Southern California Defense Blog

There are several instances where an individual may be thinking, “They didn’t read me my rights: my case should get thrown out, right?”

One of the most misunderstood concepts in Southern California criminal law revolves around the “Miranda Rights.”

Most people have heard them all before:

1. You have the right to remain silent.


2. Anything you say can be used against you.


3. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning.


4. If you can’t afford an attorney, an attorney will be appointed to you at no cost to you.

While the rights are easy enough to understand, the application of the Miranda rule is less clear.

Basically, the purpose of the rule is to keep out any statements a defendant makes under very specific circumstances.

In order for Miranda to apply:

• a. The defendant must be in custody or the functional equivalent, AND


• b. There must be an interrogation by a government agent.

Continue reading "Miranda Rights - How Do They Work?" »

On October 19th, the United States Department of Justice issued a memorandum to the United States Attorneys in California detailing a shift in the Department’s policy regarding the investigation and prosecution of federal drug offenses in California. Although the memo is favorable to California’s marijuana laws, in no way does it permit the cultivation, possession, use or distribution of marijuana. The federal Controlled Substances Act continues to make those types of acts illegal.

Specifically, the memo dictates that “individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana” should not be the Department’s main focus. In fact, the Justice Department will continue to prosecute those individuals or entities relying on state marijuana laws as a pretext for the illegal distribution of marijuana. Most importantly, the memo states that individuals who are in compliance with medical marijuana laws can still be prosecuted in federal court if it serves an important federal interest. Clearly, this exception leaves the door wide open to prosecute individuals regardless of the new Justice Department guidelines.

Continue reading "U.S. Justice Department Issues Memorandum Regarding State Marijuana Laws" »

Identity theft in California consists of stealing an individual's personal identifying information and using it for an unlawful purpose such as obtaining a financial gain or making a tangible purchase. Examples of personal information that can be stolen include Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and using someone else's good credit to purchase a vehicle or other property.

California Penal Code Section 530.5(a) is the unauthorized use of personal identifying information of another person. This crime involves any person who willfully obtains personal identifying information of another individual and uses that information for any unlawful purpose, including obtaining, or attempting to obtain credit, goods, services, real property, or medical information without the consent of that person.

Continue reading "Identity Theft - California Penal Code Section 530.5" »

The Southern California city of Long Beach spans an estimated 20 miles along the Pacific Coast of the Los Angeles row and welcomes an approximate population of 492,692. As the second biggest city in the LA metro area, Long Beach is one of the world’s largest shipping ports and is frequently considered for its transport services in catering to passengers traveling to and from the city’s surrounding counties. The aerospace industry also thrives in Long Beach, along with major businesses that develop communications and transport technology. Similar to other large cities with a high volume of travel and commerce, arrests are sometimes made in Long Beach for assault which can include battery charges.

Assault and battery charges are commonly linked and may seem to occur out of nowhere. For instance, a minor argument can suddenly grow to be a threatening situation or an accident between multiple parties may trigger a physical or emotional response that can result in serious assault. According to California Penal Code Section 240, an altercation does not have to spiral totally out of control to be considered assault. The person only has to have intent to commit battery, or forceful hands-on interaction, and Penal Code Section 242 calls battery non-consensual contact. Many times, individuals charged with assault and battery need help translating his or her legal rights due to not being aware of the specific laws surrounding the charges. In such cases, an experienced Long Beach assault defense lawyer can examine and defend the situation in question and lead the trial to a positive outcome.

The Long Beach criminal defense attorneys at Wallin and Klarich have over 30 years of experience defending assault and battery cases, as well as a strong background in handling a variety of criminal offenses. Wallin and Klarich is available to provide you with accurate information regarding your dilemma. If you have been charged with battery or accused of assault, there may be unconsidered factors that could turn the case in your favor such as inability to carry out the attack, defending someone else, or even self-defense. For more information on how the aggressive lawyers at Wallin & Klarich can help you with your case by creating a strong defense, please call 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com today.

Many in the legal community was stunned on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, when a U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney acquitted former Broadcom chief financial officer William J. Ruehle, and dismissed charges of fraud and backdating stock options against former Broadcom CEO Henry T. Nicholas. In citing grounds for dismissal, the judge listed prosecutorial misconduct and lack of evidence as two primary reasons for his decision.

This case is noteworthy because the judge’s decision to dismiss the case in its entirety rather than let it proceed to the jury on the prosecutorial misconduct ground is a very rare exercise of judicial authority. This ruling is especially surprising to some as it came in a high profile case where the federal government had been collecting evidence of alleged backdating of the Broadcom’s stock options for almost two years.

If the dismissal stands, the government will be precluded from ever raising the same allegations again because Judge Carney has dismissed the case already presented to the jury, and Broadcom chief financial officer William J. Ruehle would claim double jeopardy if the prosecution sought to brings the charges again.

To support his dismissal with prejudice, the judge cited intimidation of witnesses by prosecution and threatening witnesses with additional charges in an effort to shape their testimony. The conduct was particular egregious because those witnesses received grants of immunity and were represented by counsel. The U.S Attorney’s office denied making any threats. However, the judge determined otherwise, and forced the leading prosecutor on this case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Stolper, to sign a non-prosecution agreement with one of the intimidated witnesses. From that point on, other attorneys renewed their prosecutorial misconduct motions. This decision has left a mark on the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office’s reputation and credibility.

Continue reading "Federal Judge in the Broadcom Case Cites Prosecutorial Misconduct as One of the Grounds for Dismissing Criminal Charges" »

In December of 2009, the Riverside County District Attorney’s office will be celebrating as it opens the most expensive building ever constructed in the Inland Empire. The approximate $128 million price-tag demonstrates that the DA in Riverside County has tremendous political power. At a time when courts are closing for furlough days, the third Wednesday of every month, in an effort to save precious dollars, the beautiful new building featuring copious amounts of marble can be seen as an extension of the political power and ego that the current District Attorney clearly possesses.

