How To Find The Right Criminal Defense Attorney

Torrance has more hundreds of lawyers licensed to practice law. If you have been arrested for a criminal charge, you should be able to find the right attorney if you know where to look. There are numerous resources available, the California State Bar offers consumers tips on finding a legal professional. Here is some direction from their website:

Personal Referral. Maybe you know a lawyer in a town where you used to live. Perhaps a lawyer who works for a corporation lives across the street. These lawyers may be able to refer you to other lawyers who have experience with your type of problem.

You could also ask your friends, co-workers and employers if they know any lawyers. Business owners and professionals such as bankers, ministers, doctors, social workers and teachers might be able to give you the name of a lawyer.

Certified lawyer referral services. You could call a local State Bar-certified lawyer referral service. This type of service refers potential clients to attorneys. After interviewing you, the referral service staff will match you with a lawyer who is experienced in the appropriate area of the law. (There is usually a small charge for the initial consultation with a lawyer.)

For an online list of certified lawyer referral services, visit the State Bar’s Web site at For a recorded message that can provide you with the phone numbers of certified services in your county, call 1-866-44-CA-LAW (1-866-442-2529). If you are out of state, you can call 415-538-2250 to hear the same recorded message. Or check the Yellow Pages of your telephone directory for a listing. (Keep in mind that the service’s State Bar certification number must appear in all advertising.)

State Bar-certified lawyer referral services must meet minimum standards established by the California Supreme Court. And because the State Bar enforces those standards, you could turn to the State Bar if you have a problem with the service. And if you were to file a complaint, the State Bar would look into it. There are other advantages as well. For example, a certified referral service:
Can refer you to a lawyer who has experience in the field of law that relates to your case.
Will refer you to attorneys who are insured. All lawyers who participate in certified lawyer referral services must carry malpractice insurance to protect their clients. This means that if your lawyer does something wrong, and you successfully sue for malpractice, the lawyer will have the ability to pay.
Will screen your call to determine whether you have a legal problem — or need some other type of assistance. And if you do need another type of assistance, the referral service can refer you to government agencies or other organizations that may be better suited to assist you. For example, you might have a problem that could be handled, without charge, by a rent control board or community mediation program.
Will only refer you to an attorney who has met certain standards of experience and is a State Bar member in good standing.
Will only refer you to an attorney who has agreed to do fee arbitration in the event of a fee dispute.
May be able to provide an attorney at a reduced rate. Lawyer referral services are required to make arrangements to serve people with limited means.
May be able to provide you with a bilingual attorney.
For more information on State Bar-certified lawyer referral services, see the State Bar’s consumer education pamphlet What Can a Lawyer Referral Service Do for Me?

Advertisements. You also could check the Yellow Pages, newspaper advertisements or the Internet in your search for an attorney.

Most lawyers choose not to advertise, other than to list their names, addresses and telephone numbers in the Yellow Pages. But lawyers are allowed to advertise in the Yellow Pages, in newspapers and magazines, on the radio and television, on billboards, on the Internet or any place else—as long as the ad does not contain false or misleading information. Lawyers may use ads to list their fields of law. They also may post their fees.

If you decide to call a lawyer featured in an advertisement, keep the ad for reference. If the ad was aired on the radio or television, make notes for your records.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Appeals Court Upholds Criminal Threats Conviction

In everyday life people make threats but they are not taken seriously, in this case the courts found a criminal defendant did in fact violate Penal Code 422 when he threatened to shoot a person during a heated argument. Here are the facts of the case:

A juvenile court found that appellant made a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) based on evidence that he threatened to kill a family friend, during an argument. On appeal, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding. The appeals court upheld the case finding that PC Section 422 requires the threat “on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,” to be “so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened[] a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat.” Appellant’s statements and actions satisfied this element. While upset, he threatened to shoot and kill The person in a loud voice using explicit language. He formed his hand into a gun, placed it into Victims face, and said, “pow, pow, pow” to emphasize his point. Victim testified that he believed appellant could actually shoot him and he called 911 to report the threat. There was no evidence that The victim perceived the statements as mere puffery or as a joke. The prosecution was not required to present evidence that appellant was armed with a gun when he made the threat. The evidence also showed that Victim was in sustained fear for his safety. He testified that he was “in fear,” “scared,” “upset,” and “shaking” immediately after the threat and the evidence demonstrated that his fear continued after he left the scene. Despite the fact that the victim testified that he was not scared of appellant generally, he feared for his safety when appellant lost his temper and the evidence showed that appellant was angry when he threatened The victim.(CCAP)

This case exemplifies how an individual can cross the line during an otherwise verbal exchange. In Torrance Court, people are convicted everyday of criminal offenses even though they say they never intended to hurt anyone, alcohol and other recreational drugs are typically involved in these cases.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

California Court Permits Expungement of Sex Offenses

The California Courts have held some sex crimes can be expunged. Here is one such case, though not a Torrance Case, where the Justices allowed a dismissal and expungement of sex charges: In 1995, Defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement, pleading no contest to violations of Penal Code sections 288, subdivision (c), 288a, subdivision (b)(2), 289, subdivision (i), and 261.5, subdivision (d). Defendant was placed on formal probation, which he successfully completed in 1999. In February, 2013, Smith moved to dismiss the pre-1997 sex offenses under section 1203.4, and that motion was denied. Defendant appealed.

The Appeals Court Held: Under section 1203.4 and subject to certain exclusions, a defendant who has successfully completed probation is entitled as a matter of right to dismissal of his or her convictions. Although section 1203.4 has been amended to prohibit dismissal of convictions for certain sex offenses, convictions under section 289, subdivision (i), and section 288a, subdivision (b)(2) are not excluded under any amendments. Therefore, the trial court erred by denying appellant’s motion to dismiss those convictions.

Trial court correctly denied section 1203.4 relief as to Smith’s section 288, subdivision (c) conviction. Effective 1998, while defendant was still on probation, section 1203.4 was amended to exclude certain offenses from dismissal, including sex offenses under section 288. Because section 1203.4 relief was not an implicit term of Smith’s plea agreement, he is subject to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute. (Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64.) Therefore, Smith was properly disqualified from dismissing his conviction for the violation of section 288.

The Court held defendant may renew constitutional argument regarding relief as to his section 261.5, subdivision (d) conviction on remand. In 2000, after defendant successfully completed probation, the Legislature amended section 1203.4 to prohibit dismissal of convictions for felony violations of section 261.5, subdivision (d).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Process of Retaining A Torrance Criminal Attorney

Many folks require the services of a lawyer to help either themselves or a loved one following an arrest or a criminal charge in Torrance or one of the bordering cities. The process is easy in the age of the internet, particularly for those who do not live in the area or lack the time to come into the office.

First, contact the attorney and discuss the circumstances of your individual case, whether it be a DUI, public intoxication, domestic violences or other criminal charge. A fee will be quoted to handle the case through a certain stage of the proceedings. In most misdemeanor cases the attorney will charge a flat fee to handle the case from start to finish, barring any appeals or post judgement matters such as probation violations or collateral cases.

The following is a typical overview of representation for a PC 647f or drunk in public defense in Torrance Court:

First, we’ll send you out a retainer agreement in the form of a PDF file that is easy to download a view, the retainer should be filled out and returned to the attorney along with any additional documents that pertain to the case such as a notice to appear or bail bond paperwork.

Once we receive the retainer agreement we will open a file and commence work on the case. The first step is to schedule the Court date, we will usually go to Court for you on that day and protect your rights by entering a not guilty plea or continue the arraignment to work out a resolution with the prosecution. The case will likely proceed to another Court date where the lawyer will also show up and dispose of the case either by way of a dismissal or a negotiated disposition.

The purpose of hiring a law firm in these cases is to resolve the case to avoid a conviction for a misdemeanor which may haunt you for a long time. Our goal is to get the charges dismissed so that you or your loved one does not need to suffer the stigma of a criminal record.

Most public intoxication cases in Manhattan Beach can be dismissed upon the satisfactory completion of certain conditions such as attendance in AA or payment of booking fees to the city.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wife’s Testimony Before Grand Jury Does Not Waive Spousal Privilege At Subsequent Trial

The common law right to not be forced to testify against a Spouse is Alive and well in California Criminal Courts. In many cases a husband or wife cannot be compelled to testify against one another in Court. This case stands for the proposition that if one does testify at a grand jury proceeding they do not waive it later for trial.

The defendant drove a stolen van around San Francisco one night, transporting his wife and two acquaintances to various locations where the acquaintances committed robberies. After the fourth robbery, police spotted the van and attempted to stop it. A high speed chase resulted in a collision that killed an officer. At trial, the defendant’s wife testified against him over a defense objection under the spousal testimonial privilege. The trial court found that the wife waived the privilege by testifying under subpoena before a grand jury. the accused was convicted of felony murder with special circumstances, four counts of robbery, and other crimes. On appeal he challenged admission of his wife’s testimony. The appeals Court threw out the conviction. Waiver of the spousal testimonial privilege is governed by Evidence Code section 973, which provides that “a married person who testifies in a proceeding to which his spouse is a party, or who testifies against his spouse in any proceeding, does not have a privilege . . . in the proceeding in which such testimony is given.”

In California, the grand jury is an investigative body, which, if it finds probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, prepares an indictment. A grand jury proceeding is not adversarial and an indicted person is not deemed to have been a “party” to the proceedings. Additionally, a criminal prosecution is a different “proceeding” from grand jury proceedings and any waiver resulting from grand jury testimony does not carry over to a criminal trial. The grand jury’s limited role in the charging process distinguishes it from a subsequent criminal proceeding, which does not even exist before the indictment is filed. The error in allowing the appellant’s wife’s testimony was prejudicial in connection with three of the robberies. (Thanks CCAP)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Unlawful DUI Arrest? You be the Judge.

The police often respond to situations where the accused has arrived home and is inside the house believed to have driven while under the influnce, The question becomes whether the suspect is lawfully arrested if the officers enter the home without a search warrant, here is one such recent Torrance case where the client is facing charges of DWI and the defense attorney intends to challenge the legality of the contact:

The facts are pretty amazing: The accused drives home, almost hits several vehicles but does not collide anything. No scratches or anything to the car. She is followed home by a civilian witness. Client parks her car sideways on her driveway, goes into her house. Torrance police are called. Officers say the front door of the house was open so they went inside. Asleep downstairs was client’s daughter, who was awoken by the announcement of ” POLICE!” They ask who was driving the car, the daughter looks and says it’s her mom’s car. They ask where the mom is, she says upstairs. They go upstairs, finds the defendant, aka mom in bed, pulls her out. They have the civilian witnesses go inside my client’s house to ID my client because the client couldn’t walk to the doorway and is displaying obvious signs of intoxication.

All of this is presumably illegal since there is no search warrant for the house, no one gave permission to enter. The end result was the defendant’s BAC is nearly 4 times the legal limit in California. Many lawyers would be optimistic about the facts of this case but would be cautious based on many Judge’s implied bias that the accused is a drunk and should get a DUI. Is the arrest for DUI tacitly illegal? No search warrant for the house was obtained, no one gave permission to enter. The end result was the client’s BAC is well above the legal limit. A motion to contest the arrest is to follow, what is the likely result, you be the Judge.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are Hermosa Beach Prosecutions For Urinating in Public Legal?

Many folks who visit downtown Hermosa Beach indulge, some may even overindulge in the consumption of alcohol. Indeed, this type of behavior is encouraged by the local bar owners who derive a great deal of money from this activity. What about those who need to relieve themselves of the booze and cannot find adequate bathroom facilities? The end result could be a criminal arrest and prosecution by the city of Hermosa Beach.
The usual statute that they use is Penal Code 372 which is maitaining a public nuisance. Some say this statute is vague and it is not intended to be used to prosecute those who need to pee in public due to an emergency. Is the act a criminal offense that should result in a Torrance Court appearance?

There is at least one California case that addresses this question, the case deals with an arrest for PC 372 for urinating in public that led to the discovery of narcotics. The Justices upheld the conviction due to the initial arrest of peeing in public. The high court held that peeing in public is illegal because it constitutes a “public nuisance” and hence violates Section 370 and 372. The Judges do not say that such conduct always constitutes a nuisance, But, in the end, the Court holds that peeing in public is illegal because it constitutes a “public nuisance” and hence violates Section 370 and 372.


Yes, a public nuisance in violation of Penal Code section 372. Not indecent exposure or intoxication crimes. Now, as you might expect, the Justices do not say that such conduct always constitutes a nuisance, and he expressly “doesn’t reach” the question whether a hiker who has to go really, really bad and hence pisses on a trail has done anything illegal. What about the otherwise law-abiding citizen who finds a private spot in a parking lot or alley to relieve themselves? Indeed, this type of behavior in and of itself is not per se criminal, it is just the time and place that makes the conduct reprehensible.

Some argue the use of PC 372 violates due process. Some legal scholars have expresses concern by a statute that prohibits (largely-undefined) public nuisances, and especially as applied to public urination. Does such a criminal prohibition really give adequate notice of the acts governed by this statute sufficient to comply with the Due Process Clause? Particularly as applied to an act that the Legislature could easily prohibit with express language, this seems to me a tough question. Plus, the “hiker” hypothetical that the California appeals court fails to reach only deepens the constitutional problem. If — and I think this is right — peeing in the woods wouldn’t constitute a public nuisance, then why does peeing in a dark and empty parking lot (in front of a closed restaurant) violate the statute? More significantly, what’s the clear dividing line between the two, and how does the statute give adequate notice of this distinction? Many believe that there’s a strong argument that it doesn’t, and that the statue, as applied by the Court might well be constitutionally deficient. Moreover, There’s a legitimate argument that the Legislature would not have intended Sections 370 and 372 to apply to public urination. Look for example at CA Penal Code Section 640, which was the statute that the Legislature in fact passed regarding peeing in public. That statute makes it an infraction — not a true criminal offense to urinate on a public bus. Some say the laws specifically penalize that conduct but exclude the parking lot hypothetical because the lawmakers did not intend to criminalize that conduct. It may be that if the initial contact was precipitated by a public intoxication investigation then it is deemed more serious. In the end, the city of Hermosa Beach prosecutes these offense due to the pressure put on them by local homeowners who are outraged when a person releases urine in their backyard, streets and public parking lots which produces a long lasting odor that offends and itself creates a public nuisance, understandably so.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment