Monder Law Group - News

The Suge Knight Case and Understanding What it Means to Have the Choice of Criminal Defense Counsel of Your Choosing

Marion “Suge” Knight is known for being a West Coast Hip-Hop mogul, and the CEO of “Death Row Records.” Knight has been sent to prison multiple times for crimes from the possession of drugs to aggravated assault. Knight has most recently been arrested for a murder charge. He allegedly tried to run two men down in his vehicle in a parking lot of a fast food restaurant, one man was killed, and the other was seriously injured. Knight turned himself in the next morning and has been in the Los Angeles jail since January 2015. The bail for Knight has been set at a staggering $10 million, which was reduced from $25 million, the trial has been delayed multiple times and is now currently set for May of 2017. During the course of two years, Knight has changed his choice of counsel six times. He has had famous defense attorneys Thomas Measerau, Stephan Schwatz represent him, and now currently his legal team is Antoine D. Williams, Jamal Tooson, and Jeremy Lessem.

Currently, Knight is on his sixth Attorney, in late April he retained the law firm of Lessem, Newstat & Tooson, LLP. The law firm is located in Southern California and have vast experience in criminal trials. It has been speculated that Knight is stalling his trial date, or trying to get an unfair advantage over the prosecution by changing his counsel multiple times over the past two years, however, it is embedded in the United States Constitution that one has the right to change a counsel as Knight has practiced. When the California Supreme Court first interpreted the sixth amendment of the Constitution they stated that, “ A Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to substitute new counsel without giving the defendant opportunity to state specific examples of allegedly inadequate representation deprived the defendant of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.” People v. Marsden 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970).  Because of this case, there was now an outline provided on how the California Supreme Court would handle a defendant discharging their counsel. However, there would be a more descriptive guide on the reasoning of the courts on this right, and how it should be adopted from now on. “Right to counsel of choice, including right to discharge retained counsel, furthers dual goals of due process: ensuring reliability of guilt-determining process by reducing to minimum the possibility that innocent person will be punished, and protecting ideal of human individuality by affirming state’s duty to refrain from unreasonable interference with defendant’s desire to defend himself in whatever manner he deems best.” People v. Ortiz 51 Cal.3d 975 (1990). Because Knight wishes “defends himself in whatever manner he deems best,” he is allowed to change his counsel as he wishes to do so. This case analogizes the right to dismiss counsel is the same as the right to counsel.  So, with Knight changing his counsel multiple times over the two year span of his time in jail it is looked at on similar right as him exercising his right of choice of attorney.

However, the law differentiates between a defendant who has retained an attorney themselves and one who had one appointed to them by the court. “[An] indigent criminal defendant who is seeking to substitute one appointed attorney for another must demonstrate either that first appointed attorney is providing inadequate representation, or that he and attorney are embroiled in irreconcilable conflict.” People v. Ortiz 51 Cal.3d 975 (1990). Because of the need to show an inadequate representation, this puts a higher burden on a defendant with appointed counsel than one who retained their own.

This is different from Knights case because he has a retained counsel, in which he sought out and hired himself.  Because all of Knights attorneys in which he had dismissed have all been retained the Ortiz case standard above, stating that defendant “must demonstrate either that first appointed attorney is providing inadequate representation…or irreconcilable conflict,” would not apply to Knight. 

Because the right to discharge retained counsel is broader than the right to discharge appointed counsel, a Marsden-type hearing at which the court determines whether counsel is providing adequate representation or is tangled in irreconcilable differences with the defendant is an inappropriate vehicle in which to consider [the defendant’s] complaints against his retained counsel. Instead, under the applicable test for retained counsel, the court should “balance the defendant’s interest in new counsel against the disruption, if any, flowing from the substitution.” (People v. Lara, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 153, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 201.) In so doing, the court “must exercise its discretion reasonably: ‘a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality.

People v. Keshishian 162 Cal.App.4th 425 (2008). Because of the broader scope for retained counsel Knight would not have to show any signs of inadequate counsel, instead, it would be up to the court to exercise discretion.   In Keshishian, the court decided that they would not permit the change of counsel for the defendant. However, this was a very different situation from Knights, because the Defendant in Keshishian wanted to change their counsel last minute which would delay the start date of trial, and offered the statement that they “lost confidence” in their attorney. Because Knights request to change counsel was not last minute, this change should be allowed since it would fall in a reasonable time. Also, Knights trial date has been delayed mostly by his current health issues, not from a change of counsel which is a common misconception of the delay in trial date. Thus, because of the reasons above, Knight was acting within his constitutional rights with changing his retained counsel.

After the court, has approved the change the next step could be problematic for the defendant and the new counsel. Although in one case the evidence was ordered to be given to the new counsel that day, if the Defendant is unsure of who his new counsel is or cannot finance one then, “[Defendant] offers no barrier to appointment of previously discharged counsel: appointment of counsel is properly in the discretion of the court and frequently, as here, it may be a more efficient use of both time and money to appoint the attorney who represented the defendant in an earlier proceeding than to begin again with a new attorney.” People v. Ortiz 51 Cal.3d 975, (1990). The court looks to keep the trial and timeline as close as possible to the original set, even if means bringing in an attorney that is familiar with the case. The specifics of Knights case are unclear but, he has had one defense attorney who remained on counsel but was no longer the leading attorney. This could be because the attorney may be able to smooth over the transition, or possibly been an easier pitch to the court when he brought on the new counsel.

