Southern California Defense Blog

If you have been accused of violating a restraining order, you may be considered to be in contempt of court. A violation of a restraining order can lead to a misdemeanor or felony charge. Generally, if it is a first offense it will be charged as a misdemeanor.

You might be facing hefty fines as well as potential jail time. The amount of the fine and the length of jail time will increase if a person was injured during the violation and/or if there have been multiple violations.

If you or a loved one have been accused of violating a restraining order in California, it is important to hire a skilled Southern California criminal defense attorney. An experienced attorney can make a big difference in your case ensuring that your rights are protected and that you understand the charges you are facing.

Continue reading "Violation of a Restraining Order" »

Restraining orders are court orders that prohibit one person from contacting another person. In the state of California, there are various types of restraining orders.

1. Emergency Protective Order (EPO) – This type of restraining order goes into effect immediately but is not long-lasting. It is generally used in domestic violence instances and gives a person time to apply for a permanent restraining order.


2. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) – This type of restraining order also is not long-lasting. The order is typically in force for up to a month. This order goes into effect once a person has actually applied for a restraining order.


3. Permanent Restraining Order – This type of restraining order goes into effect after a court hearing has taken place and can be in force for typically 3 or 5 years. This type of order can also be extended if a threat still exists.

Continue reading "Restraining Orders in California" »

Shoplifting is a term often used to describe when a person intends to steal or steals an item from a store. However, shoplifting can also involve switching labels or tags on an item to get the item for less money or illegally taking items from your place of work that were entrusted to you.

Another common term for shoplifting is petty theft. Petty theft is almost always considered a misdemeanor for the first offense if the item that was stolen retails between $50 and $400. The consequences associated with a conviction include fines, probation and/or 6 months in jail. If you are convicted of petty theft for a second time, the charge can either be a misdemeanor or felony. Obviously, the felony charge carries stiffer penalties including up to 16 months in prison.

Continue reading "Shoplifting in California" »

California Penal Code 211 states the following: “Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”

The Code continues to define the two types of robbery crimes in California – first and second degree. The difference is covered in Penal Code 212.5. Essentially, first degree robbery covers robbery of a person driving a vehicle, robbery of a person using an ATM, and robbery of a person at their home. Second degree robbery covers all other forms of robbery.

Both first and second degree robbery count as strikes. A strike is a crime that is most likely to be punished by significant time in prison. Also, if you have a strike conviction on your criminal record, any future crime you might commit will be punishable for double the normal amount of time in prison.

Continue reading "What is the Difference between First and Second Degree Robbery?" »

A recent California Supreme Court opinion held half of a defendant’s statement to be inadmissible because it was coerced by the police. However, the first part of the statement was still enough for the jury to convict the defendant of a double murder.

The California Supreme Court was not happy with the police tactics used to illicit the confession and wrote extensively about the improper procedure. The court ruled, in part, that the police may not illicit a confession through a direct or implied promise. In this case, the promise was to exclude the defendant’s wife from further investigation in exchange for a confession to the murders.

In all criminal cases, a statement is involuntary if it is not the product of a rational intellect and free will. The test for determining whether a confession is voluntary is whether the defendant’s will was overborne at the time he confessed. In other words, were the influences brought to bear upon the accused enough to overbear the defendant’s will to resist, and bring about confessions not freely self-determined. In determining whether or not an accused’s will was overborne, an examination must be made of all the surrounding circumstances—both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.

Continue reading "Appealing a Confession: What Counts as Voluntary?" »

The city of Torrance is situated within Los Angeles County and has an approximate population of 140,820. With its secure communities, successful businesses, moderate weather, and easy access to beaches, the population of Torrance is likely to only increase. According to the 2009 California Population Estimate, Torrance is expected to house a population of 149,111 and may be the eighth largest city in Los Angeles County and the 35th largest in the state of California. With such a vast amount of residents and visitors comes an influx of vehicles on Torrance roads. As a consequence, law enforcement keeps an eye-out for drivers that they suspect to be demonstrating reckless driving practices or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

No one ever expects that they will be arrested for reckless driving, but such incidents do happen from time to time. It is critical for anyone charged with reckless driving to seek legal advice and representation from an experienced Torrance reckless driving defense attorney. Reckless driving is a serious misdemeanor crime with harsh penalties that may include a $145 to $1,000 fine, 5 to 90 days of imprisonment, or both. In addition, a conviction for reckless driving in Torrance can result in the DMV adding points to your driver’s license, which is similar to what happens with a drunk driving conviction.

If you are facing reckless driving or driving under the influence charges in Torrance, please contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense attorneys at Wallin and Klarich. For over 30 years, we have been aggressively defending the rights of those facing criminal charges, providing us the legal knowledge and resources to handle any criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.

In late September, Border Patrol Agents seized more than 15 pounds of crystal meth during a traffic stop on I-15 in Temecula, CA. It was reported by a U.S. Customs and Border protection news release that agents “spotted” a 23-year-old woman driving north in a Ford Focus near Winchester Road about 10:15 a.m. and pulled her over. A drug-sniffing dog was called out after the woman “provided inconsistent answers” to an agent’s questions. A subsequent search of the woman’s vehicle uncovered 18 bundles of crystal meth hidden in the dashboard, the release said. The woman, who apparently is pregnant, was turned over to a multi-agency drug task force.

There are so many questions raised by this news story. Clearly a pregnant woman who apparently was making cash as a drug “mule” is distressing in itself but, putting that aside, this story begs a number of legal questions. First, the release says that the woman was “spotted” driving north. Is that probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle? Was she “spotted” breaking a traffic law?

Another question is whether this was a “roving patrol”? It clearly wasn’t a stop made at a fixed checkpoint so it sounds like the practice of a “roving patrol” which the U.S. Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional back in 1973. While all the facts are unclear at this point, it is clear that this woman desperately needs an experienced Riverside drug defense attorney at her side.

Continue reading "Why You Need a Riverside Drug Defense Attorney" »

Located within the northeast region of Los Angeles County, the city of Palmdale has witnessed a tremendous increase in population over the recent years. Mostly full of family communities, Palmdale’s popularity and growth has made it the largest desert city in California with an approximate population of 151,346. Palmdale is close to the beautiful San Gabriel Mountain range and is considered a safe place to live. However, like any major city, Palmdale experiences its share of arrests for various criminal offenses, including reckless driving and DUI.

Being charged with reckless driving in Palmdale is an unexpected occurrence which often leaves a person feeling overwhelmed regarding what kind of legal decisions they should make. If an officer determines that you have operated your vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”, as it is defined in California Vehicle Code 23103, then you could face serious consequences. Reckless driving is a misdemeanor offense that may result in a $145 to $1,000 fine, imprisonment for 5 to 90 days, or both. In addition, as it applies to a drunk driving conviction, a reckless driving conviction may result in the DMV adding points to your driver’s license. It is for these reasons, and many others that a person arrested for reckless driving may want to contact a skilled Palmdale reckless driving defense attorney.

At Wallin & Klarich, our experienced Palmdale criminal defense lawyers have the legal resources and knowledge to handle any reckless driving or DUI case. For over 30 years, we have been aggressively protecting the rights of those facing charges for a wide range of criminal offenses in California. We can help you. Contact Wallin & Klarich today for a case evaluation by calling 888-280-6839.

The United States Constitution gives defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses against them in criminal proceedings. A defendant in California appealed his conviction of murder on the grounds that he was unable effectively to cross-examine the prosecution’s key witness.

The mother of the victim in this case was the prosecution’s key witness. The victim’s mother, is deaf, cannot speak, and has never learned a standard sign language. Rather, she communicates by using a combination of signs, gestures, facial expressions, and lip reading. At trial, the court used two interpreters to elicit her testimony. The criminal defense attorney for the defendant objected a number of times throughout her testimony, claiming, among other things, he could not determine whether she understood the questions being asked of her.

