Southern California Defense Blog

Brent Wilkes, head of a company called ADSC, lobbied California congressman Randall Cunningham to secure funding and support for ADSC. Mr. Wilkes provided Congressman Cunningham with expensive meals, a houseboat, lavish trips and mortgage payments. As a result, Mr. Wilkes received many government contracts that were worth millions of dollars through Congressman Cunningham’s earmarks. Mr. Wilkes was subsequently charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering. At trial, Mr. Wilkes asked the court to grant immunity to one of his key witnesses, explaining that the witness would provide significant rebuttal testimony that would contradict the immunized prosecution witnesses. The District Court denied Mr. Wilkes request to grant immunity to his witness absent a showing of prosecutorial misconduct. At trial, Mr. Wilkes was convicted.

The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that a District Court can grant immunity to a defense witness absent any prosecutorial misconduct if the Defendant’s due process rights and right to a fair trial will be violated. The Court of Appeal explained that immunity shall be granted to a witness in exceptional cases where the fact finding process was so distorted through the prosecution’s decisions to grant immunity to its own witnesses and a denial of immunity to a defense witness with contradictory testimony violates a defendant’s due process. Here, Mr. Wilkes’ witness would have been material and relevant evidence to rebut any testimony presented by the immunized prosecution witnesses. The Court of Appeal stated that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted to gather additional evidence regarding the proposed testimony of Mr. Wilkes’ witness.

If you or a loved one is charged with crime, it is important that you speak to the experienced federal crimes attorneys at Wallin and Klarich. 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 evading cases and has successfully defended similar individuals. Please call (888) 280-6839 anytime to speak with one our attorneys regarding your matter.

While it is legal under California law to open and operate a marijuana dispensary it is not legal under federal law. For many years the federal government took little or no action to shut down these businesses. Then the federal government attempted to go after individual marijuana dispensary businesses with little success because they would succeed in closing one operation to only see ten others open up in nearby areas. Now the federal government has gotten serious and gone to where the money is.

Recently the federal authorities have taken legal action against the landlords that lease office space to these marijuana dispensaries with powerful results. Earlier this month US Attorney Andre Birotte announced the seizure of $135,000 from a local strip mall owner who had rented more than a third of his center to a row of marijuana dispensary businesses. It appears by the US Attorney going after the pocketbook of the landlords it is having the effect of closing down the marijuana storefronts entirely. This action happened in the city of Lake Forest. According to Attorney Jeffrey Dunn, whose law firm represents the City of Lake Forest in their efforts to shut down these businesses, “we don’t have a single dispensary operating in the city of Lake Forest” “They’re all closed after the federal enforcement actions.

If that wasn’t bad enough, according to Attorney Dunn, the City of Lake Forest is now going after the owners of the facilities and the landlord for up to $600,000 in legal fees and costs the city has incurred in their efforts to shut down the marijuana dispensaries. This certainly appears to be a full scale attempt to close down these facilities and by doing so it will also greatly impact the marijuana growers who supply these facilities with the marijuana they sell to their customers.

What will happen next is unclear? Certainly, those that have medical licenses to use marijuana are going to vehemently argue that this interferes with their lawful right to use a substance that has been deemed by their physicians to be medically necessary. We assume there will soon be major litigation that may end up in the United States Supreme Court at some point in the future.

We are interested in your comments on this major legal maneuver by the federal government. You have to wonder with so much federal crime occurring why the federal government would be spending such valuable resources to attempt to shut down what are considered lawful businesses under California law? Feel free to contact our law firm at 877-466-5245 or reply to this blog below. This is not an issue that will be going away anytime soon

Leave us a comment and let us know what you think.

The legal troubles for former baseball great Lenny Dykstra continue to mount. Dykstra recently reached a deal with prosecutors, pleading no contest Wednesday, to three counts of grand theft auto and filing a false financial statement.

Dykstra, a three-time Major League Baseball All-Star, was released pending sentencing Jan. 20, 2012, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office said in a statement. The former athlete, faces up to four years in prison.

In California, grand theft auto is codified under California Penal Code Section 487 d (1). The penal code states that grand theft occurs whenever the property taken is an automobile.

What are the punishments for murder in California?

If you are convicted of grand theft as a felony, you face 16 months, or two or three years in the California State Prison.

In addition to the penalties noted above, you can receive an additional and consecutive state prison sentence for any of the following, one year if the amount of the property was worth more than $65,000, two years if the amount was worth more than $200,000, three years if the amount was worth more than $1,300,000, or four years if the amount was worth more than $3,200,000.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced San Bernardino theft attorney. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm can greatly increase your chances of keeping your freedom, and ensuring you receive the lowest possible sentence. 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.