An issue of confidentiality may arise after the attorney is dismissed, especially in Knights situation. Because Knight is charged with murder and he hired multiple attorneys, one would assume that all the talks that occurred were confidential accordingly,

 If a privilege is claimed on the ground that the matter sought to be disclosed is a communication made in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client, lawyer referral service-client, physician-patient, psychotherapist-patient, clergy-penitent, marital or domestic partnership, sexual assault counselor-victim, domestic violence counselor-victim, or human trafficking caseworker-victim relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential.

Evid. Code, § 917. But, this is different from the code above because Knight would be a former client. So even though there was a privilege or confidence would it still be applicable once the attorney is dismissed. “After severing the relationship with the former client, the attorney may not do anything which will injuriously affect the former client in any matter in which attorney formerly represented client nor may attorney at any time use against former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the attorney-client relationship.” Earl Scheib, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County 253 Cal.App.2d 703 (1967). However, even though Knight is a former client to his past attorneys, none of the information given to them can be used against him. Thus, the privilege still stands even after the relationship has ended.

Therefore, changing counsel can vary depending on appointed or retained counsel, and procedure and evidence protocol can alternate after the substitution of counsel.

If you have questions about choosing the best criminal defense attorney for your criminal case in San Diego, feel free to contact San Diego Criminal Lawyer Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

Dead end caffeine DUI case dropped against Fairfield California man

With the jury trial date that had been set for January 11th, the Solano County District Attorney dropped the misdemeanor DUI charge Joseph Schwab was saddled with in 2015. What started out as a typical drive home, ended up as something more when a California Alcoholic Beverage Control agent in an unmarked car claimed Schwab cut off her vehicle. The agent further reported he then proceeded to drive recklessly, including weaving in and out of traffic, a clear danger to other motorists. Nothing of note was found inside his vehicle, and toxicology tests only revealed caffeine levels. Despite this, prosecutors originally were determined to proceed. As a result of the ensuing national media attention the DA’s office appeared on the defensive, indicated by their press release after the DUI charge was dismissed.

Solano County prosecutors have stuck to their guns regarding the reason for the charge, despite the media explosion over 18 months after the occurrence of the alleged crime. The delay was due to a ten month long attempt for dismissal of charges that ultimately failed as the case proceeded on to trial scheduling in June 2016. The DA’s office insists the case itself was never about caffeine, and the arresting officer had a hefty compilation of observed behavior that significantly impacted their original decision to proceed with the case. Naturally they were forced to relent in what would have been an uphill battle of prosecution when the majority of evidence remained in Schwab’s favor.

Schwab’s original breathalyzer testing results were reportedly 0%, without even the slightest hint of blood alcohol level to be found in his system. Following that, standard blood testing was performed post-arrest, once again resulting in a toxicology report that was negative for all tested substances with the exception of caffeine. Despite this, Schwab was still booked into county jail, business as usual for many DUI arrests. Desperation testing at an additional lab, across the country in Pennsylvania, confirmed those same results. It would appear that media spotlight pressure played a large part in the dropping of the case against the defendant as even with zero chemical proof the DA’s office was intent on surging toward seeking a conviction. No new evidence had been revealed since that time, but understandably, the attention the case has received so close to trial date has turned it around.

In all fairness to DA’s office, they are correct that DUI is not about what substance you are under the influence of, but instead about the danger you present with your reckless and impaired driving. This is the reason individuals can be convicted of a DUI for normal, legal medications such as Benadryl or cough medicines. In that respect, it would neither be impossible or illegal to proceed forward with a case against a reckless driver with only caffeine in his or her system. However, proving said impairment is likely to be hard, not to mention the array of skeptic specialists likely to line up for the defense against the unheard of assertion. Forensic toxicologist Edwin Smith is one of those specialists, asserting that caffeine is most likely to improve driving ability if it affects it at all.

The question remains, was Schwab destined for a DUI conviction if his case hadn’t reached critical mass in the media? It is possible but improbable. The chemical testing evidence is regarded very heavily in many DUI cases, and in this example the prosecution essentially provided the defense an advantage with the negative reports. That said, officer testimony and observations still count for something and are genuinely trusted indisputably unless evidence to the contrary can be found. DUI with drugs is very subjective in nature, giving individual observations greater importance. It was alleged that Schwab was quite combative during the duration of the traffic stop, and his field sobriety test performance was not up to par for passing. Arresting officers need to make decisions based on their own observations and this combined with his alleged erratic driving is sufficient to make the determination.

In all likelihood, the charge would never have stood, provided the defendant hired a knowledgeable and experienced DUI defense attorney. The implications of a conviction for the majority of drivers who zip around daily under the influence of coffee, soda or other caffeinated substances would certainly prove interesting. Ultimately the pursuit of charges was not deemed worth it given the circumstances of the case. According to ABC 7 News, in her recent press release, Solano County District Attorney Krishna Abrams said: “After further consideration, without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt”. That statement indicates a belief that there was possibly additional drug use that could not be detected by a standard toxicology result. Even if this were the case, at over 18 months after the original occurrence it would not be worth the time or effort to pursue the theory, especially for only a misdemeanor charge.

If convicted of a misdemeanor DUI, Schwab would be facing an assortment of penalties both criminal and otherwise. While first time DUI penalties are rarely steep, depending on your choice of career they can have far-reaching effects. Typically, the minimum penalties for a first time misdemeanor DUI include:

• $1,800 in penalties, including necessary DUI assessments
• Informal probation for three to five years
• Three months of DUI school at the cost of $500, paid by you
• Six months of administrative license suspension via the DMV
• Up to six months in county jail

Alternative sentencing can be an option, especially for first-time offenders and those with no other problematic history. This result is only likely to occur with a defense attorney who will represent you effectively, which is far less likely when settling for the services of a public defender. When your criminal record and potentially your freedom is on the line, hiring professional representation could keep you out of jail and even get your charges dismissed. Very few DUI charged defendants can garner the national media attention gained by this case, which no doubt impacted it’s dismissal. However, every individual can work to secure themselves a skilled DUI defense attorney who will fight to achieve the same result, especially in cases of such unjust charges.

Criminal defense attorney Vik Monder has the skills necessary to win your case. With countless DUI victories under his belt, his expertise is unmatched when it comes to finding the weaknesses in the evidence against you. With Vik Monder you will always receive only the finest representation, an attorney unafraid to challenge false statements by officers and to retain expert witnesses in your defense. If you are in need of a criminal defense attorney for your DUI or other criminal case, contact Vik Monder for your free consultation at 619-405-0063 or visit our website at San Diego Criminal Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

Understanding Probation Violation Hearings in San Diego County and What it Means to Violate Probation

It is more common that you think that people will violate at some point while on probation. The probation department in San Diego will find any way possible to violate you on the terms and conditions of probation.

What is Probation in San Diego County?

Probation is a form of supervisory sentencing that a judge may impose instead of jail time that can be informal or formal. Most informal probation requires no checking in with a probation officer and is often times referred to as summary probation. The only way to violate summary probation is by picking up a new criminal case. While formal probation has more stringent terms that needs to be followed for an extended period of time where a probation officer meets with the individual on a monthly basis to verify if everything is being completed. This may often require drug classes and urine tests to be in compliance with probation.

How long is Probation in San Diego County?

Probation does vary but often times last anywhere from 3 years to 5 years in San Diego. It may be broken into formal and informal during parts but you always have an opportunity to terminate probation early under Penal Code 1203.3 if you at least halfway done with no violations.

How does Someone Violate on Probation in San Diego County?

There are many ways someone may violate the terms and conditions while on probation in San Diego. The most common ways are as follows: failure to pay fines; failure to appear at probation office for check-in; failure to comply with a court order; committed a new crime while on probation; not submitting to drug tests, or testing dirty on drug tests.

These are some of the many ways that you may violate while on probation. If you are determined by probation as being in violation, then will request that the court issue a warrant for your arrest to be sentenced on the probation violation. As an experienced criminal defense attorney, we are highly skilled at clearing warrants for possible warrants issued as well as get you out of custody if you are arrested for a probation violation.

The probation office will ask the court for a recommended sentence for the probation violation. It is your attorney’s job to try and get you reinstated on the same terms and conditions of probation even after the violation. Additional classes or community service or fines paid would be helpful in making arguments on your behalf before going in before a court to make a final decision in your case.

What will happen at the Probation Violation Hearing in the San Diego Court?

A superior court judge will hear the merits of the probation violation to determine if there is clear and convincing evidence that you in fact violated the terms and conditions of probation. It is possible to ask for a probation modification at that hearing or ask for an evidentiary hearing to cross-examine witnesses that will be testifying against you. If you waive the evidentiary hearing, then you will be required to argue for a minimal sentence and counter the recommendation from probation. Often times probation will generate a report at that initial hearing as to what they think an appropriate sentence would be under the circumstances. It is important to hire an experienced lawyer who can make the determination of whether or not a sentence is not greater than necessary to achieve a punitive sanction that will not result in extra time in custody for minimal conduct. Most of the time these probation violations do not result in additional crimes being charged. However, it is important to put a mitigation packet together for the court to consider all the positive influences in your life such as resume, character letters, and additional classes if necessary to show you are going above and beyond what is asked from probation to rectify the reasons you find yourself in the San Diego judicial system.

