Southern California Defense Blog

Both the juvenile and adult justice system in California have the shared goal of public safety. However, this is one of the few goals both systems have in common. The adult justice system has the goal of punishment of offenders, where as the juvenile justice system has the goal of treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.

The goal of treatment and rehabilitation, in lieu of punishment in juvenile proceedings is evident by the wide array of programs aimed at addressing behavioral problems of juveniles. The juvenile courts often allow its offenders to complete diversion or treatment programs as part of their rehabilitation. If an offender is allowed to complete a diversion program, the court may dismiss the underlying offense against the juvenile.

Although the adult justice system also has a number of diversion related programs, these programs are offered much less, and under more stringent circumstances than they are offered in the juvenile justice system.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced Los Angeles Juvenile Criminal Defense Lawyer. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm can greatly increase your chances of keeping your freedom. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 888-749-0034 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

The Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) was created by the Legislature in 1965 as a tool for state and local agencies to help protect the health and safety of California’s children. Although the idea of protecting California’s children by establishing an index of known abusers is theoretically a good idea, the resulting outcome has been that many are listed on the index based on unsubstantiated claims against them.

Recent court decisions have mandated those who are placed on the index, must be given notice and an opportunity to have a hearing to remove name from the child abuse central index. Although this safeguard has ensured many to be excluded from the index, that otherwise would be listed, many feel that the safeguards and standards are insufficient.

Perhaps the most common criticism of CACI is the standard required to be placed on the index. For purposes of CACI, a person will be kept on the list if the child abuse claims are either deemed substantiated or inconclusive.

Most agree that if the claims are found to be substantiated, the inclusion of that person on CACI is warranted. However a fervent criticism comes from those that oppose listing people on the index when the claims against are found unsubstantiated. In those cases, the person will remain on CACI.

If you or a loved one has been placed on the Child Abuse Central Index, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced criminal defense firm. Hiring an experienced Orange County criminal defense law firm will ensure your rights are protected. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 888-749-0034 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

The California Court of Appeal recently held that a Court abuses its discretion when it fails to make clear the statement of calculation method it used in ordering restitution to the victim of the crime.

In People v. Jones, No. C063113, the defendant entered a plea of no contest to driving under the influence and admitted prior DUI convictions. As part of a plea agreement, a charge of hit and run was dismissed. Nonetheless, the trial court ordered Jones to pay restitution to the victim of the hit and run.

At the restitution hearing, the victim testified that Jones damaged a camper that the victim used in her business. She testified that it took nine months to complete the repairs and sought $5,606.62 for lodging and meal expenses, wages she had to pay to others to run her business, and the cost of repairing her car’s bumper, which was torn off when she came to court. The court ordered restitution in the sum of $4,468.40, noting that the time it took to fix the camper was unreasonable. The court did not otherwise explain the method of calculating that figure.

Jones appealed the case arguing that the trial court erred in failing to explain its calculation method. The court of appeal agreed and reversed and remanded to have the trial court explain it’s calculation methods. Under Penal Code Section 1202.4, if a victim has suffered economic loss due to the defendant’s conduct, the court must require the defendant to make restitution to the victim. Courts must employ a method of calculating restitution that is rationally designed to determine the victim’s loss, and make a clear statement of the method used and how that method justified the ordered amount. Here, the trial court failed to make a clear statement of the calculation method it used.

If you or a loved one is facing a criminal charge, it is possible that you may also face restitution. It is important that you speak with an experienced attorney who can make sure the court follows the proper procedures when dealing with a determination of a proper restitution amount. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California criminal defense attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We will fight to defend your rights and get you the best possible result in your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Medical marijuana users and local governments are paying close attention to the ruling in Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim (G040077). This is a case of first impression that is being heard by the Court of Appeal. The issue is whether local governments can enact regulations entirely prohibiting the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries.

California decriminalized medical marijuana in 1996 which is codified in Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5. The California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 420, also known as the Medical Marijuana Program in 2003. SB 420 established guidelines on using and distributing medical marijuana. It also created a state approved voluntary identification card system for patients. The medical marijuana identification cards assisted law enforcement in identifying whether a person legally or illegally possessed marijuana.

The Anaheim ordinance made it unlawful for any person or entity to own, manage, conduct or operate a medical marijuana dispensary within the city. The ordinance was the first law to give a definition to a medical marijuana dispensary. It states that a medical marijuana dispensary is any facility or location where medical marijuana is distributed or made available by or to three or more qualified patients, person with identification cards or primary caregivers. Violating the ordinance may result in an arrest and prosecution for a misdemeanor offense.

The City of Anaheim was victorious in the first round where the lower courts ruled that Anaheim’s ordinance was not in violation of any laws. The Qualified Patients Association appealed, arguing that the ordinance is preempted by state law in that it frustrates the purpose and intent of state law by restricting and limiting the availability and distribution of medical marijuana to qualified persons. They also argued that Proposition 215 and the Medical Marijuana Program should overrule the city’s ordinance. The Qualified Patients Association also contended that the ordinance created a new criminal penalty in an area of law that already has established state penalties.

Anaheim defended the law by arguing it is not preempted by the medical marijuana laws. Specifically, Prop. 215 is limited to decriminalizing the use and cultivation of medical marijuana. The city’s ordinance does not penalize the use and cultivation of medical marijuana. The city’s argument is that the ordinance only penalizes having a medical marijuana dispensary. Another argument was that the California medical marijuana laws are preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act, which makes the use, distribution and cultivation of marijuana illegal. A ruling is expected from the court shortly.

If you or a loved one is facing a marijuana charge, it is important that you speak with an experienced criminal defense marijuana attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our Orange County marijuana defense attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We will aggressively fight to get you the best possible result in your case. Contact us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call. We will also update you with the court’s decision.

It was recently reported on LA Times that two men were arrested on suspicion of vandalism. Police officers served search warrants on suspected graffiti vandals and arrested two of the three suspects. The three men are alleged members of a tagging group called PCN, which stands for Painting City Nightly or Painters Causing Nightmares. They are accused of causing $338,000 in damage to freeway bridges and L.A. County properties. Their tagging is reported to have started approximately 1 ½ years ago. German Lara was arrested without incident. Lara used the tagging moniker “Move.” He is alleged to be responsible for $109,000 in damage. Andrew Pineda, who uses the tagging moniker “Bogus,” was also arrested. He is alleged to have caused $109,000 in damages.
Under California Penal Code Section 594, vandalism is committed when a person maliciously defaces with graffiti, damages, or destroys any real or personal property. Vandalism is a considered to be a “wobbler.” This means that the prosecution has discretion to charge the crime as either a felony or a misdemeanor. If the damages are more than $400, the prosecution has discretion to charge the crime as a felony. A felony conviction is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for up to three years and a fine of up to $10,000. If the damages are less than $400, the crime is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor conviction is punishable by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year and a fine of up to $1,000. The court may also order the convicted defendant to pay restitution. These are only a few of the possible punishments for a vandalism conviction. For more information, visit our website at www.wklaw.com and read our Vandalism section.
If you or a loved one is facing a charge of vandalism, it is important that you speak with an experienced vandalism attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California vandalism attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We will closely review the facts of your case and aggressively defend your rights. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be ther

A police officer stopped a juvenile, M, for riding a bicycle without proper lighting. The officer asked M to step away form the bike and take off his backpack. M said he would not consent to a search of the backpack. The officer believe this was a “red flag” and, concerned that M might be armed, he pat-searched M and found a loaded revolver in M’s jacket. M challenged the constitutionality of the search in the juvenile court and his challenge was denied. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court and found that M’s refusal to consent to a search cannot, by itself provide the reasonable suspicion necessary for a lawful pat-search.

Any search conducted n the State of California without a search warrant is presumptively unconstitutional. That means that the burden of proof is on the Government to prove that the search was in fact lawful. In this case, the juvenile court held that the search in this case was lawful but that decision was overturned by the appellate court who ruled that the search in this matter violated M’s constitutional rights. It is important to know your rights and to have competent criminal defense attorney review your case if it involves a warrantless search of your person or property.

Juvenile Criminal law in California is very different in many ways from adult criminal law. If your child is facing criminal charges in California it is important to hire a law firm that is familiar with the unique procedures in juvenile criminal court. Nothing is more important than the safety and freedom of your child. Please don’t hesitate to contact the experienced and aggressive Los Angeles juvenile criminal attorneys at the law firm of Wallin & Klarich. We’ll be there when you call.

The OC Register reported that, Craig Lowden says he was twirling and driving with his cell phone in his hand last November when he got pulled over in Westminster. "I got a violation for holding the phone in my hand," said Lowden, 37, a Long Beach resident. "I'm going to fight it."
On a recent Monday morning, Lowden was one of dozens waiting in line at the traffic counter at the Westminster branch of Orange County Superior Court. He showed up to get a court date.
"When I went into court right now she (the judge) basically told me that it's against the law to actually hold it in your hand," he said. The judge said her fine would come to nearly $150. Paying that much would be a hassle, he said.
For a first offense, using a hand-held phone while driving is supposed to bring a $20 fine. But when state-mandated fees, surcharges and "penalty assessments" are tacked on, the total fine comes to more than seven times that amount.
The additional fees have been added by the state legislature over the years as a way to fund state and county programs and court costs.

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

Evidence of a prior offense is most often used by the prosecution to increase seriousness of the crime or to increase the sentence. For example, a defendant with a prior conviction for driving under the influence, will face much harsher punishments if the prior convictions occurred within 10 years.

The California Penal Code allows a foreign conviction to be used as a serious felony prior when the record of conviction for the foreign offense shows conduct that qualifies as a serious felony in California. In other words, if the defendant’s actions in the foreign jurisdiction would amount to a felony in California, then the prosecution may use the prior conviction against the defendant in the new case.

There are a number of circumstances where a prior felony conviction from a foreign jurisdiction may not be used against a defendant. Hiring an experienced aggressive criminal defense firm is the best way to ensure you are not exposed to potentially stricter punishments.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced criminal defense firm. Hiring an experienced Southern California criminal defense lawyer can greatly increase your chances of keeping your freedom, and ensuring you receive the lowest possible sentence. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at (888) 280-6839 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information. We will be there when you call.

State law makers and local police are looking to keep convicted sex offenders from online social networks such as MySpace and Facebook, where authorities said sexual predators now roam looking for victims. As minors continue to flock toward social sites such as MySpace and Facebook, so do sexual predators who are looking for victims, officials said. Just as minors are protected from convicted sex offenders in places such as schools and parks, they must too be protected from the cyber world where they socialize.

If you are a registered sex offender in Southern California, or if you are facing a charge that may carry with it the requirement that you register as sex offender, this development should concern you. California Penal Code Section 290 is the law that requires those convicted of certain enumerated offenses to register for LIFE as a sex offender. However there are things that can be done to terminate the requirement to register in California. One such method is to obtain what is called a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

Obtaining a Certificate of Rehabilitation is complicated process which should be undertaken with the guidance of an experienced Southern California criminal defense attorney. We here at Wallin & Klarich can guide you through that process. We have been helping criminal defendants for over 30 years. Call us at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at www.wksexcrimes.com and reads our section on Certificate of Rehabilitation for more information. We will be there when you call.

The California Court of Appeals recently ruled that the defendant in a sex crimes case did not unlawfully fail to register as a sex offender because the least adjudicated elements of her Kentucky offense did not amount to a registrable offense in California.

In In re Rodden, 2010 D.A.R. 8428, the Petitioner was charged with failing to register as a sex offender in California. The Petitioner was convicted in Kentucky for the sex crime of facilitating sodomy. The Petitioner was put on probation and did not have to register as a sex offender in Kentucky. The Petitioner then moved to California where she did not register as a sex offender.

In California, an out-of-state conviction requires a defendant to register as a sex offender in California only when the least adjudicated elements of the offense satisfy all of the elements of a crime enumerated in subdivision (c) of section 290 or when the foreign jurisdiction required the defendant to register as a sex offender.

Here, the trial court found that the Kentucky crime was comparable to California Penal Code Section 266j. Section 266j provides: “Any person who intentionally gives, transports, provides, or makes available, or who offers to give, transport, provide, or make available to another person, a child under the age of 16 for the purpose of any lewd or lascivious act as defined in Section 288, or who causes, induces, or persuades a child under the age of 16 to engage in such an act with another person, is guilty of a felony . . . .” Based on the trial court’s determination that the Kentucky crime was comparable to a California crime, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty.

On appeal, the court found that the Kentucky crime was not comparable to the California crime. The Kentucky crime did not satisfy all of the elements under California Penal Code 266j. The Petitioner was not required to register as a Sex Offender in Kentucky. Therefore, the Petitioner’s guilty plea was vacated.

This case illustrates the importance of having an experienced Los Angeles sex crimes attorney on your side. If you were convicted of a sex crime in another state, it is not an automatic requirement that you must register in California. It is critical that you speak with an experienced sex crimes attorney who can go through each elements of the crime you were convicted of and compare it to a California crime.

At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California sex crime attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We have defending all types of sex crimes and we can help you. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wksexcrimes.com. We will be there when you call.

The California Court of Appeal recently ruled that evidence supported the conviction of driving under the influence of methamphetamine where the drug was described as one that could impair driving ability and defendant was agitated, paranoid and impaired when stopped.

In People v. Benner, 2010 D.A.R. 8942, the defendant was pulled over by police officers for having expired registration tags. The defendant threw a bag out of the window before pulling over. The police found the bag and discovered about three ounces of methamphetamine. A drug recognition expert, Allen Rieckhoff, arrived on the scene. He noticed signs of methamphetamine use, which were subsequently confirmed from a blood test. Rieckhoff took the defendant to the police station where sobriety tests were administered. The defendant failed a number of the tests and was charged with driving under the influence of methamphetamine.

Under Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a), it is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to drive a vehicle. For purposes of this section, the term drug means any substance, other than alcohol, “which could so affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to drive a vehicle in the manner that an ordinarily prudent and cautious man, in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would drive a similar vehicle under like conditions.” (Veh. Code, § 312; see also People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1278.)

Appellant asserted there was no evidence methamphetamine could so affect a person. However, drug recognition expert Rieckhoff testified methamphetamine tends to make people jittery, anxious and emotionally erratic. He said users are prone to mood swings and are generally unable to perform tasks they are given. While decreased agility and concentration does not result in all cases, the drug tends to make it harder for people to perform “divided attention tasks,” i.e., those tasks that require a person to do more than one thing at a time. Rieckhoff put driving in that category, explaining that drivers must not only be able to operate a motor vehicle, but also react to “whatever comes [their] way, be it a red light [or] be it a kid [who] steps off the sidewalk into [their] path.”

The court found that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant on driving under the influence of drugs based on the defendant’s actions and the expert testimony.

If you or a loved one is facing a charge for driving under the influence of methamphetamine, it is important that you speak with an experienced DUI attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California DUI attorneys have over 30 years of experience. Our attorneys are highly knowledgeable on the most up-to-date DUI laws. We will aggressively fight to get you the best possible result in your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Under California Penal Code Section 261, rape is defined as an act of sexual intercourse with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator. Rape can be accomplished in a number of different ways. Penal Code Section 261(a) lists the different circumstances under which a rape charge can result.

Another type of rape that can be charged is when the sexual act is accomplished by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate bodily injury on the alleged victim or another.

Section 261(a)(1) states that rape can occur where the sexual act is accomplished against the alleged victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

In this sense, the prosecution must prove that the defendant used some sort of force or threat of force in order to accomplish the sexual act.

“Duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in determining the existence of duress.

“Menace” means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

If you or a loved one has been charged with rape, it is important that you talk to an experienced criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of rape cases. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wksexcrimes.com. We will be there when you call. Read our next blog as we will cover another area of rape.