All posts by Anthony Arzili

Now is the time to seal and destroy your arrest record!

If you’ve been arrested in the past and have been fortunate enough not to be saddled with a criminal conviction, don’t think for a second that your arrest record automatically disappears off your criminal history. Most people feel that their troubles are over once their case is rejected or dismissed, but the arrest entry on your criminal history can still haunt you in gaining employment, being promoted or even volunteering at your child’s school

Sealing your arrest record will allow you to achieve new heights in your career.
photo credit. Rod Long @unsplash

While there are laws on the books that prohibit employers from discriminating against applicants based on arrest records, the enforcement of such laws are not that simple. It is difficult to find out if an employer is actually following this law because we are not privy to what the employer is actually considering during this process. An employer may say they did not consider an arrest on your record, but how do we really know?

With that in mind, a relatively new law has come into effect that allows those with arrest records that did not result in a conviction to be able to petition the record to be completely sealed and destroyed from the prying eyes of future employers. Under Penal Code 851.87, the process has been streamlined and made much easier then it used to be.

Here are some frequently asked questions about sealing of arrest records:

Why did this new law come into effect?

Before Penal Code 851.87, you needed to prove yourself “Factually Innocent” prior to your arrest record being sealed and destroyed. This was an incredibly high burden on a petitioner. Most people didn’t even try. But the main reason behind this was that legislators realized how damaging a simple arrest record could be for someone seeking to find a job, seek a promotion, or even rent an apartment. They believed that an arrest should not be such a handicap, especially if it did not result in a conviction.

How do I know if I qualify for relief under this new law?

The first step is to make sure your particular situation qualifies under the new law In order for you to qualify for sealing under Penal Code €851.87, you must fall into one of these categories:

a) Your arrest did not result in any charges being filed.

b) Your arrest resulted in the filing of charges, but they were later dismissed.

c)You were found not guilty at a jury trial.

d)You completed a court ordered diversion program like P.C. 1000 or Prop 36.

Are there any charges that may disqualify me?

If you have a history of domestic violence convictions, sexual charges, or Elder abuse charges, the court can deny your petition.

How does the process work in getting my arrest record sealed?

After we research whether you qualify for relief, the next step involves preparing the petition. Once the petition is ready, we file it in the appropriate courthouse and serve a copy on the prosecutorial agency that handled your case.

How long does the process take?

It takes approximately 6-8 weeks, with some exceptions, for the court to decide. Once they grant the petition, the order for sealing is sent up to the Department of Justice so that they seal and destroy the appropriate record.

Does this completely wipe out the record of my Arrest?
No.  Law enforcement and the prosecutors can still see your arrest record in case you commit another crime. Also, if you apply for a job in law enforcement, the California State Lottery or apply for any licensing through the State of California, you may need to disclose the arrest.

Do I need to appear in court?
No.  Your presence is not required in court.   We can handle the entire process without you having to step in to court. 

I have more questions.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact us directly at 562 907-4448 or email us at LABestDefense@Gmail.com.


*Penal Code 851.87

851.87.  
(a) (1) In any case where a person is arrested and successfully completes a prefiling diversion program administered by a prosecuting attorney in lieu of filing an accusatory pleading, the person may petition the superior court that would have had jurisdiction over the matter to issue an order to seal the records pertaining to an arrest and the court may order those records sealed as described in Section 851.92. A copy of the petition shall be served on the law enforcement agency and the prosecuting attorney of the county or city having jurisdiction over the offense, who may request a hearing within 60 days of receipt of the petition. The court may hear the matter no less than 60 days from the date the law enforcement agency and the prosecuting attorney receive a copy of the petition. The prosecuting attorney and the law enforcement agency, through the prosecuting attorney, may present evidence to the court at the hearing.
(2) If the order is made, the court shall give a copy of the order to the person and inform the person that he or she may thereafter state that he or she was not arrested for the charge.
(3) The person may, except as specified in subdivisions (b) and (c), indicate in response to any question concerning the person’s prior criminal record that the person was not arrested.
(4) Subject to subdivisions (b) and (c), a record pertaining to the arrest shall not, without the person’s permission, be used in any way that could result in the denial of any employment, benefit, or certificate.
(b) The person shall be advised that, regardless of the person’s successful completion of the program, the arrest shall be disclosed by the Department of Justice in response to any peace officer application request, and that, notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section does not relieve the person of the obligation to disclose the arrest in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for a position as a peace officer, as defined in Section 830.
(c) The person shall be advised that an order to seal records pertaining to an arrest made pursuant to this section has no effect on a criminal justice agency’s ability to access and use those sealed records and information regarding sealed arrests, as described in Section 851.92.
(d) As used in this section, “prefiling diversion” is a diversion from prosecution that is offered to a person by the prosecuting attorney in lieu of, or prior to, the filing of an accusatory pleading in court as set forth in Section 950.

How can you avoid county jail as a repeat DUI offender? You can Scram.

Over the last 17 years, I’ve represented many clients that find themselves facing jail time because their drinking has caused them to make bad choices.    Whether its a 2nd offense DUI or any other criminal offense that stems from issues with alcohol, I’ve been able to use Scram to help them avoid substantial jail time and also treat their underlying alcohol issues.

Scram is an electronic device that monitors your blood alcohol content through a skin sensor.   It is typically worn on your ankle and it communicates with a base station at your house.

scram-cam-product-header-980x360

I’ve saved countless clients from having to go through the side door of the courtroom into jail by being proactive and having a scram device ready before we see the judge.    You see, most judges do not want repeat alcohol offenders on the road.   They want them in jail so that no one else gets harmed and the Judge gets blamed for allowing them out in the first place.

The voluntary installation of the Scram device on my clients has impressed judges in many ways.  First, most judges trust Scram to keep people from drinking.  No amount of AA classes or increased bail assures a judge that you will not drink the minute you are released.   On the other hand, a Scram anklet tells the judge you are taking responsibility for your actions and you are being proactive in helping get through them.

This past January I had a client that was facing 2 years in prison.   He not only had alcohol issues in the past but his present problems were caused by alcohol as well.    I met with my client’s family and had my Scram representative get the process started.   I then met with the Judge and the prosecutor where I extolled the virtues of this service coupled with counseling.  The Judge loved it and agreed to release my client from jail on the strict condition that he gets the Scram device installed immediately.      Needless to say, if it was not for our approach,  this young man would have been sitting in a jail cell right now.

If you’d like to know if Scram can help you in your case, please feel free to contact us at LABestDefense@gmail.com or 562 907 4448

 

Can Prop 47 help me?

The passage of proposition 47 has opened many doors to people trapped behind felony charges.   Along with the doors, there are a lot of questions that have been raised.

Mainly, Does Prop 47 help me and my case?

First, Let’s talk about what Proposition 47 does.   The new law allows a number of felony charges to be eligible for reduction to misdemeanors.

A reduction to a misdemeanor reduces the maximum jail time allowable for cases to be reduced from approximately 3 years in state prison to 6 months to a year in the county jail.

Here in this post, I am going to lay out the basics of the law change so that you can see if this is something that applies to you or your loved one.

The first question you need to ask is this:   What charges am I dealing with?

Possession of Cocaine/Heroin for Personal Use (H&S 11350)

Possession of Concentrated Cannabis for Personal Use  (H&S 11357)

Possession of Methampthetamine  for personal Use (H&S 11377)

Grand Theft Aut0, (if Auto is worth less than $950)

Shoplifting (worth less than $950)

Receiving Stolen Property (PC 496) (worth less than $950)

Forgery or Check Fraud (Less than $950)

Bad Checks (PC 476) (less than $950)

If you are facing any of the above charges or have been convicted of them in the past, You may be eligible for prop 47 resentencing.

What if I have priors?  Can I still get help from Prop 47?

Yes, You can still get a reduction with prop 47, but there are some exceptions.

1) If you’re a registered sex offender under PC 290.

2) If you’ve been convicted of any of the several serious felonies listed below:

-Sexually Violent Offenses

-Sex crimes against a child under 14

-Murder, Attempted Murder, Solicitation to commit Murder

-Gross Vehicular Manslaughter while intoxicated (penal code 191.5)

-Assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or firefighter

-Possession of weapons of mass destruction

-Any serious/violent felony punishable by life in prison or death.,

What if I have a Strike?