The California Taxpayers’ Association is a non-partisan, non-profit organization founded in 1926 to protect taxpayers from unnecessary taxes and to promote government efficiency. Their website, Cal-Tax.org, which highlights recent examples of Government waste, fraud, and mismanagement, referred to the opening of the new DA’s office as a “good-news, bad-news” story. The good news being that when the Riverside County District Attorney's Office moves to its new headquarters, offices will be equipped with used furniture rather than brand new desks, chairs, etc. Buying used furniture will save approximately $5.1 million, the county reported. District Attorney Rod Pacheco had advocated saving even more by simply moving the office furniture from the existing offices, but county facilities managers decided that the old furniture is in such bad condition it could break, and the time frame for the installation of furniture is very tight.

Continue reading "Grand Opening of New Riverside District Attorney Building Highlights the DA's Political Power" »

The city of San Diego is situated along the Pacific Ocean in the Southwest part of California. Known for its record size naval fleet, the 372.1 square mile city attracts tourist and business class alike, nationally ranking San Diego as the eighth biggest city in population. Recreational parks Sea World and the San Diego Zoo help support economic growth alongside manufacturing company Qualcomm Incorporated. With so many residents and potential city-dwellers traveling throughout San Diego, arrests are sometimes made for assault which can include battery charges. It is in such instances that an arrested individual may benefit from getting in contact with an experienced San Diego assault defense lawyer.

Charges for assault and battery are usually tied together and happen in San Diego more often than some residents are aware. An argument may escalate or an accident can occur, putting the involved parties on emotional defense which can provoke physical response. Unfortunately, assault, as defined by California Penal Code Section 240, only requires the person to have desired to commit battery, or deliberate physical force on another person. Section 242 says that battery is merely physical contact without consent. In the event of an arrest for battery or assault, you may be left to question your legal rights pertaining to the matter and what course of action may be taken to defend those rights.

The experienced Southern California criminal defense attorneys at Wallin and Klarich are prepared to answer any questions that you may have regarding the assault and/or battery charges being held against you. Our team of San Diego lawyers has been aiding people accused of assault and battery as well as a wide range of criminal offenses for over 30 years. If you have been accused of assault or charged with battery, the confident and aggressive lawyers at Wallin & Klarich will build a strong defense on your behalf to help you reach a positive outcome in your case. Your trial can be successful with one of the many defenses to an assault or battery charge, such as lack of ability to follow through with the assault, defending a disabled party, under the influence, and self-defense. For more information on how the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can help you with your case, please call 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com today.

Some members of the local legal community were surprised on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, when a U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney acquitted former Broadcom chief financial officer William J. Ruehle, and dismissed charges of fraud and backdating stock options against former Broadcom CEO Henry T. Nicholas. However, the judge did more than just dismiss the case with prejudice on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct, which is likely to preclude the case from ever being prosecuted again.

The judge also launched an attack on the federal prosecutors handling the case scorning them for intimidating and threatening key witnesses and lacking evidence to prove the allegations of backdating stock options in order to lower the Irvine semiconductor manufacturing giant compensation expenses on its financial statements to shareholders.

Broadcom is an Irvine chipmaker that during 10 years of public trading had grown into the largest technological company in Orange County employing 7,200 people worldwide and posting $4.6 billion in revenue in 2008. The trouble for the company started in 2007, when it announced a $2.2 billion in undisclosed compensation expenses as part of backdated stock option grants.

At the initial phase of criminal proceeding, the prosecution was able to secure the testimony of a former administrative assistant who had told former chief financial officer Ruehle that stock option backdating was an error in judgment. However, the prosecution was allegedly involved in intimidating witnesses and threatening their attorneys with filing criminal charges against witnesses in a failed attempt to shape their testimony ahead of the upcoming trial.

Continue reading "Broadcom Case Dismissed: William J. Ruehle and Henry T. Nicholas Exonerated" »

In 2007, the California Supreme Court held that a DNA expert could testify about evidence from a test he or she did not perform. (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555). This state has followed a long established practice where supervisors testify about lab tests, instead of technicians who actually tested forensic evidence.

However, the validity of the California decision has been questioned by the 2008 United States Supreme Court’s ruling, which held that a defendant had a right to demand live testimony at trial from crime lab technicians who actually performed their tests. (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2008) 129 S. Ct. 2527). In particular, the Court has ruled that a trial court violated defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment during his trial on a charge alleging that he distributed cocaine, when it admitted certificates signed by state laboratory analysts which stated that material police seized was cocaine because the certificates fell within core class of testimonial statements covered by Confrontation Clause.

The Court’s decision was the latest test of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Confrontation clause was revived in 2004 when the justices rejected a prosecutor’s use of an absent witness’ tape-recorded statement to the police. Justice Scalia writing for the majority of the Court emphasized that when testimonial evidence is at issue, the Constitution gives the defendant a right to confront and to cross-examine the witness. (Crawfowd v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36).

Since then, the Supreme Court has issued opinions clarifying what qualifies as testimonial evidence. Three years ago, the Supreme Court has found that a recorded 911 call for help was not testimony, and, therefore, the words could be played for the jury if the victim were missing. At the same time, a police officer’s crime-scene interview with an abused spouse was like testimony, and could not be introduced as evidence if she failed to testify. (Davis v. Washington (2006) 547 U.S. 813).

Continue reading "California's DNA Testing Procedures Questioned by the U.S. Supreme Court - Protect Your Sixth Amendment Rights" »

It was recently reported that two San Bernardino officials have been charged with over a dozen felony counts, including bribery and misappropriation of public funds. Former Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus and former Assistant County Assessor Jim Erwin are accused of accepting $100,000 apiece from land development company Colonies Partners to settle a lawsuit the company filed against the city for $102 million. The lawsuit was filed because the city allegedly failed to make payments for flood control improvements for a development project near Upland.

