Southern California Defense Blog

It has always been believed that for someone to be guilty of burglary they would have to actually enter the victim’s home or a business to commit a crime. However, a recent case has been decided by the court of appeals that expands the definition of burglary. In the specific case in question, the accused was very upset with the victim and so he kicked the defendant’s door down. When he did so the owner of the home ran out of the house and the defendant did not physically enter the home. The court of appeals has held that you may be found guilty of burglary even if you do not physically enter the residence of a person. This means you can be found guilty of a felony burglary charge and sentenced to state prison due to the act of kicking down a door.

BE WARNED. Be careful what you kick.

If you have questions about how we can assist you with your pending burglary case or with any other criminal matter do not hesitate to contact Wallin & Klarich 24/7 at 888.280.6839.

So you got caught with drugs. You’re already anxious about your court date. Am I going to get jail time? What am I going to do about work? Will they fire me? Well, rather than overwhelming yourself with all sorts of hypothetical scenarios, consult with an attorney and find out what you’re actually facing. Most felony drug possession charges carry a sentence range of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years. If it’s a misdemeanor, then you could face only a maximum of 1 year in county jail. But the thought of any jail time freaks you out.

Chances are that you will be eligible for PC 1000. Assuming your possession offense in not coupled with a violent crime, you may be eligible for PC 1000 diversion. In other words, instead of doing jail/prison time, you could do drug counseling program. Depending on the program, you may have to complete 3-6 months or 1 year of drug treatment and education. Moreover, upon completion of the same and almost 1-2 yrs after pleading guilty to the drug offense, you may withdraw your guilty plea and replace it with a not guilty plea. How do you know you’re PC 1000 eligible? Well, it’s completely up to you. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 888.280.6839 to find out if you are eligible.

When a juvenile (someone under the age of 18) is arrested or cited for a crime in San Diego County, there are several things that could happen. First of all, the case will normally be sent to the Juvenile Probation Department. Probation will determine the gravity of the offense or determine whether or not this juvenile case should be sent to court. In other words, just because a juvenile is arrested or cited does not mean that he or she will end up being charged with the crime in court.

The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich to everything we can to keep a juvenile’s case outside of the courtrooms. We much prefer directing a case through probation than through the District Attorney’s office because it benefits the juvenile.

Probation can handle the case informally. They can help juvenile get through hard times through programs and counseling. This informal procedure may last for up to 6 months. After that, the case will be terminated.

If you have a son or daughter who has been cited or arrested for committing a crime, make sure you talk to a San Diego criminal defense lawyer who understands the court procedures for juveniles. They are very different than those that apply to adults. Call us with any questions you might have at 888.280.6839. We are happy to help. You can also go to our website at www.wklaw.com.

It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while your driving privileges are suspended. However, the Department of Motor Vehicles MUST inform you that your license is suspended. Knowledge is key. If you were never properly given notice of a driver's license suspension on your privileges by either the Court or the DMV, then you should not be found guilty of the violation of driving on suspended license. If you ever find yourself in a circumstance where you have been cited and or arrested for driving on a suspended license, a knowledgeable attorney can help you navigate through the system and make sure to defend you on every element of the crime.

Think you have an arrest warrant in San Diego County? It’s easy to find out. You can search by name on the San Diego County Sheriff’s web site. You have a warrant for your arrest? If you do, you need a lawyer. Recently persons with warrants have been arrested and thrown in jail when they came to court on their own. They have gone to the court clerk and asked to see the judge. The clerk sees the warrant and calls the sheriff. You’re arrested at the court!

In San Diego you need a competent lawyer to handle the matter. The lawyer goes to court for you. If the warrant is for a misdemeanor, you may never have to appear! If you have a felony warrant in San Diego County, the lawyer will get the case before a judge. You don’t get arrested at the clerk’s window!

Do you need a warrant recalled? Then you need a competent and aggressive lawyer from Wallin & Klarich. Give us a call at 888.280.6839.

Afraid of going to jail in San Diego? These are alternatives. Many misdemeanor cases are settled for community service. Picking up papers and raking leaves in a Probation Department program may be a choice.

Did you know that “jail” doesn’t always mean bars and an orange jumpsuit? Competent, San Diego lawyers know about work furlough. It counts as jail, but you go to work and return. They have an electronic surveillance program! You can go to work and other necessary places but get credit like you were in jail.

Knowing about alternatives to jail is just on e reason to contact the competent, aggressive attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. Give us a call at 888.280.6839.

Ask John Jerome White. He might have a somewhat different view on the matter.

According to a recent press release from the Georgia Innocence Project, Mr. White was convicted of brutally raping an elderly woman in Georgia in 1980 when he was just 20 years of age. Mr. White was sentenced to life in prison. In 1990, ten years after his conviction, Mr. White was paroled, however, being released from prison as a convicted sex offender threw Mr. White into a downward spiral, and his parole was eventually revoked, and he was sent back to state prison to serve his full life sentence.

Apparently the strongest evidence against Mr. White at his trial was hairs recovered from the crime scene. The hairs were compared by authorities using “microscopic analysis,” which was the best technology available in 1980. “Microscopic analysis” showed that the hairs at the crime scene belonged to Mr. White, thereby sealing his fate – or so it would seem.

Thanks to the hard work of the Georgia Innocence Project, the hairs were re-tested by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation using modern DNA technology. The re-test showed conclusively that the hairs do NOT belong to Mr. White, but they apparently belonged to another man, who is currently under investigation by law enforcement for this crime.

Continue reading "THINK "SCIENTIFIC" EVIDENCE IS ROCK SOLID AND UNIMPEACHABLE? " »

A recent news report from the Associated Press (AP) revealed that, in California, since November 2006, there has been a 27% increase in the number of sex offenders who have reported that they are “homeless” and apparently this trend has little to do with a sagging economy.

In November 2006, California voters voted to enact Jessica’s Law, which provides, among other things, that sex offenders may not live within 2000 feet of a park or school or other place where children congregate. This leaves sex offenders with few options for housing, since most places are within 2000 feet of a prohibited location, and, in San Francisco County, for instance, there is literally no place in the entire county that is NOT within 2000 feet of a school or park or other prohibited place.

So when paroled sex offenders are refused their attempt to register at a particular residence (or in some cases multiple residences) because the proposed place of abode is too close to a school or park, the offenders are informing their parole officers that they are homeless, whether they are or not. This is making it more difficult for parole officers to track the paroled sex offenders, since they have no fixed address. Recent parole sweeps have revealed that paroled sex offenders who have reported that they are “homeless” are, in fact, living in homes or apartments, instead of on the street or in homeless shelters, as they told their parole officers. While parole agents have succeeded in catching some offenders who are attempting to get around the law, due to limited resources, and due to the fact that many offenders have not been issued with GPS tracking devices as required by the law, parole officers are often forced to take, at face value, the word of the parolee, when they say they are staying under a given bridge or at a given temporary shelter.

It would seem that, while Jessica’s Law was intended to keep better track of sex offenders, it has actually resulted in offenders going “underground” to get around the law.

We all love our friends and family. We all want to protect them from the possibility of going to jail. However, if you lie to the police in an attempt to protect your loved ones you could be facing a jail sentence.

A good example of this is the recent case of a loving 74 year old grandfather who had lent his car to his 23 year old grandson for a night out with his friends. The grandson drove the car drunk and caused an accident which resulted in the death of two people. The grandson was on probation for a prior drunk driving offense and was driving without a valid driver’s license.

The grandfather had no prior criminal record. He also knew that if the police determined that his grandson was the driver the punishment for his grandson would be many years in prison. The grandfather had no prior record. He decided he would tell the police that he was the driver of the car. The grandfather had not been drinking and he assumed that he would likely receive probation for the offense. While this was a loving decision on the part of the grandfather it resulted in serious criminal consequences for both grandfather and grandson.

Continue reading "IF YOU LIE TO THE POLICE FOR A LOVED ONE, YOU CAN END UP IN JAIL" »

Well, at least in one U.S. State anyway. The New Jersey state legislature has voted to abolish capital punishment in that state. New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has indicated that he will sign the legislation into law. Republican lawmakers had pushed to keep the death penalty on the books for cop killers and terrorists, however, Democratic law makers, who control both houses of the legislature in New Jersey, voted against even these limited exceptions. If the governor signs the bill, the strongest sentence that could be imposed in New Jersey would be life in prison, and all prisoners (8 in total) awaiting execution on New Jersey’s death row would have their death sentences converted to life in prison. Among those currently on death row in New Jersey is one Jesse Timmendequas, who was convicted of the 1994 murder of seven year old Megan Kanka, the girl for whom “Megan’s Law” – generally referred to as laws requiring the registration and tracking of sex offenders – is named.

If Gov. Corzine signs the bill into law, and all indications are that he will, New Jersey would become the first state in more than forty years to legislatively abolish the death penalty. The last states to enact legislation banning capital punishment were West Virginia and Wisconsin, both in 1965. Currently, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, an organization that opposes capital punishment, 37 states (including for now New Jersey) and the U.S. government and U.S. military have the death penalty on the books.

36 states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) have lethal injection as a preferred or sole method of execution.

Continue reading "DEATH PENALTY LIKELY TO BE ABOLISHED" »

Our firm handled a case recently where a defendant was stopped for Driving Under the Influence in a mall parking lot. The officer cited as the reason for initially stopping the defendant the fact that the defendant “rolled” through a stop sign posted in the mall’s parking lot – i.e., our client did not come to a full and complete stop at the stop sign. When the client was stopped, it was determined that he was under the influence of alcohol, and he was arrested. The District Attorney initially offered that our client should plead guilty or no contest to DUI charges and pay a steep fine and attend alcohol classes, and be on probation for three years.

After reviewing the relevant law, we found that the Vehicle Code does not impose a duty upon a driver to stop at a stop sign posted on private property. Our office retained an investigator to investigate the property, and we obtained certified copies of the deed to the mall parking lot, which showed conclusively that the parking lot was owned by a private entity. Our investigator also took photographs of the mall’s parking lot entrances, and, especially, the signs showing that the parking lot was “private property” thereby negating any inference of mistake.

After our attorneys filed a written motion to suppress evidence – citing the fact that the stop was conducted illegally on private property – the District Attorney agreed to dismiss all DUI charges against our client. No probation. No classes. No fine. Nothing. Case dismissed.

While certainly no one condones ignoring a stop sign, whether posted on private property or public property, and failing to stop at a sign could give rise to civil liability if there is an accident and someone is hurt, the Vehicle Code does not permit an officer to stop and cite a person simply for failing to stop at a stop sign on private property.

This is the question that many people arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol are being asked in at least one state, and this law enforcement practice has many bar owners fuming.

New Jersey officers have begun regularly asking all DUI arrestees where they had their last drink. The question seems innocuous enough. However, the officers plan to use this information to target establishments that serve alcoholic beverages to people who are “obviously intoxicated” a violation of New Jersey law. Bar owners claim that they already operate under a state regulation that punishes them from serving intoxicated patrons, and that law enforcement officers should not be relying upon people who may be impaired to provide credible information about where they had their last drink.

Although there is no indication that California officials have present plans to enact such a policy, California does have a law on the books that punishes anyone “who furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25602, subd. (a).) A violation of this statute is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for six months, or by fine of $1000, or both such fine and imprisonment. (Ibid.; Pen. Code, § 19.)