An attorney-client relationship starts when the client actually retains an attorney to represent the client in a legal matter. Whether it's a family law, civil, or criminal matter, the relationship starts once a client retains an attorney for the service of representing the client in a legal matter or legal case.

Once this happens, the attorney has the obligation of not revealing information that is protected from disclosure legally without the informed consent of the client. Client-attorney confidentiality encompasses the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine and the ethical standards of confidentiality pursuant to the ethical standards and laws of the state of California.

This does not preclude the client from authorizing the attorney to speak to family members about the case so long as the client consents to such disclosure in writing and specifically identifying which family members to discuss the case with and the extent of the information to be disclosed.

At the San Bernardino criminal Law Firm of Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys maintain the confidentiality of our client's cases as a top priority. We hold high ethical standards to ensure that our client's information and circumstances are kept in confidence and not disclosed unless specifically consented to in writing by the client. We treat our clients with the utmost respect and maintain a level of professionalism to ensure that our clients are very well represented and competently represented.

If you have questions and/or are seeking legal help with a criminal or family law matter/case, you will want to consult with the San Bernardino attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. They have handled many cases involving family law matters to criminal legal matters and hold any communication in strict confidence and privilege. Contact the San Bernardino Attorneys at Wallin & Klarich now at 1-888-280-6839 and/or visit the website at www.wklaw.com.

It was recently reported that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an attorney is liable for defective performance when the attorney fails to put forward evidence related to a defendant’s mental capacity and history of substance abuse. Steven James was charged with first degree murder. Steven James suffered from childhood emotional and psychological trauma. The Court held that the attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel and demonstrated a deficient performance that prejudiced Mr. James at trial.

The Court argued that Mr. James’ attorney did not consult with him nor did the attorney conduct a thorough investigation into Mr. James’ life history. Moreover Mr. James had in his possession documents that related to his medical history that included medical documents and education records. These documents provided information as to Mr. James’ social problems and behavioral tendencies. The attorney was aware that Mr. James had several suicide attempts and was on anti-depressants. The Court explained that an attorney in a capital case is required to conduct a thorough investigation of the Defendant’s background, which includes the Defendant’s medical and psychological history. Mr. James’s attorney failed to conduct an even basic investigation into Mr. James’ history. As a result, failure to provide evidence of Mr. James’ psychological history has significantly prejudiced his case.

If you or a loved one is charged with a serious crime such as murder, it is important that you speak with an experienced Los Angeles murder attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of murder cases. Our experienced attorneys will fully inform you of your options as will as investigate your social history to determine whether or not there’s information that may mitigate your culpability. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

The charge of assault in California- specifically Penal Code Section 245 (a) (1)- is defined as follows- assault with a deadly weapon (commonly referred to as an ADW or aggravated assault) as an assault that is committed with any type of deadly weapon or by means of force that is likely to cause great bodily injury to another.

Now; it is a very important distinction between committing the offense with a WEAPON, or by means of force that is likely to cause great bodily injury to another. The former would constitute a “Strike Offense”; the latter would not. Here are two examples-

1. Person A leaves a bar and gets into a confrontation with Person B. Person A pulls out a knife and lunges at Person B with the knife = PC 245 (a) (1) AS A STRIKE.

2. Person A leaves a bar and gets into a confrontation with Person B. Person A attacks Person B with his fists but with great force likely to cause great bodily injury = PC 245 (a) (1) NOT AS A STRIKE

There is a way however under California law the second version listed above can become a “Strike Offense”. This happens when an assault occurs without a weapon- i.e. a fist fight or an attack- and the victim suffers “Great Bodily Injury”.

In California- this categorized under Penal Code Section 12022.7- Great bodily injury (sometimes referred to as "GBI" or "great bodily harm") is a legal term that basically means what is says..."great" bodily injury. Significant or substantial injuries- i.e. broken bones, wounds requiring stitches, wounds or injury requiring surgery, etc.

So summarizing- if a PC 245 (a) (1) occurs and the person uses a weapon while doing so- it is a Strike. If a PC 245 (a) (1) occurs and the person does not use a weapon but injures the other party significantly enough to cause “Great Bodily Injury”- it is a Strike. Of course it always possible that a PC 245 (a) (1) occurs with someone using a weapon and as a result “Great Bodily Injury” occurs; this too would be a Strike offense because it contains both triggering factors.

If you or a loved one have been charged with Penal Code Section 245 (a) (1) contact the experienced Los Angeles assault defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We have been helping criminal defendants for over 30 years. Call us at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at www.wklaw.com.

Last week in Ventura County, California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers responded to a report of a possible drunk driver in the area of SR-118 and Walnut Rd, in Somis. The reporting party stated that the driver of the suspect’s vehicle was driving erratically and had apparently fired a gun from he vehicle.

CHP officers quickly located the vehicle and conducted a stop of the vehicle in the Oxnard area. Ventura County Sheriff’s deputies were also on scene to assist. The officers then arrested, Albert Rojas from Oxnard, who was identified as the driver of the vehicle for various felony charges including assault with a deadly weapon.

During the search of the vehicle, the officers found a concealed handgun, as well as a small amount of drugs. Rojas was identified by the reporting party as the suspect who fired the shot towards him as he was traveling west on SR-118 through the Somis area. No one was injured during the incident.

For the prosecutor to convict a person of this crime, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant did an act with a deadly weapon or a firearm that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to a person; 2. The defendant did that act willfully; 3. When the defendant acted, he was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that his act by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to someone; 4. When the defendant acted, he had the present ability to apply force likely to produce great bodily injury with a deadly weapon or with a firearm to a person; and 5. The defendant did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

This is a serious felony in California and is considered a strike. Are you or a loved one facing similar charges of assault with a deadly weapon in Ventura? If so, contact the Ventura assault attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. 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 criminal defense attorney about your case.

Did you find this blog helpful? Leave us a comment and let us know.

Every time there is a highly publicized criminal trial, the legal experts and/or analysts will usually reference both circumstantial and direct evidence. Moreover, you may hear these terms used on your favorite television program such as C.S.I., Law and Order, etc. But, what does direct and circumstantial evidence mean?

First, it is important to note what the term “evidence” means. There is jury instruction which defines “evidence.” The jury instruction reads as follows: “Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses, writings, material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact. Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They also may be proved by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”

Direct evidence as defined in a jury instruction is “evidence that directly proves a fact. It is evidence which by itself, if found to be true, establishes that fact.” An example of direct evidence would be testimony from a witness who saw a defendant doing graffiti on a wall.

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is evidence that “if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.” An example of circumstantial evidence would be as follows: If graffiti was done on a wall at a certain date and time, testimony from a witness who saw a defendant walking by that wall around the specific date and time.

We hope that the information in this blog gives you some helpful insight into the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. If you or a loved one needs assistance with any criminal defense matter call Wallin and Klarich today. Wallin and Klarich has a team of highly skilled, aggressive Souther California 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.

As one of the first states to pass stalking laws in the early 1990s, California is very proactive in alleged incidences of stalking and harassment. From the arresting officer to the judge, people are very sensitive to the alleged victim in these cases and we understand you might feel like your voice is not being heard.

These offenses are typically highly emotional. More than likely you are very close to or at least know the person who the courts are alleging you stalked. We know how these accusations can affect a person.

Your actions may have been misinterpreted by the alleged victim or the police. Perhaps you just want help in making sure your side of the story is told. We can do that. We can ensure that your rights are being looked after at every stage of this trying process.

Find out what an experienced Southern California criminal defense lawyer to help you with your harassment or stalking case in California courts.

California Stalking Penalties

California penal code section 646.9 defines stalking as willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of their safety or the safety of their family.

Simple stalking can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor and is punishable by up to one year in jail and fines of up to $1,000.

Notice that you do not have to intend to follow through with the threat, the only intent required is the intent to cause fear in the other person. So even if you didn’t mean what you said but only meant to frighten the alleged victim, you could be charged with stalking.
If you are charged with stalking and there was any type of restraining order in place, you will face a much harsher felony sentence of up to 4 years in a California prison.

Likewise, if you have prior stalking convictions, you may be punished more severely.
California’s stalking law also applies to cyber-stalking, or threats and harassing behavior committed over the internet through email, chat, or other communications.

When you are facing prison time or your reputation is on the line, you need someone to represent your best interests in a professional and skilled manner. Someone who can help you get the results you deserve in the California Courts.

If you or a family member are looking at this type of crime, contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We’ve have been helping criminal defendants for over 30 years. Call us at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at www.wklaw.com.

The crimes of robbery and theft seem very similar to most people – after all, they both involve taking the property of others without their consent. However, they are distinct crimes in California that are prosecuted differently. Today, Wallin and Klarich's Orange County theft attorneys will explain the fundamental differences between the two crimes.

To best illustrate the difference between robbery and theft, imagine a woman waiting at a bus stop with her purse. If you were to take her purse without her knowledge, that would be a theft. But if she were to notice and grab her purse, causing you to wrench it from her, it then becomes a robbery.