Postmus is charged with five felony counts, including conspiracy to commit a crime, conflict of interest, misappropriation of public funds, and two counts of accepting a bribe. Erwin is charged with nine felony counts including bribery, misappropriation of public funds, forgery, and two counts each of corrupt influencing and extortion to obtain an official act. Both are awaiting trial on other corruption charges.

Continue reading "Two Elected San Bernardino County Officials Charged with Bribery and Why You Need an Experienced Southern California Defense Attorney to Represent You - California Penal Code Section 641" »

In answering the question of whether discretionary procedural rulings are "automatically inadequate" to bar federal habeas corpus review, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a state procedural rule is not automatically "inadequate" under the adequate state ground doctrine because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory. ﴾Beard v. Kindler ﴾Dec. 8, 2009﴿ 08-992, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8944﴿.

Under the adequate state ground doctrine, a federal habeas court will not review a claim rejected by a state court if the decision of the state court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. Federal courts frame the adequacy inquiry by asking whether the state rule was "firmly established and regularly followed." The Third Circuit determined that since state courts had discretion to hear an appeal filed by the fugitive, meaning that courts could apply procedural rule in one case and deny its application in another, the Pennsylvania fugitive forfeiture law was not "firmly established" because it was not consistently applied in the majority of cases.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case of a fugitive from justice, who had been convicted of capital murder in Pennsylvania state court and escaped to Canada at the time when the trial court was considering his post-verdict motion challenging defendant’s conviction and sentence. The trial court subsequently dismissed Kindler's post-verdict motions because of his escape. Once recaptured and brought to the United States, the defendant sought to reinstate his post-verdict motion.

Continue reading "Discretionary Procedural Rulings In Appellate Matters Are Not Automatically Inadequate For the Purposes of the Adequate State Ground Doctrine" »

If you or someone you know has been charged with corporal injury on a spouse or partner under California Penal Code section 273.5, you should immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. An experienced criminal defense attorney will know how to examine all the circumstances surrounding your case to secure the most favorable result.

In order to prove that the crime of corporal injury on a spouse has been committed, it must be shown that a physical injury was willfully inflicted on a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, or the mother of defendant’s child. It also must result in a traumatic condition, which is defined as a wound or other injury to the body, whether minor or serious, and caused by physical force.

Depending on the facts of your case there may be viable defenses. Some common defenses for corporal injury on a spouse or partner include self defense, defense of others, consent and possibly intoxication. Of course, consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney is crucial to understanding how any possible defenses may be used to your benefit in fighting the charges.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Corporal Injury on my Spouse or Partner - What Should I Do? - California Penal Code Section 273.5" »

Los Angeles is the largest city in California and the second largest in the U.S. Over 3.8 million residents call Los Angeles home within its stretch of 498.3 square miles. As a major section of one of the most populated and most diverse counties (Los Angeles County) in the United States, the city of Los Angeles was named the world’s eighth most economically powerful city by Forbes.com in 2008. In such a densely populated area, arrests are sometimes made for assault and battery in which accused individuals may want to consider speaking with a skilled Los Angeles criminal defense attorney.

Assault arrests occur more than most Angelinos realize. This is mainly due to the fact that there does not need to be any physical contact for a person to be arrested for assault. Under California Penal Code Section 240, an assault only requires the defendant to have intended to commit battery, or physical violence or willful use of force on another person. Based on California Penal Code Section 242, any physical contact that occurs outside of another person’s consent can be interpreted as battery. However, a skilled Los Angeles assault defense attorney will defend your rights as an accused individual by conducting a thorough investigation into the charges being held against you and the legal grounds of your arrest.

At Wallin & Klarich, our experienced and aggressive Los Angeles assault and battery defense lawyers have been helping people accused of a wide range of criminal offenses for over 30 years. We are highly familiar with the many possible defenses to an assault and battery charge, some of which may include self-defense, defense of another, inability to actually carry out assault or battery, lack of requisite intent to commit battery, intoxication, and even consent on the part of the alleged victim. For more information regarding how the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can assist you with your case, please call 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com today.

If you have been charged with battery on a spouse under California Penal Code Section 243, you should immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. An experienced criminal defense attorney will know how to examine all the circumstances surrounding your case to secure the most favorable result. Under Penal Code Section 243, battery is any willful and unlawful touching in a harmful or offensive manner upon a spouse, a cohabitant, or any person in which the defendant has been dating.

There are many possible defenses to the charge of battery on a spouse. Self-defense can be used as a defense if the defendant was protecting himself or herself. Also, it is not battery on a spouse if the spouse consented to the harmful or offensive touching.

If you are facing a domestic violence charge, it is critical that you talk to a California criminal defense attorney about the possible defenses. A conviction of battery on a spouse is a misdemeanor and can be punishable by up to one year in county jail and two thousand dollars ($2,000) in fines. If probation is granted, the defendant will be required to enroll in and complete a batterer’s treatment program. The conditions of probation may also include, in lieu of a fine, that the defendant make payments to a battered women’s shelter, up to a maximum of five thousand dollar ($5,000), or that the defendant reimburse the victim the reasonable costs of counseling, or both.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Battery on my Spouse - What Should I Do? - California Penal Code Section 243" »

California Penal Code Section 273a defines child endangerment as any person causing great bodily harm or death to a child. This crime includes inflicting physical abuse upon a child, but also punishes any person who allows for a child to physically or mentally suffer. In other words, a person may be convicted of child endangerment if they cause any physical or mental harm to a child.

The definition of child endangerment as found in Penal Code Section 273a is very broad. If the defendant is accused of child endangerment the prosecution will have to prove that the defendant willfully inflicted unjustifiable physical or mental pain upon the child. The pain inflicted must be unjustifiable.