If you have questions about your probation violation hearing in San Diego, feel free to contact San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney

Monder Law Group - News

San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Vik Monder Makes National News on the Jahi Turner Case

https://crimewatchdaily.com/2017/01/27/stepdad-charged-in-2002-murder-of-2-year-old-jahi-turner/

Monder Law Group - News

San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Vik Monder Makes National News on the Jahi Turner Case

https://crimewatchdaily.com/2017/01/27/stepdad-charged-in-2002-murder-of-2-year-old-jahi-turner/

Monder Law Group - News

President Trump Executive Order on Criminal Immigration Cases in San Diego

What does the President Executive Orders Mean for Criminal Immigration Cases?

Understanding Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States Executive Order:

This kind of executive order is unlike any executive order in United States history. The ramifications of this order will have a significant impact in many San Diego criminal cases. While practicing criminal defense in San Diego there are many clients who face immigration consequences for the criminal charges that are alleged. The impact will be significant on any non-citizen facing any array of charges both in federal court and state superior court.

The purpose of the executive order is to build a closer relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. The implementation of the order will depend on how both offices conduct their day-to-day activity according to the new executive guidelines.

The Implication of the guidelines of the Executive Order is as follows:

1. Defendants who would not have been a priority for ICE enforcement before are now high priorities for removal prior to any conviction. There was once a 3-tier ICE enforcement priority under the Obama Administration. However, it has now changed to treat everyone on the ICE list as a high priority for removal. It is important to note that ICE cannot deport people who are currently in valid immigration status. Absence of any conviction, an individual cannot lose his or her immigration standing for being arrested or charged with a crime in San Diego. The conduct is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act. Most people are deported based on the conviction of a criminal offense. The Executive Order has now broadened the offenses that are deportable even simple misdemeanor offenses. It is really going to depend on the risk to public safety. The Executive Order does not give any credence to green card holders and will treat everyone as similarly situated for purposes of removal. ICE and CBP practices will change when defendants are released on bond. In many cases, even if a defendant has an immigration hold on them while on bond they will be deported before the criminal case is completed. Prior to this order the ICE holds would fall off if the defendant was in custody and ICE did not pick them up. As soon as the ICE hold is released the bond would be posted in the case. Now this executive order is making it more difficult for ICE holds to be lifted prior to the bond being places.
2. It is important to hire an attorney with a background in both immigration and criminal defense. These cases can be tough when dealing with different government agencies trying to punish an individual at every angle. Now all immigration and criminal government agencies are now required to work with one another in identifying and reporting all defendant’s immigration status in all criminal cases. This will be done by collecting quarterly reports on all non-citizens being held in detention facilities throughout San Diego.
3. The current Priority Enforcement Program set up by the Obama Administration is called “PEP” and this executive order is going to scrap that program and create a new one through the Trump Administration. The new program is called Secure Communities Program or “S-Comm.” Under the previous administration program, ICE was able to determine citizenship bond holds through fingerprint cases using 1-247N detainer forms. This new program makes every case impossible to request a release on bond.

Other aspects of the order will to prosecute all noncitizens of the United States through the federal courts. This means putting more of a budget to the Department of Justice to have the resources to take on more cases. The DOJ is focused on targeting individuals from countries who appear to be a threat to the national security of the United States. This means hiring more agents and law enforcement to utilize all aspects of the executive order to procure more arrests and deportations.

If you have questions about your criminal case here in San Diego, feel free to contact San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Attorney

Monder Law Group - News

Whopping 51 felony charges in $500,000 Escondido embezzlement case

A Temecula woman accused of long-term embezzlement of funds has pleaded not guilty to her grand total of 51 felony charges. Sheila Jo Jackson worked as the business manager of Betz Concrete Inc, a successful concrete business in operation since the late 1980s. Jackson was charged with a multitude of felonies referencing the large amount of money obtained during the multi-year theft, currently totaling at over $500,000. According to Deputy District Attorney Anna Winn, the pattern of theft is alleged to go back as far as 2012. Escondido police Lt. Ed Varso reports that no money has been recovered or returned and it is still unknown where or on what it has been spent.

The uncovering of the alleged theft began when a bank employee reported suspicious activity on the Betz Concrete account. As reported by NBC 7 San Diego, it was then that Jackson’s employer contacted the Escondido Police, who through their investigation tied the crime to Jackson. As Jackson has pleaded not guilty to every single charge, the case will make its way toward trial. 

While all fifty-one charges will not be listed here, the most serious felonies Jackson is facing are forgery, embezzlement by an employee, grand theft and identity theft. While not particularly long lasting sentences for each crime, the sheer number of charges as well as the potential for enhancements based on the amount is likely to result in a cripplingly long sentence if Jackson ends up convicted on all charges.

Grand Theft

It its simplest terms, grand theft is simply theft of property worth more than $950 in total. As Jackson’s grand total is alleged to be well over half of a million dollars, this is easily encompassed within the realm of grand theft. Grand theft is classified as a wobbler in the state of California, meaning it may be charged as either a felony offense or a misdemeanor. Based on reports, Jackson was charged at felony level for grand theft and the remainder of her crimes. Conviction of felony grand theft results in penalties of:

• A 16 month, two year or three year sentence in a California state prison.
• Two additional years of enhancement as the property was worth more than $300,000
• Formal Probation
• A fine not to exceed $10,000

Bear in mind that each additional count of grand theft will have an additive effect on sentencing, potentially resulting in a large prison term. However, there are situations in grand theft cases involving multiple counts that can impact total time served. If it is argued and proven that the multiple incidences of theft were all part of a single plan, then the defendant can only be convicted on a single count.