Continue reading "Court Rules that Defendant Was Not Denied Right to Cross Examine a Witness that Was Deaf, Could Not Speak, and Never Learned Sign Language" »

The founder of Numero Uno markets, a chain of grocery stores throughout Southern California, was granted a new trial last week. This came after a Federal Judge in Los Angels threw out guilty verdicts that had previously been imposed against him.

In throwing out 50 guilty verdicts against the grocery store founder, the Judge ruled that new evidence came to light that may have exonerated him. Prosecutors allege that the man ordered the murders of rivals, employed undocumented workers, and bribed public officials. They will retry him and still maintain that the man is guilty of these crimes.

What is critical to remember is that the only reason that this man is receiving a new trial is that a highly experienced CA criminal appeals lawyer was able to file the appropriate legal briefs and convince the federal court that his client’s legal rights were violated. At a new trial, the defendant may be found not guilty and be a free man.

Continue reading "Grocery Store Owner in Los Angles County to Get a New Trial in Light of New Evidence" »

Two people were arrested outside a Temecula, CA church on Sunday, October 4, 2009, on suspicion of vehicle theft and other charges according to authorities. An officer was patrolling the area of Hope Lutheran Church in Temecula because there had been several recent reports of burglaries in church parking lots in the area during worship services.

At about 9:00am an officer spotted a vehicle matching the description of the vehicle used in recent parking lot burglaries and the officer quickly discovered that the vehicle had been reported stolen.

The driver and his passenger were both found to be on probation for theft related crimes and the car their vehicle was found to contain numerous suspected stolen items including several purses, cell phones, digital cameras, gift cards, iPods, jewelry, a laptop computer and a GPS device. They also found burglary tools.

Continue reading "Two Arrested in Church Parking Lot Thefts Now Praying for an Experienced Riverside Theft Attorney" »

Oxnard Juvenile Court building was shut down one morning in late October, after a reported shooting in the lobby. The entire facility was locked down and court proceedings were delayed while police searched for the gun man.

According to police, the suspect was a man wearing a Chargers football jersey and slicked back hair. After closing the building for most of the morning and into the afternoon, the detectives determined that there was no shooting.

It seems that a glass window at the front of the building spontaneously shattered and caused a good amount of commotion.

Funny things happen in criminal law and we remind everyone, that it’s important to wait for all facts to come out before rushing to judgment. Our society is quick to judge and quick to believe accusations even if such accusations are completely unfounded.

Continue reading "Shooting at Oxnard Juvenile Court was a False Alarm" »

Many people are wrongfully arrested by law enforcement. Often the police officer makes an “honest mistake” or the police officer may arrest a person wrongfully due to a faulty identification by a witness. In other cases, the police officer may arrest someone without probable cause in an attempt to harass or obtain information from a person. Whatever the reason for the arrest, after the charges are dismissed the person may face serious negative consequences due to his wrongful arrest.

In some cases a person may not even realize that he was not accepted to a college or university or program due to this arrest. In other cases, a person may be turned down for an employment opportunity if the prospective employer finds out about the wrongful arrest. Fortunately California law allows for what is referred to as a Petition for Factual Innocence. If the courts grant a petition, all records of the arrest must be sealed and destroyed. This means that nobody can legally find information about the wrongful arrest.

Continue reading "Petition for Factual Innocence Can Help Those Wrongfully Accused" »

Police obtained a warrant to search the property of a defendant thought to be a drug dealer. While in the house executing the search warrant, police officers decided to also search the defendant’s computer and discovered child pornography. As a result of the search of the computer, the homeowner was charged with unlawful possession of child pornography. Although the search warrant did not specifically authorize a search of any computers, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found on the computer.

A motion to suppress evidence is used when evidence is obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights. If the motion is granted, the evidence is not allowed to be used at trial. In this case, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion, ruling that although the warrant never authorized the search of a computer, there was no violation of the defendant’s rights, and the evidence could be used against him. The court said that since the judge who issued the search warrant testified that he intended to include the search of computers, the search was proper.