If the defendant did not cause the actual pain, he or she may still be convicted of child endangerment. This situation occurs when the defendant may have been responsible for allowing the child to be put in the position where great bodily harm or death occurred to the child. The prosecution will have to show that the defendant was responsible for the child when the pain was caused, and the defendant was criminally negligent.

There are many defenses to child endangerment. An obvious one is that the person injured must be a child. This means that the alleged victim must be under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged crime.

Another defense is that the law permits an adult to impose reasonable discipline upon their child. A parent may discipline a child in a reasonable manner, such as spanking. However, whether or not the “reasonable discipline” defense will be successful depends in great part upon the specific facts of each case. It is essential that any person being charged with child endangerment talk to a criminal defense attorney when they first discover that they are being accused of this serious crime.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Child Endangerment - What Should I Do? - California Penal Code Section 273a" »

Simi Valley, proud home of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, is a commuter town in Southern California that faces the larger city of Ventura. The scenic Simi Valley draws a dense population of families to enjoy the likes of its Santa Susana Mountain range and Simi Hills. The estimated population of 118,687 inhabitants of Simi Valley can freely access the Ronald Reagan Freeway, a near route to Downtown Los Angeles. Although Simi Valley ranks nationally as a top safe town, law enforcement keeps a sharp eye out for drunk drivers in which arrests for DUI sometimes occur. After a person is arrested for driving under the influence in Simi Valley, he or she only has 10 days to schedule a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing.

In the event of an arrest for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, it is important for a citizen to know his or her rights. Many motorists in Simi Valley are unaware that the officer who arrests them will seize their driver’s license. Failure to schedule a DMV hearing within the 10 day period will result in suspension of the arrested individual’s driver’s license. If you have been charged with DUI in Simi Valley, it is important for you to contact a Simi Valley DMV hearings attorney, who can appropriately translate your rights and provide you with a strong defense so that you can retain your driving privileges.

Consequences like license suspension are common penalties associated with a DUI conviction that can easily be avoided with the proper legal representation. The skilled Southern California criminal defense lawyers at Wallin and Klarich have over three decades of experience in defending the rights of those accused of a wide range of criminal offenses. We have the legal resources and experience that you need to obtain a positive outcome at your DMV hearing and in your DUI case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

Anyone who has been charged with corporal injury on a child, under California Penal Code Section 273d, should be prepared to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney. An experienced criminal defense attorney will know how to examine all the circumstances surrounding your case to secure the most favorable result.

Corporal injury on a child is defined as an infliction of a physical punishment on a child that results in a traumatic condition. Physical punishment can be any form of physical contact with the child that results in an injury. The type of contact can range from punching to pushing a child.

To prove that a person is guilty of the crime of corporal injury on a child in California, the prosecution must prove an individual willfully inflicted cruel or inhuman physical injury on a child. The prosecution must also show that physical punishment was unreasonable or unjustified. The child must also have suffered a traumatic condition.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Corporal Injury on a Child - What Should I Do? - California Penal Code Section 273d" »

The federal government has accused four police officers in orchestrating a cover-up in a deadly beating of a Mexican immigrant by two popular high school football players. The two youths had been charged with a hate crime because during the beating they made racially motivated comments. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has charged the four police officers, including a police chief, with witness and evidence tempering, conspiring to obstruct justice, and lying to the FBI.

An all-white jury acquitted one of the high school football players of a third-degree murder and ethnic intimidation, and another defendant was acquitted of aggravated assault. However, the jury convicted both of the defendants of simple assault and sentenced them to terms of six to twenty-three months.

The case exemplifies an increasing polarization of society on the issue of immigration and racial bias. The incident started when high school football players encountered the victim with his girlfriend in a city park. The argument brokeout when the parties exchanged racially motivated comments. Then a fight started and the victim received a fatal head injury while exchanging punches with the defendants. The victim was in the United States illegally working at various low paid jobs.

The federal prosecution is not precluded from seeking convictions of defendants sentenced by state or local authorities because federal and state governments are considered “sovereigns.” The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not preclude multiple convictions in different sovereigns based on the same criminal act. (Heath v. Alabama (1985) 474 U.S. 82). Therefore, a prior state prosecution does not bar a federal prosecution of the same person for the same crime. (Abbate v. United States (1959) 359 U.S. 187). However, a state statute may bar prosecution in state court for similar crimes based on the same transaction for which the defendant was convicted or acquitted in another jurisdiction, including federal court.

Continue reading "The Federal Government Has Charged Four Police Officers with Covering up Racially Motivated Deadly Beating of a Mexican Immigrant" »

The California appellate court has held that even though a vehicle does in fact have a temporary operating permit displayed somewhere on the vehicle, if the police officer does not see the temporary operating permit, and the vehicle does not have license plates, then the stop of the vehicle is legal. People v. Dotson ﴾3rd Dist., Nov. 30, 2009﴿ 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1904﴿.

In Dotson, the defendant, a convicted felon, was found to be in possession of a firearm, ammunition, and methamphetamine when a police officer stopped his vehicle. Although the vehicle had a temporary operating permit, an arresting officer had testified that at the time of the stop he saw that defendant's vehicle did not have license plates. In fact, in a dimly lit parking lot, the officer had a hard time identifying even the color of the vehicle. He saw that there were no license plates, so he made the stop. The defendant argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop since the defendant’s car had a temporary operating permit attached to the rear window.

Continue reading "Police Can Legally Stop a Vehicle in California Even If a Temporary Operating Permit Attached To a Rear Window " »

If your sentence for committing a federal crime contains some type of error, you must challenge the sentence within the time limits set by law, or you risk waiving your rights to contest the sentence altogether. In U.S. v. Aguirre-Ganceda (2010) 2010 DJDAR 890, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to review his conviction for error. The United States Supreme Court denied cert, meaning that the Court declined to hear the case, and let the conviction stand. The defendant then filed a petition for rehearing of that denial. While his motion for rehearing was pending, the defendant also filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his prison sentence, believing that his prison sentence contained errors.

