Southern California Defense Blog

When he was 17 years old, Andrew Moffett and an accomplice robbed a supermarket. The parties fled in a stolen car, but they crashed their vehicle and hid in nearby bushes. When police officers approached, Moffett’s accomplice shot at and killed one of the police officers. Both minors were captured; Moffett’s accomplice was tried and found guilty of first-degree murder, and Moffett was found guilty of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule. At sentencing, the judge indicated California Penal Code § 190.5 required the judge to sentence Moffett to life without parole (LWOP) unless certain limited circumstances were present. The judge found that no such circumstances were present, and he sentenced Moffet to life without the possibility of parole. Moffett appealed his sentence.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Miller vs. Alabama held that the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments,” forbids the mandatory sentencing of any juvenile to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, regardless of the crime committed. (Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2460.) California Penal Code § 190.5(b), which governs juvenile sentencing in first-degree murder cases, gives judges some discretion in sentencing; it declares that any defendant who was 16 or 17 years old at the time of committing an act of first degree murder “shall be confine[d] in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole or, at the discretion of the court, 25 years to life.” California courts have interpreted this provision to mean that, in juvenile first-degree murder cases, a life without parole sentence is generally mandatory, as “16- or 17-year-olds who commit [first-degree] murder must be sentenced to LWOP, unless the court, in its discretion, finds good reason to choose the less severe sentence of 25 years to life.” (People v. Guinn (1994) 28 Cal.App. 4th 1130, 1141-42.)

The Court of Appeals held that California’s first-degree murder sentencing system for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. The court held that “A presumption in favor of LWOP, such as that applied in this case, is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of Miller.” The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Further, the Court of Appeals underlined that the defendant was convicted of felony murder and did not act to kill; the court instructed the sentencing judge to, on remand, “give appropriate weight to the fact that appellant was a non-killer convicted under the felony-murder rule.” In short, the Court of Appeals counseled the trial court to try again, and, this time, to likely sentence Moffett to a sentence less harsh than life without parole, i.e. 25 years to life.

This ruling is in line with the juvenile court’s long standing philosophy that rehabilitation should take precedence over punishment.

If you or your loved one is facing juvenile charges, call us now 888-280-6839 and speak to our experienced juvenile law attorneys from Wallin & Klarich. For over 30 years Wallin & Klarich has been defending clients accused of juvenile offenses. We have offices in San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange County. We will be there when you call.

Wallin & Klarich’s experienced juvenile defense attorneys in Orange County inform you that in a victory for juveniles who commit crimes in our state, the California Supreme Court decided it was “cruel and unusual punishment” to convict a juvenile to a lengthy prison sentence without providing the juvenile with an opportunity to convince the court he should be given a parole date.

Currently the law in California allows juveniles who commit serious crimes to be sentenced to hundreds of years in prison. This means that they have no chance to ever be released from custody.

In this specific case, the accused was convicted of attempted murder of three rival gang members. He was sentenced to 110 years in prison. He would have to serve about 93.5 years in prison, which means a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Luckily the Supreme Court said that every juvenile facing a lengthy prison sentence can now petition the sentencing judge and ask the court to provide a date by which he/she will be eligible for parole.

This new ruling brings some “common sense” to our justice system. Juveniles who commit serious crimes should be severely punished. However, to sentence a 16 year old to 110 years in prison for “attempted murder” means that the juvenile has no chance to rehabilitate himself. It also means that the taxpayers will have to pay for incarcerating this young man for the rest of his life.

Thank God the highest court in our state has decided that we cannot just lock up teenagers and throw away the key.

Please let us know your thoughts about this topic.

Wallin & Klarich’s team of experienced juvenile defense attorneys in Orange County has over 30 years of experience defending minors accused of serious crimes throughout Southern California. If you or a loved one is currently facing criminal charges in Southern California, contact Wallin & Klarich today at 888-280-6839. We will be there when you call.

