Torrance Criminal Defense Attorney

When one state charges a person with a crime, and the person is found in California, the state must extradite the person upon a proper request from the requesting state’s Governor. Intent or motive to evade prosecution do not matter, only the change in location.  Although the language in the relevent law states that the defendant must be shown to have escaped or violated the conditions of bail, probation or parole, courts have interpreted that language to be merely illustrative and not comprehensive. Thus, a person can be a fugitive without knowing that charges have been filed, or without knowing that a crime has been committed, or if the person was removed forcibly from the state. The only exception is that the defendant’s presence in the demanding state at the time of the crimes must have been actual and personal, not constructive.  If the defendant commits a crime in the demanding state without being present there (such as by being a conspirator or accomplice to another’s crime), the Governor of the asylum state has discretion to grant or deny the extradition request.

Federal law requires California’s Governor to issue an extradition arrest warrant upon receipt of a written demand alleging that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the crime and thereafter fled, accompanied by an authenticated copy of the indictment, information, arrest warrant and affidavit or judgment of sentence. Upon arrest, the extraditee must be taken before a judge where he is informed of the demand and the charge and his right to counsel. He may waive his right to oppose extradition (commonly called a “waiver of extradition). If he does not waive extradition, the court will fix a reasonable time to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. According to one Torrance Criminal Lawyer. if probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed a crime in another state or escaped or broke the terms of his bail, probation or parole, then the defendant also may be arrested and detained to await the issuance of the extradition warrant.  However, this detention may last only for a 30 day period, which a court can extend for another 60 days if the asylum state’s Governor has not issued an extradition warrant.

How long does the other state have to pick the defendant up? Once the extradition warrant issues, the demanding state has 30 days to collect the defendant.  However, the filing of a habeas petition tolls that period. Release for violations of this 30-day period is discretionary, not mandatory.  If you have a loved one in jail in Torrance or anywhere else in Los Angeles, call Torrance Attorney Matthew Ruff for help.

For anyone facing deportation due to a criminal conviction, it is important to obtain a dismissal of the case, the best way is to obtain a nunc pro tunc dismissal.  This order makes the judgment final as of the date it would have become final had it been entered when it could have been entered. A criminal court judge can issue this type of order to avoid injustice, for example, that would result to a party whose rights are threatened by a delay (in entering the judgment) that is not his or her fault.

The California Appeals Court has held that a nunc pro tunc reduction of defendant’s sentence is not permitted to avoid deportation. This California Court of Appeal reversed the nunc pro tunc order reducing the sentence from 365 days to 364 days. According to the court, a nunc pro tunc order should be limited to correcting clerical errors. The fact that the federal immigration laws changed did not justify the sentence reduction. Furthermore, the court stated, while it is true that in 1996 significant changes in immigration law took place, including the preclusion of lawful permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies from obtaining relief from deportation, that is not a problem to be addressed in state court. Federal courts are the appropriate venue for such issues. Consequently, even though an immigration judge will honor a nunc pro tunc order where the sentence is modified (reduced), if appealed by the prosecution in a state court, the order will probably be reversed.  If the District Attorney is amenable, and if the judge will go along with it, a nunc pro tunc order vacating the plea to modify it to something without immigration consequences should work because an immigration judge will honor a nunc pro tunc order.

A frequent question asked by clients facing a petty theft or shoplifting charges is whether they should pay the demand by the store for “costs” following an arrest. The letter you received was a “civil demand” letter oftentimes from a law firm, or a division of the store itself, that does nothing but send out these intimidating letters after a shoplifting incident, trying to get hundreds of dollars from the accused. Indeed, the California Penal Code has a provision that allows a merchant to make a demand of up to $500 from an individual accused of shoplifting in their store to recover “damages”. Those stores sometimes contract with law firms to crank out form letters, demanding outrageous sums of money. They hope you’ll either think it will prevent criminal charges from being filed (it won’t) or that it will mean that criminal charges will be dropped (they won’t).

The general consensus in the legal community is that the law firms that send these letters almost never do anything if you don’t pay. One particular firm was quoted recently saying that they send out well over a million letters a year, but rarely file any actual lawsuits. The odds are overwhelming that if you ignore their letter (and the two or three that will follow with increasing amounts demanded), they will in many instances just drop it. You see, they know that even if they were to file a small claims case against you, they likely wouldn’t get anything in a judgment or if they did, it would be far less than the hundreds of dollars they’re asking for and it just isn’t worth their time.  There have been instances where the store will go so far as to place a negative entry on the accused credit report, though this is rare and probably illegal unless you agreed to pay the amount or conceded the debt in some other manner.

Are they entitled to the money? Probably not. Here is why, the store recovered the merchandise in undamaged condition and simply put it right back on the shelf to be resold. Their actual damages are almost always nothing. The store personnel involved in this situation were already on the clock, so no extra salary was paid to deal with you. Consequently, their actual damages are arguably zero.

Here is the bottom line.  Paying it, should you feel compelled to, will guarantee that they won’t file that lawsuit against you or continue to hound you for the money by sending letter after letter causing you much stress and worry.

This civil demand has absolutely nothing to do with criminal charges of petty theft or shoplifting. If there is any actual restitution, you’ll be required to pay that amount (not some inflated amount) through the Court.

One thing though is for sure, if you contact the store or the law firm/collection agency seeking the money then they’ll know they’ve got you on the hook. By engaging with them in any way, either by phone or by mail), they will feel they have somebody who’s willing to pay them and they will keep up their efforts to collect from you. You could advertently say something that could be construed as an agreement to pay, turning this into a different situation.

Either pay the amount demanded, if that gives you peace of mind, or ignore them completely. Paying off the demand is not an admission of guilt. The choice is yours.   The most important thing is allowing your criminal defense attorney to focus on the charges in Court. 

Juvenile offenders have unique rules and legal ramifications with regard to criminal offenses.  For example, in juvenile court, the judge may condition probation on the child’s not being present in any gang gathering area when the child is a self-confessed member of a gang and the offense was a result of gang activity as long as the court specifies that the prohibition applies to an area known to the ward as a gang area.  It may also restrict entry into a certain county when a juvenile has participated in gang activities in that county. California law has found that the condition is consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile probation.  But the area to be avoided must be specified; thus a condition prohibiting being in an area of known “gang-related activity” must be modified in such a way that the probation officer specifies the areas to be avoided, according to one Juvenile Defense Attorney.  Moreover, the court may require that the child not associate with gangs as a condition of probation even when the child does not yet have a gang affiliation; it is sufficient that the child is in danger of succumbing to gang pressures. In setting forth probation conditions prohibiting association with gang members or wearing gang paraphernalia, the court must specify that in order to violate the condition, the ward must be aware that the associate or piece of clothing is connected with a gang.

In a new release posted last week, the Los Angeles Superior Court announced plans for the most significant reduction of services in its history. By June 30, 2012, the Court will reduce its staff by nearly 350 workers, close 56 courtrooms, reduce its use of court reporters and eliminate the Informal Juvenile Traffic Courts.  This huge cut will no doubt be felt by the public seeking redress by the local courts, such as the South Bay Court in Torrance.

According to Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon, “Staffing reductions due to budget cuts over the past 10 years have forced our court to reduce staffing by 24%, while case filings continue to increase. This has created incredible pressures on our court to keep up with our work. We cannot endure these pressures for much longer.”

In the current year, additional staffing reductions are required to deal with the fact that the state’s budget crisis has resulted in a reduction to the California judicial branch of $652 million. The Court has managed its share of these cuts by spending down year-end fund balances, freezing wages, furloughing court staff, and eliminating staff positions, achieving $70 million in ongoing savings as of last fiscal year.

“This year, the state cuts are forcing us to reduce our spending by an additional $30 million – on top of the $70 million in reductions we have already made,” notes Edmon. “There will be as many as 350 dedicated, skilled court workers who will no longer be serving the residents of Los Angeles County. When we lose those people, we will no longer be able to shield the core work of the court – the courtroom – from the budget crisis.”

The $30 million cutback in resources, which will take effect by June 30, 2012, has four components:

First, the Los Angeles Superior Court is closing 56 courtrooms, a move made necessary by the depth and breadth of the reductions. The courtrooms being impacted include 24 civil, 24 criminal, 3 family, 1 probate, and 4 juvenile delinquency courts. The caseloads of those courtrooms are being distributed among the remaining courtrooms. The loss of the criminal courtrooms will indeed place a heavier burden on the already overworked Judges and courtroom staff that try criminal matters of all types

Second, on May 15, 2012, the Los Angeles Superior Court will no longer provide court reporters for civil trials. In addition, after June 18, 2012, court reporters will be available for civil law-and-motion matters on a limited basis. (No changes are being made to the provision of court reporters in criminal, family, probate, delinquency or dependency matters.)

