Recent Blog Posts in November 2009

When crimes are targeted at a particular gender or towards a particular ethnic or racial group, that crime is considered a "hate crime".  Specialized units and prosecutors often are assigned to these sensitive matters, and for good reason.  Today, an alarming report appeared in The Associated Press.  Reports of hate crimes against gays and religious groups increased sharply in 2008, according to FBI data released Monday.  Overall, the number of reported hate crimes increased about 2 percent. These same figures show a nearly 11 percent increase in hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and a nearly 9 percent increase in hate crimes based on religion.  The largest category, racially motivated hate crimes, fell less than 1 percent.  Many of us remember the gruesome story of Matthew Shepard, a 21 year old gay college student in Wyoming who was beaten to death because of his sexual orientation.  These statistics seem to indicate that this problem has only increased.  But the the problem of "hate crimes" prosecution is clear.  When is a crime just a crime?  Just because a minority may be victimized, it does not necessarily mean that they were targeted for that racial or ethnic reason (a requirement).  Hate crimes, in fact, can take many different forms.  The same report in The Associated Press qouted the following statistics.  Among all categories of hate crimes, roughly a third are vandalism or property damage.  About 30 percent involve intimidation of some kind, and another 30 percent were physical attacks.  Many jurisdictions throughout Southern Californoa, from Ventura County, to Los Angeles County, to the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego County, have pockets where racial tension is rampant.  As a criminal defense attorney based in Southern California, I have handled inumerable cases where the Defendant and victim (or victims) are  from different racial or ethnic groups.  A particular finesse is required when handling these matters to ensure a just and fair outcome.  Defendants in a criminal case are presumed innocent and entitled to a strong, vigorous defense no matter the charge or allegation.  Just because a "hate crimes" allegation is brought, does not mean that it is appropriate.  But, only a skilled criminal defense attorney who has both the experience and the respect of prosecutors should handle these cases.  That respect aspect is crucial to ensure that all benefit of the doubt and deferrence truly is given to the defendant.  If you, a friend, or loved one is charged or accued of a crime, including a so called "hate crime", your first call should be to the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar at (310) 277-4112.  You also can simply click here for immediate assistance.

In California, the laws regarding D.U.I. are found in two basic code sections, Vehicle Code Sections 23152(a) and 23152(b).  The reason that two code sections are necessary (note that there actually are several D.U.I. related laws dealing with injuries, multiple offenses, felony charges, etc.) is that a D.U.I. charge can be filed not only when an individual's blood alcohol content (B.A.C.) is .08% alcohol by weight or greater (subdivision b) (the legal limit here in California) but also when the driving appeared to be affected in some way by alcohol consumption regardless of the B.A.C.  This morning, former Presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry's daughter was arrested in Los Angeles for driving under the influence.  The Senator seemed to question the charge as she apparently "blew" below the .08 threshold when she was administered the breathalyzer test.  Senator Kerry may have been unaware of the two applicable code sections and the fact that his daughter apparently failed her field sobriety tests (F.S.T.'s).  Having said that, D.U.I. cases can be difficult to prove in general.  And, when prosecutor's can only proceed on one of the two counts, the task of conviction becomes that much harder.  As such, it appears unlikely that either the District Attorney's Office or City Attorney's Office will charge Senator Kerry's daughter with a D.U.I.  This discussion truly embodies many interesting points in the prosecution and defene of D.U.I. cases.  As an experienced criminal defense attorney based in Southern California, I personally have handled literally hundreds of D.U.I. cases throughout Southern California - from Ventura County to Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego County.  The  laws, rules, procedures, and requirements to properly defend someone accused of, or even someone who potentially may face charges for, D.U.I. are extensive,  complicated, and require the assistance of an expert criminal defense atorney.  For instance, did you know that if a Driver's Safety Office of the Department of Motor Vehicles (D.M.V.) is not contacted with necessary information within 10 days of a D.U.I. arrest, the person arrested likely will have their license suspended outright for one month, with an additional three month restriction?  The suspension may even be up to one year, in fact, for a second or subsequent D.U.I. conviction.  Ultimately, a D.U.I. must be defended aggresively and proactively not only in court but before the D.M.V. as well.  Keep in mind, a D.U.I. conviction stays on your D.M.V. record in California for 10 years.  And, what people forget, is that the D.M.V. has ultimate discretion over driver's licensing issues.  A top attorney must be familiar and should have a proven track record in court and at the D.M.V.  At Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar, we pride ourselves on our expert criminal defense / D.U.I. representation not only in court but in terms of the D.M.V. as well.  A D.U.I. can be embarrasing, expensive, and can tarnish your record and your reputation.  So if you or someone you know has been arrested for D.U.I., your first call should be to the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar at (310) 277-4112.  You can also simply click here for immediate and unparalleled assistance.

As a criminal defense lawyer, I meet many, many people in various settings everyday.  But no matter where I go, no matter what I am doing, I always am being asked about traffic tickets.  What can I do, if anything, to fight my ticket?  That is the single most common question.  People who have points already on their record are most concerned that another point will result in a D.M.V. suspension and a loss of their license.  One of my clients is facing such  a prospect.  He owns a moving company and drives for a living.  He recently was pulled over and cited for speeding.  The D.M.V. here in California found out about two other tickets that he had  received outside of California.  None-the-less, the D.M.V. is now seeking to label him as a negligent operator and suspend his license becasue he has accrued too mnay points.  I am confident that we will prevail.  Remember, as I previously have written, the D.M.V. has tremendous discretion over licenseing.  As we all learned when we first received our driver's licence, driving is a privilege, not a right.  Traffic tickets can be fought and should be fought in court.  They must be handled properly by a criminal defense lawyer who knows what to look for and how to win.  Just conceding and allowing your insurance rates to be raised and risking a driver's license suspension should not be an option.  As a criminal defense attorney based in Southern California, I personally have handled hundreds of cases involving traffic violations.  I have won in traffic courts from San Diego to Monterey.  So if you or someone you know has a traffic ticket that you want fought by a top criminal defense lawyer, if you need your license protected and cannot afford a suspension, your first call should be to the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar at (310) 277-4112.  We can help, even if you have had recent accidents.  For immediate assistance you also can simply click here.   

(a) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

(b) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The problem with the law, in my opinion, is not the intent with which it is written, but the broad language used.  There are many situations in which very good people make bad decisons in a moment -- a screen door is left ajar and a baby crawls into a pool; a parent forgets their buckled child and goes into a store only to arrive back at their vehicle to find their beloved infant sweltering in a car seat, etc., etc.  Even a physical argument between two adults can be prosecuted not only as domestic violence but also as child endangerment if and when it took place in front of a child.  On top of that, the charge may be filed as a felony or as a misdemeanor -- it is considered a wobbler.  So why are some cases felonies and some misdemeanors?  Who decides?  And what can an attorney do to help?  The simple answer is that prosecutors have a tremendous amount of discretion in deciding what charges / cases should be prosecuted.  They decide if a case should be filed as a felony or as a misdemeanor;  Who should face a maximum of one year in the county jail and who should be looking at 6 years in prison.  As a highly experienced and respected criminal defense attorney, I have handled many, many cases involving child endangerment and domestic violence.  Whether the case occurs in Ventura County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, or San Diego County, the experience and reputation of the criminal defense attorney -- how they are pereceived by judges and prosecutors -- makes all the difference.  It often menas the difference between a misdemenaor charge being filed as opposed to a felony count or even the difference betwen a charge or charges being filed in the first place or being dismissed later on.  As a highly aggresive, proactive criminal defense lawyer based in Southern California, I know how to get results.  So if you, a friend, or loved one is charged with child endangerment or domestic violence anywhere throughout Southern California, call the preeminent criminal defense team of the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar at (310) 277-4112.  You also can simply click here for immediate assistance.    

  A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
   (1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her
control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
   (2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
   (3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.

The law seems fairly straightforward on its face.  However, there are 
many, many instances when innocent individuals wrongfully are prosecuted.
Today, I met with someone who was crossing the street when he was
approached by the police.  The police stopped him and detained him.
Apparently there was a shooting in the area and the police wanted to 
question everybody.  When the police found out that he previously had
been on probation, they asked which car was his.  He said none of the cars.
The police then removed keys from his pocket and pushed the button on
the keyring.  A car "beeped".  For seemingly no good reason, the police 
began to search the car.  They found a gun.  The individual tried to
explain that the car was his cousin's and he had the keys to let himself 
into his cousin's house.  The police none-the-less arrested him, claiming 
that he was in violation of Penal Code Section 12025(a)(1). As an 
leading criminal defense attorney with extensive experience throughout
Southern California, I can tell you that is not the intent of the law.
But, all too often, that is the result.  It seems clear that he was in the wrong 
place at the wrong time.  Not too long ago, in the Alhambra Courthouse in 
the San Gabriel Valley, my client was charged with possession of a firearm.
He was the passenger in a car that was searched.  A gun was later found in
the car.  He was prosecuted.  I filed several motions and only after months
and months of hard work was I able to convince the prosecutor on the eve of
trial to drop the case.  This law cannot be allowed to deprive innocent people
of their liberty.  And, did you know, that a convicted felon cannot own,
use, or possess a firearm.  So, if they are in a friend's car or in a friend's
house, should they be subjected to a long prison, felony sentence because
someone else had a gun somewhere near to where they were?  Of course not!
At the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar, we fight hard to ensure that you 
get justice.  If you, a friend, or loved one is facing a charge of Possession
of a Firearm or Possession of a Firearm by a Felon, your first call should be
to the experienced criminal defense team at the Law Offices of Richard M.Sudar
at (310) 277-4112.  You can also simply click here for immediate assistance.

