Articles Posted in Uncategorized

A federal grand jury charged Appellant Angel Camacho with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by prior felon and one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition evidence on the grounds that they were obtained through an illegal search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial judge denied the motion. Camacho then entered conditional guilty pleas on both counts, reserving his right to challenge the trial judge’s suppression ruling on appeal. The district court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison one Court one, to be served concurrently with 5 years in prison on Court Two, followed by 5 years of formal probation. As an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, protecting my clients’ constitutional rights is my number one priority.

In this case, in question is whether or not appellant’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violated when he was questioned and subsequently searched and arrested. The facts of this case are, that a series of 911 calls reported a fight going on between gangs, identifying most of them as members of the Latin Kings, a well-known national street gang. Police Gang Units arrived on the scene as people scattered. One officer in particular recognized several of them as members of the Latin Kings. Another officer noticed two men he did not recognize walking down the street and directed two officers to intercept and question them. The officers that were directed to go were familiar with the gangs and the gang members in the area and did not recognize either of the men walking down the street. They pulled their car up in a driveway, blocking their path, got out of the car and ordered one of the men to put his hands on the roof of the car and the other officer began questioning Camacho. Camacho indicated that he had seen the fight but was not involved. Camacho had his hands in his pockets. The officer ordered him to take his hands out of his pockets. When he did, the officer patted his waist and felt a gun and yelled “gun”. At this point, Camacho pushed the officer and they struggled until Camacho was subdued and placed under arrest. He was then searched which resulted in the officer finding a gun and ammunition.

Appellant, Camacho’s position is that, the initial stop was a violation of his Fourth Amendment in that the police officers lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary for the stop and seizure. The judge agreed with Camacho’s position on this and agreed that this was not enough to raise a reasonable suspicion. However, the judge concluded that suppression of the gun was “neither called for nor appropriate.” The trial judge found that the gun was seized after Camacho shoved the officer and the officer succeeded in wrestling him to the ground and placing him under arrest. Therefore, the search and seizure of the gun was justified.

The Appellate Court agreed with Camacho and cited Terry v. Ohio, wherein it states that a police officer may briefly detain an individual for questioning if the officer “reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a crime. The reasonable suspicion standard is an intermediate, indeterminate standard that requires more than a mere hunch. It demands a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity. The suspicion must be both reasonable and “grounded in specific and articulate facts.” The Appellate Court’s opinion was that the police officers lacked an objectively reasonable particularized basis for suspecting Camacho of criminal activity and that the initial questioning of Camacho was instead an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And further, that the officers’ conduct “amounted to a flagrant violation of the core of Camacho’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.”

The Appellate Court further concluded that regardless of whether or not the frisk and discovery of the gun was legal, the gun was so tainted by the illegal stop that it should have been suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The discovery of the gun was a direct result of the officer’s’ original unlawful seizure of Camacho. The Appellate Court concluded that the district court erred in denying Camacho’s motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition and the Judgment of the District Court was reversed.

The Appellate Court’s decision was later reversed on Appeal by the United States. Citing case law, The United States Circuit Court held that in this case, the suspicion may be modest; but the intrusion is similarly modest and the need for prompt inquiry is compelling. They further found that in questioning Camacho, the police acted reasonably and that “reasonableness, as it happens, is the standard set by the Fourth Amendment itself. ”
Anyone who has been arrested and/or charged with a crime as a result of a stop and search should contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney who has the experience and knowledge to protect your rights as it applies to the US Constitutionhttps://www.williamweinberg.com/ will know whether or not there your rights were violated and thereby leading to the possibility of having evidence suppressed and/or the case being dismissed.

Continue reading →

A federal grand jury charged Appellant Angel Camacho with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by prior felon and one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition evidence on the grounds that they were obtained through an illegal search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial judge denied the motion. Camacho then entered conditional guilty pleas on both counts, reserving his right to challenge the trial judge’s suppression ruling on appeal. The district court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison one Court one, to be served concurrently with 5 years in prison on Court Two, followed by 5 years of formal probation. As an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, protecting my clients’ constitutional rights is my number one priority.