Embezzlement

Embezzlement is charged as either grand theft or petty theft, referenced above. The similarities and mirrored punishments of embezzlement are due to its state of being more of a classification of how the theft took place, as opposed to an entirely different crime. Theft only requires the taking another individual’s property unlawfully. Embezzlement is more specific and requires a relationship of trust being established. In this case, Jackson was the business manager and more or less entrusted with the handling of funds, despite having no true ownership of them. The length of time the funds were kept or intended to be kept have no bearing on whether or not a conviction will occur. Even if the embezzlement was merely borrowing you can still be convicted as intent to deprive is the requirement. For an embezzlement based theft conviction the prosecutor will need to prove:

• The true owner of the property entrusted the defendant with it
• The actual intent was to the deprive the owner of the property 
• The property was taking fraudulently for the defendant’s personal use.

Forgery

Many individuals associate forgery with merely signing someone else’s name on items such a check. Forgery, however, includes any document, provided you had an intent to commit fraud. The intent remains the biggest requirement of a forgery conviction. If there is no intent to defraud someone of money, property or any legal rights, then the charge will fall through. This crime is also a wobbler, but once again, charged as a felony in the referenced case. A conviction of Forgery at a felony level will result in:

• Sixteen months, two years or three years imprisonment
• A fine of up to $10,000
• Restitution to the victim or victims of your crimes
• Formal probation

Identity Theft

Identity theft is the unlawful or fraudulent use of an individual’s personal identifying information. Receiving or trying to receive credit, services, property and even medical information are some of the common occurrences for which identity theft is prosecuted on. As with the other felonies charged in this case, the maximum penalty per count of identity theft is relatively low as far as prison sentences are concerned. The total penalty for a felony conviction can result in a maximum of three years, and a $10,000 fine, effectively mirroring the penalties for the crimes of grand theft and forgery. Stiffer penalties are possible in situations where identity theft is charged as a federal crime, but there have been no reports of this being the case in this situation.

All things consider, Sheila Jo Jackson could be facing decades of prison time for the large amount of charges and counts she is reportedly facing. Whether or not her attorney is able to prove the grand theft and embezzlement was merely separate actions under the same theme can drastically effect her overall prison time. Due to the bank itself noticing the suspicious activity, it is unlikely there is not a significant level of proof as well as a trail to follow already in existence, Still, as our justice system prides itself on fairness and innocence until proven guilty, the case could take considerable time to complete.  Framing, of course, is not out of the realm of possibility but rare. Jackson’s very best chance at keeping her penalties low if she is ultimately convicted are dependent on a competent, and experienced criminal defense attorney.

White collar crimes, despite their deceivingly low sentences, can have devastating effects on your freedom as the counts multiply, especially if you lack professional representation. Regardless of your crime, seeking a skilled criminal defense attorney should be the first step you take in defense of yourself against charges. Criminal defense attorney Vik Monder not only has a wealth of experience in fraud and theft cases, but has a proven record of getting charges dropped or reduced to a level of low impact. When your freedom and future are on the line, the quality and personal experience of your chosen lawyer can be the ultimate deciding factor in your case. If you are in need of an attorney who will hold nothing back in your defense, schedule your free consultation with us today by calling 619-405-0063 or visiting our website at San Diego Criminal Lawyer .

Monder Law Group - News

Law Changes to be Aware of for 2017

As the end of the year draws to a close, the time is right to reflect on law changes scheduled to be in effect January 1st, or soon after. While the large majority of the California population is knowledgeable and likely excited for the change in marijuana laws, there are a few other changes it can’t hurt to be mindful of for the coming year.

Sex crime laws have garnered some of the largest changes that will take effect in the new year. A shift in focus to heavily punish rape and other related sexual offenses will dramatically increase sentencing and overall outlook for those convicted of these crimes. Driving law changes have aimed to make the roads and passengers a fair bit safer, but with low-cost fines it is unlikely to produce much change in the habitually distracted driver. With the passage of Proposition 64, marijuana usage will most certainly skyrocket but users should avoid breaking the related laws as fines can be steep. Remember, ignorance is not a defense.

Sex crime changes

A new law governing prostitution will offer extensive protections for minor victims of sex trafficking and prostitution. While heated challenges to Senate Bill 1322 did exist, in the end the bill passed and will take effect at the start of the new year. SB 1322 prevents law enforcement from charging those under 18 years of age with prostitution or loitering with the intent to commit prostitution. Senate Bill 1129 also has a focus on prostitution, but this time for adult offenders. It removes the mandatory minimum sentencing penalties imposed for repeat offenders who are 18 years of age or older. This change gives judges more discretion in sentencing on a case by case basis as opposed to the hardline penalties of the past.

While mandatory minimum sentencing was removed in the case mentioned above, new laws related to sexual assault and rape will have a considerable impact on future sentencing. Fueled by outrage over the Brock Turner sentencing, Assembly Bill 2888 ensures that certain rape cases have mandatory minimum prison sentences that are unable to be suspended. Any rape with a degree of force, or sexual assault of an individual unable to consent due to intoxication or an unconscious state will now have mandated prison terms.

Additionally, Assembly Bill 27 will classify all forms of rape as a violent felony. Previously force or threat of force was required to classify a rape as a violent felony for the purposes of stricter sentencing. Now all forms will be classified as violent, including consented sex with someone deemed not mentally or developmentally able to give legal consent due to disability. This coincides with Assembly Bill 701 that labels any sexual assault that is not explicitly consented to as rape with regards to criminal law. Finally, Senate Bill 813 removes the statute of limitations for rape as well as other sex crimes. No longer is prosecution limited to within 10 years or by the minor victim’s 40th birthday. This law however is not retroactive.

Drug-related offenses

In accordance with the theme of stiffening sex offender penalties, Senate Bill 1182 address the possession of common date rape drugs. Previously possession of date rape associated drugs such as GHB, roofies and ketamine were only charged as a misdemeanor offense. However, with the passing of the new law the possession of a specific set of drugs combined with intent to commit sexual assault or rape will now allow the prosecution to seek felony level charges. Despite the seemingly strict shift, intent to commit sexual assault will still need to be shown in these cases which may prove harder than it seems.

Proposition 64 changes deserve to be addressed to both clarify the law and counter some of the myths of absolute freedom commonly believed by some individuals. Here is an overview of things to keep in mind.

• Smoking marijuana in public is illegal
• Smoking marijuana while driving is illegal 
• DUI laws regarding marijuana use have not changed in any capacity
• Mere possession on the property of schools, day cares and other facilities where and when children are present remains a crime.
• Most infraction penalties are simply fines
• Selling marijuana without a license can earn you six months in jail and/or a fine.
• Individuals can grow up to 6 plants indoors. Outdoor growing, if allowed by local laws, can not be publicly visible.

Driving law changes

Assembly Bill 1785 aims to further clamp down on distracted driving, while giving some needed leeway to those operating mounted GPS devices. Calling or texting has already been banned by the state, but now the restrictions to apply to use of a unmounted phone. AB 1785 bars drivers for handling or using their phones for any use it its entirety while driving, so say good bye to checking Facebook notifications. There are two saving graces to the bill however. One, phones that are mounted to the dashboard can still be operated, provided the action can be completed in a single swipe or tap. Secondly, the penalties are quite slim at only $20 for the first offense and little more than double that for later offenses. 

While less notable, two additional driving-related laws are helping make passengers just a little bit safer. The first is Assembly Bill 53 which will finally go into effect after a long wait from its passage in 2015. The new law requires children aged two years and under to be secured in a car seat that faces the rear of the vehicle for additional safety. The second law should give all users of services such as Uber, Sidecar and Lyft more piece of mind when utilizing the popular transportation services. Assembly Bill 1289 makes full local, state and federal background checks mandatory for all prospective drivers. Additionally, no registered sex offenders or violent criminals can be a driver. Drivers previously convicted of DUIs are also now ineligible to drive for the companies. Any violations of the aforementioned law by the transportation network companies will result in still fines. 

With such knee-jerk reactions to law-making that potentially undo all the hard work of escaping the mandatory minimum trends, it is more important than ever to have the right defense attorney at your side. Several formerly misdemeanor offenses have been quietly upgraded to serious felonies that can drastically impact your livelihood and freedom. While the average person may be unaware of the major sweeping changes to sex crime laws, Vik Monder is prepared for when success is the difference between incarceration and freedom. Experienced in DUI related offenses, sex crimes defense and assault related crimes, Monder Law provides the representation you deserve. If you need a criminal defense attorney who will fight hard for you, contact the Monder Law Office at 619-405-0063. Your consultation is always free so let us show you what we can do to win your case.

Monder Law Group - News

Not Guilty Plea Entered for Man in Fatal DUI Crash

Nicholas Ramirez pleaded not guilty to all charges, including first-degree murder and vehicular manslaughter in the Chula Vista fatal crash case, according to NBC 7 San Diego. Ramirez, who has an extensive prior history of DUI, allegedly fatally wounded a homeless man while fleeing the scene of other collisions in a bar’s parking lot. Due to the nature of the crime, his bail is set at two million dollars.

The victim of the accident was William Gerling, a homeless man resting on a bus stop bench at the time of the crash. The vehicle’s impact severed his leg, and he was pronounced dead soon after at the hospital as a result of his injuries. Hit and run charges stem from low-level collisions that took place in the parking lot immediately after Ramirez left the bar and did not injure anyone. It is then alleged by witnesses that Ramirez returned to the scene of his collisions, and when confronted about the damage, drove off speedily again only to lose control of his vehicle and crash into the bus stop bench.

Officers on the scene at the time of the arrest only estimated his high blood alcohol level, and the Deputy District Attorney confirmed that the exact results were unknown. While this lack of an important piece of evidence is beneficial to the defense, Ramirez’s lengthy DUI history and the circumstances will do him no favors in this case. Post-arrest test results may still be in process based on the recency of the case. The Chula Vista Police Department reported that the man had a suspicion of DUI arrest four other times, with two resulting in a conviction. On the list of charges Ramirez is facing is: 

• Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated
• Hit and run 
• First-degree murder

First Degree Murder

The most serious of the charges for the suspect, in this case, is first-degree murder. If convicted he will likely face the standard sentencing of 25 years to life on just this single charge. For any murder charge to stick, the prosecution will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed with malice aforethought, without a lawful reason and naturally that the defendant’s action caused the death.

It is a common misconception that malice aforethought requires a desire or intent to kill or be malicious. Malice aforethought can be expressed via an intent to kill, or implied. In this situation it would be implied, referencing a reckless disregard for the life of the victim. Choosing to drive drunk despite knowing the dangers to the lives of others can easily qualify. It can be hard to argue against this knowledge with prior DUI convictions, as it would have been stressed during mandatory DUI school. If driving while intoxicated can be proven, the prosecutors may not have to try very hard to provide this base of a conviction.

Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Impaired

Gross vehicular manslaughter while impaired is always a felony. The “gross” portion of the charge is a reference to gross negligence. In other words the individual would have intentionally disregarded the need to be careful, aware of the potential for harm to persons to property. Ordinarily, gross vehicular manslaughter while impaired carries a stiff sentence of four to ten years in a state prison. However, California Penal Code 191.5 increases the range of sentencing for prior convictions, the Watson murder rule and serious bodily injuries for any surviving victims. Ramirez’s two prior DUI convictions effectively allow his sentencing range to be upgraded to 15 years to life if ultimately convicted.

Hit and Run

Hit and run can result in either a misdemeanor or felony charge. Based on the facts of this case, Ramirez’s hit and run charges are related to non-injurious collisions with parked cars. As such this charge is the least of his collective worries as the penalties are low. Jail time is unlikely, but in the event of this penalty you can face up to six months in county jail, as well as up to a one thousand dollar fine.

The severe nature of sentencing for the aforementioned felonies means even if the prospective first-degree murder charge fails conviction, the defendant still faces yet another possible life sentence.

The alleged suspect has seemingly shown an unwillingness to address his DUI-related struggles. From the start, all 4 DUI related arrests including convictions happened within the time span of a single year period. Deputy District Attorney Cally Bright, who was a prosecutor for Ramirez’s previous DUI had this to say, “It’s sad to me that he didn’t learn from that. And here we are, seven years later, and someone died as a result of his actions,” Bright said. Ramirez was not charged with DUI as California law prohibits punishment for both the DUI and vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated charges together. 

Had Ramirez beat all previous DUI convictions, he could potentially be looking at a very different situation right now. For one, his vehicular manslaughter charge would result in a much lower level of sentencing overall if he was convicted. Secondly, the media would not necessarily be portraying him as the man who never learns, an uncaring repeat offender. Juries are rarely kind or sympathetic to driver’s convicted of a DUI, and the prosecution will take advantage of his sordid history. Despite having won half of his four DUI cases, his has an uphill battle ahead that can only be won with a competent lawyer well versed in both DUI and criminal law. 

The importance of avoiding a DUI conviction has no better example than the case in question. In this situation, prior DUIs will now contribute to a possible life sentence, up from a normal maximum of 10 years. Hiring an experienced DUI attorney as early as possible after a DUI arrest gives you the best opportunity to put up a proper defense and win a dismissal or acquittal of your charges. Many individuals are unaware of the far-reaching, as well as expensive, lasting effects a DUI conviction may have. From expensive insurance increases to the potential for future sentencing upgrades that can cost you your freedom, DUI convictions can be quite serious.

Vik Monder is a San Diego Criminal Defense attorney well-versed in both criminal and DUI law. He has personally represented a multitude of both high-profile clients leading to their ultimate victory in court, so no case is too big. Felonious criminal cases and felony DUI cases can be crippling to your life without proper representation. Time is often short, so you will need to make a choice between the bare minimum services of a public defender, or an experienced defense attorney who will go above and beyond in his fight for you. If you are in need of assistance with your criminal or DUI related case, contact Monder Law at 619-405-0063, or visit our website San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney . 

Monder Law Group - News

IPhone 6 Warrant Further Complicates Ex-Navy Commander Sex Crimes Case

Navy Commander John Neuhart may have effectively dodged a bullet when the jurisdiction of his alleged attempted rape of another officer and other crimes were left to the San Diego Police Department as opposed to the military courts. A new potential mistake in his case can have a significant impact as his attorney challenges the constitutionality of the procedure and requests suppression of the evidence. The issue in question stems from evidence obtained via an iPhone 6 after the defendant was ordered to unlock the device via a warrant.