In California, crimes perpetrated against the elderly are given special classification and here, in Los Angeles County and throughout Southern California, are prosecuted by special units within district attorneys' offices.  These types of cases are given a particular emphasis;  Sentencing is harsher than normally is the case.

California Penal Code, Section 368 specifically states:

• (a) The Legislature finds and declares that crimes against elders and dependent adults are deserving of special consideration and protection, not unlike the special protections provided for minor children, because elders and dependent adults may be confused, on various medications, mentally or physically impaired, or incompetent, and therefore less able to protect themselves, to understand or report criminal conduct, or to testify in court proceedings on their own behalf.
• (b)
  • (1) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult, with knowledge that he or she is an elder or a dependent adult, to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
  • (2) If in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the victim suffers great bodily injury, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 12022.7, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:
    • (A) Three years if the victim is under 70 years of age.
    • (B) Five years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.
  • (3) If in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the defendant proximately causes the death of the victim, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:
    • (A) Five years if the victim is under 70 years of age.
    • (B) Seven years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.
• (c) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult, with knowledge that he or she is an elder or a dependent adult, to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
• (d) Any person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft or embezzlement, with respect to the property of an elder or dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or dependent adult, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, three, or four years, when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400); and by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value not exceeding four hundred dollars ($400).
• (e) Any caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft or embezzlement, with respect to the property of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, three, or four years when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400), and by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value not exceeding four hundred dollars ($400).
• (f) Any person who commits the false imprisonment of an elder or dependent adult by the use of violence, menace, fraud, or deceit is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
• (g) As used in this section, "elder" means any person who is 65 years of age or older.
• (h) As used in this section, "dependent adult" means any person who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. "Dependent adult" includes any person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as defined in Sections 1250, 1250.2, and 1250.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
• (i) As used in this section, "caretaker" means any person who has the care, custody, or control of, or who stands in a position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult.
• (j) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under both this section and Section 187 or 12022.7 or any other provision of law. However, a person shall not receive an additional term of imprisonment under both paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) for any single offense, nor shall a person receive an additional term of imprisonment under both Section 12022.7 and paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (b) for any single offense.

Many problems can arise in prosecuting these types of cases.  Family members may believe that a caregiver is abusing their loved one.  Sometimes, the reality is that it is not the care provider at all but a member of the alleged victim's own family who is at fault.  When money becomes a primary concern, a whole nother avenue opens up which, by itself, is fraught with the potential for abuse.  So while clearly the elderly must be given special care and attention, those who sacrifice their time and act as caregivers must themselves be protected against potentially false and  damaging criminal complaints lodged against them.  As always is the case, a criminal defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence, and the very best criminal defense.  These types of allegations, at the very least, can ruin your reputation and prevent future employment.  So if you, a friend or loved one has been accused or charged with elder abuse anywhere throughout Southern California -- including: Ventura County; Los Angeles County; San Bernardino County; Riverside County; Orange County; and San Diego County -- your first call should be to the pre-eminent defense team at the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar at (310) 277-4112.  You also can just click here for immediate assistance.  

