Southern California Defense Blog

A Monterey Park man is now facing some serious allegations after a female employee of his yogurt shop escaped from his storage room. The alleged victim freed herself and then contacted some people in the building who called police.

Robert Yachen Lee, is now facing kidnapping and attempted murder charges for the abduction of one of his female employees when he allegedly knocked her unconscious and then after disrobing her and placed her in restraints as well as placing her in a box. The storage room had also been apparently soundproofed.

The alleged victim told the police that when she awoke, she was bound with tape and had a collar around her neck. She was able to free herself and escape to a nearby office.

Are you or someone you know facing similar charges? You need to seek the advice of an experience criminal defense attorney immediately. The prosecution in this case will need to prove several things before you could be convicted of this or any other crime.

To prove that you are guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. You took, held, or detained another person by using force or by instilling reasonable fear; 2. Using that force or fear, you moved the other person or made the other person move a substantial distance; 3. The other person did not consent to the movement; AND 4. You did not actually and reasonably believe that the other person consented to the movement.

Is consent a defense?

You are not guilty of kidnapping if you reasonably and actually believed that the other person consented to the movement. The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably and actually believe that the other person consented to the movement. You are also not guilty if the other person consented to go with you. Although, consent may be withdrawn.

Kidnapping is a serious and violent felony, which is punishable for up to 11 years in prison depending on the age of the victim. A conviction for kidnapping is a "strike," under the California Three Strikes Law, and could result in increased punishment for any further sentencing if you are convicted of another crime in the future.
If you or a loved one have been accused or charged with a kidnapping charge, it is very important that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately, like the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We have over 30 years of experienced handling these types of matters and can assist you in obtaining the best possible result. Call the law firm of Wallin& Klarich today at, (888) 749-0034 to speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney about your case.

Starting back in 2009, a multiple prong investigation by the Justice Department and Homeland Security targeted several hundred people living in several countries across the world who they suspected were involved in a massive online child pornography ring.

Recently, it was reported that the investigation has resulted, to date, in approximately 72 people being identified and charged with possession of and distribution of child pornography and sex crimes against children. Over fifty of those identified have been arrested and 13 of those people have pleaded guilty to sex crimes. Twenty people are still at large and only known by online identities.

The child porn ring shared images of sex crimes against children on an online bulletin board. The site was called "Dreamboard." This site was very sophisticated and to be a member and to access the site the members had to follow certain rules. One of the rules was that the member had to post child porn that they produced on the site and which would allow that member access the site and the more content they produced and posted online, the more they could access from other members on the cite. The site was only accessible by child porn producers and trusted members.

The federal government’s takedown of Dreamboard resulted in the confiscation of more than a million images of child porn with in the United States. Some of the images were very graphic and depicted violent sex crimes against children.

Are you or someone you know being investigated for these types of crimes. Sometimes people may have used various computers whether at work or at home and another person may have inadvertently been charged with this crime.

If you or a loved one have been accused or charged with a possession of child pornography, it is very important that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately, like the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We have over 30 years of experienced handling these types of matters and can assist you in obtaining the best possible result. Call the law firm of Wallin& Klarich today at, (888) 749-0034 to speak to an experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney about your case.

Amalia Bryan was found guilty of second degree murder. Ms. Bryan argued that she got into a physical altercation with her live in boyfriend. The boyfriend had pinned Ms. Bryan down and began to strangle her. Ms. Bryan broke free and attempted to leave the residence. Ms. Bryan grabbed a glass candle holder. Also, as she was leaving the residence, she grabbed a knife in which she stabbed her boyfriend with when he directly lunged at her. On appeal, Ms. Bryan argued that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on an instruction of a lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeal agreed with Ms. Bryan and reversed Ms. Bryan’s conviction.

The Court of Appeal explained that the trial court has a duty to instruct the jury that an unintentional killing without malice committed during the course of a dangerous felony constitutes voluntary manslaughter. Under People v. Garcia (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 18, the court held that an unlawful killing during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony, even if unintentional, is at least voluntary manslaughter. In this case, the victim died from a single stab wound during a physical struggle. Moreover, Ms. Bryan never made any statements or testimony that she had planned or intended to stab her boyfriend or that she knew that her act of thrusting the knife toward him as he lunged at her would endanger his life. Since a reasonable jury could have found that Ms. Bryan did not subjectively appreciate that her conduct endangered the victim’s life because the stabbing occurred during a heated struggle and there was only one stab wound.