As reported by the LA Times on January 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional to sentence any juvenile tried as an adult who is under 18 to a life sentence behind bars with no chance to be released. The court’s majority (a 5-4 vote) found it to be a “cruel and unusual punishment” under the constitution because our society requires every judge to consider carefully a juvenile’s individual case before making such a decision.

This new ruling invalidates the laws of 28 states in the US that sentence to life imprisonment any individual who is tried as an adult and found guilty of certain serious crimes even if he/she is 14 years old.

This is a great victory for those that believe that juveniles have to be treated differently than adults. Many of these juveniles have been raised without parental supervision, and they come from a life of poverty and abuse. The highest court of our country, lead by the Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion, decided that kids cannot be locked up for life with no hope of release without having a judge reviewing each case individually.

This decision should make clear to every state legislature not to pass laws without taking into consideration the individual situation of each juvenile when he/she is found guilty of a serious crime. This decision does not mean that the crime the juvenile was convicted of does not deserve to be severely punished. It means we must view juveniles as juveniles individually and not to toss every single juvenile in prison for a lifetime without hope of release.

For over 30 years, Wallin & Klarich has been helping families when their children are facing serious criminal charges. Wallin & Klarich’s outstanding juvenile criminal lawyers are ready to help you now. Contact us at (1-888-280-6839). We will be there to help your family when you call.

M was juvenile attending high school in California who just went through a tough breakup with his ex-girlfriend, S. Following their breakup, M sent two text messages to S . in the first he threatened to come to school with a gun and kill half the school before committing suicide in front of S. In the other, he used expletives including “F___,” “B____”, and “C___”. M was charged with a violation of California Penal Code 653m which reads:

653m. (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or
makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with
another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene
language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict
injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any
member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in
this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic
contacts made in good faith.

At M’s trial in juvenile court S testified that the words were commonly used at their high school and that she was not offended by the language. Another student testified that the above language was commonly used by their peer group. The court sustained the petition which is akin to a finding of guilt.

In reversing the trial court’s finding, the appellate court found that neither text communicated a physical threat to the recipient, S. The court also found that while the texts might be “upsetting”, neither text was obscene, lewd as used, or offensive to prevailing notions of modesty or decency in the context of the law.

This case illustrates how a competent criminal defense attorney can fight for a client’s rights and get a positive outcome despite a prior court’s mistake in applying the law. If you or your child are facing criminal charges don’t hesitate to contact the experienced and aggressive attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We’ll be there when you call or you can visit www.wklaw.com.

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.

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.

On June 29, 2010, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, decided People v. Honan, which ruled that mandatory sex offender registration for those convicted of indecent exposure but discretionary registration for those convicted of lewd conduct did not violate equal protection.

On February 17, 2008, defendant Donald Honan and Jose Martinez-Gutierrez were at a sauna in a gym. Martinez-Gutierrez testified that while looking at Honan, Honan smiled and stroked his own erect penis, which he had released from his shorts.

Martinez-Gutierrez testified that he was uncomfortable, left the sauna, but later returned. According to Martinez-Gutierrez, Honan was still there and he resumed exposing himself and stroking his penis. Honan was arrested, charged, and convicted of lewd conduct (California Penal Code section 647(a)) and indecent exposure (California Penal Code section 314(1)).

At sentencing, the trial court stated that it felt constrained by California Penal Code section 290’s requirement that Honan register as a sex offender because of his indecent exposure conviction. Absent the mandatory requirement in Penal Code section 290, the court would not have ordered Honan to register as a sex offender. Honan appealed on equal protection grounds.

An equal protection violation exists if, under the appropriate standard of review, similarly situated people are treated differently. The court of appeal rejected Honan’s claim that because identical conduct can support lewd conduct and indecent exposure convictions, no rational basis existed for the different sex offender requirements.

