San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

When you are facing criminal charges, you are likely to face off against a prosecutor who is both very knowledgeable when it comes to the law and skilled when it comes to maneuvering within the criminal legal system. The prosecutor in your case may know many legal techniques and strategies to give the state a strong chance of achieving a conviction. To give yourself a fair chance in your criminal trial, you need to have the same amount of resources, meaning a skilled San Francisco criminal defense attorney with an in-depth knowledge of the law and the system.

An example of how trial strategy matters, and how you can counter the prosecution’s strategies in some situations, was a recent case from San Mateo County. Willard was on trial for felony domestic violence. The charges against the man were definitely serious, since they included “felony enhancements, prior strikes and prison priors.” This meant that Willard’s current case had the potential to conclude with his receiving a very long incarceration sentence.

In Willard’s case, the prosecution was attempting to exclude from evidence a statement by a police officer to a deputy prosecutor that the alleged victim was “a little unreliable and inconsistent,” and the defendant was seeking to keep that statement in. The judge ruled against the prosecution, meaning that the statement critical of the alleged victim stayed in.

When you are accused of certain crimes, you face the possibility of multiple different forms of punishment. For some crimes, you may potentially be at risk of being ordered to serve a prison sentence and to pay restitution to a victim. In order to face the possibility of restitution, though, the law has to authorize it. All of these legal and procedural details point out the importance of having a skilled and knowledgeable San Francisco criminal defense attorney on your side to use the law to defend you to the fullest extent possible.

One defendant facing a restitution issue recently was a man named Steven from Imperial County. The facts behind Steven’s case began as, unfortunately, many domestic violence matters do. Both Steven and his wife Veronica had been drinking in the garage. The drinking was followed by an argument, and the argument was followed by the husband grabbing the wife by the throat and bashing her head against the garage floor so hard that it cracked her skull. The gash in her head required seven staples.

The prosecution charged Steven with domestic violence in violation of Section 273.5 of the California Penal Code. He pleaded no contest, ultimately receiving a sentence of three years in prison. The law also allows the court to order a convicted defendant to pay monetary restitution. In this case, the wife sought restitution for a new cell phone, repairs to the washer/dryer, and $2,500 in medical bills, which collectively totaled more than $3,000. She also asked for another $14,000 in restitution to cover an alarm system and security windows. The trial judge ordered Steven to pay the full $17,000 in restitution.

There can be a variety of ways to achieve a successful result in your criminal case. One way is to succeed based upon the facts:  demonstrating that the factual proof within your case simply cannot support a conviction. Other times, you may be able to avoid, or obtain a reversal of, a conviction if you can show that the law will not allow for a conviction on the charge that the state alleged. In still other circumstances, you may be able to use a procedural misstep by the state to your benefit in your case. Sometimes, even seemingly small errors can have big consequences. To make sure that your rights are protected to the fullest extent of the law, be sure you have retained experienced San Francisco criminal defense counsel.

An example of the last of these things in the above list was on display in the case against Johnny from San Diego County. Johnny began dating Dulce in the summer of 2014. Some time later, he moved in with the woman and her family. At some point after that, the relationship became violent. On various occasions, Johnny assaulted both Dulce and her ex-boyfriend. From this series of alleged attacks, the state arrested Johnny and charged him with numerous offenses. Two of those charges were counts of “corporal injury to a cohabitant” in violation of Subsection 273.5(h)(1) of the Penal Code. Johnny was eventually convicted on all of the charges and sentenced to 22 years. The court arrived at that sentence through several sentencing enhancements, one of which was based upon the two 273.5(h)(1) offenses.

The man appealed and won a reduction of his sentence. The problem with the original sentencing process was that the charging document (called an “information”) stated that Johnny was being accused of violating Subsection 273.5(h)(1), but the sentencing enhancement that the state sought was the one connected to Subsection 273.5(f)(1).

The outcome of a federal immigration case decided by the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati might not seem, at first blush, like something that would matter to someone in California. In one recent case, however, the outcome was highly relevant to people here, especially those who may have been accused of certain crimes. In the federal case, the man’s previous guilty plea on a misdemeanor domestic battery charge in state court directly harmed his efforts to avoid deportation. The case’s conclusion points out how wide-ranging an impact criminal convictions, especially those involving domestic violence, can have. It is yet another good reason to make sure you have skilled California criminal defense counsel to advise you about the consequences of any plea deal decision you might consider making.

The man facing deportation, Sofonias, entered California from Mexico as an undocumented immigrant in January 2001. Later that year, following an incident between Sofonias and his girlfriend, police arrested the man for domestic battery. Sofonias agreed to plead guilty to violating Section 273.5 of the California Penal Code. In exchange for this guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge, he received a sentence of probation and suspended court costs of $300.

Sofonias and his girlfriend patched things up, got married, moved to Michigan, and welcomed a son in 2007. The man, in fact, had worked at the same restaurant in Michigan for eight years, from 2005 until 2013, when his California conviction came back to haunt him. In November of that year, immigration officers arrested Sofonias. Federal authorities designated the man for deportation.