If you or a loved one is facing a charge of voluntary manslaughter , it is critical that you speak with an experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & larich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling murder cases. Our attorneys will defend your rights and fight to get you the best possible result in your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Sobriety checkpoints are temporary roadblocks on public streets or roadways designed to snare drunk drivers and cite others for violations of the CA Vehicle Code. The courts have established strict guidelines to govern the operation of sobriety checkpoints. Anyone arrested for DUI at a sobriety checkpoint should contact an experienced CA drunk driving attorney to determine whether the checkpoint was operated according to these guidelines.

Sobriety checkpoints must be established under specific guidelines, as mandated by the California Supreme Court in the precedent-setting Ingersoll vs. Palmer case. A sobriety checkpoint must be announced to the public in advance and set up by command law enforcement officers, not officers in the field. Vehicles must be selected using a neutral mathematical formula, and the checkpoints must be maintained safely for both police and motorists, have high visibility, and minimize the average time each motorist is detained.

Each motorist who has been stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe signs of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a field sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.

If you or a loved one have been accused or charged with DUI in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, or Ventura county it is very important that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately, like the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We have over 30 years of experienced handling this type of matters and can assist you in obtaining the best possible result. Call the law firm of Wallin& Klarich today at, (888) 749-0034 to speak to an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorney about your case.

In a meeting this week, all of the council members were in favor of the notion of making a new ordinance that would support the restricting of sex offenders out of San Juan Capistrano city parks. However, some legal concerns about a proposal prompted the City Council to delay a vote on it this week.
Some of the Council members indicated that there are still many questions with the ordinance, so the council members apparently decided to research the legality of the ordinance and then take up a vote at a later meeting.

There have been two proposals recently put in place in the county.
One of which, would make it a misdemeanor for registered sex offenders to enter a city park without written permission from San Juan Capistrano Police Services. This would carry a potential punishment of probation and a fine of up to $500 and/or jail time for up to six months for a first violation. Second and third violations would have some minimum amount of jail time in addition to a fine.

Another option, would allow the authorities to grant certain time and date restraints which would permit registered sex offenders to enter these parks with a valid reason to be there with specified guidelines.
After reviewing both options, the Council members had varying ideas on which plan to implement.
This year, there have already been two cities in Orange County, Westminster and Irvine that have adopted and passed similar ordinances.

If you or a loved one have been accused or charged with a sex crime, it is very important that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately, like the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We have over 30 years of experienced handling these types of matters and can assist you in obtaining the best possible result. Call the law firm of Wallin& Klarich today at, (888) 749-0034 to speak to an experienced California criminal defense attorney about your case.

While burglary’s penalties can be quite severe, there are numerous defenses that a skilled California burglary defense lawyer can present on your behalf. The following are some of the most common.

Intent

Intent is critical to a burglary prosecution. If you don’t intend to commit a theft or other felony upon your entry, you can’t be convicted of burglary – period. Your intent becomes increasingly difficult to prove if the alleged intended crime didn’t actually take place.

Mistake of fact

Mistake of fact ties directly into intent. If, for example, you reasonably believed that you were entering another’s home, to take back something that you thought belonged to you or because you believed you had permission to take the item, you would not be guilty of a California burglary (or, for that matter, a trespass).39

Consent

Consent may or may not serve as a viable defense, depending on the situation. Examples of when consent may act as a defense include (but are not limited to):

• a situation where you own the property, or

• a situation where you are invited in and the owner knows of your criminal intent (such as an undercover officer inviting you into receiving stolen property). The rationale here is that the danger that burglary law seeks to protect against is absent in such a situation.

Consent will not serve as a defense if the property owner invited you in, unaware of your criminal intent. This would be the case if

• you enter a store, intending to shoplift,

• you are invited into a home, and the owner doesn’t know that you intend to steal once inside, or

• you fraudulently obtain consent to enter.

You are innocent of the charges

This is obviously the best and most effective defense to a burglary (or any other) charge. You can be falsely arrested or falsely accused of California burglary under Penal Code 459 PC for any number of reasons.
Perhaps yours is a case of mistaken identity. You happened to look like (or have the same name as) someone who was reported to the police.

Perhaps yours is a case of misleading evidence. Let’s assume, for example, that someone’s home or business was burgled and that you had previously been there for innocent and legitimate reasons. Those prior occasions would explain why your fingerprints were found at the crime location.
Even when the evidence appears damaging, an experienced California burglary attorney knows how to present the most effective arguments and legal defenses to convince the prosecutor to reduce or possibly even dismiss your charges.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, you will need an experienced Southern California defense attorney who will aggressively defend you to obtain the best possible result. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of robbery allegations for over 30 years. Call us at (888) 764-2615 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel to every defendant in a criminal case. "Effective assistance of counsel" doesn't mean perfect counsel. A lawyer's representation of a client is "ineffective" only if it falls below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudices (has a negative impact on) his defense.

The burden is on the defendant to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. There is a strong presumption that a lawyer's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. The courts won't second-guess the attorney's tactics or strategies. That is, when deciding if an attorney's assistance was effective, a judge typically won't think to herself, "I wouldn't have done that if I was the defendant's lawyer." Rather, the courts presume or take for granted that an attorney's conduct was proper and that he gave his client adequate assistance.

It's up to the defendant to show that there's a reasonable probability that, but for the lawyer's unprofessional errors, the result of the case would have been different.
Courts realize that a person ordinarily doesn't realize his lawyer's errors and evaluate his professional performance. A person may very well not know he hasn't been competently represented until after trial or appeal, usually when he consults another lawyer about the case. So many courts will allow a person to file a claim to set aside his conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel in federal court, even if he didn't directly appeal his state conviction and sentence or file to withdraw his guilty plea.

If you've missed the filing deadlines for a motion for a new trial or to file a notice of direct appeal, you might first try to reduce the sentence under your state's laws for post-conviction relief. If that fails, and you believe there are grounds to support it, you can attempt to file what's called a "habeas corpus" petition in federal court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

With over 30 years of experience as Criminal Lawyers, and appealing cases, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

Every person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of stalking under Penal Code 646.9(a).

If you or a loved one are charged with stalking under Penal Code § 646.9(a), it is important to know what the prosecution must prove in order to convict you. It is also important to know what the important terms associated with this crime mean. We will now go through some of these key terms and what they mean using the specific jury instruction on point.

As used in the jury instruction, “Harasses" means a “knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.” Moreover, this course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.”
Meanwhile, "Course of conduct" means a “pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.” A "credible threat" means a “verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family.”

It is important to note that intent to carry out the threat is not an element of this crime. Also, the fact, if it be a fact, that the person who allegedly made the threat was incarcerated at the time the threat was made, is not a defense.

Finally, in order to meet the prima facie case for stalking, each of the following elements must be proved:
1. A person willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed or harassed another person;
2. The person following or harassing made a credible threat; and
3. The person who made the threat did so with the specific intent to place the other
person in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of the immediate family
of such person(s).

If the jury has reasonable doubt as to one of these elements, then they must find the defendant not guilty.
We hope that the information in this blog gives you some helpful insight into what is required to prove stalking under Penal Code § 646.9(a). If you or a loved one are facing stalking charges or any other type of criminal charge(s), call Wallin and Klarich today. Wallin and Klarich has a team of highly skilled, aggressive criminal defense attorneys ready to take your call 7 days week, 24 hours a day! Wallin and Klarich has been in the business of helping people with their criminal defense matters for over 30 years and we would like to help you with yours! A qualified, experienced attorney from the firm will be able to evaluate your case when you call.

One can only hope to never be charged with a Federal crime. But if you are, Federal sentencing has become the most crucial stage of the criminal justice process. Sentencing consequences is a major consideration for decisions made earlier in the process, including:
• the prosecutor’s selection of charges
• the defendant’s decision whether/when to cooperate with the government
• the defendant’s decision whether/when to plead guilty
• the terms and stipulations included in any plea agreement
As such, Defendants and their Federal Criminal Lawyers need to understand and predict the sentencing effects of their decisions from the outset of the case.
Unfortunately, the importance of sentencing has not resulted in clear and consistent laws proven effective at achieving the purposes of sentencing. Over the past 25 years following Congress’s enactment, and subsequent disregard, of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which has lead to a hodgepodge of statutory provisions that affect sentencing, including:
• mandatory-minimum penalties
• “mandatory” Sentencing Guidelines
• Case law
For most sentencing matters, the pre-sentence investigation and report prepared by the probation officer, and the sentencing hearing conducted by the judge, are the primary means for determining the nature and circumstances of the offence and the history and characteristics of the offender. However, prosecutors, and even law enforcement and probation officers, can have considerable influence over the sentencing options available to the judge by:
• control of the facts that are relevant to the statutory and guideline provisions
• their choice of what charges to bring and which facts to allege
• their control of motions for various types of sentence reductions
• penalizing non-cooperation and the exercise of a defendant’s rights
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently reinvigorated the role of judges and the opportunities for Federal Criminal Lawyers to advocate through a serious of constitutional decisions:
• U.S. v Booker (rendered the Sentencing Guidelines “effectively advisory”)
• U.S. v Gall (judges are obliged to consider all relevant factors in sentencing)
• Rita v U.S. (judges are free to disagree with a policy underlying a guideline)
This is a new and challenging period in Federal Sentencing, and to navigate through the Federal Court Sentencing successfully, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.
.

Penal Code 273.5 pc Corporal Injury to a Spouse or Cohabitant -- (a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting
in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.

An individual can be punished for the above crime of inflicting bodily injury on their current or former spouse; cohabitant or former cohabitant; or the parent of his/her child resulting in a traumatic condition-a visible injury, bruising, scratches, etc and even more serious conditions such as broken bones or more serious injuries.

Consequences of being convicted for this offense include, jail time, prison time, hefty fines, domestic violence classes, anger management classes, community service and other additional consequences including protective orders and restraining orders against the perpetrator.

There are many instances where the victim, the spouse, and/or cohabitant recants their allegations or does not want charges to be filed, however, when law enforcement is involved and the prosecution reviews the case, it may do little for the victim to recant or seek to have the charges dropped, however, an experienced Riverside criminal defense attorney can work the case and show proper defenses and negotiate a possible less serious offense as to the original charge with the prosecution.

Have you or a loved one recently been charged with a domestic violence offense? It is important to contact an experienced Riverside criminal attorney to represent you against these charges. At Wallin and Klarich, our Riverside defense attorneys have successfully represented many clients in this situation. Call us at 1-888-749-0034 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com

More and more across the country, law enforcement is delaing with a rise in the number of pharmacies that are robbed. The reason for the increase in the robberies, many experts say, are atributed to addicts seeking the powerful painkiller Oxycotin. The number of addicts hooked on Oxycotin has dramatically increased in the last several years.

In California, robbery is codified under Penal Code Section 211. It states in pertinent part that “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.” Robbery is a felony, and will result in a strike if convicted.

Possession of Oxycotin is codified under California Health and Safety Code section 11350. It states in part, “every person who possesses any controlled substance…shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison. If convicted on this offense, a person faces up to three years in state prison on a 1st time offense.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, it is imperative you contact our firm. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm is the best way to ensure you keep your freedom. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 877-466-5245 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

The answer is that your wife can do this and it happens every day. When the police arrest someone for domestic violence they “hope” the District Attorney will file criminal charges. However, sometimes the DA will not file the criminal charges because they do not feel they will able to obtain a conviction. The police will often suggest to the spouse that is viewed as the “victim” to go to court and ask the family law court judge to grant a restraining order against the alleged perpetrator.

It is vital if you are served with a restraining order that you retain an experienced restraining order attorney to help you. If the court grants the restraining order against you it can mean that you will be unable to come within one hundred yards of your spouse. This often means you will have great difficulty seeing your children. In addition if a restraining order is granted against you then the law requires you to surrender all of your firearms to law enforcement.

A restraining order can be granted for as long as five years. If you violate the restraining order you can be charged with a separate criminal charges and sent to jail for criminal violation of a restraining order. You do not want to give your spouse the “power” to contact the police and have them put you in jail. Protect yourself and immediately retain an experienced law firm who can help you.

If you are facing a similar legal matter, give us a call. Wallin & Klarich has been defending the rights of thousands of clients in Southern California for over 30 years. Call us at 888-749-0034. We are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

After there has been a determination that a defendant is indeed incompetent, the court will:

order the defendant to be committed for treatment to restore competence and
make an order regarding the defendant’s antipsychotic medication.

Under Penal Code §1370(c)(1), the maximum time for a defendant to be committed for a felony is the shorter of the two:

- 3 years from the date of commitment or

- the maximum term of imprisonment.

The first thing the judge will do in the case of an incompetent defendant is to order a community program director to evaluate the defendant in order to determine what type of treatment/commitment is needed. Acting under Penal Code §1370(a)(2)(A) the director will make a determination whether the defendant needs to undergo outpatient treatment, be committed to a state hospital, or to any other treatment facility. Subsequently, the court will order a delivery of the defendant to the recommended facility.

After the court has dealt with the treatment facility, a determination must then be made concerning the defendant’s medication. Of course, the defendant can either consent or refuse the prescribed medication.

In the case where the defendant initially does not consent, the court must conduct a hearing as to whether medication should be administered involuntarily. The court can order that medication be administered over the D’s objection if:

Defendant lacks the capacity to decide whether taking medication is in his best interest,
poses a danger to himself or others, or as a last resort,
the medication is necessary to restore D to competence
o Penal Code §1370(a)(2)(B)(ii)(III) Requirements:

Defendant is charged with a serious crime
Involuntary administration of anti-psychotic medication is substantially likely to render the D competent to stand trial
The medication is unlikely to have side effects that interfere with the D’s ability to understand the nature of the criminal proceeding or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a reasonable manner
Less intrusive treatments are unlikely to have substantially the same results, and
Anti-psychotic medication is in the patient’s best medical interest in light of his or her medical condition
We hope this gives you some insight on what happens after the court determines a defendant to be incompetent. If you or a loved one needs help with a criminal case that may have an issue of competence to stand trial or any other type of criminal defense matter, you need an attorney immediately. Wallin & Klarich has a team of highly skilled and aggressive criminal defense attorneys ready to take your call. Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience defending against criminal prosecution and achieving the best possible results. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

Under California law, the court must impose a suspension, or delay of driving privileges on minors who are convicted of being drunk in public. A conviction mandates the court to impose a one year license suspension, or delay the acquisition of a license, for a person 13 years of age up to 21 years of age.
California Penal Code Section 647(f), states any person “who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way”, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

What other punishments does a person charged with Penal Code Section 647(f) face if convicted?

In addition the suspension of driving privileges, or delay in the issuance of a driver’s license, a minor who is convicted of a misdemeanor for public intoxication also faces jail time, probation, and fines and fees. A person convicted of this penal code section faces up to six-months in a county jail, and a maximum fine of $1000. Moreover, if prosecutors convict you of your third "drunk in public" offense within a twelve-month period, you face a minimum 90-day county jail sentence

Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm can greatly increase your chances of keeping your license. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people keep their license for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 877-466-5245 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

In the American justice system, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

How, then, is it legal for police to require you to give a DNA sample immediately after your arrest? According to a recent California court decision, it is not.

In People v. Buza, a state appellate court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police to draw a DNA sample from suspects of a felony crime to include in a DNA databank designed to link suspects with unsolved crimes. As an unreasonable “search and seizure,” the court deemed this practice as a violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, requiring a felony arrestee to submit a DNA sample without independent suspicion, a warrant, or probable cause is unconstitutional.

Be sure that your rights are adequately protected if you are ever facing criminal charges. The best way to do this is to hire a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can help you ensure the protection of your rights. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

In July 2009, United States Secret Service obtained information that an individual in Lakewood, California was downloading child pornography from the Internet and obtained a search warrant of the home. During the execution of the search warrant, agents found Pio Quinzon occupying the home. Mr. Pio Quinzon pled guilty to possession of child pornography, which was found on his personal use computer. Several conditions were laid out for Mr. Quinzon, which included that his computer or other computer related devices used by Mr. Quinzon would be subject to installation of monitoring technology. Mr. Quizon was against the use of the monitoring technology asserting that there were other alternatives that would be less intrusive. Subsequently, the District Court sentenced Mr. Quinzon to seven years in federal prison, with thirty years of supervised release. Included in the terms of the supervised release was that Mr. Quizon was required to have technology monitoring software installed on Mr. Quinzon’s computers. Mr. Quizon countered that the monitoring was a deprivation of his liberty such that there wwere other less intrusive methods that can be employed.

The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the District Court’s decision in installing monitoring technology on Mr. Quinzon’s computers. The Court of Appeal explained that monitoring of Mr. Quinzon’s may be intrusive, yet it was reasonable based on the circumstances. More importantly, the District Court only intended to monitor and view instances of Internet-related usage; rather than, monitor unrelated sources such computer documents or other miscellaneous computer files. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit argued that the condition placed on Mr. Quinzon’s were narrowly tailored as Mr. Quizon had been found with images of child pornography; thus there was a significant nexus between the use of the Internet and downloading impermissible images.

If you charged with possession of child pornography, it is important that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney. Our Southern California attorneys will do a thorough investigation of all the facts and raise all possible defenses. Wallin and Klarich has over 30 years of experience in dealing with these cases and has successfully defended similar individuals. Please call (888) 280-6839 anytime to speak with one our attorneys regarding your matter.

Redmond O’Neal was arrested and jailed in Los Angeles County after officers found herion in his car. O’Neal is the son of actors Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O’Neal. Officers say they foound herion in O’Neal’s vehicle after they stopped him for a traffic violation. O’Neal completed a drug diversion prpogram stemming from a previous drug arrest, and is currently on probation as a result of that arrest in Los Angeles County.

In California, possession of herion is codified under Health and Safety Code section 11350. This code section states that it is unlawful for anyone to possess specific “controlled substances” without a valid perscription. The most common examples of possessed controlled substances, as it relates to Health and Safety Code section 11350, include opiates, herion, and peyote.

A conviction of a Health and Safety Code 11350 is typically a felony. If convicted of this offense, the defendant faces up to three years in state prison on a first offense. The punishment that a person receives depends in large part to the circumstances surrounding the arrest, and the defendant’s convictions, if any.

There a number of defenses to that can be raised when someone is accussed. The most common defenses to an alleged violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350 are that the accused has a valid perscription, or that they did not possess any controlled substance, and as such, no violation has occurred.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, it is imperative you contact our firm. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm is the best way to ensure you keep your freedom. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 877-466-5245 or go to our website at wklaw.com for more information.

If you have been arrested for DUI in California it is important to know what rights you have or you may suffer serious consequences including loss of your driver’s license, a criminal record, jail time, and serious financial penalties. When you are arrested for DUI you are facing two separate “cases”; one with the court and one with the DMV. The DMV is a ruthless bureaucracy and there are very important things you must know if you have been arrested for DUI in Riverside County including the fact that you have the right to be represented by an aggressive riverside DUI lawyer.

Act Fast

The first thing you should know is that you have to act fast. You only have ten days from the date of your arrest to request a DMV hearing and failure to do so will result in a minimum four-month suspension on a first DUI. You can consult with riverside dui lawyer who can request the hearing for you. You can request the hearing yourself and still have an experienced attorney represent you in your DMV matter. It is always better to act fast and get the hearing requested and have representation in order to have the best chance possible at winning you’re hearing.

Consult With a Knowledgeable DUI Attorney

You absolutely should consult with at least one experienced and aggressive Riverside DUI attorney to get as much information as possible about what DMV hearings are all about. These hearing are legally technical hearing where evidence is introduced and objections are made and are almost impossible to navigate without legal counsel. Also, while it is true that you CAN have an attorney represent you at your DMV hearing, there is no right to a public defender or nay other free legal representation. That means if you don’t hire a lawyer then you are likely to lose your hearing and your license. With most of us relying on our ability to drive to go to work and support our families, it is a no-brainer that you should talk to a lawyer about your Dui and DMV cases.

If you have been accused of DUI in Riverside County and are facing a DMV hearing, you will need an experienced criminal defense attorney to vigorously represent you. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of this crime for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 764-2615 or visit us at our website at www.wklawdui.com. We will be there when you call.

If you are convicted of this crime you could be sentenced and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for up to 10 years.

Last week, in Orange County, a 23-year-old man was taken into custody after he lost control of his car, which resulted in the death of his female passenger. The passenger was identified as Kelly Pham, 21. Justin Drake, was arrested on suspicion of felony driving under the influence and subsequently charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated a violation of Penal Code Section 191.5 (a).
Apparently, he lost control of the vehicle at a curve in the road, and then left the road way and hit a tree and concrete wall. Pham was critically injured during the collision and later died at the hospital.
If you or a loved one has been charged with or are fighting a charge of gross vehicular manslaughter then you need to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney.

To prove you are guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: 1. You drove a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a drug or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug; 2. While driving that vehicle under the influence, you also committed a misdemeanor or an infraction or otherwise lawful act that might cause death; 3. You also committed the misdemeanor, infraction, or otherwise lawful act that might cause death with gross negligence; AND 4. The defendant's grossly negligent conduct caused the death of another person.

If you or a loved one are being charged with gross vehicular manslaughter, it is very important that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately, like the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We have over 30 years of experienced handling these types of matters and can assist you in obtaining the best possible result. Call the law firm of Wallin & Klarich today at, (888) 749-0034 to speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney about your case.