In this case, in question is whether or not appellant’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violated when he was questioned and subsequently searched and arrested. The facts of this case are, that a series of 911 calls reported a fight going on between gangs, identifying most of them as members of the Latin Kings, a well-known national street gang. Police Gang Units arrived on the scene as people scattered. One officer in particular recognized several of them as members of the Latin Kings. Another officer noticed two men he did not recognize walking down the street and directed two officers to intercept and question them. The officers that were directed to go were familiar with the gangs and the gang members in the area and did not recognize either of the men walking down the street. They pulled their car up in a driveway, blocking their path, got out of the car and ordered one of the men to put his hands on the roof of the car and the other officer began questioning Camacho. Camacho indicated that he had seen the fight but was not involved. Camacho had his hands in his pockets. The officer ordered him to take his hands out of his pockets. When he did, the officer patted his waist and felt a gun and yelled “gun”. At this point, Camacho pushed the officer and they struggled until Camacho was subdued and placed under arrest. He was then searched which resulted in the officer finding a gun and ammunition.

Appellant, Camacho’s position is that, the initial stop was a violation of his Fourth Amendment in that the police officers lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary for the stop and seizure. The judge agreed with Camacho’s position on this and agreed that this was not enough to raise a reasonable suspicion. However, the judge concluded that suppression of the gun was “neither called for nor appropriate.” The trial judge found that the gun was seized after Camacho shoved the officer and the officer succeeded in wrestling him to the ground and placing him under arrest. Therefore, the search and seizure of the gun was justified.

The Appellate Court agreed with Camacho and cited Terry v. Ohio, wherein it states that a police officer may briefly detain an individual for questioning if the officer “reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a crime. The reasonable suspicion standard is an intermediate, indeterminate standard that requires more than a mere hunch. It demands a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity. The suspicion must be both reasonable and “grounded in specific and articulate facts.” The Appellate Court’s opinion was that the police officers lacked an objectively reasonable particularized basis for suspecting Camacho of criminal activity and that the initial questioning of Camacho was instead an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And further, that the officers’ conduct “amounted to a flagrant violation of the core of Camacho’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.”

The Appellate Court further concluded that regardless of whether or not the frisk and discovery of the gun was legal, the gun was so tainted by the illegal stop that it should have been suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The discovery of the gun was a direct result of the officer’s’ original unlawful seizure of Camacho. The Appellate Court concluded that the district court erred in denying Camacho’s motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition and the Judgment of the District Court was reversed.

The Appellate Court’s decision was later reversed on Appeal by the United States. Citing case law, The United States Circuit Court held that in this case, the suspicion may be modest; but the intrusion is similarly modest and the need for prompt inquiry is compelling. They further found that in questioning Camacho, the police acted reasonably and that “reasonableness, as it happens, is the standard set by the Fourth Amendment itself. ”
Anyone who has been arrested and/or charged with a crime as a result of a stop and search should contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney who has the experience and knowledge to protect your rights as it applies to the US Constitutionhttps://www.williamweinberg.com/ will know whether or not there your rights were violated and thereby leading to the possibility of having evidence suppressed and/or the case being dismissed.

Continue reading →

A recent Supreme Court decision resulted in a guilty verdict being reversed citing that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. As an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, protecting the rights under the United States Constitution, is paramount in the defense of my clients. This case is a good example of a violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment right. In Boykins v. State, 307 GA. App. 404 (705 Se2d 186) (2010), A State Court convicted the defendant of possession of cocaine and sentenced him to four years in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction as well as the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle. The Appellate Court affirmed the State Court’s decision and the Supreme Court granted “certiorari” to determine whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the case law in Arizona vs. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 (129 SC 1710, 173 LE2d 485) (2009), to the facts of this case.

In this case, Boykins v. The State, defendant was observed by a police officer pulling up in his vehicle to a woman who was walking in a high crime area. The police officer stated that when he turned his patrol car around, defendant quickly drove away. The officer followed defendant to an apartment complex and pulled up behind him. He asked defendant for identification. He stated that his identification was in his apartment but gave his name and date of birth. It was discovered that defendant had an outstanding probation arrest warrant and was taken out of the vehicle, handcuffed and placed in the custody of the second officer on the scene. The officer then searched defendant’s vehicle finding cocaine in the center console.

Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence on the ground that the search was not proper, citing case law from Arizona v. Gant. In Gant, the Court held that “police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” The State Court denied the motion and thus defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeals upheld the State Court’s decision determining that the search of the vehicle was permissible because the appellant was standing outside of the vehicle at the time of the search and unlike the defendant in Gant, had not been placed in the back of the patrol car.

The Supreme Court’s view of this was that, a fair reading of Gant cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that the only manner in which to remove an arrestee from reaching distance of the interior of a vehicle is to place the arrestee in the back of a patrol car. Further, the State was unable to justify the search on the second ground in Gant, that being “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” Gant, supra, 129 SC at 1719.

There are other exceptions to the warrant requirement however, in this case, the State failed to meet its burden of proving the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement and thus the exception did not apply. The Judgment was reversed.

Possession of a controlled substance is a felony. The penalties if convicted are:

1. Probation and up to one year in county jail, or
2. A California State prison sentence of 16 months, or two or three years.

If you have been arrested for possession of a controlled substance in Orange County, California, it is extremely important to hire an aggressive Orange County drug defense attorney who is familiar with all of the Courts in Orange County. An attorney who has a good working relationship with the individual Judges, District Attorneys, Court Clerks and Probation Department, as well as the Court staff, will be better able to get your charges reduced and/or dismissed. An attorney familiar with the Courts in which a case is pending will result in the best possible outcome available.

Continue reading →

In the case of People vs. Sheehan, Barbara Sheehan was recently found not guilty in the shooting death of her husband, which happened two and a half years earlier in their home. The Battered Woman’s Defense was offered as the defense to the second degree murder charge, stemming from years of domestic abuse inflicted upon Sheehan by her husband. As an experienced Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, it is important to understand the difference between self-defense, where a person is in imminent danger of a lethal assault and domestic violence where there is a history of physical abuse and threats. It is also important to be aware that this defense can apply to both males and females.

There are a small number of situations where self-defense can be argued as justification for using violence to protect ones self. A common requirement for this defense is that a lethal assault is “imminent” to justify a victim in killing another person and it’s relation to the “duty to retreat”. These two concepts limit a person’s right to use deadly force in self-defense. An example of “imminent” danger would be where an intruder enters your home with a weapon drawn. The option of calling the police and risking the police not arriving in time would place the homeowner in grave danger. Therefore, the homeowner may use lethal force in order to defend himself and any other innocent people sharing the home. On the other hand, the “duty to retreat” might apply in a situation outside of the home where a person could avoid getting hurt or killed by leaving the scene.

Domestic violence differs in important ways from the self-defense explanations described above. Domestic violence often involves a victim who lives in the same home as her attacker and thus the attacker is not an intruder and also, domestic violence is usually an ongoing situation, not a one-time situation that someone can get away from. Thus, women who kill their batterers to defend their own lives do not act in ways that follow the typical self-defense rule.

In People vs. Sheehan, Mrs. Sheehan testified that she had endured years of domestic violence, including her husband throwing scalding pasta sauce at her and bashing her in the head with a telephone when she tried to call 9-1-1. She further testified that on one occasion, while on vacation in Jamaica, her husband slammed her head into the stone wall of the hotel repeatedly and she ended up in the hospital. Leading up to her husband’s death, Barbara Sheehan testified that she had told her husband that she would not be going on vacation to Florida with him. He became progressively more violent and menacing and ultimately pointed a gun at her and threatened to kill her. On the day that Barbara Sheehan killed her husband, he had pointed the gun at her and told her he was going to kill her but didn’t pull the trigger. At that point, Barbara Sheehan went and got one of her husband’s guns and went to the bathroom where he was shaving, with his gun sitting next to him on the counter, and shot him.

On the issue of “imminence”, as it applies to this case, Mrs. Sheehan felt the need to act in advance of a direct threat to her life, rather than waiting for the threat to become imminent. However, does this violate her duty to retreat to safety? In reality, women who leave a violent relationship can actually trigger more violence and statistically, are more likely to be killed. The legal system is not well designed to protect an individual from an ongoing and escalating threat directed specifically at them.

The reason to require imminence in these types of situations is to ensure that violence against the assailant is necessary to protect your own life and “retreat” serves the same purpose. If you can safety retreat from an assailant, you should do so.

In the Barbara Sheehan is was made clear to the jury that there was no where she could retreat to where her husband wouldn’t find her and further that she knew and was sure that he would kill her, if she hadn’t killed him first. Thus the “Not Guilty” verdict.

Continue reading →

This November, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in United States v. Jones, which looks at whether or not police who use GPS devices to track suspects, violates their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. As an Orange County California Criminal Defense Attorney, this case deals with one of the most important amendment rights, that being our right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In United States v. Jones, police tracked a suspect’s movements over a period of time with a GPS device that they had attached to his vehicle. Jones’ position is that this violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and further that a search warrant based on probable cause should have been obtained first.

The Fourth Amendment requires police to refrain from invading only that privacy which exists before police come on the scene. Absent a search warrant or other justification for invading your privacy, police are required to honor your privacy.

A GPS device records every trip you make, keeping an ongoing tally of everywhere you go and everyone you see. This information includes much of what we consider personal and private. It exposes information about doctors we see, people we spend time with our activities we enjoy in our free time, some of which may be extremely personal. This inflicts a serious intrusion into what we consider our personal space and privacy as we go through our lives.

If the U.S. Supreme Court sides with the United States in the Jones case, it will mean that police will be able to use GPS devices to track any vehicle for any length of time, much like a fishing expedition. The Fourth Amendment was designed to maximize the degree to which innocent people enjoy freedom from governmental invasions of their privacy.

It is important to be aware that police officers are not responsible for or required to advise you of your rights to refuse an illegal search. They are not required to tell you whether or not they can make a permissible search, that you can withhold permission for them to enter your home, nor that they have a right to seize anything in plain view.

If a search warrant is obtained, it is presumed it was obtained lawfully. Under California search and seizure laws, the burden is on the defense to prove that the warrant was invalid or unlawfully executed. Some examples of invalid or unlawful execution of warrants include: proving that the judge was misled by the officer applying for the warrant; proving that the warrant lacked the specifics regarding the place to be searched or things to be seized; and proving that the judge signing the warrant acted with interest or bias.

An aggressive criminal defense attorney should file a motion to suppress any evidence that was obtained via an improper search and seizure. If the motion is granted, oftentimes, your case will be dismissed.

Continue reading →

A 58 year old Irvine woman has been charged with Vehicular Manslaughter with Gross Negligence in Orange County Superior Court, after an accident she was involved in resulted in the death of a 77 year old woman. According to police reports, the woman was driving with “gross negligence” running a red light, before crashing into the car being driver by the 77 year old woman.
Vehicular Manslaughter defined is basically the crime of causing the death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving, or speeding. Whether a person is charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter or felony vehicular manslaughter depends upon the circumstances of the case.

In California, there are four types of vehicular manslaughter. They are listed here, along with the penalties typically imposed:

PC 191.5: Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, with gross negligence. The penalty can be up to 1 year in county jail, or 4,6 or 10 years state prison. However, one or more priors of this, or certain other vehicular felonies can result in 15 years to life in state prison.
PC 192(c)(1): Vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, without intoxication. The penalty is up to 1 year in county jail, or 2,4, or 6 years in state prison.

PC 192(c)(2): Vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence, without intoxication. The penalty is up to 1 year in county jail.

PC 192(c)(3): Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, without gross negligence. The penalty is up to 1 year in county jail, or 16 months, 2, or 4 years in state prison.

PC 192(c): Vehicular manslaughter is referred to as a “wobbler” meaning that it can be filed either as a misdemeanor or felony, depending upon the circumstances. Vehicular manslaughter acts, not involving drugs or alcohol, that may be punishable are: 1) Driving in an unlawful way; 2) Driving in a lawful but dangerous way, and 3) Knowingly causing an accident for financial gain. Here are some examples of these three acts: If a person kills another person while they speeding; texting or talking on a cell phone; hitting and killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk; and staging an accident that results in an unintentional death.

Because this is such a serious issue, it is important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. With proper, experienced legal representation, it may be possible to get the charges reduced, avoiding jail or prison, or dismissed all together.

Continue reading →

A La Habra man was arrested and charged with domestic violence battery, violating a restraining order, resisting and obstructing an officer and dissuading a witnesses from reporting a crime. According to reports, when officers responded to a 911 domestic violence call, the La Habra man refused to obey commands given by the officers, which resulted in the officers shooting him. The man was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries, and later charged with the above misdemeanor charges.

It is illegal to use physical force or to threaten to harm anyone. However, if the harm or threat of harm is against a spouse, fiancé, cohabitant, dating partner, or the parent of your child, the allegations are looked at as much more serious.
The most common domestic violence crimes are: 1) Corporal Injury to a Spouse or Cohabitant. A person can be charged with this crime if they strike his/her significant other and cause a visible injury; 2) Domestic Battery. It is a misdemeanor to inflict force or violence on an intimate partner. This California Domestic Violence Law does not require a visible injury; 3) Child Abuse; 4) Child Endangerment; 5) Elder Abuse; and 6) Criminal Threats. Threatening to seriously harm someone can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony. You must have intended to put the person in fear and actually did put the person in sustained fear for this to be a crime.
Unfortunately, innocent people get accused of domestic violence in California all the time and once the accusation is out there, it is extremely difficult to prevent the case from being filed. Even if the accusing party changes her/his mind and no longer wants to press charges, the investigating agency will almost always go ahead and submit the case to the District Attorney.
An accusation of domestic violence or domestic abuse, is usually made during a highly emotional situation between two people. The accuser sometimes makes false allegations out of anger, jealousy or, in child custody cases, accusations are made to try to make the other parent look bad. In other situations, it can appear to the police that there has been a domestic battery when in reality it may have been self-defense or an accident.
The penalty, punishment and sentencing for domestic violence convictions depend upon 1) The seriousness of the injuries, and 2) The defendant’s criminal record. However, most courts impose a minimum 30-day jail sentence, even if it is a first-time conviction and require the defendant to attend and complete a 52-week domestic battery class. Making the punishment even more severe is that a conviction of domestic violence goes on a person’s permanent criminal record. The conviction will show up anytime a routine background check is done. This can be a big problem when applying for employment or for state licensing.
For these reasons, if you have been accused of domestic violence, it is extremely important that you contact a criminal defense attorney, specializing in domestic violence crimes. If an attorney intervenes early, they can speak with the investigating agency and present your side before it is sent to the District Attorney’s Office. Sometimes, this can help the chances of the case not being filed. Also, if an attorney intervenes before the case is actually filed, they can speak with the District Attorney assigned to the case, present your side and other facts that the District Attorney may not have, and often times this can actually result in the District Attorney rejecting the case. Early intervention before a case gets filed is extremely important. However, if the case does get filed, a good domestic violence attorney will know what to do to try to get the charges dropped and the case dismissed, or in the alternative, to get the charges reduced to help preserve your record.
If you are charged with domestic violence in Orange County California, it is important to hire an attorney who is familiar with all of the courthouses in Orange County. A good Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney will have trusting relationships with the District Attorneys, Judges, Probation Department and Court Staff. This will help to ensure the best possible outcome for you.

Continue reading →

Brandishing a weapon or firearm, Penal Code 417 PC, is just one of California gun laws. Drawing, exhibiting or using a firearm or deadly weapon in an angry or threatining manner, is prohibited. This is commonly referred to as “brandishing” a weapon. A conviction of this subjects you to a jail or prison sentence.

The following facts must be proved in order to be convicted of brandishing a weapon.

(1) That you drew or exhibited a deadly weapon or firearm in the presence of another person,

(2) That either you did so in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or

(3) You did so unlawfully in a fight or quarrel, and that you were not acting in self-defense or in the defense of another person at the time.

A good criminal defense attorney will be familiar with the common defenses that should be preseted on your behalf. Some of them include:

(1) Self-Defense or defense of others

(2) You did not brandish the weapon in an angry and threatening manner;

(3) False allegations and/or wrongful arrest.

If you have been arrested and/or charged with brandishing a weapon or firearm, or any gun related charge, in Orange County, you should seek the advise of an attorney who is familiar with all the Courts in Orange County. An attorney who has a good working relationship with the individual Judges, District Attorneys, Court Clerks and Probation Department, as well as the Court staff, will be better able to get your charges reduced and/or dismissed. An attorney familiar with the Courts in which a case is pending will result in the best possible outcome available.