The Court of Appeal in California disagreed and ruled that the search of the defendant’s computer violated his Constitutional rights. The court ordered that all evidence obtained from the computer was inadmissible at trial.

Continue reading "California Court Rules that Search of a Computer Not Specifically Mentioned in Search Warrant, Violated Defendant's Rights " »

Situated in Southern California’s Antelope Valley, the city of Lancaster is the ninth fastest growing city in the United States. It is no surprise then, that Lancaster is the eight largest city in Los Angeles County with an approximate population of 145,243. Lancaster is well-known for attracting various national and local companies from an array of businesses and industries. Also a major draw of Lancaster for businesses and potential homeowners is its business-friendly guidelines and low-cost land. As is the case in most large cities, arrests have been known to occur for reckless driving and DUI. When these arrests are made, a charged individual may want to seek the legal assistance of an experienced Lancaster reckless driving lawyer.

Reckless driving in Lancaster is a serious misdemeanor offense that may result in 5 to 90 days of imprisonment, a $145 to $1,000 fine, or both. Under California Vehicle Code 23103, reckless driving is referred to as operating a vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”. Facing these severe consequences can often make a person feel unsure of his or her legal rights and options. However, with a skilled Lancaster criminal defense attorney looking out for your best interests, you can trust that your rights will be defended and that you will be informed about all of your legal options.

Whether you are facing reckless driving or driving under the influence charges in Lancaster, please contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense attorneys at Wallin and Klarich today. For over 30 years, we have been aggressively defending the rights of those facing criminal charges, providing us the legal resources and knowledge to handle any criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.

In some situations, being convicted of assault with a deadly weapon may result in serious penalties. Most people are generally aware of the potential consequences associated with a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. A person convicted of assault with a deadly weapon may be unfortunate enough to get a lifetime suspension of driving privileges by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Under California law, the Department of Motor Vehicles must suspend for life the driving privilege of a person convicted of assault with a deadly weapon when a vehicle is used as the deadly weapon or instrument in that offense. The new law holds that a felony conviction will result in a lifetime revocation of the driving privileges of the person convicted.

Continue reading "A Person Who is Charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon May Be Surprised When their Driving Privilege is Suspended for Life" »

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear a wide variety of cases as it begins its new term. Among these cases, the Supreme Court will decide whether a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole imposed on juvenile offenders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In a previous 2005 decision, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty cannot be imposed for crimes committed by juveniles. The court’s holding in that decision was 5-4. It is unclear whether that decision means that the court will reach the same result for life imprisonment in juvenile cases. With the significant changes in the personnel of the Supreme Court, the outcome of this issue is unclear.

Continue reading "United States Supreme Court to Decide Whether Locking Up Children for Life is Constitutional" »

The city of Pasadena is located in the San Gabriel Valley and is a bustling region of Los Angeles County. Known nationally for hosting the Tournament of Roses parade and the annual Rose Bowl Football game, Pasadena is also recognized for being a safe and diverse community. With an estimated population of 146,518 as of 2007, Pasadena is the sixth largest city in LA County, drawing many new residents and returning visitors. With four major freeways passing through the city, arrests for reckless driving have been known to take place in Pasadena.

In the event that a motorist is arrested for reckless driving in Pasadena, he or she has the right to seek assistance from an experienced Pasadena reckless driving defense attorney. Under California Vehicle Code 23103, an officer may determine that you have operated your vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”, thus resulting in misdemeanor charges being held against you. Taking into account that a reckless driving charge can result in harsh consequences including a fine of $145 to $1,000, 5 to 90 days of imprisonment, or both, having a legal professional on your side can make a great difference in proving your innocence and ensuring your freedom.

If you have been charged with reckless driving or with DUI in Pasadena, contact the skilled Southern California criminal defense lawyers at Wallin and Klarich right away. Our attorneys have been aggressively defending the rights of those facing criminal charges in California for over 30 years, lending us the quality legal knowledge and resources that you need to obtain a successful outcome in any criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.