The court of appeal noted that, for an equal protection claim, the claimant must argue that he belongs to a group of similarly situated people. Though lewd conduct and indecent exposure are related offenses, the court pointed out that lewd conduct can be violated by merely reckless sexual behavior, whereas indecent exposure requires a willful commission of a sexually inappropriate manner. Due to the greater intent requirement for indecent exposure, the appellate court found that those convicted of lewd conduct and indecent exposure were not similarly situated and that the mandatory sex offender registration for indecent exposure did not violate equal protection.

Under California Penal Code section 647(a) and related case law, lewd conduct is willfully touching an intimate part of the body while in a public place with the intent to sexually gratify or offend. To be convicted, the person must know or should reasonably know that other people could potentially witness the sexual behavior. Lewd conduct is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, up to a $1,000 fine, or both. The trial court may, but is not mandated to, require that the person register as a sex offender. (California Penal Code section 290.006.)

Under California Penal Code section 314(1), indecent exposure exists when a person willfully exposes his genitals in another’s presence who might be offended by the exposure, and the person exposed intended to direct public attention to himself for his own sexual gratification or to offend another. Indecent exposure is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, up to a $1,000 fine, or both. In addition, under California Penal Code section 290(c), a person convicted of indecent exposure must register as a sex offender.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a sex crime, you will need a competent sex crimes defense attorney who will diligently defend you, especially considering the grave consequences of an adverse result. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years experience defending sex crimes. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

In Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars sentences of life without parole for juveniles not convicted of a homicide offense. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

In Graham, Graham was 17 years old when he participated with two 20 year olds in an armed and violent home invasion robbery. When he was 16, he had been convicted of participating in an armed burglary and robbery in which a restaurant manager was beaten. That prior offense had a maximum possible penalty of life imprisonment. Graham was given probation. However, after his second offense, the judge revoked his probation and imposed the maximum life sentence for the offense he committed when he was 16. The state of Florida abolished parole, so this means he was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole.

The United States Supreme Court found that sentencing a juvenile to prison for life without the possibility of parole was not proportional for a non-homicide crime. Therefore, this sentence violated the Eighth Amendment and is unconstitutional.

This ruling impacts California law. Before the court’s ruling, California law made it possible for a juvenile to be sentenced to a life term in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes such as kidnapping and robbery. This is now unconstitutional.

If you or a loved one is a juvenile and is facing a criminal charge, it is important that you speak with an experienced juvenile law attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of juvenile crimes. We are constantly researching the law to keep our clients informed with the most up-to-date law that may affect their case. Our clients, no matter how young or old, get the respect and quality representation they deserve. Call us today at (888) 749-0034 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

It was recently reported that nine youths have been charged in relation to the suicide of a 15-year-old girl in Massachusetts. Phoebe Prince, who had recently moved to South Hadley, Massachusetts from Ireland, hung herself after being raped and bullied by classmates since the start of the school year in September 2009. Prince committed suicide on January 14th. Initially thought to be a case of cyber bullying, it is believed Prince was bullied on and off the campus of her high school in the presence of teachers and fellow students.

Six teenagers, four girls and two boys, face charges of statutory rape, assault, violation of civil rights resulting in injury, criminal harassment, disturbance of a school assembly, and stalking. Three younger girls are facing delinquency charges. Three of the nine teenagers, who are 17-years-old or older, will be tried as adults.

Complicating matters, the parents of two of the teenagers have spoken to the media, insisting on the innocence of their children, stating the school bullying was nothing more than the exchanging of “a couple words.” It is recommended that the accused retain an attorney immediately after charges are filed and have any statements made through the attorney.

All of the charges the teenagers are facing are very serious. Statutory rape, assault, harassment, creating a disturbance, and stalking carry serious consequences in California. Out of all the charges, California statutory rape is the most serious. California "statutory rape," defined under Penal Code Section 261.5, takes place when any person engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 18 (commonly referred to as unlawful sex with a minor). Statutory rape can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. As a misdemeanor, statutory rape can result in up to a year in jail with fines and probation. As a felony, it can result in four years in state prison with fines and probation.