Continue reading →

A 20 year old Santa Ana man is facing a maximum of 3 years and six months in custody after being arrested and charged with 1 count of Felony attempted sexual battery, four misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure and three misdemeanor counts of child annoyance. If convicted, he must also register as a sex offender.

It is alleged that the man approached young, underage girls in his car, as they are walking to school and exposed himself. In one incident, it is alleged that he grabbed one young girls wrist, and attempted to pull her arm inside his vehicle through his open window. This young man is facing very serious charges that, if convicted, can have life-long effects. Hiring an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, familiar with the laws and defenses associated with these charges and familiar with the Court, Judges and DA’s involved in the case, will ensure the best possible outcome.

Penal Code 243.4 PC California’s sexual battery law makes it a crime to touch another person without that person’s consent with the specific intent to cause sexual arousal, sexual gratification or sexual abuse. Most instances of sexual battery, also known as sexual assault, are prosecuted as misdemeanors. However, if the alleged victim is unlawfully restrained, institutionalized or unaware of the true nature of the act, the offense may be prosecuted as a felony. A conviction of sexual battery, whether filed as a misdemeanor or felony, is punishable by fines, incarceration and registration as a sex offender.

California Penal Code 314 PC makes it illegal to “expose” yourself in public with the specific intent to draw attention to your genitals for the purpose of either (1) sexually arousing yourself or another person, or (2) sexually insulting or offending another person or other people. Although this is typically filed as a misdemeanor, aggravated offenses will be charged as felonies. A conviction of this type also requires registration as a sex offender.

Penal Code 290 PC – The Sex Offender Registration Act requires that people who are ordered by a judge to register as a sex offender do so for the rest of their lives as long as they live, work or attend school in California. When you “register” it means that you keep your local law enforcement agency informed as to your whereabouts. A wide variety of factors dictate how often you must update this information.

There are a variety of legal defenses to these types of charges that a good California criminal defense attorney can present on your behalf. If, however, the evidence is too overwhelming to dispute, exploring the possibility of having your named removed from Megan’s list and/or filing a certificate of rehabilitation or a Governor’s pardon to end your sex offender registration requirements, should be considered.

Continue reading →

A 20 year old Santa Ana man is facing a maximum of 3 years and six months in custody after being arrested and charged with 1 count of Felony attempted sexual battery, four misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure and three misdemeanor counts of child annoyance. If convicted, he must also register as a sex offender.

It is alleged that the man approached young, underage girls in his car, as they are walking to school and exposed himself. In one incident, it is alleged that he grabbed one young girls wrist, and attempted to pull her arm inside his vehicle through his open window. This young man is facing very serious charges that, if convicted, can have life-long effects. Hiring an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, familiar with the laws and defenses associated with these charges and familiar with the Court, Judges and DA’s involved in the case, will ensure the best possible outcome.

Penal Code 243.4 PC California’s sexual battery law makes it a crime to touch another person without that person’s consent with the specific intent to cause sexual arousal, sexual gratification or sexual abuse. Most instances of sexual battery, also known as sexual assault, are prosecuted as misdemeanors. However, if the alleged victim is unlawfully restrained, institutionalized or unaware of the true nature of the act, the offense may be prosecuted as a felony. A conviction of sexual battery, whether filed as a misdemeanor or felony, is punishable by fines, incarceration and registration as a sex offender.

California Penal Code 314 PC makes it illegal to “expose” yourself in public with the specific intent to draw attention to your genitals for the purpose of either (1) sexually arousing yourself or another person, or (2) sexually insulting or offending another person or other people. Although this is typically filed as a misdemeanor, aggravated offenses will be charged as felonies. A conviction of this type also requires registration as a sex offender.

Penal Code 290 PC – The Sex Offender Registration Act requires that people who are ordered by a judge to register as a sex offender do so for the rest of their lives as long as they live, work or attend school in California. When you “register” it means that you keep your local law enforcement agency informed as to your whereabouts. A wide variety of factors dictate how often you must update this information.

There are a variety of legal defenses to these types of charges that a good California criminal defense attorney can present on your behalf. If, however, the evidence is too overwhelming to dispute, exploring the possibility of having your named removed from Megan’s list and/or filing a certificate of rehabilitation or a Governor’s pardon to end your sex offender registration requirements, should be considered.

Continue reading →