530.5.  (a) Every person who willfully obtains personal identifying
information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of
another person, and uses that information for any unlawful purpose,
including to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services,
real property, or medical information without the consent of that
person, is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor,
shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to
exceed one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.
   (b) In any case in which a person willfully obtains personal
identifying information of another person, uses that information to
commit a crime in addition to a violation of subdivision (a), and is
convicted of that crime, the court records shall reflect that the
person whose identity was falsely used to commit the crime did not
commit the crime.
   (c) (1) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or
retains possession of the personal identifying information, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of another person is
guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor, shall be
punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed
one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment.
   (2) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or
retains possession of the personal identifying information, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of another person, and
who has previously been convicted of a violation of this section,
upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment
in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both a fine and
imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
   (3) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or
retains possession of the personal identifying information, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of 10 or more other
persons is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor,
shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to
exceed one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.
   (d) (1) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, sells,
transfers, or conveys the personal identifying information, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of another person is
guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor, shall be
punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed
one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in
the state prison.
   (2) Every person who, with actual knowledge that the personal
identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section
530.55, of a specific person will be used to commit a violation of
subdivision (a), sells, transfers, or conveys that same personal
identifying information is guilty of a public offense, and upon
conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in
the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment.
   (e) Every person who commits mail theft, as defined in Section
1708 of Title 18 of the United States Code, is guilty of a public
offense, and upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine, by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both a
fine and imprisonment. Prosecution under this subdivision shall not
limit or preclude prosecution under any other provision of law,
including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, of
this section.
   (f) An interactive computer service or access software provider,
as defined in subsection (f) of Section 230 of Title 47 of the United
States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the
service or provider acquires, transfers, sells, conveys, or retains
possession of personal information with the intent to defraud.

Clearly, not only does the personal information have to be obtained but
there is also a requirement that it be used for an unlawful purpose. 
As a criminal defense attorney, I have handled dozens and dozens (if not
hundreds) of cases where my client is charged with identity theft.
Today, in fact, I represented a woman in the Van Nuys Courthouse here in
Los Angeles County who stood accused of acquiring personal information,
falsifying a driver's license, and, ultimately, obtaining a car using
the false / manufactrued information.  In my experience, those that commit 
these types of offenses tend to be very decent people who, for whatever
reason in the moment, do something that they later regret.  And then, as 
was the case with my client today, spend months or years "on the run."
They simply are too embarrassed and too scared to come forward.  In all
instances, largely because I have been able to build an impeccable reputation
with prosecutors over many years, I successfully have been able to resolve
cases, greatly minimizing my clients' jail time and court ordered restitution.
I understand that good people sometimes make mistakes but still always deserve
the best criminal defense representation, which my firm provides.  So if you,
a friend, or loved one is being charged with, or is under investigation for,
identity theft, do not hesitate to contact our experienced criminal defense
team at (310) 277-4112.  You also can simply click here for immediate assistance.
 

Anna Nicole Smith was again in the news this past week as a judge in Los Angeles County ordered her former boyfriend and two doctors to stand trial on various drug related offenses.  Their crimes, in essence, allegedly feeding and fueling her addiction to prescription narcotics, which ultimately led to her death.  While this is not a typical case involving drug manufacturing and distribution, it truly speaks to the widespread nature of the problem, affecting every socio-economic group.  We all have heard of raids by D.E.A. agents and the F.B.I. of meth (methamphetamine) labs and marijuana hideouts.  As a criminal defense attorney, I have noticed a good majority of these cases focused in the vast and remote areas of San Bernardino County.  But I can tell you, it happens everywhere.  My cases have taken me throughout Southern California, from San Diego County to Ventura County, and beyond.  Yes, even in conservative Ventura County, you would be amazed at how many individuals are affected by this issue.  Under the California Health and Safety Code, it is illegal to manufacture, possess, sell, transport, or distribute illegal narcotics.  Special code sections (both Health and Safety and Penal) even govern situations when children may have been exposed to such activity.  District Attorneys' offices allocate specialized units to handle cases involving major narcotic activity.  And, severe bail restrictions may even be placed on a defendant whereby, in order to post bail, an individual may first have to prove that the source of the money to be used is legitimate.  This is all before they have had their day in court, before they have had a chance to properly defend themselves.  Finally, assets utilized in drug sales, manufacturing, and transportation cases may be forfeited and not returned.  Forfeiture is the uncompensated taking of property that has been illegally used or obtained.  And while the purpose of California’s asset forfeiture statutes (Health & Safety Code Section 11469 et seq.) enables the government to strip drug dealers of their operating tools and economic base, many have their money and income seized with hardly a fight.  At the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar, we truly understand what's on the line.  We know that the government will stop at nothing to prosecute drug related offenses.  Many good people find themselves helpless to defend themselves, and without a top criminal defense attorney standing up and fighting to protect their rights, they may be carted off to jail while their loved ones are forced to live with the consequences.  And, if income / money has been seized, their situation will become that much more desperate.  So while the problems of drug manufacturing and distribution may be widespread, it does not mean that the government gets to do what they want, when they want.  There are rules.  And we at the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar will file every appropriate motion and stop at nothing to protect the rights of the accused.  So if you or a loved one are facing drug related charges, you need an aggresive criminal defense attorney.  Call the Law Offices of Richard M. Sudar at (310) 277-4112 or simply click here for immediate assistance and your best defense.  The government will be prepared.  Will you be?