The trial court denied the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the prison sentence because the trial court held that the motion was untimely. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the trial court’s denial. The Court of Appeal held that section 2255 of the United States Code, which applies to the type of motion the defendant filed, sets forth a one-year period of limitation. Additionally, this one year limitation period begins to run when the Supreme Court denies cert (declines to hear the case), making the judgment “final.” Because the defendant and his lawyer incorrectly believed that the limitations period started when the defendant’s petition for rehearing was denied, the defendant forfeited his right to contest his prison sentence.

Continue reading "Compliance with Time Limits is Crucial to Securing Your Rights" »

In our previous posts, we discussed how important it is to have not just one criminal defense lawyer representing you, but an entire criminal defense team dedicated to your case, including attorneys and private investigators.

You will also want to have expert witnesses as part of your criminal defense team. If you are charged with a DUI, you may need a forensic toxicologist to give your lawyers advice and their expert opinion. If you are charged with being under the influence of a drug, you may need the help of a drug recognition expert (DRE) or other medical doctor. If you are charged with a sex crime, you may need a psychologist or psychiatrist that specializes in sex cases, sex addiction, and sexual tendencies/inclinations to help defend you. Your lawyer may also need to consult with a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) who can provide an opinion about the alleged victim’s physical appearances. If you are charged with forgery, you may need the help of a document examiner. If you want to prove you are telling the truth, you may need the help of a private polygraph examiner.

Continue reading "How an Experienced Southern California Criminal Defense Team Can Help You if You Are Charged With a Crime: Part 3" »

Van Nuys is located at the center of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. With a population well over 136,443 people, Van Nuys attracts more and more residents every year. Van Nuys Boulevard, the main street in the city, is widely known for its strip of car dealerships. Van Nuys is also notorious for being the site of filming for Beverly Hills 90210. In being so close to Los Angeles, law enforcement in Van Nuys keeps a look-out for drivers they suspect of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When a person is arrested for DUI in Van Nuys, he or she only has 10 days to schedule a hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

Most drivers in Van Nuys are not aware that their driver’s license will be confiscated if they are arrested for drunk driving. Even though being arrested for DUI can be an upsetting and confusing experience, an individual can be proactive and seek legal advice and representation from a skilled Van Nuys DMV hearings lawyer. A skilled attorney can make sure that you retain your driving privileges by guiding you through the legalities of a DMV hearing and DUI case. Failure to schedule a DMV hearing within 10 days of your arrest will result in an automatic suspension of your driver’s license for thirty days or more from the date of your arrest and serves as a surrender of a DMV hearing.

The aggressive Southern California criminal defense lawyers at Wallin & Klarich have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges such as DUI for over 30 years. We know what it takes to ensure that you keep your driver’s license and may be able to get your DUI charges reduced or even dismissed. Contact Wallin & Klarich today to learn more about how we can help. Call 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

In our previous post, we discussed how important it is to have not just one criminal defense lawyer representing you, but an entire criminal defense team dedicated to your case.

In addition to attorneys, you will also want to have private investigators on your criminal defense team. Private investigators can help uncover evidence that your lawyers, the prosecutors, or even you may not have already known about. Most private investigators are former law enforcement officers and detectives. They can provide your lawyers with special insight into how police officers conduct their investigations and point to weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

Private investigators are extremely helpful in interviewing witnesses. The information they learn can help your lawyers convince the prosecutors or judge to dismiss your case, or help your lawyers negotiate a reduction of charges. A private investigator will help obtain information that will aid your attorneys in the cross examination of witnesses at either a preliminary hearing or at trial. They are also helpful in attacking the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

Continue reading "How an Experienced Southern California Criminal Defense Team Can Help You if You Are Charged With a Crime: Part 2" »

Many people accused of a crime find their criminal defense attorney by searching the internet. Through their research, they find that there are numerous criminal defense lawyers out there, all claiming to have the most knowledge and experience – all declaring themselves to be the defense lawyer you should hire, touting their individual successes. However, you have the opportunity to retain a highly skilled criminal defense law firm and that is a much wiser decision than to merely hire a criminal defense attorney.

The best chance to have your case dismissed or beat the charges against you is to hire a criminal defense team to fight for you. You criminal defense “team” should consist of your criminal defense law firm, private investigators and expert witnesses.

In many criminal cases, you will be up against a highly skilled team of prosecutors who will be working together to do all they can to make certain that you are found guilty of the crimes for which you stand accused. This can put someone with a single defense attorney at a major disadvantage. One criminal defense attorney alone, will often be distracted by multiple cases they are handling at the same time.

Continue reading "How an Experienced Southern California Criminal Defense Team Can Help You if You Are Charged With a Crime: Part 1" »

In California, arson is considered a particularly heinous crime, especially during the summer when wildfires grab national headlines every year. Arson is a complicated matter with varying levels of severity in punishments for each case. There are many factors to consider, including the circumstances of the accused and the type of damage caused. It is important to be thorough and know the procedures regarding arson cases.

In California, arson is defined as the willful and malicious burning of a structure, forest, or land. In many arson cases, our law firm can successfully defend the case by being able to show that the accused did not act maliciously or willfully to set the fire. The start of many fires can be disputed and often can be caused by neglectful actions or by pure accident. The accused may lack specific intent to actually start a fire, cause the fire by accident, or be intoxicated. These defenses may be available to you, but you must consult with an attorney to review your case.

A defendant can be charged with either simple arson or aggravated arson. Simple arson will be charged when a defendant willfully and maliciously set fire to or burned a structure, forest, land, or property.

Aggravated arson will be charged if the defendant willfully and maliciously set fire to or burned a structure with the intent on injuring someone, or to damage property which would likely injure someone. Also, the fire must have caused a damage exceeding $5,650,000, or the fire damaged or destroyed five or more inhabited structures.

Continue reading "What You Need to Know about Arson and How it Can Affect You - California Penal Code Section 451" »

The city of Torrance is situated within the bustling region of Los Angeles County and has approximately 140,820 residents. Based on the 2009 California Population Estimate of 149,111, Torrance is expected to become the eighth largest city in LA County as well as the 35th largest in the state of California. Torrance attracts a number of inhabitants and visitors due to its closeness to beaches, nice weather, safe communities, and prominent businesses. However, with such a large number of people comes an increase in traffic and subsequent watch of law enforcement for drivers they suspect to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

If a person is arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in Torrance, the officer who makes their arrest will take away their driver’s license. It is at this point that an arrested individual only has 10 days to schedule a hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). If a person fails to schedule their DMV hearing within 10 days of their arrest, their driver’s license will be automatically suspended for thirty days or more and they will surrender their DMV hearing. There are numerous other legal matters and consequences involved in a DMV hearing and throughout a DUI case that may have long-lasting effects on your life unless you get in touch with a skilled Torrance DMV hearings attorney.

At Wallin & Klarich, our knowledgeable Southern California criminal defense lawyers will make sure that you keep your driving privileges. We have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges like DUI for over 30 years and know what it takes to get your charges reduced or dismissed completely. Call us today at 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information. We have the legal resources and experience to help you obtain a successful outcome at your DMV hearing and in your DUI case.

In California, burglary is a very serious crime with serious consequences. There are generally two types of burglary, commercial and residential, often called first and second degree burglary. Burglaries committed in someone’s home are residential burglaries which are always felonies. All other burglaries are commercial burglaries and can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor.

California defines burglary as entering a structure with the intent to commit a felony once inside. A defendant can be convicted of commercial burglary if the defendant entered a building, vehicle, vessel, or cargo container, with the intent to commit theft or a felony. A felony commercial burglary conviction is punishable by up to three years in state prison. A misdemeanor commercial burglary carries a potential penalty of up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine.

A defendant can be convicted of residential burglary if the defendant burglarized an inhabited home or a room within an inhabited home, and the defendant entered with the intent to commit theft or a felony. Residential burglary is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for up to six years.

In addition, first degree burglaries are considered “strikes” under California’s Three Strikes Law, which brings substantial additional punishment and requires that you serve a longer percentage of your sentence before being released. In addition, if you have two prior strikes and are accused of any new felony, you are facing a potential sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

Continue reading "What You Need to Know if You Are Accused of Burglary and How it Can Affect You - Penal Code Section 459" »

On February 8, 2010 Michael Jackson’s Doctor has plead not guilty to involuntary manslaughter. Dr. Conrad Murray, a Houston cardiologist who was with Michael Jackson when he died on June 25, 2009, was accused today of being criminally responsible for his death.

Dr. Murray has been accused of giving Michael Jackson a lethal dose of propofol, an anesthetic that is used for sedation. It is believed by some that Michael Jackson was addicted to propofol, which he used to help him sleep.

Although Dr. Murray is accused of being responsible for the death of Michael Jackson, he is charged with involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is different from murder.

Murder is the when someone commits an act that caused the death of another person with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a state of mind. It requires knowledge that through an action or omission, the result will be someone’s death. Malice can be expressed or implied. It is expressed when someone shows a deliberate intention to kill someone. It can be implied when there is no considerable provocation or when the circumstances show an abandoned or malignant heart.

First degree murder is a type of murder. First degree murder is usually charged when the killing was done with deliberation and premeditation. This means that the killing was planned out by the defendant. The punishment for first degree murder can be punished by death, life imprisonment, or 25 years to life imprisonment. See California Penal Code Section 190. In this case, Dr. Murray is not accused of killing Michael Jackson with deliberation or premeditation. This is why Dr. Murray is charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Continue reading "Michael Jackson's Doctor Pleads Not Guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter Charges" »

Anyone who has been charged with battery, under California Penal Code section 242, should be prepared to retain an experienced criminal defense law firm to represent him or her in court. An experienced criminal defense attorney will know how to examine all the circumstances surrounding a criminal battery case to secure the most favorable disposition of this criminal matter for the client.

Battery is commonly defined as willful use of force or violence directed at another person. Any physical touching can be considered a battery as long as a victim does not consent to it, or if he or she feels that the touching was offensive. You need to know that assault and battery, although commonly mistaken as having similar meanings, are actually two distinct criminal charges.

While battery requires a physical contact to be either harmful or offensive, assault is just an attempt to injure another person and bring about this offensive or harmful touching. For example, swinging a baseball bat at another person will be an assault as long as that person reasonably believes that you are just about to hit them. However, once the bat lands on any part of the victim’s body, a crime of assault turns into a crime of battery.

Defenses are available to a battery charge. The most common defense to the crime of battery is self-defense or defense of others. The key to both of these battery charge defenses in California is to show that a person reasonably believed that he or she was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury, and the force used was reasonably necessary to defend against such danger.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Criminal Battery - What Should I Do Next? - California Penal Code Section 242" »

In the recent case of People v. Santos Dominguez (2010) 2010 WL 60237 (hereafter Dominguez), the California Court of Appeal held that the amount of force required for false imprisonment of an unresisting infant or child is the amount of physical force required to take and carry the child away a substantial distance for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent. The court also clarified what constitutes “violence, menace, fraud or deceit” for felony false imprisonment.

In Dominguez, the defendant lived in the same apartment building as two female girls, ages four and six. The defendant did not know the two girls and was not related to either of them. According to the prosecution, the defendant repeatedly hugged the two girls, twice asked the six-year-old where her mother was, and told the six-year-old he wanted to take her to a restaurant. The defendant physically carried the four-year-old outside of the apartment building while the six-year-old followed. When the defendant came upon another man in the building, the defendant stopped and put the four-year-old down.

