree on how to divide any community assets and debts;
One of you must have lived in California for at least six months and in the
county of filing for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing.

If you and your spouse meet these requirements, then you should certainly consider a summary dissolution of marriage. It can save you a lot of money and is not very complicated at all. All that is required is that you and your spouse file the appropriate paperwork and pay the filing to the court. Then, a six month waiting period is required. The Court imposes this waiting period in part to make sure that you and your spouse are certain that you want to go forward with a divorce. After this six month waiting period is over, you or your spouse will just need to file for and obtain a judgment of dissolution to make the divorce final.

Wallin & Klarich can help you with the process of obtaining a summary dissolution of marriage for a fairly small fee. We will first help you evaluate your situation to ensure that you qualify for a summary dissolution of marriage. Once you obtain the appropriate forms, we will help you fill them out and make sure the process goes smoothly. Call Wallin & Klarich now to help you on your way to obtaining a summary dissolution of marriage and ensure that it is done correctly!

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Family Law Issues

Bookmark:

When driving down the streets of Los Angeles, most people are not concerned about dodging La Migra, otherwise known as Federal Immigration Officials. Illegal immigrants only have to worry about that stuff around the border of the United States and Mexico, right? Well, if certain anti-illegal immigrant activists have there way, illegal immigrants in Los Angeles will have to worry about Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers acting as La Migra.

Currently, LAPD officers are prohibited from inquiring into the immigration status of suspects, under the LAPD’s Special Order 40. Officers have traditionally used a “don’t ask, don’t tell” method when it comes to immigration status, in part so that members of Los Angeles’s immigrant communities will freely cooperate with officers without fear of being deported.

However, anti-illegal immigrant activists have filed suit challenging Special Order 40 and demanding that LAPD officers inform immigration officials when illegal immigrants are arrested on drug charges. These activities point to a section in the Health and safety Code which states that “the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation” of the names of individuals arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking or possession.

Continue reading "Police Acting as La Migra?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Immigration Matters

Bookmark:

In November 2000, California voters approved Proposition 36 (Prop 36) in a landside vote. Under Prop 36, nonviolent drug offenders are diverted from jail or prison sentences in favor of rehabilitation programs. Basically, they are given three shots at completing rehab in an attempt to kick their drug addictions.

Since Judges cannot send these nonviolent drug offenders to prison or jail unless they fail to complete the Prop 36 rehabilitation program more than three times, critics of Prop 36 argue that it unfairly ties the hands of judges and allows drug offenders to take advantage of the program. Critics argue that it allows drug offenders a free pass, meaning that under Prop 36 there is no real punishment for them. That drug offenders know they will be diverted instead of going to jail and that if they fail to complete the drug offender programs there will be more opportunities to complete them.

A recent study found that more than 25% of drug offenders sentenced under Prop 36 never show up to their rehabilitation program and nearly 50% of offenders do not complete the program. Moreover, a study funded by the State of California and conducted by researchers at UCLA found that drug offenders are more likely to be arrested on new drug charges than before Prop 36 was even passed. The study found that roughly 50% of drug offenders have been rearrested since Prop 36 was passed compared to just 38.1% before it was passed.

In the other hand, according to the study, Prop 36 has saved Californians $2.50 for every $1.00 spent and has significantly reduced the load on California’s state prisons. Moreover, proponents of Prop 36 argue that it still allows those drug offenders who truly want help in kicking their drug addictions get that help instead of rotting away in prison and/or jail. They point to the UCLA study that found that 59% of offenders who completed the rehabilitation programs had found jobs one year after they had been sentenced and 78% of them announced that were now drug free.

Continue reading "Prop 36: Does it Give Offenders a Free Pass?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Offenses

Bookmark:

The recent opinion of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Raich v. Gonzalez, (March 14, 2007), once again draws the spotlight on the conflicting provisions of federal drug laws, which all but prohibit possession of marijuana under any circumstances, and California’s laws that permit the use of “medical marijuana” upon a doctor’s recommendation. Unfortunately, this case does not provide a resolution to this conflict in the laws, and it appears that it will take an act of Congress, if indeed Congress is willing to act on this issue, before there will be any consistency between California’s medical marijuana laws and the federal drug laws.

More than ten years ago, the voters in California passed Proposition 215. Proposition 215, known as the “Compassionate Use Act of 1996,” was enacted to ensure that “seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.” As such, the law states that it is the intent of the law that “patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.” It was the stated hope that the enacting this law would “encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.”

