Southern California Defense Blog

Following a breakup with your long-term girlfriend, you emailed her to see how she was doing. You initially sent a couple of messages, but did not receive a response from her. Frustrated by her lack of response, you decided to send her several threatening emails every day for a month. Now, you are being accused of cyberstalking under California Penal Code section 646.9.

If you are confronted with accusations of cyberstalking, it is imperative to understand exactly what the elements of the crime are.

What is cyberstalking?
Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking, the term refers to the use of the internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group of individuals, or an organization.

Cyberstalking can be understood within the context of California Penal Code section 646.9, which provides the elements of a stalking charge:

• You willfully, maliciously, and “repeatedly followed” someone; OR

• You willfully and maliciously “harassed” someone; AND

• You made 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 and had the ability to carry out the threat.

You “repeatedly followed” someone if you engaged in two or more acts over a short period of time evidencing a continuous purpose. For example, if you sent your ex-girlfriend three emails in one day threatening to harm her if she did not respond, then you have likely “repeatedly followed” her in the context of cyberstalking.

You “harassed” an individual if you engaged in any willful conduct intended solely to annoy, alarm, torment, or terrorize that person. For instance, if you sent your ex-girlfriend three emails in one day threatening to “watch over her at night”, you have likely harassed her since this intentional behavior serves no purpose other than to torment her.

A “credible threat” requires two parts. First, the threat must place the targeted person in reasonable fear of his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. If you live in Europe, but threaten to visit your ex-girlfriend in Orange County every night, then her fear might not be considered reasonable.

Second, the person making the threat must have the apparent ability to carry out the threat. If you live in Europe, but threaten to visit your ex-girlfriend in Orange County “in a couple of minutes”, you do not have the apparent ability to carry out this threat.

Why you should retain the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich

The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have successfully defended clients accused of stalking for over 30 years. When you are accused of such a serious crime, there is too much at stake to retain any law firm other than Wallin & Klarich. Our attorneys will aggressively defend your rights and keep you informed of any developments in your case. We have the skill and experience needed to help you win your case.

Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 to discuss your case. We will get through this together.

Introduction

According to California Penal Code 803(g), a “criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the date on which the identity of the suspect is conclusively established by DNA testing” for any sex crime listed under PC 290(c).

So, what does this mean?

When a defendant’s identity is discovered through DNA evidence in a sexual offense case, the statute of limitations may be extended for up to one year from the date on which the identity of the suspect is established through DNA matching.

The prosecutor may file a nameless “John Doe” arrest warrant when DNA evidence exists, but a particular defendant has yet to be linked to the DNA matching. Once a “John Doe” arrest warrant is filed, the one-year statute of limitations extension begins to run for the prosecution.

To better understand this procedural issue, it is important to examine the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Robinson, 47 Cal. 4th 1104 (2010).

Facts of People v. Robinson

In Robinson, defendant Paul Eugene Robinson was convicted of committing five sexual offenses against Deborah L. on August 25, 1994. To satisfy the applicable statute of limitations under PC 800, the prosecution had to commence within 6 years of the commission of the sexual offenses. On August 21, 2000, only 4 days before the statute of limitations was set to expire, the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office filed a felony complaint against “John Doe, an unknown male,” for the sexual offenses committed against Deborah L.

This complaint was based on the DNA evidence recovered from Deborah L.’s medical examination following the sexual offenses. A “John Doe” arrest warrant, relying on the same DNA evidence, was issued the following day. On September 15th, 2000, Robinson was arrested after a DNA match was made through the DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank Act of 1998.

Supreme Court Affirms the Extension of the Statute of Limitations in Sex Crimes Cases

The California Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for all five sexual offenses in Robinson. Specifically, the California Supreme Court reasoned that the statute of limitations is satisfied if the prosecution is commenced by the filing of a “John Doe” arrest warrant within the limitations period. While a “John Doe” arrest warrant does not need to identify the perpetrator’s name, it must identify his or her unique DNA sequence in order to satisfy the “particularity” requirement of an arrest warrant under PC 804(d).

Here, the “John Doe” arrest warrant was filed within the 6-year statute of limitations since it was filed 4 days prior to its expiration. The “John Doe” arrest warrant did not state Robinson’s name, but it did include his unique DNA sequence in order to satisfy the “particularity” requirement of the arrest warrant. As such, Robinson’s arrest on September 15, 2000 and subsequent prosecution were permitted under the one-year statute of limitations extension set forth in PC 803(g).

What can Wallin & Klarich do for you?

If you are accused of a sex crime, you need to contact the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich today. Our skilled criminal defense attorneys have over 30 years of experience successfully defending clients accused of sex crimes. When you are accused of a sex crime, there is too much at stake to entrust your legal representation to anyone other than an experienced Wallin & Klarich sex crimes attorney.

Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, West Covina, Torrance, Victorville, Sherman Oaks, and Ventura. Call us today at (888) 280-6839. We will get through this together.

You were recently arrested for allegedly carjacking a vehicle. In California, the 2013 Uniform Bail Schedule states that the bail amount for a carjacking in violation of PC 215 is $100,000. May the judge set your bail amount for higher or lower than $100,000? Are there any procedural steps that must be taken before your bail amount can be modified?

The “Notice” and “Hearing” Requirements

California Penal Code 1270.1(a) states that in all serious or violent felonies, a court may not set bail higher or lower than the bail set under the bail schedule without holding a hearing in open court with two court days’ written notice to the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney.

A complete list of all “serious or violent” felonies pursuant to PC 1192.7 and/or PC 667.5 is provided below:

• Murder or voluntary manslaughter (Penal Code section 187);
• Mayhem (Penal Code section 203);
• Rape (Penal Code section 261 and 262);
• Sodomy (Penal Code section 286);
• Oral copulation (Penal Code section 288a);
• Lewd or lascivious acts (Penal Code section 288) A;
• Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life;
• Any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm;
• Attempted murder (Penal Code section 187);
• Assault with intent to commit rape or robbery (Penal Code section 264.1 and 211);
• Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer (Penal Code section 241);
• Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate (Penal Code section 4500);
• Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate (Penal Code section 4500);
• Arson (Penal Code Section 451);
• Exploding a destructive device with intent to commit murder (Penal Code section 12308);
• Causing bodily injury with explosive or destructive device (Penal Code section 12309);
• Causing death or mayhem with explosive or destructive device (Penal Code section 12310);
• Any burglary of the first degree (Penal Code section 459);
• Robbery or bank robbery (Penal Code section 211);
• Kidnapping (Penal Code section 207);
• Holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison (Penal Code section 4503);
• Attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life;
• Any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon (Penal Code section 245);
• Selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug (Health and Safety Code Section 11055);
• Penetration by foreign object (Penal Code section 289);
• Grand theft involving a firearm (Penal Code section 487);
• Carjacking (Penal Code section 215);
• Participation in a criminal street gang (Penal Code section 186.22);
• Assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation (Penal Code section 220);
• Throwing acid or flammable substances (Penal Code section 244);
• Assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machine gun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter (Penal Code section 245);
• Assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee (Penal Code section 245.2, 245.3 and 245.5);
• Discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft (Penal Code section 246);
• Commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person (Penal Code section 264.1);
• Continuous sexual abuse of a child (Penal Code section 288.5);
• Shooting from a vehicle (Penal Code section 12034);
• Intimidation of victims or witnesses (Penal Code section 136.1);
• Criminal threats (Penal Code section 422);
• Committing a felony while using a firearm (Penal Code section 12022.53);
• Possession of a weapon of mass destruction a (Penal Code section 11418);
• Conspiracy to commit an offense described in the list above (Penal Code section 182).

What factors will a judge consider when deciding whether or not to modify my bail amount?

California Penal Code 1270.1(b) states that the judge must consider the following factors at the bail modification hearing:

• Your record of appearances;
• The potential length of your sentence;
• Your criminal history;
• Your past history of violence;
• Any public safety concerns;
• Any threats that you made;
• Your ties to the community; AND
• Your ability to post bond.

The judge must state the reasons for the bail modification on the record

California Penal Code 1270.1(c) provides that if a judge sets the bail higher or lower than the amount listed under the bail schedule, he or she must include the reasons for this decision in the court minute order.

California Penal Code 1270.1(d) states that if any threats were made against the victims or witnesses, the judge must also evaluate those threats on the record.

Why you should retain the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich

The skilled criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience successfully helping clients lower their bail amount in felony cases. Our attorneys will provide you with the most efficient and professional representation from the moment that you retain us. We will scrutinize all of the evidence and utilize all available defenses in order to provide you with the best opportunity to win your case.

Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks. Please call us today at (888) 280-6839 to inquire about your case. We will get through this together.

On June 3, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Maryland v. King that police may collect your DNA sample following an arrest even if you are not later convicted of a crime. The high court ruled that when police make an arrest supported by probable cause and detain a suspect in custody, they may take a “swab” from your body and acquire your DNA
.
Advocates of the majority’s ruling are touting this decision as a victory for the justice system.
“Taking DNA samples from those arrested for serious crimes helps law enforcement solve crimes and makes us all safer,” said Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen.

“The justices recognized that DNA is basically similar and analogous to fingerprinting, and as such, is not something that should be prohibited,” explained Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Roberta Schwartz.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not make us safer. Instead, this decision paves the way for massive violations of our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Maryland v. King

In 2009, defendant Alonzo King was arrested on first and second degree assault charges. After he was detained in custody, booking personnel used a cheek swab to collect his DNA pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act. The DNA was matched to an unsolved 2003 rape and King was charged with that crime as well. After being sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2003 rape, King moved to suppress the DNA match arguing that the Act violated the Fourth Amendment. The Maryland Court of Appeals set aside the conviction for rape finding that the Act authorizing DNA collection from felony arrestees was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the DNA collection procedure means that King will serve a life sentence for his alleged involvement in this now decade-old crime.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in King will affect many more Americans than just Alonzo King. Signaling the rise of a “Big Brother” state, this decision sets the stage for more attacks on our Fourth Amendment rights.

What impact does the Supreme Court’s decision in King have on you?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in King comes as an abrupt change on the heels of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Buza. In 2011, our firm closely followed the proceedings in Buza and discussed the implications of the Court’s decision in a previous blog. In Buza, the state appellate court held that police may not collect a person’s DNA following an arrest for a felony offense, as this practice was deemed an “unreasonable search and seizure” in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

It is not just our opinion that this DNA collection procedure is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice, broke from his fellow justices in order to deliver a strong dissent to the majority’s decision in King.

Justice Scalia explained that “your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” In other words, the government may have access to your DNA following a wrongful arrest for a crime that you did not commit. As a result, your DNA may be matched at any time to any unsolved crime.

He warns that this decision clears the way for suspicionless searches. “Searching every lawfully stopped car might turn up information about unsolved crimes the driver had committed, but no one would say that such a search was aimed at identifying him, and no court would hold such a search lawful.” In essence, this decision permits law enforcement to “fish” for suspects without the required probable cause.

Furthermore, the DNA collection procedure may help to solve unsolved crimes, but comes at too high of a cost. “Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches,” claimed Justice Scalia. We should not be forced to sacrifice our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure in order to assist law enforcement to solve unsolved crimes.

It is also worrisome to consider how far the King decision may be extended. “Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane, applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school,” said Justice Scalia. Would you want your child to have his or her DNA taken on the first day of school?

Justice Scalia concluded his well-reasoned dissent by considering the intentions of our nation’s Founding Fathers. “But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths to royal inspection,” he said.

Our law firm rarely agrees with Justice Scalia. However, today is that day. Anyone who cares about individual freedoms should remember this day. This court ruling gives law enforcement certain powers that they were never intended to have.

What can Wallin & Klarich do for you?

If you are confronted with accusations of a crime, you need to contact the f you are confronted with accusations of a crime, you need to contact the today. The skilled criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience successfully defending those accused of crimes. We will fight for your freedom through every step of the process.

Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura, West Covina, Torrance, Riverside, Victorville, San Bernardino, and Sherman Oaks. Give us a call today at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245.

Recently, one of our experienced Wallin & Klarich attorney saved his client from receiving a driver’s license suspension and probation term after having charges of a minor in possession of alcohol dismissed. Experienced criminal defense attorney, Matthew B. Wallin, had the charges against his client dismissed after meeting with the prosecutor and judge. If convicted, the client could have faced a mandatory one –year driver’s license suspension and 3 years of informal probation since he was under 21 years of age.

“If convicted of a minor in possession of alcohol in California, the client will face a mandatory one-year driver’s license suspension,” explained Mr. Wallin. “When my client’s privilege to drive is in jeopardy, it is essential that I make all necessary efforts to achieve an outcome which will not result in a driver’s license suspension.”

Attorney Wallin began by meeting with his client to discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding the charges. Together, Mr. Wallin and his client outlined the client’s education, employment, and plans to attend graduate school. Mr. Wallin then referred his client to an alcohol education program.

After taking these vital steps, Mr. Wallin met with the prosecutor and judge in order to seek a favorable resolution. Ultimately, the court agreed to dismiss the charge based upon the client’s lack of a prior record and voluntary attendance at alcohol education classes. Due to Mr. Wallin’s tremendous efforts, his client did not receive a driver’s license suspension or a probation term.

If you are accused of a minor in possession of alcohol (“MIP”), you need to contact the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our MIP defense attorneys know what the prosecutor must prove in order to convict you. The prosecutor will need to prove the following elements in order to convict you of an MIP:

• You were under the age of 21 years old when you were found in possession of alcohol;
• You were in possession of an alcoholic beverage; AND
• You were on a highway, street, or any other public place when you were found in possession of alcohol.

The experienced criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have successfully defended clients accused of a MIP for over 30 years. Your Wallin & Klarich defense attorney can help you raise one of the following defenses on your behalf:

• Lack of Legal Possession

o The prosecutor may not convict you of a MIP if you were not in legal possession of the alcohol. For instance, imagine that you and your friends are drinking in a public park. If there is only one bottle of alcohol and it is away from you on a park bench, the prosecutor will face a significant burden in proving that you were in possession of the alcohol.

• Momentary Possession

o The prosecutor may not convict you of a MIP if you can prove the following two elements:

1) You possessed the alcohol in order to abandon, dispose of, or destroy it; AND
2) You did not prevent law enforcement officials from obtaining the alcohol.

• Delivery

o The prosecutor may not convict you of a MIP if you possessed the alcohol while making a delivery at the reasonable direction of a responsible adult parent or adult legal guardian.

• Legal Age

o You may not be convicted of a MIP if you were 21 years of age or older at the time of the incident.

Our Wallin & Klarich client recently avoided jail time after his lawyer negotiated reduced charges for possession of a gambling device pursuant to PC 330a. Outstanding criminal defense attorney, Christopher Lee, persuaded the district attorney to allow his client to plead guilty to a reduced charge under PC 330a after he was found to be in possession of an illegal gambling device. If convicted, the client faced up to 6 months in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

“In Orange County, your criminal defense lawyer knows that the court will likely give you a good offer if you have no prior criminal record since you have shown that you are a positive and contributing member of society,” explained Mr. Lee. “There is always the likelihood that the court will be more willing to resolve the case by giving you a better offer than the district attorney’s office.”

The client was charged with possession of a gambling device after law enforcement agents seized the machine. The client was charged with possession of a gambling device under PC 330a. Since the client had no prior criminal record, the district attorney was willing to offer the client 2 years of probation in lieu of any jail time.

While certain criminal defense attorneys might consider this offer, Mr. Lee made it clear to the district attorney that a 2-year probation term was an excessive punishment for such a minor crime. Mr. Lee was able to reduce the offer to one year of informal unsupervised probation after successfully raising this concern with the judge. Ultimately, the client agreed to plead to the reduced charge.

Due to Mr. Lee’s persistent desire to receive the best possible offer, his client avoided jail time and was sentenced to only half of the probation term outlined in the district attorney’s initial offer.

If you are accused of possessing a gambling device in violation of PC 330a, you need to contact the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich today. It is important to have an experienced criminal defense law firm that is familiar with California’s gambling laws fighting for your freedom. In pertinent part, PC 330a provides the following:

“Every person, who has in his or her possession or under his or her control…any slot or card machine, contrivance, appliance or mechanical device…as a result of the operation of which any merchandise, money, representative or article of value, check or token, redeemable in or exchangeable for money or any other thing of value, is won or lost or taken, when the result of action or operation of the dice is dependent upon hazard or chance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Embezzlement is defined by Penal Code 503 as a fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom the property has been entrusted. Embezzlement is a form of theft. However, the key characteristic of the crime of embezzlement is that the rightful owner of the property must have “entrusted” this property to you.

An example of embezzlement is if you are a bank employee and your employer gives a roll of the bank’s money to deposit in the bank’s vault, and you instead unlawfully take the money for yourself.

If you face embezzlement charges, you should contact an aggressive criminal defense law firm immediately.

Prosecution of embezzlement under PC 503

In order to convict you of embezzlement in California, the prosecutor must prove the following three elements:

• There was a relationship of trust between you and the victim or the victim’s agent;
• The victim or the victim’s agent entrusted you with certain property pursuant to this trust relationship; and
• You intended to deprive the victim of that property by fraudulently taking it as your own.

A “relationship of trust” is a technical term often referring to relationships in professional contexts. Some examples of trust relationships are employer-employee, doctor-patient, and lawyer-client.

You are “entrusted” with property if you are responsible to manage the owner’s property according to the owner’s wishes.

You must have intended to deprive the owner of the property at least temporarily. If your intent was to take the property for a short while and later replace it, you can still be convicted of embezzlement.

Your taking is fraudulent when you take unfair advantage of the victim or cause the victim a loss by breaching a duty of trust or confidence owed to them.

Punishment for an embezzlement conviction

The punishment for an embezzlement conviction depends upon whether you are convicted of grand theft under PC 487 or petty theft under PC 488.

A PC 487 grand theft embezzlement conviction, where the value of the embezzled property is more than $950, is a “wobbler.” This means that you may be convicted of either a felony or misdemeanor depending upon the circumstances of your case and your criminal history. If you are convicted of misdemeanor grand theft embezzlement, you face up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. If you are convicted of felony grand theft embezzlement, you face up to 3 years in county jail and a fine of up to $10,000.

If you are convicted of petty theft embezzlement under PC 488, you face up to 6 months in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Why retain Wallin & Klarich

At Wallin & Klarich, we have been successfully defending our clients against embezzlement charges for over 30 years. Because of our experience, we have the knowledge required to help defend you against your embezzlement charges.

The first step we take to help you avoid jail and other potential harsh consequences is to conduct thorough research on your case. This is important because it will allow us to gather the most favorable evidence for your defense. For example, we will attempt to interview all witnesses that could help your case. Our strategy will allow us to tailor the most effective defense strategy to your case.

When facing embezzlement charges, you need the experienced criminal defense law firm of Wallin & Klarich to fight for your rights. Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks.

Call us today at (888) 280-6839. We will be there when you call.

A Wallin & Klarich attorney recently assisted his client in having domestic battery charges dismissed. Experienced criminal defense attorney, Andrei F. Lapine, convinced the district attorney to allow his client to plead guilty to a minor charge of disturbing the peace. If convicted under PC 243(e)(1), the client would have faced up to one year in county jail, a $2,000 fine, and a 52-week batterer’s treatment program.

“My client stood firm on the fact that he would not accept a guilty plea, probation, or a 52-week domestic violence course,” said Mr. Lapine. “We communicated to the district attorney that the client would go to trial before accepting such terms. Ultimately, the district attorney caved and agreed to the client’s terms. This demonstrates that sometimes it pays off to stand firm rather than accepting the district attorney’s offer at an early stage.”

The client was at a local establishment with friends when his intoxicated girlfriend appeared unexpectedly. After the girlfriend verbally confronted another female in the group, the client appeared to push his girlfriend back from the table. While walking backwards, she stumbled and fell to the ground. The police arrested the client for battery of a co-habitant under PC 243(e)(1). The district attorney’s initial offer included 3 years of informal probation, 30 days in jail, a 52-week batterer’s treatment program, and $1500 in fines.

Mr. Lapine worked diligently to obtain statements from a number of witnesses who all maintained that the client’s girlfriend was extremely intoxicated at the time of the alleged incident. He also obtained several character reference letters from the client’s family, friends, and even ex-girlfriends that spoke of his peaceful nature. Mr. Lapine and his client remained steadfast and made clear that they would not plead guilty to domestic battery charges.

Due to the tremendous efforts of Attorney Lapine of Wallin & Klarich, his client was allowed to plead to the minor charge of misdemeanor disturbing the peace and paid a $215 fine. He will serve no jail time, he will not have to do a 52-week batterer’s treatment program, and he will not have to serve a term of probation.

If you are accused of battery of a co-habitant under PC 243(e)(1), you need to have an experienced criminal defense law firm fighting for you that knows the elements of the crime that the prosecutor must prove in order to convict you. The elements that the prosecutor must prove are listed below:

• You willfully and unlawfully touched the victim in a harmful or offensive manner; AND
• The victim is your spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, fiancée, mother of your child, or someone with whom you currently have, or have had, a dating relationship.

However, an accusation of violating PC 243(e)(1) will not automatically lead to a conviction. Your Wallin & Klarich attorney can raise a number of successful defenses on your behalf. These may include the following:

• Accident


o A prosecutor may not convict you under PC 243(e)(1) if you did not “willfully” touch the victim in a harmful or offensive manner. For example, imagine that you and your spouse are arguing outside of a restaurant. If you accidentally trip on the sidewalk and land on him or her, you did not have the willful intent necessary for a conviction under PC 243(e)(1).
• Intoxication




o Depending the circumstances of your case, you may prove that you were intoxicated at the time of the incident and could not have formed the specific intent necessary for a conviction under PC 243(e)(1).




• Self-Defense


o Self-defense may be a successful defense if you can prove all three of the following:


1) You reasonably believed that you or another person was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury;


2) You reasonably believed that it was necessary to use force to defend against the danger; AND


3) The force that you used was no more than reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.

You are a 17-year old high school student. After class, you are hanging out by the basketball court. You notice a freshman student listening to his iPod. You tell him to give you the iPod. When he refuses, you pin him to the ground, take his iPod, and leave the scene. Now you are being accused of felony robbery. Will you be charged as a minor or an adult? If confronted with this stressful situation, you should contact the Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich immediately.

When will I be tried in juvenile court?

Under California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 602(a), minors under the age of 18 are typically tried in juvenile court for most minor criminal offenses such as theft or vandalism. However, California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 602(b) creates certain exceptions to this rule for more serious offenses.

When will I be tried as an adult (WI 602(b))?

As mentioned, Welfare & Institutions Code Section 602(b) states certain exceptions to the general rule that minors under the age of 18 will be tried in juvenile court. This section provides that minors who were 14 years of age or older at the time of the alleged offense shall be tried in an adult criminal court for murder and the following sex crimes:

1. Murder (PC 187);
2. Rape (PC 261);
3. Spousal rape (PC 262);
4. Forcible sex offenses in concert with another (PC 264.1) ;
5. Forcible lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of fourteen (PC 288(b));
6. Forcible sexual penetration (PC 289(a)); or
7. Sodomy or oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person (PC 286).

When may I be tried as an adult (WI 707(b))?

The prosecutor has the discretion, but is not required, to directly file a case in adult court if you are at least 16 years old and are charged with any of the following offenses:

1. Arson (PC 451);
2. Robbery (PC 211);
3. Kidnapping for ransom (PC 209);
4. Kidnapping for purposes of robbery (PC 209);
5. Kidnapping with bodily harm (PC 209);
6. Attempted murder (PC 664);
7. Assault with a firearm or destructive device (PC 245);
8. Assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (PC 245);
9. Discharge of a firearm into an occupied and inhabited building (PC 246);
10. Crimes against persons 60 years of age or older (PC 1203.09);
11. Using a firearm in the commission of a felony or attempted commission of a felony (PC 12022.5);
12. Committing any felony offense while using a weapon described in PC 16590;
13. Influencing testimony or information given to a law enforcement official (PC 137);
14. Manufacturing, compounding, or selling one-half ounce or more of a salt or solution of a controlled substance specified in Health & Safety Code 11055(e);
15. A violent felony as described in PC 667.5;
16. Escape from juvenile hall as described in PC 871(b);
17. Torture (PC 206);
18. Aggravated mayhem (PC 205);
19. Carjacking (PC 215);
20. Kidnapping for purposes of sexual assault (PC 209(b));
21. Kidnapping during commission of carjacking (PC 209.5);
22. Permitting a loaded firearm in a vehicle (PC 26100);
23. Igniting or exploding a destructive device with the intent to commit murder (PC 18745);
24. Voluntary manslaughter (PC 192(a)).

Can I be sentenced to life without parole or the death penalty?

A minor may not be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty. In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment, such as the death penalty, on a person under the age of 18. In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Graham v. Florida that sentencing a minor to life without parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. constitution.

What Wallin & Klarich can do for you

The skilled criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been successfully defending clients accused of juvenile crimes for over 30 years. Our law firm approaches every case with the belief that our client could easily be one of our own family members. We are committed to being available to our clients at all times- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Torrance, West Covina, Sherman Oaks, and Victorville. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 for a free consultation of your case. We will be there when you call.

Having a clean criminal record is important to you for several reasons. You may be seeking gainful employment or a prestigious career; or perhaps you are a college student on a career path to becoming a professional.

A criminal record will be an obstacle to achieving these life goals. For example, some employers conduct a background check to make sure that you have a clean record before they hire you. If you are an aspiring lawyer, a criminal record may put your moral character application into question. A criminal record can also prevent you from obtaining other state licenses, such as a contractor’s license or a real estate license. Having a criminal record can also be embarrassing for your personal life.

An expungement allows you to wipe your record clean. The Wallin & Klarich criminal expungement attorneys can assist you with an expungement by petitioning the court to permit you to withdraw your guilty plea, or vacate your felony or misdemeanor conviction. If the court grants your petition, your criminal charges will be dismissed. The court will grant you this dismissal upon the completion of certain requirements.

How to Qualify for an Expungement of your Criminal Record

You may qualify for an expungement whether you are convicted of a felony or misdemeanor. However, you will not be eligible for an expungement if you served a sentence in state prison.

If you are on probation as a result of your conviction, you must complete your probationary period to qualify for an expungement. You must also:

• Pay all fines and restitution;

• Make all necessary court appearances;

• Not commit any new crimes; and

• Comply with other conditions of probation imposed by the court, which may include participation in community service and counseling.

If you are on probation, your expungement attorney may seek early termination of probation under PC 1203.3 (link). The judge may in that instance grant early termination and dismissal of charges at the same time.

California Expungement Attorney

The law firm of Wallin & Klarich has been successfully representing our clients seeking criminal record expungements for over 30 years. We have the knowledge and experience to help you successfully petition for an expungement and move on with your life.

Upon retaining Wallin & Klarich, we will immediately collect information about your prior conviction(s). This thorough investigation can include seeking your criminal record information from the California Department of Justice to make sure that we account for all of your convictions.

With this extensive information about your prior conviction, we will tailor the most effective strategy to present your case to the court in the best light with the goal of having the court grant your expungement. We will represent you at all necessary court appearances. If you are on probation, we will also provide you with guidance on how to successfully terminate your probation at the earliest possible time.

For your convenience, our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks. Call us today at (888) 280-6839. We will be there when you call.

On May 14, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all states drop the legal limit for a DUI from 0.08 to 0.05.

If this law were to be passed in California it would drastically increase the number of DUI arrests.

The NTSB claims that by reducing the legal limit from 0.08 down to 0.05 it would cut the deaths in DUI accidents by more than half. It cited in its report that more than 100 countries have adopted the 0.05 standard. The result has been that the share of traffic deaths related to drunk driving was reduced by more than half over a ten year period.

The problem with lowering the limit is the reality of how much alcohol needs to be in a person's body for them to reach a .05 blood alcohol level.

Experts report than a woman who weights less than 120 pounds will reach .05 after just one drink. A man weighing up to 160 pounds will reach a 0.05 level after two drinks.

If you were to ask a woman who had consumed one drink if she was “under the influence” the answer would be NO in about 100% of cases. The same would be true if you ask a male if he felt he was “under the influence” after consuming only two drinks. What this means is every day thousands of California residents would get into their vehicles believing they were fine to drive, only to be pulled over and prosecuted for a DUI.

The impact of reducing the legal limit for a DUI must be studied very carefully. Nobody wants even one person to be injured or killed by a drunk driver. On the other hand it seems the impact of lowering the current blood alcohol level will make it extremely difficult for persons to consume even a small amount of alcohol and drive their vehicle.

Many would say we should err on the side of “caution” because if we can save lives by lowering the legal limit we should do so.

Others will say that reducing the limit to .05 will result in far too many unwarranted DUI arrests and convictions. The consequences of a DUI conviction in California are severe. The total cost of a DUI can exceed $20,000. Many people convicted of a DUI will lose their driving privilege and their employment.

Being charged for a DUI under the current situation is already daunting enough. However if you are facing a DUI charge, you do not have to handle it alone. The DUI attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been defending clients facing DUI charges for over 30 years. With offices all over Southern California, do not hesitate to call us at (888) 280-6839. We will be there when you call.

An indecent exposure charge can have long-lasting severe consequences on your life. Not only is your freedom at stake but your reputation is also in harms way. If you face indecent exposure charges under PC 314, it is important that you immediately contact an experienced criminal defense law firm.

Prosecution of Indecent Exposure

The prosecution must prove the following two elements in order to convict you of indecent exposure:

• You willfully exposed your genitals in the presence of another person or persons who might be offended or annoyed by your actions; AND

• When you exposed yourself, you acted lewdly by intending to direct public attention to your genitals for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying yourself or another person, or sexually offending another person

The law disregards what any person who witnesses your allegedly indecent act actually thinks about your act. The law assumes that any witness to your act will be offended or annoyed by your conduct.

Other circumstances may make the charge you face more serious and the punishment you face harsher. For example, you will be convicted of a more serious crime if the prosecution proves the following in addition to the above-mentioned two elements:

•You willfully and lewdly exposed yourself after you had entered and inhabited dwelling/building/trailer coach without consent

Punishment for Indecent Exposure in California

If you are convicted for PC 314 and have no prior indecent exposure convictions on your record, your offense will be charged as a misdemeanor and you will face up to 6 months in county jail and a maximum fine of $1,000.

If you are convicted of a second offense for indecent exposure or have a prior conviction for lewd acts upon a minor under PC 288, your offense is a felony punishable by up to 3 years in county jail and a maximum $10,000 fine.

If you are found to have exposed yourself within an inhabited dwelling, building or trailer coach without consent, you have committed “aggravated” indecent exposure. An aggravated indecent exposure charge is a “wobbler” meaning that it can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, depending upon the circumstances surrounding your case and your criminal history. A misdemeanor conviction will subject you to up to a year in county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine. A felony conviction will subject you to up to 3 years in county jail and a maximum $10,000 fine.

If convicted for indecent exposure in California, the court will require you to register as a sex offender and you will be required to annually update your registration with local law enforcement as long as you work, live or attend school in California. Your status as a sex offender will be made public.

California Indecent Exposure Defense Attorney

Wallin & Klarich has been successfully defending clients accused of indecent exposure in California for over 30 years. Our decades of experience allow us to know all the intricacies of indecent exposure law, including all possible defenses.

Our law firm follows a strategic process that allows us to create the most effective defense strategy for your specific case. We start by obtaining a complete summary of all the relevant facts you are aware of surrounding the alleged indecent exposure event. We attempt to interview all witnesses that could potentially be favorable to your defense.

When you face indecent exposure charges under PC 314, you should hire the top quality representation of Wallin & Klarich to fight for your freedom.

Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks. Call us today at (888) 280-6839. We will be there when you call.