Third, the Court is again making significant reductions to its non-courtroom staff. Having made 329 layoffs and lost another 229 court staff through attrition over the past two years, the Court anticipates making more than 100 additional non-courtroom staff reductions by June 30, 2012. “Our judges and staff have shown incredible dedication and commitment in keeping the court running during these past two years. But these new reductions will not allow it to be business as usual. There will be longer lines at clerk’s windows across the county and slower responses to the public’s needs across the court,” said Edmon.  These longer lines will undoubtedly leave a bad taste in the mouths of the public visiting the Courts to obtain records and information about access to the Judicial System.

Fourth, the Court will eliminate its Informal Juvenile Traffic Court program (IJTC). IJTC is an innovative program in which minors who commit low-level offenses are held to account for their actions by the court and by their parents – but outside of the traditional delinquency system. “These courts have allowed us to address tens of thousands of offenses in a more appropriate forum than delinquency court,” said Assistant Presiding Judge David Wesley. “We are losing a crucial element of the juvenile justice system to lack of funding.” This program took offenses such as minor in possession of alcohol and shoplifting out of the formal Juvenile Delinquency Court, the loss of this program will impact any first time juvenile offender who hoped to get a second chance

In Torrance Court, the most immediate impact to the criminal court calendar is the change of Division P and Criminal Division 6.  These courts hear most of the DUI cases and other misdemeanor cases in Torrance and Gardena.  It would seem that what was once the work of two Judges and staff will now be handled by one Judge and one set of staff.

Once known only to federal courts, namely the FBI, the use of covert search warrants has seen increased usage in California State Courts. A covert search warrant authorizes governmental agents to enter a a home or other building when nobody is present, to search for specific evidence and possibly photograph or videotape it, and to leave without taking anything or giving notice that a search occurred. There is no California law upholding the use of covert search warrants, in fact some legal scholars believe them to be illegal under state law. Some federal courts have ruled that police officers who use a covert warrant can take and use non-physical evidence(such as visual images and information that evidence exists). The case that supports this proposition is United States. v Freitas (9th Cir 1986) 800 F2d 1451, 1455. Federal Judges and Magistrates that allow covert search warrants recommend delaying notice that the search occurred for up to seven days. More recent federal law permits up to 30 days’ delayed notice as amended by USA PATRIOT Act; Fed Crim Rule 41(f)(3). Federal law intimates the following procedural safeguards when allowing this type of warrant: 1).The probable cause affidavit must show that a covert search is peculiarly necessary; and 2).Special instructions must authorize a covert search and excuse compliance with notice requirements until a specified date.

In the Trayvon Martin case, we saw the defendant George Zimmerman ask for bail in order to be released from jail.  How does California treat criminal offenders with respect to bail?  According to the Judge’s Benchguide, Zimmerman would have a right to bail here.   Indeed, bail allows a defendant to be released from actual custody on the posting of a bond, cash deposit, or other security deemed necessary to guarantee the defendant’s appearance in court. The word “bail” as used in the statutes has several different meanings. It may refer to the security posted for the defendant’s appearance , to the surety or bonding company who posts the security , or to the process of releasing the defendant . When bail is in the form of an undertaking, it is usually referred to as a bail or surety bond. When it is in the form of a deposit of money, the term “cash bail” is used. “Admission to bail” is the order of a competent court or magistrate that the defendant be discharged from custody on the posting of bail.  The acceptance of bail by the court or magistrate is called the “taking of bail.”

A defendant, unlike George Zimmerman,  who is charged with a noncapital offense may be admitted to bail before conviction as a matter of right. However, one Torrance Criminal Lawyer tells us that the California Constitution curtails this right under the following circumstances:

• If the defendant is charged with a violent felony or a felony sexual assault offense when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that there is a substantial likelihood the person’s release would result in great bodily harm to others, or

• If the defendant is charged with any felony when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the person has threatened another with great bodily injury and that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant will carry out the threat if released The phrase “when the facts are evident or the presumption great” has been defined as follows: “It is not necessary that the evidence should be so convincing as to justify a verdict against the accused, but it is sufficient if it points to him and induces the belief that he may have committed the offense charged.”

In determining whether there is a “substantial likelihood” that the defendant will cause great bodily injury to another if released, A Torrance Criminal Court Judge, for example,  must review the specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis.  Penal Code §292 designates certain sex offenses as felony offenses involving acts of violence and great bodily harm for the purpose of determining defendant’s right to release on bail under the CA Constitution.