What is Robbery?
Robbery is basically the taking of another person’s property by use of force or intimidation. Unlike theft crimes, which can also be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, robbery is always charged as a felony.

Punishments?
The worst kind of robbery charge that you can face is first-degree robbery, which includes robbing people while in their homes, while they are retrieving money from the ATM, etc. A conviction can land you in state prison for 3 to 9 years.

A robbery conviction is also a “strike” for the purposes of California’s 3 Strike Laws. Please refer to our 3 Strikes Laws section for more information. This means that if you are convicted and you had prior felony convictions that also qualify as strikes, you could automatically face double the jail sentence or even a life sentence.

Facing a robbery charge is very serious and you should not go it alone. You will need the legal expertise of a skilled Orange County criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can help you achieve the best possible outcome. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

Criminal threats is a form of assault. If you are charged with this crime in Ventura, it is important to immediately contact a Ventura assualt attorney to avoid the potential consequences that come with being found guilty of this crime.

The elements to convict for criminal threats are defined in People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227-228. In order to prove a violation of section 422, the prosecution must establish all of the following:

(1) The defendant “willfully threatened to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person,”

(2) The defendant made the threat “with the specific intent that the statement . . . is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,”

(3) The threat which may be made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device was “on its face and under the circumstances in which it was made so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat,

(4) The threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, and

(5) The threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

All of the above elements must be met in order to convict. Criminal threats allegations require experienced legal counsel, like the attorney at Wallin & Klarich. 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 criminal threats 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.

In the recent case of The People v. Rolando S.,, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District held that for purposes of California Penal Code Section 530.5, an individual who unlawfully accesses a victim’s account on a social media website and alters the victim’s profile and posts obscene messages and comments on other people’s profiles from the victim’s account may be charged with either a misdemeanor or felony count of identity theft depending on the nature of the facts. California Penal Code Section 530.5 states that “every person who willfully obtains personal identifying information of another person 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, is guilty of the public offense of identity theft.”

In Rolando S., the defendant—a high school teen—received a text message which he neither solicited nor expected to receive which contained the password to a fellow students’ email account. The defendant used the victim’s email password to log-in to her email account and then proceeded to change her Facebook password. The defendant then logged-in to the victim’s Facebook account and posted sexually-explicit messages and comments on the profile pages of two of her male high school friends. The Court of Appeals noted that although the defendant did not “willfully” obtain the victim’s email account password, he “willfully” used the password to obtain access to and subsequently change the victim’s Facebook password, whereby the defendant then proceeded to commit an unlawful act by posting sexually-explicit material on the profiles of other Facebook users. The Court argued that the newly-amended phrase “any unlawful purpose” in PC 530.5 demonstrated the California Legislature’s intent to greatly expand the range and scope of unlawful conduct underlying the criminal offense of identity theft.

Since the defendant’s conduct of posting the sexually-explicit messages constituted libel—which is defined as a false and unprivileged publication by writing…which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or which causes the person to be shunned or avoided—the defendant committed an unlawful act under Penal Code Section 530.5 by illegally appropriating the victim’s identity and using it to commit libel which is a punishable criminal offense. Thus, the Fifth Appellate District upheld the defendant’s felony identity theft conviction on the grounds that Penal Code Section 530.5 intended to encompass unlawful actions such as the ones taken by the defendant in this case.

If you or someone you know has been charged with either misdemeanor or felony identity theft in the San Bernadino area, you need the legal expertise of an aggressive and skilled San Bernardino criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have zealously represented our clients on all types of criminal defense matters—including identity theft prosecutions—for over 30 years and can help you achieve the best possible outcome in your matter. Call us today at 1-888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

Effective October 1, 2011 thousands of those accused of felony matters who in the past were sent to prison will now be doing their time in local county jails. In addition, those persons convicted of less serious felony matters, in many cases will find that when they complete their sentence they will not be placed on probation or parole.

For most felony matters where the punishment is 16 months, 2 years or 3 years in state prison, the accused will not be going to state prison, but rather will serve their time in county jail. After the person finishes his sentence the maximum he can serve on probation is three years, minus the jail sentence he receives. This means that if the court sentences a defendant to the high term of 3 years on one of these felony matters, when they are released from custody they will not be placed on any period of probation. If the court sentences the defendant to two years in prison, they can only be placed on one additional year of probation. These persons will under no circumstances be placed on “parole” as would be the case under prior law.

What is even more shocking is that if a defendant is convicted of a crime that carries a possible sentence of 2, 3 or 4 years, and they are sentenced to any of those three possible terms in prison they will serve their time in county jail and then will not be placed on any period of probation. What this means is that a person sentenced on a more serious offense cannot be ordered to serve any probation at the end of their jail sentence while an individual convicted of a less serious felony can serve some time on probation after their jail time is completed.

