Fresno Criminal Lawyer Blog

Just received notice this morning that we received a stunning win on a DUI case. All observations and evidence gathered subsequent to the stop was suppressed. The issue was based upon the officer stopping the vehicle for lack of a front license plate, however, the vehicle was properly registered out of state. Citing People v. Reyes and People v. Teresinski, the court held that the officer's mistake of law that the vehicle required a front plate constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We're very pleased with the ruling.

Fresno Criminal Defense Attorney Michael E. Mitchell was able to procure a dismissal for an extremely grateful client this week on after announcing "ready for trial." This case involved an allegation of domestic violence. While the allegations in the complaint were extremely shaky, this case points to the fact that it is essential to be prepared to try a case before a jury.

Although the prosecutor reluctantly dismissed the case based upon witness problems. Fresno Domestic Violence Lawyer Michael E. Mitchell was ready to place the matter before 12 members of the community to decide whether the charges were true or false. His willingness to go to trial is often what makes the difference in a case being dropped. If your not willing to go all the way for a client, then criminal defense is not the area of law an attorney should be practicing. Mr. Mitchell knows this and brings his assertiveness and tenacity to the table for each and every client.

Another happy client. This week Fresno Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael E. Mitchell was successful in obtaining a dismissal of a restraining order for a client accused of perpetrating an unlawful sexual act.

After a vigorous preparation, including subpoenaing 10 critical witnesses, the opposing party dismissed the restraining order right before trial. This case involved extensive discovery over the last two months. A private investigator was retained and every avenue of defense was explored.

A special motion was also filed with the court for disclosure of necessary records from the Fresno Police Department. After several court hearings, the case was ultimately dismissed, however, rest assured that the preparation of Fresno Criminal Attorney Michael E. Mitchell played a critical role in this outcome.

Accusations of sex offenses are about the most dangerous type of accusations possible. Faced with such an allegation it is almost essential that you retain the services of top Fresno Criminal Defense Attorney to prepare your defense. The alternative is really unspeakable.

Authorities in Santa Clara County are reviewing 865 DUI arrests because of faulty breathalyzers used by police, the Mercury News reports.

Fresno DUI Defense Attorneys understands that law enforcement continues to use breathalyzers, which may be faulty, in the pursuit of drunken driving crimes. If you are arrested and charged with DUI, you'll need an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Law enforcement in the Fresno area are also stepping up their crackdown on drunken drivers as well. According to the Fresno Bee, two men were arrested during a recent sobriety check point in Visalia near Houston Avenue and McAuliff Road. And a postal worker was arrested for allegedly driving drunk last week, according to the newspaper.

In the breathalyzer cases, San Jose police used the Alco-Sensor V breathalyzer for nearly six months before stopping recently. The device has also been used in Palo Alto, but it's unclear how many cases may be affected there.

According to the district attorney, a manufacturer's error has caused incorrect readings on the devices because condensation built up inside the tube into which suspected drunken drivers blow. It's possible cases where a driver blows into the device but later refuses to provide a blood test are now suspect.

The cases may affect drivers who were driving while intoxicated, but also drivers who were wrongly accused because the devices were faulty. The legal blood-alcohol level in California is .08. Issues regarding the accuracy of the breathalyzer device are best directed to a knowledgeable Fresno DUI Attorney.

And it's possible that people may have already been convicted and penalized before the cases came under review. The penalty for a first misdemeanor DUI conviction is usually a $2,000 fine, 48 hours of jail or community service and DMV classes. More severe DUI cases or defendants with prior criminal histories can face stronger penalties, including years in prison.

Breathalyzer test results are often suspect and are part of a case that can be challenged by an experienced drunk driving defense lawyer in Fresno or elsewhere. Probable cause for the traffic stop and probable cause for requesting that you submit to field sobriety tests or breathalyzer tests may also be challenged. An officer's training and experience should also be reviewed.

Continue reading "Faulty Breathalyzers May Cause Dropped Cases in Fresno" »

Four Stanislaus County men are facing charges of bank fraud in Fresno as part of a scheme involving used car dealerships, according to the Modesto Bee.