Continue reading "Nine Charged after Bullying of Teenage Student Phoebe Prince Ends in Suicide" »

It was recently reported that a minor was taken into custody and charged with 232 counts of vandalism in Vista, California. The police also suspect him in 85 additional vandalism incidences. His alleged graffiti tags have caused over $101,000 in damage according to police. His name has not been released because he is a minor.

In this case, the minor will be facing charges in juvenile court. Juvenile courts are specifically designed to handle cases involving children under the age of 18 charged with crimes. Juvenile courts hope to rehabilitate children as well as continue to ensure that they progress in their education. The courts also seek to provide counseling for the children.

Continue reading "Minors and Vandalism Charges" »

Recently, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases involving life sentences without the option for parole for minors. The two cases, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida both involved two minors who were convicted of serious felonies when they were 16 and 13 years old, respectively. The boys were subsequently sentenced to life in prison and their cases are now before the United States Supreme Court.

The attorneys for the boys argue that life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses violates the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Most of the recent Supreme Court decisions involving cruel and unusual punishment have been decided by a 5-4 vote. It is anticipated that this decision may result in a similar close 5-4 decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts made two revealing comments during the oral argument—both of which seem to suggest that he is willing to compromise. Initially, Justice Roberts said that his “initial instinct is that the difference in life and life without parole is just not a factor in deterrence” asking “Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope, but an adult does not.” Later in the proceedings, Justice Roberts commented that it would be best not to draw a hard line but instead to allow judges to take special account of a juvenile’s age when deciding whether the sentence is proportional to the crime. This would allow minors to cite their age when appealing the harshness of a sentence and courts would handle the issue on a case-by-case basis.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments for Life without Parole for Minors" »

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear a wide variety of cases as it begins its new term. Among these cases, the Supreme Court will decide whether a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole imposed on juvenile offenders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In a previous 2005 decision, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty cannot be imposed for crimes committed by juveniles. The court’s holding in that decision was 5-4. It is unclear whether that decision means that the court will reach the same result for life imprisonment in juvenile cases. With the significant changes in the personnel of the Supreme Court, the outcome of this issue is unclear.

Continue reading "United States Supreme Court to Decide Whether Locking Up Children for Life is Constitutional" »

It has been well established that minors will consume alcohol before they are legally permitted to at 21. Lawmakers in California hope a new law will help deter minors from not only drinking, but from being drunk in public. As of 2009, the California Courts will impose a suspension or delay of driving privileges on minors who are convicted of being drunk in public.

California law states that any person, who is found to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The penalties associated with a misdemeanor can be fines or jail time. In addition to these penalties, minors under the age of 21 will also have their license suspended for one year. If the minor has not yet received their driver’s license, the court will delay their ability to get a drivers license for a year.

Continue reading "California Law Seeks to Prevent Minors Drunk in Public" »

On appeal, a Defendant in California sought to overturn his conviction for gross negligence in discharging a firearm, possession of a firearm by a juvenile. The defendant in this case was previously made a ward of the juvenile court. As such, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm until the age of 30.

The United States Supreme Court’s recently held that a city’s ban on handguns violates the Constitution’s right to bear arms. The defendant claimed that the law banning him from possessing a firearm violated his rights, and was contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal in California ruled that the law did not violate his rights, and that his conviction was proper. The court felt that as long as there was valid justification for the ban, a conviction would not violate the defendant’s rights.

Continue reading "A California Court Has Ruled that Prohibiting a Juvenile from Possessing a Firearm Does Not Violate the Second Amendment" »

Often times, a criminal investigation or charge involving your minor child will result in an expulsion hearing at their public school. It is important to seek a competent and aggressive attorney for assistance. If the criminal charges arise from a school incident, this could trigger expulsion by the school district. Sometimes the school may attempt to expel even without a criminal charge being filed.