While ten other states, i.e., Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, have followed California’s lead in this regard by passing laws that decriminalize medical marijuana to some varying degree or another, the United States government has not seen fit to follow suit. Under the federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, marijuana is classified as a “Schedule I drug” meaning that, according to federal authorities, marijuana has a “high potential for abuse” and, furthermore, it “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and, lastly, marijuana has a “lack of accepted safety for use … under medical supervision.” The federal law provides for stiff criminal penalties for anyone who might “possess” or “manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense” marijuana. Simple possession of marijuana is generally a misdemeanor under federal law and, on conviction; one could be punished by imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine of at least $1,000.00. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The fact that such a sanction exists does provide a person contemplating use of “medical marijuana” here in California, or in other states with “medical marijuana” laws, with some pause for thought, since he federal law does not permit a person to possess marijuana “upon the recommendation of a physician” and even if one has such a recommendation, such fact likely would not serve to shield one from a federal prosecution.

Continue reading "Medical Marijuana Use - Legal or Not?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Marijuana Offenses

Bookmark:

On November 7th of 2006 California voters overwhelmingly passed prop 83 (Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act), widely known as “Jessica’s Law”, with 70% of the vote. Although there are many facets of this legislation that have a dramatic impact on the lives of convicted sex offenders and the penalties they face, the most controversial and legally convoluted provision is Section 21 which prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, or any park “where children regularly gather”. This provision was challenged the day after prop 83 passed on November 8, 2006 by “John Doe”, an ex-offender who was concerned that the new law would apply retroactively, forcing him to move from his home because he lived within 2,000 of a park. Doe contended that the restriction implicated the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the government from using a new law to punish a person for conduct that occurred before the law existed. Federal Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the application of the residency restrictions until the case could be resolved through the courts.

After the complaint was filed by attorney Dennis Riordan on behalf of John Doe against then California Attorney General (AG) Bill Lockyer, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the bay area district attorneys, all parties involved seemingly agreed that the residency restrictions were not to be applied retroactively. However, at a hearing where this agreement was to be entered into the record, the AG’s staff changed their previous position. Their new view was that since John Doe currently lived within the restricted zone, he could continue to live there but if he moved, he would have to comply with the residency restrictions. Judge Jeffrey White felt “ambushed” by this change of position and scheduled a hearing for February 23, 2007. Governor Schwarzenegger and the authors of prop 83 distanced themselves from the AG and stood firm in their position that the law would not apply retroactively.

In the meantime, another lawsuit was filed by three ex-offenders in Sacramento in which a TRO was also granted against the application of the residency restrictions but denied as to another provision of the law which requires lifetime Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring of felony registered sex offenders for life. On February 9th Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring suit because the residency restrictions applied prospectively and not retroactively and therefore they faced no risk of injury from the application of prop 83 and their motion for a preliminary injunction was denied on these grounds. Karlton advanced that the AG’s interpretation of the law bordered “on the frivolous” and it would not apply to ex-offenders who attempt to move into a restricted area.

Continue reading "Proposition 83 - Residency Restrictions" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sex Offenses

Bookmark:

Anyone who rides a bicycle needs to be aware of their position with regards to the law. If you are riding your bicycle on any highway or street, you have all rights and are subject to all duties that are applicable to a motor vehicle. This includes a restriction on bicycling under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any combination thereof. The same Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit of .08 applies when bicycling.

A BUI is not, however, as damaging in the eyes of the law as a DUI with a motor vehicle. Bicycling under the influence is not, for example, subject to the same penalties as driving under the influence. BUI is subject to a fine of no more than $250 as made clear in section 21200.5 of the Motor Vehicle Code of California.

If you are between the ages of 13 and 21, that’s a different story. If you are a person under the age of 21 but over the age of 13 convicted of bicycling under the influence, your driver’s license will be revoked for a year. If you do not yet have a driver license, the court will order the delay of the issuance of your license for one year.

The most important thing you can do after being cited and/or arrested is immediately go to www.wklawdmv.com and read about how Wallin & Klarich can help you avoid the suspension or revocation of your license and avoid fines. You will need to do your homework quickly in order to help Wallin & Klarich win your case. You have the right to have a DMV hearing to contest the potential suspension or revocation of your license, and, if successful, have the DMV action set aside. You also have the right to be represented by an attorney at that hearing. Wallin & Klarich has been handling DMV hearings throughout Southern California for 30 years.

We strongly suggest you print this document out and keep it somewhere where you can refer to it if you or a loved one finds him or herself cited. Please make sure you forward this to everyone you care about so they know their legal rights. Please remember if you are arrested your first call should be to your lawyers at Wallin & Klarich at 877-466-5245. As a member of the Wallin & Klarich Legal Protection Plan, we are here to help you 24/7.

Continue reading "BUI: What You Need to Know about Biking Under the Influence" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Since the inception of the “911 emergency” system decades ago - emergency police and medical response has evolved into a well oiled machine. Response times have gotten shorter, more modern resources are employed, communications are better, and the calls are recorded and stored better and longer. I’m sure most people have seen at least one news story on television where they played back a “911 emergency call” for dramatic affect.

I believe that it was the need for caller identification for the “911 emergency” system which fueled the advancement of caller ID technology. That technology is now an integral part of most, if not all, “911 emergency” systems. I understand there are still some “911 emergency” systems on the wireless end which may not have instant caller ID and because of the mobile nature of wireless telephones; it takes more technology to locate the source of the call. But for the most part when you dial “911”, your phone number, and in most cases your name and address, will instantly appear on a screen for the dispatcher to assist in directing whatever resources are needed as quickly as possible. Keep in mind the goal of the “911 emergency” system is a prompt and thorough response.

You cannot call “911” and simply hang up and forget about it. They will call you back to inquire about the emergency nature of your call. In most cases even of you tell them it was a mistake you may still get a visit from the nearest patrol officer – just to make sure everything is okay. “911” is for emergencies and if you have an emergency you should call. But, if you are having an argument with your spouse or some other member of your household you should think very carefully before you dial “911 emergency”. Once you set the wheels in motion there may be no turning back. All it takes is for the dispatcher to hear you crying or someone yelling in the background to instantly dispatch the nearest patrol car to your location. And once on scene the police are duty bound to investigate the matter.

Unlike years past, the police cannot simply come to your house and calm everybody down and leave. If there is a red mark on someone or someone tells the police that someone else touched them during the argument then someone is going to jail. Not only that, but someone is going to be dealing with the Court system as well.

Continue reading "THINK BEFORE YOU CALL “911”" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Domestic Violence

Bookmark:

The reason I applied for this job is the same reason a prospective client should consider hiring our law firm. That reason is the “AV” rating earned in the Martindale Hubbell legal directory.

I was practicing law on my own and doing fine, but something was lacking. I was used to working with other people. Although I enjoyed the autonomy of my own practice it was actually kind of lonely at times. I think I missed having other attorneys to discuss my work with.

While reading the LA Daily Journal one day I noticed an advertisement from “An AV rated law firm” looking for an associate to handle Criminal law matters right here in Ventura. That part about being “AV rated” really caught my attention. I wasn’t looking for a job, but the idea of working in the collegial atmosphere of a top rated law firm was appealing. How did I know it was a top rated law firm? – because I know about Martindale Hubbell and they provide the oldest directory of attorneys in the country, and they rate attorneys based on information provided by other attorneys. These days they also provide a referral resource for experts in many areas, not just the law.

I suppose most people, even many attorneys, don’t really know or appreciate exactly what that “AV” rating means or where it comes from. But for many years before the modern age of technological advances such as computers, Martindale Hubbell was the number one directory of attorneys – not just here in America, but other countries as well. And it is/was not just a directory, but they rated attorneys based on their ethical reputation, experience, and also categorized attorneys by specialty. It also provided a medium for advertising in a very discreet fashion at a time when advertising by attorneys was still “frowned upon”.

Continue reading "WHAT IS AN “AV-RATED” LAW FIRM ANYWAY?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

The United States Supreme Court might be primed to address this question thanks to a recent opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, DC. Parker v. District of Columbia (Ct. App. Case No. 04-7041 decided March 9, 2007).

In Parker, six residents of Washington, DC sued the District, claiming that the District’s firearms laws violated their rights under the Second Amendment to own and possess a firearm. The law in issue bans firearms from being “carried” without a license (which is almost never granted), and a person could be charged with a crime for illegally “carrying” a firearm if he or she were to simply “carry” a firearm from one room of the house to another. The law further requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded at all times and either disassembled or bound with a trigger locking device. Put simply, under the law, practically no one is permitted to have a functioning firearm in his or her home in the District. A lower court judge dismissed the lawsuit and the residents appealed.

On appellate review, the Court of Appeals began with the text of the Second Amendment, which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The Court went on to note that, in the Second Amendment debate, there are basically two camps: the individual rights camp, which believes that the Amendment protects an individual person’s right to possess firearms for individual use; and the collective rights camp, which believes that the Second Amendment protects only the rights of individual state governments to raise and arm their own state militias, which are akin to today’s National Guard. The Court noted a third camp, the sophisticated collective rights camp, which believes that an individual person could, in theory, raise a Second Amendment claim in court, but that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own or possess a firearm for personal use, only civic use.

The Court found that there is no authoritative answer to the question “who is right” the individual rights camp, the collective rights camp, or the sophisticated collective rights camp. The United States Supreme Court has never directly answered this question. The Court’s research into the question revealed that the vast majority of the United States Courts of Appeal that have considered this question (only the Second Circuit has yet to weigh in on this question) have adopted the collective rights model. Only the Fifth Circuit has adopted the individual rights model. The Court pointed out as well that the question has yielded mixed answers from the various state courts that have addressed the question, and that the United States Department of Justice recently released an opinion that adopts the individual rights theory.

The Court thus turned to the text of the Second Amendment, the history of its enactment, as well as the leading US Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The Court found that, although the Miller case did not directly answer the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm, the High Court’s opinion in Miller, “implicitly assumes that interpretation.”

Continue reading "Does the Second Amendment protect an individual’s right to own and possess a firearm? " »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Fire Arms & Weapons

Bookmark: