Southern California Defense Blog

If a person is granted probation for a domestic violence crime, California Penal Code Section 1203.097 lists the conditions of probation that must be given. The list below shows some of the conditions that may have a significant impact on a person’s life:
1. A minimum period of probation of 36 months
2. A criminal court protective order protecting the victim from further acts of violence, threats, stalking, sexual abuse, and harassment, and, if appropriate, containing residence exclusion or stay-away conditions
3. Notice to the victim of the disposition of the case
4. Successful completion of a 52 week batterer’s program
5. The court also shall order the defendant to perform a specified amount of appropriate community service, as designated by the court

These are only a few of the mandatory conditions of probation for a domestic violence crime. Under California Family Code Section 6211, the mandatory conditions of probation include crimes where the victim is a spouse or former spouse, a cohabitant or former cohabitant, a person with whom the defendant is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship, a person with whom the respondent has had a child, a child of a party, any other person related by kinship.

If you or a loved one is facing a charge of domestic violence, it is important that you speak with an experienced domestic violence attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California domestic violence attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We will aggressively fight to get you the best possible result. We will inform you of the penalty you are facing and the conditions of probation that could be given. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklawdomesticviolence.com. We will be there when you call.

In the context of a domestic dispute, arresting the wrong individual has significant legal consequences, but also other consequences that are not as apparent. A concern that is largely overlooked are the effects that a wrongful arrest can have on victims, especially children.

Children are very insightful and more intuitive than people realize. Children embroiled in domestic disputes are learning to distrust police. In cases where both parents are arrested, children are left abandoned, and they associate the presence of police with the breakup of the family. It is not difficult to recognize the gradual changes in the way that police approach domestic violence situations. Police departments are operating under "pro-arrest policies" in the domestic violence situations.

Arresting the wrong individual in domestic violence situations has consequences that include serious issues of child dependency, child custody, housing, emergency protective orders, criminal protective orders, no-contact orders. Further, immigration and naturalization of citizenship issues arise, which may lead to deportation from the United States.

In order to make sure that your rights are accurately and aggressively defended after being charged with domestic violence in Southern California, you should contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense law firm of Wallin & Klarich. Our attorneys have been helping those accused of crimes for more than 30 years. Wallin & Klarich has the legal resources and knowledge to assist you in obtaining a successful outcome. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com to find out more about how we can help.

Domestic violence stories in California often have a common theme. The alleged abuser in someway assaults the alleged victim and the police are called. The alleged victim is upset and is pressured by police to tell them everything that happened. The alleged victim discloses the alleged abuse and the alleged abuser is arrested. After the dust settles, the alleged victim realizes that he or she loves or needs the alleged abuser and the two reconcile. Domestic violence charges are filed by the prosecutor but the alleged victim doesn’t want to prosecute and see the alleged abuser get into trouble. The alleged victim appeals to the prosecutor to drop the case but the prosecutor does not listen. The alleged victim doesn’t cooperate with the prosecutor and the prosecutor threatens to arrest the alleged victim if the alleged victim does not testify.

California domestic violence law changed on January 1, 2009 and it is very important for those involved in domestic violence cases to know the new law. Prior to this law, prosecutors often threatened alleged domestic violence victims with jail time if they refused to testify against their abusers. However, after passage of this law, a domestic violence victim is now protected from the threat of incarceration if he or she refuses to testify against his or her abuser in court. This law ensures that domestic violence victims have the same protections under the law as rape victims who are protected under the “Rape Shield Law.” The Rape Shield Law protects victims from the threat of incarceration when they refuse to testify against their attackers.

Despite the passage of this law, prosecutors continue to threaten domestic violence victims with the prospect of incarceration if they refuse to testify against their abuser. It is important for everyone involved in domestic violence cases in California to know the law and their rights. If you or a loved one is involved in a domestic violence case in California, don’t hesitate to contact an experienced domestic violence attorney at Wallin & Klarich. Call 1-888-280-6839 or visit us at www.wklaw.com to speak to one of Wallin & Klarich’s aggressive and experienced criminal defense attorneys today. We will be there when you call.

Have you been accused of domestic violence? Is it alleged that you caused injury to your current or former spouse or cohabitant? If so, you need an experienced advocate by your side, starting now. Police officers are trained to arrest the "primary aggressor" when responding to a domestic dispute. In making such a critical determination, several relevant inquiries arise.

First, who is the 911 reporting party? Who in the relationship poses the most danger to the other? Who has motive to lie or retaliate? Is either party under the influence of alcohol or drugs? As you can see, these questions do not lend themselves to an officer's snap-judgment. As such, you must seek legal counsel in an effort to provide clarity on the real and true facts and circumstances of the incident.

An experienced California domestic violence attorney understands the factors relevant to making a "primary aggressor" determination. These factors go well beyond an immediate determination and arrest based solely on relative sex, height, or weight of each party.

Continue reading "Identifying the "Primary Aggressor" in a Domestic Violence Context - Part 3 of 3 - California Penal Code 13701" »

In identifying the "primary aggressor" of a domestic violence dispute, law enforcement will consider the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic abuse from continuing abuse, any threats giving rise to fear of physical injury, the history of domestic violence between the parties involved, and whether either part was acting in self-defense.

If you have been accused of causing injury to a spouse, former spouse, or cohabitant, you will need an experienced criminal defense attorney to review the surrounding facts and circumstances. Certain injuries can be classified as defensive injuries. In addition, the following must be analyzed: The seriousness of injury alleged; the motive to lie, use of alcohol and/or drugs, and more. It is important to memorialize the incident by writing a detailed statement of facts - this will be reviewed by your Southern California defense attorney.

Continue reading "Identifying the "Primary Aggressor" in a Domestic Violence Context - Part 2 of 3 - California Penal Code 13701" »

Police officers and prosecutors alike receive training for identifying the primary aggressor in the context of a domestic violence dispute. When being charged with any type of domestic violence in California, it is critical that you immediately contact a criminal defense attorney versed in handling all domestic violence cases. You will need an advocate on your side to assist in painting a more accurate portrait of the incident in question.

California Penal Code section 13701 is instructive in identifying the "primary aggressor." California Penal Code section 13701(b) provides that written policies should encourage the arrest of domestic violence offenders if there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed. It is important to understand that such policies discourage, but do not prohibit, dual arrests. As such, law enforcement officers are encouraged to identify the primary aggressor in any domestic violence dispute or incident.

Continue reading "Identifying the "Primary Aggressor" in a Domestic Violence Context - Part 1 of 3 - California Penal Code 13701" »

The language in recent case decisions indicates that courts recognize the danger inherent in domestic violence situations. The volatility of situations involving domestic violence make them particularly well suited for an application of the emergency circumstances doctrine, where law enforcement can enter your home without a warrant given that an emergency is taking place.

When officers respond to a 911 domestic abuse call, a judgment call may be required when making a determination of whether law enforcement is permitted to enter a residence. There is language in a recent court case suggesting the need for courts to respect the judgment of officers who feel they must enter a residence in a domestic violence situation.

Continue reading "What You Need to Know if You Are Facing a Domestic Violence Charge" »

Two leading domestic violence cases, People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.App.4th 894 and People v. Wilkins (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 761, have held that law enforcement entries into a suspect’s home were lawful as consent entries. The court in People v. Frye stated as follows; it may be inferred from the fact the victim and defendant resided together in the apartment that the victim possessed authority to consent to the officer's entry.

Consent to enter may be express or implied. For example, officers were standing outside the open door asking the victim who had hurt her. The victim motioned to the defendant lying on the couch inside the home. The officers stepped into the apartment to see who the victim was pointing at. Such actions provide sufficient indication of victim's consent to the entry.

Continue reading "Domestic Violence - Officer's Entry Into Suspect's Home Found To Be Lawful Based Upon Express or Implied Consent (Part 3)" »

In the context of an officer's warrantless entry into your residence, the most important issue is objective reasonableness. Whether, under the circumstances of your case, the officer's warrantless entry into your residence was objectively reasonable. If so, the "exigent circumstances" expection to the general warrant requirement may apply to justify the entry.

A common issue in domestic violence cases is whether the officer responding to the scene should have secured a warrant before entering the residence. The police and prosecution will argue that any delay to obtain a warrant would have posed a safety risk to the alleged victim. On the other hand, defense counsel may have facts which go to show that abandoning the scene to obtain a warrant was unlikely to expose the alleged victim to further harm.

Continue reading "Domestic Violence - Exigent Circumstances May Justify An Officer's Warrantless Entry Into Your Residence (Part 2) " »

Several cases have involved situations wherein officers go to a residence in response to a report of domestic violence being committed. Generally, if an obviously battered victim is present and the batterer is still within the residence, the officer may enter the residence to arrest the batterer. This was expressed in the case of People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894.

The issue is whether, in light of the facts known to the officer at the time, the officer could have reasonably concluded that immediate action was necessary. An attorney may be able to argue that had the officer left the scene to obtain a warrant, there was not a significant risk of additional harm. Such an argument is fact-intensive and requires review and analysis by an experienced California domestic violence defense attorney.

Continue reading "Domestic Violence - Officer's Presence At One's Residence (Part 1)" »

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

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

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

Continue reading "Violation of a Restraining Order" »

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

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


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


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

Continue reading "Restraining Orders in California" »

A 45-year-old Orange County man was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment for possessing homemade explosive devices with the intent to kill his former wife, her divorce attorney, the family court judge and Huntington Beach Police Department officers. The Costa Mesa resident was ultimately charged with a laundry list of offenses, 15 felony counts in all, including stalking, possession of a destructive device with intent to injure, possession of a homemade deadly weapon and possession of a loaded firearm in public.

The convicted man had been married to his wife for 14 years before they were divorced in 2007. The estranged wife then gained sole custody of the couple’s two children, ages 11 and 13, and eventually kicked him out of their home. In recent months it was reported that the man’s spousal and child support payments had substantially increased.

In April 2008, the man was placed on probation after pleading guilty to four misdemeanor violations of breaking a domestic violence restraining order. Several months later, authorities accused him of making threats against his wife and her divorce lawyer. Authorities later pulled the suspect’s car over in a traffic stop on the Garden Grove Freeway and recovered handcuffs, pepper spray, throwing knives and a stolen 9-millimeter firearm with its serial numbers removed.

Continue reading "O.C. Man Sentenced to 17 Years for Making Threats to Wife and Family Law Judge" »

An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Knows How to Argue Against Facts Underlying a Dismissed Charge

A California appellate court has recently held that trial courts have broad discretion in granting or denying probation and imposing probation conditions. Further, the appellate court ruled that a trial court even may consider a charge that the defendant was not convicted of or pled guilty to. See People v. Martin, C.A. 4th/2, DAR p.10639.

In this case, the defendant was accused of domestic violence and resisting arrest. The defendant, in a plea agreement, pled guilty to the charge alleging that he resisted arrest. However, the defendant did not plead guilty to the domestic violence charge.

After the plea agreement was entered, the trial court imposed certain probation conditions addressing domestic violence (e.g., not to come within 100 yards of person’s home). The defendant attempted to argue that the court should not consider facts that pertain solely to a charge that has been dismissed as part of a plea agreement.

Continue reading "A Court May Consider a Dismissed Charge When Imposing Probation Conditions" »

Why You Need a Skilled Criminal Defense Attorney

In a previous article, California Penal Code § 243(e)(1), or “simple domestic battery,” was discussed as one of the ways in which a person can be prosecuted for domestic violence in California. There are three ways someone can be prosecuted for domestic violence under California’s domestic violence laws and this article explains the remaining factors.

California Penal Code § 273.5, or “willful infliction of corporal injury”, is a more serious offense, in that it requires the accuser to at least suffer some type of injury. The accuser must sustain a “traumatic condition,” which can actually be as insignificant as a red-mark or scratch. Here, unlike in Penal Code § 243(e)(1), your “fiancé/fiancée” and “people you are or were dating” do not qualify as “intimate partners.” Although this section can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony, it would typically only be filed over the Penal Code § 243(e)(1) mentioned above if prosecutors were pursuing the felony allegation.

California Penal Code § 243(d), or “aggravated battery,” is the felony catchall for domestic battery offenses. This section, too, can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony, but would typically only be used in a spousal abuse situation if there was a “serious bodily injury” rising to felony level, and the accuser didn’t meet the definition of “intimate partner” in Penal Code § 273.5 above.

Continue reading "California Domestic Violence: What You Need to Know Part 2" »

Why You Need an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney

There are three ways someone can be prosecuted for domestic violence under California’s domestic violence laws. First, there is Penal Code § 243(e)(1), which is simple domestic battery. Second, there is Penal Code § 273.5, which is defined as willful infliction of corporal injury. Finally, there is Penal Code § 243(d), which is aggravated battery. In addition, if the type of violence doesn’t qualify as “domestic violence,” it can also fit into Penal Code § 242, which is simple battery. Below is a brief description of these differences.

California Penal Code § 243(e)(1), or “simple domestic battery,” is the misdemeanor charge and, therefore, the least serious of these three domestic violence offenses. To be convicted of this offense, all you have to do is intentionally “touch” your “intimate partner” in an offensive or angry manner. That’s it. He/she doesn’t even have to be injured, only offended. Penal Code § 243(e)(1) also has a broad definition of “intimate partners.” Under this definition, your “intimate partner” includes your fiancé or fiancée, your current or former spouse, someone with whom you live or have lived, anyone you are or were dating, or the parent of your child.

More information on the remaining elements of domestic violence charges in California will continue in an additional article.

Continue reading "California Domestic Violence: What You Need to Know Part I" »

Why You Need to Protect Yourself Even After Disposition by Hiring an Experienced Domestic Violence Attorney

If you are facing California criminal charges of domestic violence, it is important to know that there is more to your case than simply the sentence imposed by the court. After a finding of guilty or no contest, the court may then impose additional restitution in an effort to compensate the victim for his or her damages.

A restitution hearing is a type of mini-trial designed to restore the victim’s economic losses he or she suffered due to the defendant’s crime. This can include:

• medical expenses, including mental health and counseling expenses;


• the value of stolen or damaged property;


• lost wages and profits, including wages lost due to injuries suffered from the crime, testifying in court, and attending trial.


• relocation and security expenses;


• investigative expenses incurred by the victim related to the criminal case; and


• attorney’s fees incurred by the victim.

Further, an interest of ten percent can accrue on all orders of restitution made by the court.

Continue reading "Domestic Violence and Victim Restitution" »

The website seattlepi.com reported in an article on May 28, 2009 that prosecutors will be calling Rihanna, 21, as one of the witnesses at a preliminary hearing against R & B singer Chris Brown, 19, who faces assault charges. Rihanna’s lawyer, Daonald Etra, told new reporters that prosecutors have informed him that Rihanna, whose real name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty, will be receiving a subpoena to testify in June. The preliminary hearing will center on whether there is enough evidence to go on with the case against Brown. Etra stated that Rihanna will obey the order and would be the first time she appears in court. Rihanna will be subject to cross-examination by Brown’s lawyer, Mark Geragos. Police investigators and other potential witnesses have not been named but will likely be included.

Brown faces criminal assault and criminal threat charges for allegedly hitting and choking Rihanna in February. The couple was planned to appear at the Grammy’s just hours before the incident.

If you or a loved one is being charged with a violent assault charge in Los Angeles you will need an experienced lawyer who knows the law and will be aggressive in court defending your freedom.

Continue reading "Chris Brown to Face Rihanna In Court: He’ll Be Sure to Have an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney" »

The issue in People v. Ponce circulated around jurisdictional validity of the trial court's decision to issue a three-year protective order during sentencing. At defendant Ponce’s sentencing hearing, the prosecutor requested the court to issue a protective order for Lucero. He did not make an offer of proof or explain the reason for this request. The court granted this request and signed a criminal protective order using Judicial Council form CR 160, entitled “Criminal Protective Order – Domestic Violence (CLETS-CPO) (Penal Code, §§ 136.2 and 1203.097(a)(2).” The order provided, “[T]his order expires three years from the date of issuance.”

Ponce contended that the three-year protective order issued during sentencing was unauthorized because under section 136.2 the duration of the order may not extend beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction over the criminal case. The Attorney General disagreed and claimed that the statute on its face did not place any time limit on the duration of the order, meaning, the three-year order was proper.

There was no evidence that after being charged Ponce had threatened, or had tried to dissuade any witness, or had tried to unlawfully interfere with the criminal proceedings. The prosecutor did not make an offer of proof or any argument to justify the need for a protective order. He simply said, “[W]e'd also like to have a stay-away order in this case . . . .” But a prosecutor’s wish to have such an order, without more, is not an adequate showing sufficient to justify the trial court's action. (People v. Stone, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at pp. 160-161.) The final result was that the protective order was stricken.

Understanding the complexities surrounding the issuance and validity of a protective order requires great knowledge and experience. Wallin & Klarich is a large California Law Firm, with over 30 years of experience. Wallin & Klarich is centrally located in Orange County, California, with offices throughout Southern California. The firm boasts an AV rating from Martin Dale Hubble, the highest rating any law practice can obtain. Contact a skilled Orange County criminal defense attorney from Wallin & Klarich for a free consultation at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

How Can I Find Out if My Name is Listed on the Child Abuse Registry

Under the Child Abuse Neglect Reporting Act, California must maintain a registry of actual and suspected child abusers. This registry is known as The Child Abuse Central Index: aka CACI.

CACI presently contains 800,000 plus names, and is plagued with many procedural problems that have caused widespread constitutional violations. One of the reasons that CACI has led to so many constitutional violations is that many people do not even know their names are on it!

If you or someone you know would like to find out if your name is on CACI, there are two procedures you can use.

Continue reading "California Child Abuse Central Index: Are You on the List?" »