Expulsion is a serious matter. It can go on your child’s permanent school record which may have a negative effect on college admission in the future.

Continue reading "Get an Attorney for Your Child (Part 2)" »

Your son or daughter is being charged with a crime in California. You do not know what to do or who to turn to for help. You are embarrassed or perhaps ashamed of your child’s conduct.

The laws in Juvenile Court are very different than in adult court. At a young age, it is very important to keep your child’s criminal record clean.

Minors have virtually unlimited doors of opportunity growing up and a criminal charge can close many doors quickly.

Continue reading "Get an Attorney for Your Child (Part 1)" »

Why You Need an Experienced Three Strikes Criminal Defense Law Firm

In the recent case of Superior Court v. Nguyen held that a juvenile who was adjudicated a ward of the court in Juvenile Court for a crime that would be considered a strike under California Three Strike Laws will count as a strike if that juvenile offender commits another felony. In a 6-1 Supreme Court decision, the Nguyen case allows prosecutors to allege a prior juvenile strike for purposes of increasing the punishment on any new felony committed as an adult. It is crucial that your criminal defense attorney know and understand this important case.

If you or a loved one is charged with a serious crime in juvenile court it is more important then ever to seek competent legal counsel that understands the implications of a juvenile being charged with a serious felony. Unlike other juvenile cases, this new law allows a juvenile adjudication (conviction) to follow that juvenile through his/her adult life. The stakes are too high not to seek the best attorney you can find.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Rules that Juvenile "Strikes" Can be Used Under Three Strikes Law" »

Why You Should Call a Juvenile Defense Attorney

The recent case of Superior Court v. Nguyen held that a juvenile adjudicated a ward of the court in Juvenile Court for a crime that would be considered a strike under California’s Three Strike Laws will count as a strike if that juvenile offender commits another felony. In a 6-1 Supreme Court decision, Nguyen allows prosecutors to allege a prior juvenile strike for purposes of increasing the punishment on any new felony committed as an adult. It is crucial that your criminal defense attorney know and understand this important case.

Wallin & Klarich have been representing juvenile offenders for over 28 years. If you or a loved one is charged with a serious crime in juvenile court it is more important then ever to seek competent legal counsel that understands the implications of a juvenile being charged with a serious felony.

Call the experienced California juvenile criminal defense lawyers at Wallin & Klarich for a consultation at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about what can be done.

Are you a minor who was recently cited for drinking alcohol?

If your answer is yes, you are not alone. There are many incidents that involve underage drinkers. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to have any alcohol in their system. Maximum penalties can include License suspension for one year, fines, and could possibly affect school and employment.

One thing is for sure, you are not alone. Here at Wallin and Klarich we have helped many clients who have been cited for minor in possession\. Finding the best solution starts with the best experience. Don’t let this affect your life just as you are starting out. If you would like to set up an appointment with one of our California juvenile criminal defense attorneys, just call 1-888-280-6839, or visit our website, www.wklaw.com for more information.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a strip search was illegal where a minor student was suspected of carrying Ibuprofen on campus. During an incident in 2003 at Safford Middle School, a student told school officials that Savana Redding was carrying the painkillers. Two female staffers proceeded to conduct the strip search of Redding, but found no pills. The Supreme Court affirmed the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruling in Safford United School District v. Redding (DJDAR 9383).

The decision of the court was based in part on existing California rulings, where strip searches in schools are banned.

In its decision, the court held that the school officials search violated Redding’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures because it went beyond the grounds of “reasonableness” that were defined by a previous case in 1985. The court opinioned that the content of the suspicion of a drug offense failed to match the degree of intrusion on Redding, mostly due to the lack of evidence of any danger to Redding or other students under the circumstances. Justice Souter clarified that there must be a “reasonable suspicion of danger” before school officials can “make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts.”

Continue reading "Know Your Rights: Students Are Protected from Strip Searches by School Officials" »