The defendant claimed he never saw the two girls before the incident and denied picking up or touching the four-year-old. The defendant said that he was merely trying to stop the girls from leaving the apartment building gate to play, wanting them to stay inside. The defendant denied asking the girls if they wanted to go to a restaurant.

Continue reading "California Court of Appeal Clarifies "Force" Requirement of False Imprisonment - PC Section 236-237" »

Most felonies could be charged as lesser offenses. In other words, the lesser offenses are a part of the felony because they include the same elements. Typically, the jury must be instructed on the lesser included offense.

For example, the crime of felony assault includes the lesser offense of simple assault. Simple assault requires that the prosecution prove the following elements:

• The defendant willfully attempted to inflict injury upon another, or the defendant willfully attempted to threaten to inflict injury upon another; and


• The defendant had an apparent present ability to carry out such injury or threat; and


• This injury or threat causes the victim to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

Felony assault requires that the prosecution prove the elements of simple assault plus the fact that the defendant used a deadly weapon. Thus, all the elements of simple assault are required to prove felony assault. The jury would be given instructions to convict the defendant of either felony or simple assault, rather than only be given instructions to convict the defendant of felony assault.

An instruction on a lesser-included offense is warranted if

1. "the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense, and


2. the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [the defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit [him/her] of the greater." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 716 (1989); Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208 (1973)).

Continue reading "Lesser Included Offenses: How An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Could Save you From a Felony Conviction" »

It was recently reported that three individuals were arrested in connection to a vandalism case in El Cajon, California. Oswaldo Sanchez (19 years old), Aaron Menjuga (18 years old), and a minor (male, 16-years old) were all taken into custody when police pulled them over for an unrelated traffic stop. The police found BB guns and ammunition in the vehicle. Earlier that same day over 13 cars had been damaged by what police believe were caused by BB guns. The damage to the vehicles is estimated to be several thousand dollars.

California Penal Code 594 states the following in regards to vandalism: “(a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism:

1. Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.


2. Damages.


3. Destroys."

Vandalism can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony depending upon the circumstances.

Continue reading "How Hiring an Experienced San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Can Help You if You Are Charged with Vandalism - Penal Code Section 594" »

California Penal Code Section 240 defines an assault as an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. In other words, it is some type of action that attempts to physically injure someone.

You will often hear the defendant was charged with “assault & battery.” This means that the defendant is charged with two crimes. Assault is different from battery. Assault actually does not need to cause an injury or any physical contact. Assault is just the attempt to cause the injury. Therefore, even if no one gets hurt, you can still be charged with this crime.

For example, a person might be at a bar and he might take a swing at someone. The person dodges the punch. The person who took the swing can still be properly charged with criminal assault.

Now, picture the same scenario above, but the person actually swung a baseball bat at the person and still missed. The person will likely be charged with criminal assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code Section 245, which can be a serious felony. This can happen even though the accused did not actually strike the alleged victim.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Criminal Assault - What should I Do? - California Penal Code 240" »

Recently, a California appellate court has concluded that even if you have a signed lease to enter your apartment, that may not constitute a complete defense to burglary when there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant did not have “an unconditional possessory interest” in the apartment rented with another person at the time of commission of burglary.(People v. Ulloa (Cal. App. 4 Dist., Dec. 21, 2009, No. E045880) 2009 WL 4895082.)

In Ulloa, the defendant was convicted of first degree residential burglary, receiving stolen property, and misdemeanor vandalism as a result of breaking into an apartment leased together with his then-wife, and taking her purse and $900 from her wallet following a domestic violence confrontation. On appeal, the defendant contended that he could not possibly commit burglary as a matter of law because he was a cotenant in the apartment where the alleged burglary occurred.

The appellate court has disagreed. Although both the defendant and the victim jointly signed an apartment lease, and the lease was in full force and effect at the time of the charged crimes occurred, the defendant did not own the property, and his possessory interest was not “unconditional” due to abandoning his unconditional possessory interest in the apartment by moving out.

Continue reading "A Person Can be Convicted of Burglary of the Apartment Which He Leases: California Penal Code Section 459" »

Why Having an Experienced Drug Offense Attorney Can Mean the Difference Between Jail and Freedom

A recent California Court of Appeals decision, People v. Archer, held that, in medical marijuana possession cases, the jury must be informed that the patient has a right to possess an amount that is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.

The California Legislature recently enacted Health and Safety Code section 11362.77 of Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), which provides that the “legal limit” for possessing medical marijuana was eight ounces. However, before the legislatures enacted section 11362.77, the only relevant section as to how much marijuana a medical marijuana patient could possess (or cultivate) was section 11362.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Under section 11362.5, subdivision (d) of the Heath and Safety Code, the only qualification concerning the amount of marijuana that a medical marijuana patient could possess (or cultivate) was that the marijuana be for the "personal medical purposes" of the patient. (section 11362.5, subd. (d).)

Therefore, assuming section 11362.77, subdivision (a) of the MMPA, is unconstitutional, as the parties jointly contended, the relevant law on the issue of the amount of marijuana Archer could possess would be section 11362.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and the cases interpreting that statute.

As noted, courts have interpreted this qualification to mean a reasonable amount: "[T]he quantity possessed by the patient or the primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs. What precisely are the 'patient's current medical needs' [is], of course . . . a factual question to be determined by [the jury]." (People v. Trippet, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1549.)

Here, the evidence in the record showed Archer was using about a half pound of medical marijuana each month in April 2006, mostly by ingesting it, and that he possessed about 1.72 pounds of marijuana—or about a three-month supply of medical marijuana—when police entered his home and confiscated it and his plants. There was no evidence Archer possessed the 1.72 pounds of marijuana for purposes other than for his own personal medical use.