Another critical change in the law is that now under Penal Code Section 4019 all inmates will be receiving 50% credit off of their sentences for time served both before and after their sentencing date. What this means is that a person who is sentenced to two years in prison on most minor felony matters will actually serve one actual year and then can be placed on probation for a maximum of one additional year.

These law changes were made necessary by the massive problem with overcrowding in our California state prison system. The net result of the law changes will be that thousands of defendants convicted of felonies will no longer be going to prison. Instead they will spend their jail time in a local county jail. This also means that there will be a massive reduction in those defendants that are placed on parole because you are only placed on parole when you are released from a state prison.

However, a critical exception in this new law is that if you have a prior “strike” on your record or you are a registered sex offender per Penal Code Section 290 then the new laws will not apply to you and you will have to serve your time in state prison. The judge has no discretion to allow you to serve your time in county jail under these conditions.

The new sentencing laws are complicated. It is critical that you contact Wallin and Klarich, so we can help you understand how the new sentencing laws may impact your specific case. Contact us now at 877-466-5245 or

If you find something of value under circumstances in which it would have been relatively easy for you to find its true owner (or at least make an honest attempt to find the true owner), keeping it or using it for personal gain without doing so can result in a theft charge.

Finding something (such as an engagement ring) in a grocery store, for example, would be a situation in which it would have been relatively easy to find the true owner or at least make an honest attempt because an announcement over the PA system by a store employee would have provided notice to the true owner to come forward.

Sometimes the lost property itself may contain the name and contact information of its true owner, such as a cell phone or a wallet with a driver’s license. The crime punishes those who simply do not even attempt to try and locate the true owner before taking the property for themselves.

If you are accused of wrongfully appropriating lost property, you could face petty theft or grand theft charges. If the value of the property exceeds $950, you will likely face grand theft charges, which is more serious than a petty theft charge (which is incurred if the value of the property is $950 or less).

If you are facing theft allegations resulting from appropriating lost property, you will need to expertise of a skilled San Bernardino theft defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can help you achieve 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.

1. The Language of the Law.
Criminal threats or “terrorist threats” is a serious crime in California and is defined as “Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety.”

2. It Can be Charged as a Felony or a Misdemeanor.
Criminal threats is a “wobbler” under California law which means that it can be charged by the Prosecution as a felony or a misdemeanor. It is important know that this is true regardless of whether you were initially arrested on this charge as a felony or misdemeanor. There have been cases where the police have arrested people on misdemeanor criminal threats charges and the prosecution decided to file the case as a felony and vice-versa. The prosecution has absolute discretion in whether to file this charge as a felony or misdemeanor and will consider factors such as the seriousness of the specific case and the defendant’s criminal history.

3. Felony Criminal Threats is a “Strike” Offense Under California Law
If charged as a felony then criminal threats is a “strike” offense in California and if convicted of this felony charge the defendant is looking at having to serve up to 85% of his sentence if sent to prison. Punishment for future felonies would also be doubled if convicted of this charge and the defendant would also be 1/3 of their way to a potential 25-life three strikes case in the future.

Criminal threats allegations require experienced legal counsel, like the Los Angeles assault attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. 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 criminal threats 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.

In many instances, people make poor judgments and steal things. And sometimes false allegations do happen to good people. The possibility of getting a theft case dismissed or reduced and mitigated to a less serious offense depends largely on the experience of the San Bernardino theft lawyer representing you.

Theft offenses range from Petty theft under Penal Code Sections 484 and 488 which amounts to thefts up to a value of $950 to Grand Theft under Penal Code Section 487 which is property valued more than $950 to even auto burglary and some of the white collar crimes like embezzlement and identity theft.

Having a theft record can also hamper a persons chance in gaining employment in the future and other consequences as they will appear on background checks if there is a conviction.

An experienced San Bernardino county attorney at Wallin & Klarich can often help you defend these charges and allegations and have them dismissed if warranted or even reduced to a lesser offense. We look to the evidence and its strength or weakness and attack it and all the circumstances and facts surrounding the charges.

These offenses can also be resolved by what's called a civil compromise when the victim has been paid for the value of the item or restored to the same position they were at before the offense occurred. We often can negotiate with the prosecution to dismiss such charges or mitigate to a lesser offense and not as egregious.

Have you or a loved one recently been charged with theft offense in California? It is important to contact an experienced San Bernardino attorney to represent you against these charges. At Wallin and Klarich, our San Bernardino 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