The indictments were issued by the U.S. District Court in Fresno. A Fresno federal criminal defense lawyer should always be consulted when a defendant is facing charges in federal court. Such cases differ from fraud charged under state law. The number of these white collar criminal cases has increased since the beginning of the economic downturn. Such complex cases requires a defense firm with the knowledge and resources to build an aggressive defense.

The four brothers owned and operated various used car dealerships in Stanislaus and Merced counties. The charges accuse employees of falsifying documents so customers could get loans. The Valley First Credit Union approved more than $500,000 worth of loans for the dealerships, dating back to 2002.

The men are facing charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, the Turlock Journal reported. If convicted, the defendants face up to 30 years in prison and $1 million in fines, as well as forfeiture of assets and restitution.

In some instances, the brothers are accused of listing fake employers for customers or of inflating the amount of earnings. Sometimes customers signed the applications. While in other cases, they had no knowledge of the fraud, according to the government's allegations.

In some cases, the customers defaulted on the loan, leading to a loss for the financial institution, which had already paid the dealership the full amount of the purchase.

Continue reading "Federal Bank Fraud Charges in Fresno Require Experienced Defense " »

Recently, a question that I've been faced with a lot, is whether a person can possess a firearm if they have been convicted of a felony? The answer is not as straightforward as you might think, since we're faced with both California and Federal Law on the issue. My analysis, however, is strictly applicable to California cases. In California, if an offense is punishable with imprisonment in the county jail or State Prison, it is considered a "wobbler." (Penal Code §17) A wobbler, in essence, is a crime that can be either a misdemeanor if the sentence is only a misdemeanor or a felony if the defendant is sentenced to State Prison. People often ask whether they can possess a firearm if they have been convicted of a felony, which is a wobbler. This topic can be very difficult to navigate, which makes it even more important to consult with a skilled Fresno Criminal Attorney.

Two of the most recent major cases on the issue pertaining to the California law and restoration of gun rights are: U.S. v. Bridgeforth (9th Cir. 2006) 441 F.3d 864 and People v. Gilbreth (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 53. Bridgeforth is a case out of our 9th circuit court of appeals which, aside from the U.S. Supreme Court, is the controlling court for California on Federal law. Until the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on an issue, the Ninth Circuit has the next to final word.

People v. Gilbreth is a decision out of the First District Court of Appeal in California. In California, the Courts of Appeal are the final arbiters of California law unless the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on the topic, much in the same vein as the Ninth Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

In U.S. v. Bridgeforth, the ninth circuit stated "to determine whether a conviction for a wobbler is an offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year under the career offender provisions of the Guidelines, the sentencing court must look to state law: Did the California court's treatment of the offense convert it into a "misdemeanor for all purposes" under California Penal Code section 17(b)? If so, then the conviction does not qualify as an offense '"punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.'" U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). (U.S. v. Bridgeforth, supra, 441 F.3d 864.)

Continue reading "Can You Restore Your Right to Have a Firearm under California and Federal Law?" »

The other day the question arose as to what the rules are when it comes to transporting a firearm in your vehicle, or even to and from your vehicle to your home. As Fresno Criminal Attorney, I often represent clients who stand accused of improperly transporting firearms or improperly concealing firearms. Unfortunately, there is really no room for error. In Fresno, County, if you run into a Police Officer or Sheriff Deputy who is having a bad day, he or she can arrest you and cite you for either a misdemeanor or a felony if you happen to be, even unintentionally, violating the law when it comes to transporting a firearm.

It is important to note that you are looking at a possible felony if the gun is loaded or the ammo is within your possession and the gun is concealed, but a misdemeanor violation if the gun is concealed, but unloaded and the ammo is not within your immediate presence. (Penal Code section 12025(b)6-(b)(7)) OK, so what are the rules?

The first rule is that you can only carry a firearm if it is unloaded and openly displayed on your person in a belt holster (Penal Code section 12025 (f)). That is the "open carry" provision in California law. A firearm may also be carried to and from your vehicle, but must be in a locked and sealed container. A locked container and sealed container means a fully enclosed container that is secured by some type of locking device (i.e. a padlock, combination lock, etc.) (Penal Code section 12026.1). Due to the complexity in the law when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable under the law when it comes to transporting a firearm, mistakes can and do happen. If you have been charged with transporting a firearm or carrying a loaded firearm improperly, it is imperative that you contact a knowledgeable Fresno Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Ok so how about carrying the gun in my trunk?, you might ask. So you can carry a firearm in your vehicle as long as it is unloaded and in the previously mentioned sealed and locked container. Or you can carry it unloaded and in your trunk. It is important to note that a locking glove box or utility compartment doesn't count. So if you have the gun in one of those utility compartments in the back of your SUV it may not qualify under the law. This does raise a conundrum, which is I can have an unloaded firearm in my locked trunk, but not in a sealed and locked container, but I'm violating the law if I carry that unloaded firearm to and from, say my place of business, to my vehicle without the gun being in a sealed and locked container. There is a possible exception which allows you to do that (see Penal Code section 12026.2 (6)); however, I prefer to live in the broad black and white area in my own life rather than in the shade of gray exception to the rule area. That is just my own preference.

As far as a firearm being loaded, the law provides that a gun is considered loaded if there is a live round attached in any way to the gun, such as in the chamber or in the clip which is attached to the gun. (Penal Code section 12031(g). Some people have raised the question whether ammo could be carried in the locked trunk with the firearm. Penal Code section 12031(g) seems to indicate that carrying the ammunition in the trunk would not make the firearm "loaded" under the law.

I hope this blog article is informative and provides some worthwhile information. If you or someone you know is facing any type of firearms violation charge, contact the Law Offices of Michael E. Mitchell, A Professional Corporation, today to speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney. (559) 222-2424.

A 41-year-old Bakersfield woman is facing fraud charges in Fresno after a grand jury indicted her on dozens of counts of defrauding the IRS, according to Bakersfield Now.

A Fresno federal criminal defense lawyer should always be consulted when a client has been charged by the U.S. government. The laws and rules are different in federal court. Experience in the state courts of California is not sufficient when it comes to choosing an attorney to defend against federal criminal charges.

In this case, the Internal Revenue Service accused the defendant of 29 counts of fraud through her tax preparation business. She is accused of fabricating information on returns, including deductions, losses and income, that were not claimed by taxpayers.

She allegedly engaged in the activity to generate refunds for her clients, which would allow her to charge higher fees. She faces up to three years in prison on each count, as well as a $250,000 fine, supervised release and restitution.

The Central Valley Business Times reports refunds were generated for more than 90 percent of clients who used the defendant's services.

Continue reading "Federal Fraud Charges filed against Tax Preparer in Fresno " »

The Bay County Citizen published a report contending that prosecutors are rarely punished for misconduct. It comes on the heals of a report by USA Today that examined more than 200 cases of wrongdoing by federal prosecutors, which led to false arrests and wrongful convictions and imprisonment.

Hiring an experienced Fresno criminal defense lawyer offers you the best chance for a fair trial and fair treatment by the criminal justice system. The Bay County Citizen reports hundreds of cases of witness intimidation, withholding evidence and other wrongdoing. From a practical standpoint, one of the most frequent abuses defense attorneys see is the use of inmate testimony or other "eye witness" testimony from unreliable sources.

Such testimony can devastate a case and is too often given by an inmate in exchange for leniency or some other form of consideration. Other "eye witness" testimony can come from a witness with an agenda or a witness that is simply mistaken. Frequently, such testimony can have a negative impact on a defendant's case and is the primary reason why your defense lawyer should advise you not to speak about your case with anyone -- not friends, not family and most definitely not fellow inmates in jail.

The report found that, in cases where prosecutors intentionally commit acts of misconduct, they are rarely punished. A 13-year-study of 707 cases by the Northern California Innocence Project at the Santa Clara University School of Law found that only six prosecutors were disciplined by the California Bar Association, even in cases in which misconduct led to convictions being overturned.

A total of 67 prosecutors committed acts of misconduct more than once.

The study tracked misconduct during criminal trials between 1997 and 2009 and said that courts frequently failed to report misconduct, state Bar Associations rarely investigated it, defense attorneys failed to protest it and prosecutors have few internal policies to prevent it.

Your best defense against being victimized is an aggressive offense; hiring a veteran Fresno defense attorney with the knowledge and experience to fight for your rights is always your best defense against criminal charges - regardless of the behavior of opposing counsel.

Continue reading "Experienced Fresno defense lawyer your best defense against prosecutorial misconduct" »