Continue reading "Possession of Medical Marijuana is Limited to the Patient's Current Medical Needs" »

Palmdale is a fast-growing city situated in Los Angeles County’s northeast region. With an approximate population of 151,346, Palmdale attracts new inhabitants throughout the year partially due to its proximity to the beautiful San Gabriel Mountain range. Palmdale is California’s largest desert city and is mainly occupied by family communities. Despite being a safe and prosperous city, arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) do take place in Palmdale from time to time in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will probably occur as a result.

Being arrested for DUI in Palmdale can be an overwhelming experience, especially since there are several issues to consider, such as the standing of your driving privileges. Many motorists in Palmdale are not aware that their driver’s license will be taken away by the police officer who makes their arrest. After your arrest, you only have ten days to schedule a DMV hearing to defend your name and fight to retain your driver’s license. Failure to schedule a hearing with the DMV will result in an automatic driving suspension of thirty days or more and a surrender of a DMV hearing.

In order to make sure that your rights are aggressively and effectively defended, you should get in touch with an experienced Palmdale DMV hearings lawyer. At Wallin & Klarich, our skilled Southern California criminal defense attorneys have been defending those facing criminal offenses for more than 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources to assist you in obtaining a successful outcome at your DMV hearing and in your DUI case. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

As discussed yesterday, the California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the verdict of death after the jury in the Sacramento County convicted the defendant of the first degree murder of a deputy sheriff and of the attempted wilful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of three other peace officers stemmed from an incident of domestic violence on March 2, 1995, in Ravendale. (People v. Ervine (2009) 47 Cal.4th 745.)

Another issue addressed by the court, in addition to the right to counsel issue discussed yesterday, was evidentiary in nature. With regard to the evidentiary issues, the Court has ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing out-of-court statement by the defendant’s wife regarding defendant’s felony assault against her. At trial, as proof that the officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their duties within the meaning of the special circumstance allegation, and that the officers had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a felony assault against his wife, the prosecution put on stand two officers who testified as to what they had been told by the dispatcher and by defendant's wife during her 911 call.

The Court has upheld the trial court’s finding that statements police officer relied upon to determine existence of probable cause to arrest an individual were admissible against hearsay objection because they were not offered for its truth but to show either officer’s state of mind or existence of special circumstances. Among other evidentiary issues, the Court has determined that the exclusion of defendant's handwritten statements made after he shot the officers was not erroneous because there was ample evidence to doubt his motives and sincerity to qualify it as a spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule or a statement of declarant’s then existing mental or physical state.

Continue reading "The California Supreme Court Affirmed a Death Sentence for the 1995 Murder of a Deputy Sheriff in Lassen County: Criminal Defense Issues Discussed on Appeal, Part II" »

As the ninth fastest expanding city in the United States, Lancaster is situated in Southern California’s Antelope Valley. Lancaster has an approximate population of 145,243 and is the eighth biggest city within Los Angeles County. In bringing in several national and local companies from various types of industries and businesses, many people are drawn to Lancaster to pursue the American Dream. However, as a consequence of being such a busy and densely populated city, arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) have been known to take place in Lancaster in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will likely follow.

Many motorists in Lancaster do not realize that if they are arrested for DUI, their driver’s license will be taken away from them. At this point, a person charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs only has 10 days to schedule an administrative hearing with the DMV. License suspension in Southern California is a serious matter and a DUI conviction can impose many harsh consequences. However, with an experienced Lancaster DMV hearings lawyer on your side, you may be able to retain your driving privileges and reach a successful outcome in your DUI case.

If you have been arrested for DUI in Lancaster, do not waste any time in contacting a skilled criminal defense attorney who has experience handing DUI cases and DMV hearings. At Wallin & Klarich, our aggressive lawyers will fight your license suspension by challenging the technical basis for your arrest and the charges being held against you. Our criminal defense law firm has been defending the rights of individuals facing criminal charges such as DUI for more than 30 years. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

In one of its last decisions of 2009, the California Supreme Court on automatic appeal has unanimously affirmed the verdict of death after the jury in the Sacramento County convicted the defendant of the first degree murder of a deputy sheriff and of the attempted wilful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of three other peace officers stemmed from an incident of domestic violence on March 2, 1995, in Ravendale. (People v. Ervine (2009) 47 Cal.4th 745.)

The defendant raised many issues in appeal. The Court has dismissed a claim of violation of the defendant’s right to counsel when the jail personnel had entered defendant's cell while he was in court and read all of his notes which included materials sent to the defendant by his attorney. The trial court made a factual finding that Sacramento County jail personnel had read defendant's privileged legal materials. However, because the defendant did not offer any evidence that jail personnel had communicated the confidential defense information to the prosecution, the trial court determined that defendant had failed to make out a prima facie violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The Supreme Court has first established that not every intrusion into attorney-client privileged communication automatically establishes a prima facia violation of the Sixth Amendment. In fact, to be cognizable on appeal there must be a showing of evidence that the confidential communication was actually conveyed to the prosecution team for the defendant to claim that his right to counsel was violated.

Continue reading "The California Supreme Court Affirmed a Death Sentence for the 1995 Murder of a Deputy Sheriff in Lassen County: Jailers Unlawfully Seize Defendant's Notes of Conversations with His Attorney, Part I" »

It was recently reported that a 62-year old woman died as a result of her injuries in a hit and run accident in Los Angeles. The woman, whose name has not yet been released, was hit while she was crossing a street near Normandie Avenue and West Adams Boulevard. The man believed to have hit the woman was driving a black Toyota Camry. Police are trying to locate the driver, who will be facing hit and run charges.

In the state of California, the driver in the above situation will be facing felony hit and run and possibly homicide charges. Potential penalties can include prison time, hefty fines, and loss of driving privileges for the rest of his life.

Continue reading "How Hiring An Experienced San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Can Help You If You Are Arrested for a Hit and Run - CVC 20001 - CVC 20002" »