Due to Covid-19, we're providing FREE consultations via Phone or Video with flexible payment options.

Articles Posted in Uncategorized

A 16 year old boy was arrested on suspicion of murder after a 19 year old man was found stabbed and later died at the hospital. The altercation happened at a Huntington Beach park. This young man is facing serious charges, and at his young age, can affect him for the rest of his life. As devastating as something like this is to a parent, one of the most important questions a parent can ask themselves is: How do I protect my child? Teens are still not mature enough to stop, think and really consider how serious their actions are and what the consequences might be. Especially if they have never been in trouble with the law and have never had legal consequences. For this reason, it is extremely important that these minors be represented by experienced criminal defense attorneys, who have experience in not only defending these charges, but who are also experienced juvenile defense attorneys in Orange County, California.
Once a juvenile is arrested for a crime, there are a few different ways law enforcement may proceed. Informal contact with parents, public or private diversion, citation and referral to probation, or arrest. Once the case is submitted to probation, probation has limited discretion whether or not to submit the case to the district attorney or proceed informally. If the case is submitted to the district attorney, they then decide whether to file or dismiss the case. An Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, specializing in juvenile criminal matters, will be able to advise and guide parents and their child through these procedures.

The juvenile justice system is different from the adult justice system. In Orange County Juvenile Court, the focus is on treatment and rehabilitation for the juvenile while the adult justice system focuses on punishment. However, depending upon the charge, a juvenile can be prosecuted as an adult and be subject to the same penalties as an adult. In a situation where a juvenile is tried as an adult, it usually involves crimes of violence. Juveniles 16 or 17, who commit serious felonies, can be tried as an adult. Also, a juvenile 14 or older being charged with murder can be tried as an adult. However, even if a juvenile is tried as an adult, they are still treated different. There are more options in terms of how and where they are prosecuted and how and where they will serve their sentence.

It is extremely important that an experienced Orange County Juvenile Defense Attorney be retained to represent this young man and further that, the attorney be familiar with the Orange County Juvenile Court. Being familiar with the Judges, District Attorneys, Court Clerks and Probation Department, will help facilitate the best possible outcome for your child. The question parents should ask themselves is what do I do to protect my child. Juveniles make mistakes and most have never known, or been exposed to legal consequences. Preserving your child’s record, so that their college goals and future employment are not affected negatively should be the goal of a good juvenile criminal defense attorney.

Continue reading →

A Laguna Hills man was recently arrested and is in custody on suspicion of lewd and lascivious acts against three children. An allegation of child molestation is probably the most serious of allegations in terms of the effect is has on a person’s future. An experienced Orange County child molestation defense attorney understands the seriousness of the allegations and also understands how actions or information can be misinterpreted. The Irvine Law Office of William Weinberg understands how social workers, hospital staff and school administrators sometimes act before thoroughly investigate and understanding the circumstances surrounding the information they have been given.

In this case, A 37 year old man, who is a bus driver in South Orange County, is being accused of having two children under the age of 14 and a 3 year old, in his apartment and committing lewd acts against them. Lewd acts with a child is described as the touching of a child on his/her body for sexual purposes. These cases often involve accusations that a child was touched or fondled, or that some other act of child molestation took place. A charge of molestation or lewd acts with a minor involves the touching the child anywhere on the body, even on the outside of clothing, if the touching is done “with the intent of arousing or gratifying the lust or sexual desires of the person or the child.”
To be convicted of this charge, it must be proven that the person willfully touched any part of a child’s body or caused the child to touch his/her own body, and that it was done so with the intent to arouse or gratify the lust, passion or sexual desires of the person or the child.
The potential prison sentence if convicted of Penal Code 288 PC/Lewd Acts with a Child, is three, six or eight years in state prison. Further, anyone convicted of this crime is required to, for the rest of their life, register as a sex offender, while living in California, working in California or attending school in California.

Unfortunately, false accusations of child sexual abuse occur more than people realize. If a child makes an allegation of some sort of Lewd and lascivious act, the police and prosecutors typically tend to begin building a case against the accused rather than looking closely at the situation, the child, and what may be going on in the life of both that may have lead to the accusation.

There are situations where children make false accusations. This is done for a number of reasons. One reason might be that there is a new stepparent in the picture and child is unhappy about it. Also, if there is a divorce or custody case pending, one parent may coerce the child into making false accusations or, convince the child that something inappropriate happened.

If you have been falsely accused of a sex crime against a child, or if you think you might be, it is critical that you contact a California Criminal Defense Attorney to protect you and your reputation.

Continue reading →

When a juvenile is charged with a juvenile offense, employing the help of an attorney who has experience specifically in juvenile court will ensure the best outcome for that child. Juvenile court is very different from adult Court. The procedures are different, the language is different and many of the laws are different. Criminal defense attorneys who take the occasional juvenile matter are not going to be as effective in getting the best result for the minor as an attorney who is familiar with the inner workings of the juvenile court system. Further, an attorney experienced in the juvenile courts will have developed relationships with the Judges, district attorneys, court clerks and personnel which gives the attorney an advantage over an attorney who practices primarily adult criminal defense law.

When representing a juvenile, the objective of a good juvenile defense attorney should be: 1) keeping the minor out of custody. The minor should be with their family, in school, and in community where they belong. 2) Keep the offense off the record. When a minor makes a mistake which results in an arrest and/or criminal charges, the objective should be to do whatever possible to get the charges dismissed so that the mistake doesn’t follow them into adulthood; and 3) Help the minor get back on track. Find out what was or is going on in the minor’s life that caused them to get into trouble in the first place. Whether it be drugs, alcohol or hanging around with the wrong crowd, knowing what the triggers are will help determine the best plan for the minor, thereby helping them stay out of trouble in the future, and back on track.

There are many options that do not involve confinement and that allow the juvenile the chance to accept responsibility for what they have done and at the same time preserving their record.

Continue reading →

When a juvenile is charged with a juvenile offense, employing the help of an attorney who has experience specifically in juvenile court will ensure the best outcome for that child. Juvenile court is very different from adult Court. The procedures are different, the language is different and many of the laws are different. Criminal defense attorneys who take the occasional juvenile matter are not going to be as effective in getting the best result for the minor as an attorney who is familiar with the inner workings of the juvenile court system. Further, an attorney experienced in the juvenile courts will have developed relationships with the Judges, district attorneys, court clerks and personnel which gives the attorney an advantage over an attorney who practices primarily adult criminal defense law.

When representing a juvenile, the objective of a good juvenile defense attorney should be: 1) keeping the minor out of custody. The minor should be with their family, in school, and in community where they belong. 2) Keep the offense off the record. When a minor makes a mistake which results in an arrest and/or criminal charges, the objective should be to do whatever possible to get the charges dismissed so that the mistake doesn’t follow them into adulthood; and 3) Help the minor get back on track. Find out what was or is going on in the minor’s life that caused them to get into trouble in the first place. Whether it be drugs, alcohol or hanging around with the wrong crowd, knowing what the triggers are will help determine the best plan for the minor, thereby helping them stay out of trouble in the future, and back on track.

There are many options that do not involve confinement and that allow the juvenile the chance to accept responsibility for what they have done and at the same time preserving their record.

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 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 →