According to San Diego’s NBC 7, a judge had issued a warrant that effectively demanded the password of Neuhart’s iPhone 6. While Neuhart initially refused, he eventually relented after more pressure. The phone in question had been recording for a prolonged period, as well as during his original arrest. His attorney’s charge of the unconstitutional nature of this warrant likely stems from the 5th amendments safeguards against self-incrimination. Clearly, if you were forced to unlock your phone and provide incriminating evidence against yourself, this could be construed as a violation. The outcome of the situation remains to be seen as Judge Kenneth K. has requested legal opinions from both sides on the issue of the warrant. As this is relatively new territory both nationally and for the state of California, one can expect a small degree of basic precedence in the Judge’s ultimate decision.

The advanced security measures of the iPhone 5 and 6 came into national spotlight due to Apple’s refusal to assist in unlocking the devices when ordered by multiple courts around the country. This came to a head when Apple also challenged the FBI’s request for an unlocking tool to use for the iPhone of the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist. In both this and other related court requests, the cases have been dropped before a ruling could be made. As such, the legal issues surrounding the incrimination aspect largely remains uncharted territory. The Judge’s request for briefs on the matter during a continuance shows an understanding of the seriousness of the ultimate decision in this high-profile case. A mistake could potentially lead a clear path to an appeal if Neuhart is ultimately convicted after unlocking the phone as required.

Regardless of the outcome of the iPhone 6 controversy, John Neuhart is facing a slew of serious charges which unsurprisingly resulted in the removal of his command duty. At the time of his arrest, Neuhart only faced two felony charges related to the sexual assault. Additional charges have been recently added increasing the total list of charges to four including:

• “Hot Prowl” Burglary
• Resisting arrest
• Attempted forcible rape
• Assault with intent to rape

Hot Prowl Burglary

The differing factor that separates a hot prowl burglary from a standard burglary is the presence of another person inside the home at the time of the crime. Provided the additional individual is not an accomplice to the alleged crime, the burglary will be considered hot prowl. The potential for a violent or fatal interaction between the burglar and resident is very high, lending hot prowl burglaries to be bumped up in levels of seriousness. In Neuhart’s case, the alleged burglary was to commit rape of the victim inside, thereby obviously obtaining the hot prowl tag. Due to the burglary taking place at the victim’s home as opposed to a non-dwelling, this is classified as a first degree burglary.

Assault with intent to rape and attempted forcible rape

Penal Code section 220 establishes that assaults to commit rape, or other specified offenses, are punishable by two to six years of imprisonment. As a general rule attempts to commit a crime that fails usually carry penalties equal to half of resulting penalties if the attempted crime would have been a success. There are always exceptions to this rule, but they typically relate to cases involving murder.

Resisting Arrest

Resisting arrest is generally a misdemeanor, carrying low-level penalties. The standard penalties are up to 1,000 in fines or up to one year in county jail. Penalties can be combined, or the convicted party may receive only one. Compared to the other charges in the above case, this is the least serious aspect.

Despite the seriousness of his charges, the total original penalty if convicted on all charges would have been seven years and four months at maximum, according to the media representative for the District Attorney’s office. However, prosecutors amended the original complaint to assault with the intent to commit rape during a commission of a first-degree burglary. The maximum penalty he now faces is up to life in prison as stated by CBS8. 

Despite being relieved of his command post, Neuhart is still actively working for the U.S. Navy. In his case, a conviction for his crimes will probably impact his military career as well as his freedom. Sex offender registration and parole requirements will further limit opportunities. Securing an acquittal from the jury is of the utmost importance for more than simply the risk of time spent in jail or prison. 

It is likely that the case will continue for some time, particularly with the lengthy continuance as well as high-profile and complicated nature of the case. The judge’s decision on the warrant and reasoning behind it will set the stage for future actions surrounding this issue. The prosecution has reported confidence in conviction whether the iPhone’s content is suppressed or not, based on the circumstances of the case. While it is possible, it may well be improbable as few criminal cases are as open and shut as prosecutors would have you believe, unless you fail to hire an attorney. Neuhart reportedly fled the scene of the alleged crime after a concerned neighbor responding to the screams stated they were calling the police. Fleeing in and of itself is not proof of guilt; however, it provides a very compelling argument for the prosecution to present to the jury.

The penalties imposed by military courts would certainly have been much more severe than the maximum eligible under the civilian criminal court system. Even within the civilian system, seven years in a state prison is a lengthy sentence. It is in these cases that a qualified and experienced criminal defense attorney is an asset to any defendant. Burglary and attempted forcible rape are serious offenses that will have a significant impact on your freedom and future employment opportunities. With the hefty penalties that are attached to such crimes, risking it all on a subpar attorney is a mistake.

San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Vik Monder has the experience necessary to help you when you are charged with serious criminal offenses. With a lengthy history of victories in burglary, sexual assault, and rape cases, he provides the representation you need to succeed. He has provided his services in several high-profile and multiple felony cases, securing the continued freedom of his clients. If you are in need of a skilled attorney for charges of burglary or sex offenses, contact the Monder Law Group today. Vik Monder provides free consultations to all potential clients. Schedule yours today by calling 619-405-0063 or visiting San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer