July 23, 2008

San Diego Jails

Afraid of going to jail in San Diego? These are alternatives. Many misdemeanor cases are settled for community service. Picking up papers and raking leaves in a Probation Department program may be a choice.

Did you know that “jail” doesn’t always mean bars and an orange jumpsuit? Competent, San Diego lawyers know about work furlough. It counts as jail, but you go to work and return. They have an electronic surveillance program! You can go to work and other necessary places but get credit like you were in jail.

Knowing about alternatives to jail is just on e reason to contact the competent, aggressive attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. Give us a call at 888.280.6839.

July 22, 2008

Divorces Through Default

Are you currently separated from your husband or wife and want to file for divorce in California, but your spouse is not cooperating? If this is the case, you are not alone! Several times when spouses separate, one spouse could “care less” if they are ever officially divorced. Believe it or not, there are several of these spouses out there that figure that once they are separated and have moved on, that’s it. They do not bother to go to court to get a divorce!

This situation can be very problematic for several reasons, of which could take all day to list. Nonetheless, two of the most obvious reasons are the following: For one, neither spouse can remarry unless they are officially divorced. More importantly, if there is no divorce, and there is no will or trust involved, and one spouse passes away, the living spouse will most likely make a claim to the deceased spouses estate, even though the spouses may have been separated for years (and the probate proceedings will thus be very interesting, to say the least).

Thus, when there is an irreconcilable breakdown in the marriage and the marriage has come to an end; do not delay in making it official. Call the family law and criminal defense attorneys at Wallin and Klarich immediately so that we can help you initiate divorce proceedings by filing and serving your soon-to-be ex-spouse with a petition for dissolution of marriage. If your spouse is not cooperating and does not respond to the petition, this is not a problem! If your spouse does not respond within 30 days, then we can proceed with your divorce by default!

Wallin and Klarich has been in the business of helping people with their California family law matters in their time of need for over 30 years and we would like to help you with yours! Call us 888-749-0034 and visit our website www.wklaw.com.

July 21, 2008

Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 3)

Part III - Governor's Pardon

In the event that you are registering as a sex offender in California, and your offense does not come within the Hofsheier decision, and a certificate of rehabilitation will not be enough to get you off of the registration rolls, there is still hope for you yet in the form of a governor's pardon. There are two ways to go about seeking a governor's pardon: the first by way of a certificate of rehabilitation; and the second by way of a "traditional" application for a pardon made directly to the governor's office. Each will be discussed in turn.

A. Certificate of Rehabilitation

At the outset, you may be asking, why, if a certificate of rehabilitation will not get me off of the registration rolls, should I bother going about applying for one? Well, the answer to that question is that, if the court grants the petition, the clerk of the court is required by law to transmit the order granting the certificate to, among other people, the governor. (Pen. Code, § 4852.14). Thereafter, "[t]he certified copy of a certificate of rehabilitation transmitted to the Governor shall constitute an application for a full pardon upon receipt of which the Governor may, without any further investigation, issue a pardon to the person named therein...." (Pen. Code, § 4852.16). Once a full pardon is granted to the person by the governor, the person is then relieved of the obligation to register as a sexual offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.5, subd. (b)(1).) As you can see, if you can obtain a certificate of rehabilitation, the granting of the petition becomes a pardon application, which the governor may grant without further investigation.

Continue reading "Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 3)" »

July 18, 2008

Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 2)

Part II - Certificate of Rehabilitation

Did you know that, if you are registering as a sex offender in California pursuant to Penal Code section 290, that you might be able to go back to court and get a judge to relieve you of your obligation to register without having to seek and obtain a full pardon from the governor?

Our office has found that many judges, district attorneys, and other defense attorneys are not familiar with this loophole in California's sex offender registration statute. While judges and attorneys will inform defendants at the time of the plea and sentence that sex offender registration is a "lifetime" requirement, few will inform defendants that, in many cases, "lifetime" does not necessarily mean "for life."

Penal Code section 290.5, subdivision (a), provides that persons who are required to register as sex a offender because of certain specific sex crime convictions, may be relieved of their obligation to register as sex offenders if a judge of the superior court grants a "certificate of rehabilitation" to the sex registrant (Pen. Code, § 4852.01). Of course, extremely serious sex crimes, such as a sexual abuse of a child conviction, particularly if the child is under age 14, Penal Code section 288.5, are not eligible for this form of relief. However, surprisingly, there are numerous potentially serious sex crimes to which this rule applies, such as, for instance, sexually penetrating a minor with a foreign object, Penal Code section 289, subdivision (h), enticing a minor to engage in prostitution, Penal Code section 266, and engaging in sexual intercourse, oral copulation, sodomy or penetration where the consent for the act was procured by fraud to create fear, Penal Code section 266c. As will be discussed more in the next part of this series, persons who are not eligible to be relieved of their duty to register as a sex offender may still be able to be relieved if they apply for and receive a full pardon from the governor.

Continue reading "Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 2)" »

July 17, 2008

Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 1)

Part I - People v. Hofsheier

If you or a loved one is subject to California's mandatory sex offender registration law (Penal Code section 290, also known as "Megan's Law") because of a sex crime conviction in California, we may be able to help you get your name off the registration rolls.

The California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 that, as applied to certain people, California's sex offender registration law is unconstitutional. Specifically, in the Hofsheier case, the defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (b)(1), by having "consensual" oral copulation with a minor, and, as a result of the conviction, the defendant was required to register as a sexual offender. The defendant challenged the registration requirement on the ground that defendants who engage in "consensual" sexual intercourse with a minor are not required to register, while those who engage in other sexual activity are so required, and, accordingly, the defendant concluded, the registration statute violated the defendant's right to "equal protection" - i.e., the right to be treated the same under the law as others who are in a similar situation.

The California Supreme Court, siding with the defendant, ruled that, "[w]e perceive no reason why the Legislature would conclude that persons who are convicted of voluntary oral copulation with adolescents 16 to 17 years old, as opposed to those who are convicted of voluntary intercourse with adolescents in that same age group, constitute a class of 'particularly incorrigible offenders'...who require lifetime surveillance as sex offenders." Accordingly, the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory registration requirement for such offenders.

Continue reading "Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 1)" »

July 16, 2008

Man Freed From Prison After Faulty Conviction - Real Perpetrators Will Not Face Justice

If you want to know just how shaky and unreliable eyewitness identifications can be, just ask Patrick Waller, who was recently ordered released from prison by a judge in Dallas, Texas after DNA testing showed that police and prosecutors had locked up the wrong man.

According to a recent story on CNN.com, Waller's ordeal began in 1992 when two men kidnapped a couple and stole several hundred dollars. The men also sexually assaulted the woman after tying up the man. Another couple who drove up to the scene was also held at gunpoint. A security guard arrived and scared off the men, who fled in separate cars. Three of the four people abducted picked Waller in a photo lineup. The fourth later picked him out of a live lineup. Waller maintained his innocence and presented an alibi at trial but was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He also pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping, fearing more life sentences if he were to be convicted, said his lawyer.

In 2001 and 2005, Waller, professing his innocence, sought to have DNA testing performed, but his petitions were opposed by Dallas County prosecutors, and denied by the courts. Waller filed another petition in 2007, which was granted. The Dallas County prosecutor's office announced that DNA evidence had cleared Waller and matched the profile of another man. That suspect identified his accomplice, and both men subsequently confessed in front of a grand jury, prosecutors said. Neither man is in prison, although one is on parole, but neither man will face criminal charges because the statute of limitations has expired.

At Wallin & Klarich, we approach every case with the belief that the person we're defending could easily be one of our own family members. We've seen firsthand how stressful legal matters can be for our clients and their loved ones. We are committed to being available to our clients at all times -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in Southern California, you should call Wallin & Klarich today for a free evaluation of your case. Call 1-888-749-0034 and visit us at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

July 15, 2008

Conviction Reversed When Trial Court Fails to Properly Explain The Elements of The Crime of Assault to The Jury

The case in issue is People v. Miller, a recent case from the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.

In Miller, the Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon among other felonies charges.

Facts

On February 2, 2006, Glenn Fong was making a left turn onto First Street from Alamitos Avenue in Long Beach. His car was struck on the passenger side by a car being driven by Defendant. Fong and Defendant pulled their vehicles into a nearby gas station. Defendant said she did not want to get their insurance companies involved and offered to pay Fong $100. Fong rejected the offer. Fong went back to his car to get insurance and vehicle information and believed Defendant was doing the same. However, Defendant just sat in her car. After approximately ten minutes, Fong walked up to Defendant's car to continue the exchange of information. Defendant was shivering and seemed agitated. She said: "I don't remember who you are, I don't know what I'm doing here." Fong told her he was going to call the police. Defendant backed her vehicle into Fong's car, which was partially blocking the exit, and fled the scene of the accident. Fong took down her license plate number and called the police.

On the day of the accident, Robert Hamilton was working at the lifeguard headquarters on East Ocean Boulevard in Long Beach. Hamilton saw Defendant drive her vehicle down the beach access road, cross the sand, and turn onto the bicycle path. Hamilton got into his lifeguard truck and followed Defendant's vehicle, staying to its right or left in order to keep his truck off the path. Hamilton's truck was red and had the fire department insignia and his name on it. It was equipped with a light bar on top and a siren. He activated both and also used the truck's air horn and public address system in his attempt to stop Defendant and to warn people to get off the path. Defendant, who had been going 25 to 35 miles per hour from the time she entered the bicycle path, did not stop or change her speed. Hamilton testified there were "a lot of people" on the bicycle path. He saw people jumping or diving off the path to get out of Defendant's way. As Hamilton described it, "mothers were literally grabbing their children and jumping off the bike path." He observed an elderly man climb up the bluff that bordered the path as Defendant approached. Defendant did not brake or slow down. At one point, the bicycle path intersected a parking lot, giving Defendant an opportunity to return to the road, but she continued on the path. Shortly after Defendant drove through the parking lot and back onto the bicycle path, her car hit Erick Martinez, who was jogging on the path, wearing headphones. Martinez fell backwards onto the hood of Defendant's vehicle, and then back onto the bicycle path. The tires on Defendant's vehicle rolled over his left side. Defendant drove her car a little farther before stopping. A bystander grabbed the keys. Upon emerging from her vehicle, Defendant said: "I didn't see him." Hamilton detained her and called the police. Jeffrey Shurtleff, the police officer who arrived to arrest Defendant, testified she appeared disoriented. Some of her statements did not make sense and her speech was slurred. She said she did not know why she was on the bike path. Officer Shurtleff ran Defendant's driver's license through his computer and learned that she had been driving on a suspended license or a revoked license. Defendant admitted knowing about the suspension or revocation. Officer Eric Mifflin, who conducted a field sobriety test, observed that Defendant's eyes were jaundiced and she was shivering violently. Her breath gave off a chemical odor. Her eyes "bounce[d]" when she tried to track an object, a condition called "nystagmus," which can be caused by substance abuse. According to Officer Mifflin, Defendant seemed incoherent when he first confronted her and "was kind of dazing in and out of a semiconscious state." He concluded that "[s]he wasn't sure where she was or what had happened." Because of her physical condition, he decided to take her to the station to continue the sobriety testing. Once there, Defendant failed a number tests, including a balance test and a walking test. She admitted having drunk a half pint of vodka the previous night, but the breathalyzer did not detect any alcohol. The police nurse was unable to draw blood for testing. Martinez was taken to a hospital and released within a few hours. At the time of trial, a year after the incident, he still felt pain in his ankle, neck and lower back when he tried to jog. The defense called Dr. Angela LaMotte, Defendant's primary care physician. Dr. LaMotte testified that nystagmus could also be caused by virus or injury. She further testified that Defendant suffered from a condition, "labrynthitis," that affected her inner ear and could cause intermittent dizziness or vertigo.

Continue reading "Conviction Reversed When Trial Court Fails to Properly Explain The Elements of The Crime of Assault to The Jury" »

July 14, 2008

Federal Sentencing Guidelines no Longer Dictate What a Federal Judge Can do at Sentencing in a Federal Criminal Case

The United States Supreme Court in Gall vs. United States held that the federal sentencing "guidelines" are no longer binding on what sentence a federal judge decides to hand down in any particular case. The US Supreme Court recently held that the federal judge now has broad discretion to sentence a criminal defendant to a higher or lower sentence than the guidelines provide. The judges' decision will only be reversed upon a showing of an "abuse of discretion" which is an extremely difficult thing to prove on appeal.

What this means to anyone facing a federal criminal case is that you need to have a criminal defense law firm on your side who knows the critical importance of adequately preparing a powerful sentencing brief on your behalf. In addition your law firm must be able to devote the time and attention to your case and be able to present the most powerful witnesses and evidence at your behalf at the sentencing hearing.

If you are facing a federal criminal charge contact Wallin and Klarich so we can help you during your time of need. Contact us at 888-749-0034 and visit us at www.wklaw.com

July 11, 2008

California Prison Inmates to Get Early Release Under New Program

As we all have heard, California state prisons are far too overcrowded. As a result, many times, convicted criminals get released early. Well, a new plan calls for some prisoners to do their time at a “community-based” rehabilitation program instead of getting released early! This includes home confinement, electronic monitoring, or doing time a county jail.

In a way, this can be seen as a positive as some of the newly convicted felons or those who violate their parole would avoid going to prison and instead do their time in one of these “community-based” rehabilitation programs; a trade most would probably make. On the other hand, this would eliminate releasing criminal defendants sentenced to serve time in state prisons due to overcrowding issues.

It will be interesting to see if this plan is put into place in the upcoming months and Wallin and Klarich will continue to monitor any developments. Call Wallin and Klarich today to see how this or any other criminal matter could potentially impact you, your loved ones, or your friends! Wallin and Klarich has been in the business of helping people with their criminal matters in their time of need for over 30 years and we would like to help you with yours! Visit Wallin & Klarich at www.wklaw.com and call us toll free 888-749-0034.

July 10, 2008

Prevent the District Attorneys from Discovering Your Secrets and Strategies by Hiring Smart and Creative Lawyers

There are serious battles being fought in the field of criminal law as we speak, and most of California is completely unaware of what is happening. This battle is waging especially strong in San Diego, where Wallin & Klarich attorneys are on the front lines. The battle is between criminal defense lawyers who are committed to representing their clients to the fullest extent, and district attorneys.

Recently in San Diego, Wallin & Klarich attorney Daniel Lough learned that calls made between lawyers and defendants in custody have been being taped and that District Attorneys have access to each and every tape. This news has spread throughout legal field quickly as more and more people become dismayed at the behavior of the Sheriff’s office and the District Attorney’s office.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg. 2008 has been an important year in this battle we have been waging to protect the rights of all criminal defendants in San Diego and California as a whole. The San Diego Public Defender’s office has also been productive in this fight.

Continue reading "Prevent the District Attorneys from Discovering Your Secrets and Strategies by Hiring Smart and Creative Lawyers" »

July 9, 2008

US Supreme Court Reverses Murder Conviction

Today, the US Supreme Court reversed a murder conviction and ruled the introduction of the victim’s prior reports of domestic violence to the police violated the defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine his accusers. The prosecutor in the case of Giles v. California introduced a police officer’s report wherein the victim said the defendant threatened to kill her on a prior occasion. In a 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court stated the 6th Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The court declined to approve an exception to the Confrontation Clause.

If you or a loved one has been accused of a crime, you would be very wise to speak with an experienced attorney, and a knowledgeable one. See our website at www.wklaw.com and call us at 1-888-749-0034.

July 8, 2008

California Law Bans Cell Phone Use While Driving

A new California Vehicle Code prohibits individuals from using a wireless telephone while driving unless that telephone allows for hands-free listening and talking. Eliciting a fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offense, this law went into effect July 1, 2008.

The law permits a driver to use a wireless telephone in cases of emergencies to call law enforcement, the fire department, or other emergency services agencies. Operators of authorized emergency vehicles or vehicles on private property are exempt from this law. In addition, individuals operating commercial motor trucks or tractors, excluding pickups, are permitted to use to a two-way radio with a “push-to-talk” feature.

While one may use a Bluetooth or earpiece device, both ears cannot be covered. This law permits using the speakerphone function of a wireless telephone while driving as well as dialing. Text messaging is not specifically prohibited under this law, but officers can issue a citation if, in their opinion, an individual was not driving safely.

Motorists under the age of 18 may not use a wireless telephone or hands-free device while driving. Individuals over the age of 18 that are convicted of violating this law will not receive a point on their drivers’ licenses, although the conviction will appear on their driving records. It is also important to note that this law DOES apply to out-of-state drivers in California.

If you have questions regarding vehicle code infractions that can impact your driving record call Wallin & Klarich 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 1-888-749-0034.

Visit us at www.wklaw.com and www.wklawdmv.com