It has been well established that minors will consume alcohol before they are legally permitted to at 21. Lawmakers in California hope a new law will help deter minors from not only drinking, but from being drunk in public. As of 2009, the California Courts will impose a suspension or delay of driving privileges on minors who are convicted of being drunk in public.

California law states that any person, who is found to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The penalties associated with a misdemeanor can be fines or jail time. In addition to these penalties, minors under the age of 21 will also have their license suspended for one year. If the minor has not yet received their driver’s license, the court will delay their ability to get a drivers license for a year.

Continue reading "California Law Seeks to Prevent Minors Drunk in Public" »

Employers face many decisions when deciding who to hire for a job. Undoubtedly one of these considerations is whether or not the prospective employee has had a criminal history. Currently many job applications ask criminal history questions. However across the United States, many big cities are starting to eliminate these types of questions.

These changes have been implemented in an effort to prevent those convicted of a crime from being excluded from the workforce. Currently the new hiring policy only applies to public employment. However, even in cities where these questions have been eliminated, criminal background checks in the later hiring stages still exist. Having your record sealed or expunged remains another option for those who want their criminal history concealed.

Continue reading "Some Big Cities Eliminate Criminal History Questions from Job Applications" »

On appeal, a Defendant in California sought to overturn his conviction for gross negligence in discharging a firearm, possession of a firearm by a juvenile. The defendant in this case was previously made a ward of the juvenile court. As such, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm until the age of 30.

The United States Supreme Court’s recently held that a city’s ban on handguns violates the Constitution’s right to bear arms. The defendant claimed that the law banning him from possessing a firearm violated his rights, and was contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal in California ruled that the law did not violate his rights, and that his conviction was proper. The court felt that as long as there was valid justification for the ban, a conviction would not violate the defendant’s rights.

Continue reading "A California Court Has Ruled that Prohibiting a Juvenile from Possessing a Firearm Does Not Violate the Second Amendment" »

On Tuesday, October 13, 2009, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Padilla v. Kentucky in which the issue was whether criminal defense attorneys are required to advise their clients of the consequences to immigration status if he or she pleads guilty to a crime.

If the court were to decide in favor of the defendant, then this would mean that every California criminal defense attorney would be required by law to tell their clients about the ramifications of pleading guilty to a crime on their immigration status. Failure to do so would result in a viable Inadequacy of Assistance Claim (“IAC”). A successful IAC claim could mean that a defendant would be entitled to withdraw his guilty plea and would be then entitled to a jury trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that it would be unfair to not permit the defendant to withdraw his plea in this case because he had pled guilty without knowing that such a plea would cause him to be deported. This sort of consequence would have been extremely harsh, especially for a person who has been living in the U.S. for more than twenty years. However, if required, it would be practically impossible to administer given the public defender’s high volume of cases.

Continue reading "Do Criminal Defense Attorneys Have to Advise Immigrants of the Consequences to Their Immigration Status Before They Plead Guilty to a Crime?" »

California Penal Code 647(f) makes it a misdemeanor crime to be found in any public place under the influence of any liquor, drug or controlled substance if:

• (a) The person's public intoxication makes him or her unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others; or


• (b) By reason of the public intoxication, the person "interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way."

In referring to this crime, police, prosecutors and California criminal attorneys may interchangeably use the terms "Drunk in Public", "DIP", "Public Intoxication", "Drunk and Disorderly", "Being Intoxicated in a Public Place", or "Under the Influence in Public".

Continue reading "What is "Drunk in Public" Under California Law?" »

The city of Hollywood is a renowned district in Los Angeles, California. Situated just west-northwest of Downtown LA, Hollywood is widely known for being the historical center of movie stars and movie studios. Some of the most prominent landmarks in Hollywood include the Hollywood Bowl, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, Capitol Records, the Griffith Park Observatory, and the Shrine Auditorium. Approximately 210,777 people live in Hollywood, which has a population density of 8,443 people per square mile. Considering the close proximity of Hollywood’s residents and the vast amount of tourists who visit throughout the entire year, incidents of reckless driving and DUI have been known to occur. In such incidents, it is important for anyone charged with reckless driving to consult with a skilled Hollywood reckless driving defense lawyer.

Under California Vehicle Code 23103, reckless driving is defined as operating a vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”. Reckless driving is a serious misdemeanor offense that may result in a $145 to $1,000 fine, 5 to 90 days of imprisonment, or both. Facing these serious penalties can often make a person feel intimidated and even unsure of his or her legal rights. However, with an experienced criminal defense attorney on your side, you can trust that your rights will be defended and that you will be informed about all of your legal options.

A conviction for reckless driving in Hollywood can result in the DMV adding points to your driver’s license, which is similar to what happens with a drunk driving conviction. If you are facing reckless driving or driving under the influence charges, please contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense attorneys at Wallin and Klarich today. For over 30 years, we have been aggressively defending the rights of those facing criminal charges, providing us the legal knowledge and resources to handle any criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2009, Federal Officials promised to do a comprehensive review of every contract and consider new agreements to reform the immigration detention system.

Back in 2007, federal officials were to pay $51 million to expand the Mira Loma facility to house and additional 1,400 immigrants. This facility is currently the largest in the state and is run by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The reform is necessary in an era where there have been dozens of deaths in the detention facilities and wrongly detained U.S. citizens. Reports indicate that on any given day, about 32,000 immigrants are detained, including those seeking refuge in the United States. The overhaul plans to increase enforcement of immigration laws while increasing use of alternatives to detention for non-violent immigrants.

Continue reading "Overhaul of Federal Immigration Detention Facilities" »

In California, there are 217 “problem-solving” courts. Many are Proposition 36 courts that treat non-violent but severely addicted drug offenders. Other courts are drug treatment courts for juvenile, parents in dependency court, and regular drug treatment court.

The idea behind these specialty courts was to “use the trauma of the moment to move individuals caught up into the system into treatment in hopes of breaking the addiction and transitioning them toward a less dangerous existence” reports California’s Daily Journal. However, such courts are not necessarily all they’re cracked out to be.

Reports indicate that money poured into these specialty courts could be used to prevent drug use and treat substance abusers before a crime is committed. Moreover, Prosecutors often offer “deals” to get drug abusers into these programs by offering the program in exchange for a guilty plea to a felony charge. However, upon completion of the program the felony often remains on the defendant’s record.

Continue reading "Are Treatment or Specialty Courts the Answer?" »

The city of Valencia is a planned community that along with three other communities, joined to form Santa Clarita, California in 1987. The region of Valencia is frequently used as filming locations for many TV series', past and present. Valencia is also recognized for its paseos, a network of walkways that connect the entire community without crossing streets at grade. The population of Valencia is estimated to be 32,642, and can only be expected to increase as more and more people are drawn to the area. Considering the vast population that encompasses Valencia’s community, not to mention the many visitors who pass through its roadways, it is important for any issues relating to reckless driving to be managed by a skilled Valencia reckless driving attorney.

Especially for those charged with reckless driving who are not familiar with the area, facing reckless driving charges (which can be filed in addition to drunk driving charges) in Valencia can be quite an intimidating and overwhelming experience. What is even more shocking than the actual charge is discovering that reckless driving is a misdemeanor offense that can result in a fine of $145 to $1,000, imprisonment for 5 to 90 days, or both. If an officer believes that you have operated a vehicle in a “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”, then you may be charged with reckless driving in Valencia.

If you have been charged with reckless driving or with DUI in Valencia, it may be in your best interest to contact an experienced and aggressive Southern California criminal defense lawyer from Wallin and Klarich as soon as possible. For over 30 years, our attorneys have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges in California, lending us the resources and familiarity with local courts that you need to obtain a successful outcome in your criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.

In May of 2009, in the County of Riverside, Michael Houston Chaffin was convicted of committing domestic battery. At his trial, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on his affirmative defense. Meaning, the defendant argued that the judge made a mistake when he or she failed to instruct the jury “on the right of a landowner to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser.” The California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision basing their decision on the facts presented at his trial.

The law requires trial courts to instruct on particular defense if it appears that the defendant was relying on that defense or there exists substantial evidence to support this defense. CALCRIM No. 3475 grants a landowner or lawful occupant of property the right to “use reasonable force to eject a trespasser.” Because in this particular case, the defendant never viewed the victim as a trespasser and the victim testified that she was “attempting to leave the property,” the instruction was not given.

Continue reading "Criminal Defendant Wanted a Jury Instruction But Failed to Set Up the Proper Defense" »

In Orange County, California, Joel Miranda, has been indicted on gross vehicular manslaughter charges for killing a pedestrian while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Miranda's blood alcohol level was almost three times the legal limit, at 0.23%. Allegedly, Miranda fled the scene of the fatal crash. Miranda pleaded not guilty and his bail remains at one million dollars. The defendant has three prior DUI convictions.

Other similarly situated defendants have been charged with an elevated charge of second-degree murder. This recent case is yet another example of the wide discretion the District Attorneys allowed in deciding what charges to bring. As such, it is essential to retain an experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. Your attorney will be able to contact the Prosecutor and attempt to influence what charges, if any, are filed against you.

Continue reading "Prosecution Has Wide Discretion in Deciding What Criminal Charges to File, If Any" »

The Associated Press recently reported the following story:

'Pulp Fiction' writer sentenced in fatal DUI crash

VENTURA, Calif. – An Oscar-winning screenwriter of "Pulp Fiction" has been sentenced to a year in jail for causing a fatal traffic crash in Southern California.

Avary and Quentin Tarantino share the 1995 Academy Award for writing "Pulp Fiction." He also co-wrote the screenplay for the movie "Beowulf."

Continue reading "Recent "Pulp Fiction" Writer's DUI Sentencing" »

Recently CNN reported that Philip Garrido, the Northern California man who is accused of abducting Jaycee Lee Dugard, believed that he was able to speak to his neighbors and anyone in the world through a black box without speaking.

Authorities claim that the Garridos held Jaycee Dugard captive for almost twenty years. Philip Garrido, who is a registered sex offender and fathered Dugard’s two children, pled not guilty to the criminal charges against him.

The box which Mr. Garrido believed he could speak through is about the size of a desktop computer, with a handle, a metal switch and jacks for plugging in headphones. According to CNN, Mr. Garrido told his friend and customers of his printing business that the box allowed him to communicate without speaking. The report states that his friend said, “he [Mr. Garrido] would move his lips and not speak… and you would be able to hear his voice through the headphones.”

One of his clients reported that, “I [the client] didn’t want to tell him [Mr. Gerrido] you’re a kook and you don’t know what you’re talking about” because he didn’t feel that it was his place. The report continues with how much Mr. Gerrido believed in this black box.

Continue reading "Paving the Way for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity?" »

Mel Gibson’s 2006 misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol never happened. At least according to his criminal record. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lawrence J. Mira granted Actor Mel Gibson’s request to have his criminal record expunged.

As a first-time drunk-driving offender, Gibson was eligible to have the conviction removed from his record after completing the terms of his probation. As terms of his probation, Gibson agreed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, pay $1,300 in fines, and perform in public service announcements.

California laws allow an individual convicted of a criminal offense, to have their record expunged, or in other words erased. There are a number of eligibility requirements that must be fulfilled before the court will grant an expungement.

Continue reading "Mel Gibson Does His Best to Forget His 2006 Conviction for Drunk Driving" »

The city of Ontario is a great contributor to San Bernardino County’s culture and prosperity. With an estimated population of 171,691 in 2000, it may not surprise many people that Ontario’s population has increased to almost one hundred times the size it was one hundred years ago. Now, Ontario is home to a small international airport and an ECHL hockey team, the Ontario Reign. Ontario is a chief focal point for freight and passengers, which is supported by many major freeways that pass through the city. With such a substantial amount of traveling along its roadways, Ontario is not immune to alleged incidents of reckless driving or DUI, in which those accused have the right to receive legal representation from an experienced Ontario reckless driving defense attorney.

California Vehicle Code 23103 defines reckless driving as an act that demonstrates “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”If an officer believes that you have operated your vehicle recklessly in Ontario, then you may be charged with a misdemeanor and face paying a fine of $145 to $1,000, being imprisoned for 5 to 90 days, or both. Reckless driving charges may also complement charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. This is why it may be in your best interest to seek the legal counsel and representation of a skilled Ontario criminal defense attorney who has experience handling reckless driving and DUI cases.

If you have been charged with reckless driving or with DUI in Ontario, you may want to contact a knowledgeable and aggressive Ontario criminal defense lawyer from Wallin and Klarich. Our attorneys have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges in California for over 30 years, providing us the resources and familiarity with local courts that you need to obtain a positive outcome in your criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.

In todays world, employers are doing background checks on perspective employees looking for criminal records. It is more important then ever to make sure your record is as clean as possible.

Many doors of opportunity may close if you do not clean up your criminal record.

Continue reading "Clean Your Record" »

The concepts of "independent source" and "inevitable discovery" may serve to allow the introduction of illegally seized items into evidence. The prosecution must be able to show that the items discovered would have been inevitably discovered regardless of the illegal search or seizure.

The prosecution will try and introduce and independent source or means, satisfying the doctrine and avoiding the protections of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.

Continue reading "Legality Of Stop And Search Of A Vehicle (Part 3)" »

As a major suburb in Orange County, the city of Irvine has an approximate population of 207,500. As the home of many Universities and situated within close proximity to popular beach sites such as Newport and Laguna, Irvine’s population is on the rise and receives many tourists on a regular basis. Irvine was deemed the fourth best place to live in the entire United States by CNNMoney.com in 2008 due to its excellent housing, schools, and jobs. In addition, the FBI reported in June 2009 that Irvine had the lowest violent crime rate of cities in the U.S. with populations over 100,000. Nevertheless, incidents of reckless driving, which can include drunk driving charges, have been known to occur in Irvine.

During the often confusing and overwhelming aftermath of a reckless driving charge in Irvine, a skilled Irvine reckless driving defense attorney can be relied on to inform an accused of his or her rights and provide knowledgeable legal assistance and representation. No one ever thinks that they will be charged with reckless driving; however, if an officer deciphers your driving to reflect “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”, as it is defined in California Vehicle Code 23103, then you may be charged with reckless driving. This offense is a misdemeanor and can result in harsh penalties such as imprisonment for 5 to 90 days, a fine of $145 to $1,000, or both.

If you have been charged with reckless driving or with DUI in Irvine, you may want to contact an experienced and aggressive Southern California criminal defense lawyer from Wallin and Klarich as soon as possible. Our attorneys have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges in California for over 30 years, providing us the resources and familiarity with local courts that you need to obtain a positive outcome in your criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.

For the "exclusionary rule" to apply, the search and seizure must have been conducted by a peace officer or other "state agent." Evidence discovered by a non peace officer or private citizen does not fall within the protections of the exclusionary rule, and need not necessarily be suppressed.

A fact intensive analysis of the surrounding circumstances is important when determining whether the "private citizen" was acting at the order or discretion of a peace officer. In certain circumstances, a private citizen may be seen as an agent of the police, satisfying the "state action" requirement.

Continue reading "Legality Of Stop And Search Of A Vehicle (Part 2)" »

If it can be determined that law enforcement conducted an illegal search of a motor vehicle, that does not necessarily mean that the evidence which results must be suppressed. There are certain circumstances which trigger an exception to the "exclusionary rule."

Standing
If a defendant cannot establish "standing" to object to the search, it is irrelevant if the search was lawful. To determine standing, courts look to whether the individual had a "reasonable expectation of privacy." For example, a defendant does not have standing to object to the search of a stolen care he or she is driving. The reasoning being, defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle searched because the vehicle is the stolen property of another.

Continue reading "Legality Of Stop And Search Of A Vehicle (Part 1)" »