As long as your strike is not one of the charges listed above, you are still eligible for relief.

Are you voting and jury rights restored if I have my charge reduced?

Yes, not having a felony conviction can help you restore these valued rights as well as getting rid of your felony conviction that hurts your chances at employment.

Can I get my Gun Rights back?

Prop 47 does not restore your rights to own a gun.   If you do so, you’ll still be subject to california’s felon with a gun violation.

How does the process work to get my charge reduced?

Once you meet with me, I’ll first determine if you are eligible for resentencing.

Next, I’ll get the necessary information to file your petition with the court.

Once the petition is filed with the court, we will make sure that the court follows through and grants the motion as soon as possible.

How long will the process take?

We typically file petitions within a day or two of receiving the necessary information.   The next step is getting a court date and that will typically take 4 to 6 weeks.

How much does it cost to do a Prop 47 reduction?

While some complicated cases may be more, the typical petition costs $1000.   This flat rate would be the total fee to finish the process.


New California Laws taking effect in 2014.

As the New Year approaches, there are several new laws about to be enacted in California — from transgender students’ rights and a minimum wage boost, to sharing the road with bicyclists and changes to tips at restaurants.

Here is a round up of some of the new edicts:

PLASTIC BAG BAN: Shoppers in the city of Los Angeles will have to bring their own reusable bags or fork up 10 cents per sack at large retail stores, starting Jan. 1, 2014. Smaller stores have until July 1, 2014, to phase out single-use plastic bags.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: Students in grades K-12 who identity as transgender will be allowed to use school bathrooms and play on sport teams “consistent with their gender identity,” starting Jan. 1, 2014.

PLASTIC BAG BAN: Shoppers in the city of Los Angeles will have to bring their own reusable bags or fork up 10 cents per sack at large retail stores, starting Jan. 1, 2014. Smaller stores have until July 1, 2014, to phase out single-use plastic bags.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: Students in grades K-12 who identity as transgender will be allowed to use school bathrooms and play on sport teams “consistent with their gender identity,” starting Jan. 1, 2014.

MINIMUM WAGE HIKE: Workers earning minimum wage will net $9 an hour starting July 1, 2014. The increase is part of a three-year plan that will raise the hourly minimum wage in California to $10 – one of the highest in the nation – by 2016. Under another bill, domestic workers will have to be paid time and a half if they work more than nine hours in a day or more than 45 hours in a week; baby sitters are exempt.

PAPARAZZI CRACKDOWN: Backed by actresses including Halley Berry and Jennifer Garner, a new measure will impose tougher penalties on paparazzi that harass the children of public figures, including celebrities, police officers and judges. Starting in January, violators could face up to a year in county jail and a fine of up to $10,000. Fines would increase for subsequent convictions.

MORE ROOM FOR BICYCLISTS: Drivers must give cyclists a 3-foot clearing when passing or, when that clearance isn’t possible, slow down and only pass when there’s enough room. Starting Sept. 16, 2014, passing too close to a bicyclist could result in a fine for the driver, whether there was a crash or not.

AMBER ALERT EXPANSION: Abductions by custodial parents or guardians, who may cause serious bodily injury or death to the child, now will require law enforcement to request the activation of an AMBER Alert.

TEXTING AND DRIVING: Drivers under the age of 18 are not allowed to use voice recognition software, like Apple’s “Siri,” to write, send or read a text while behind the wheel.

HYBRIDS RIDING HOV: Low-emission or zero-emission vehicles can continue using high-occupancy vehicle, or carpool, lanes without meeting occupancy requirements until Jan. 1, 2019.

FINDING HIT-AND-RUN DRIVERS: A new bill extends the current three-year statute of limitations for hit-and-run offenses to six years from the date of a crash that causes death or permanent, serious injuries.

GROUP GRATITUITY: Tips automatically added to a restaurant bill (usually when a table seats 6 or more diners) will now be taxable as regular wages and subject to payroll tax withholding, which means your server won’t see those tips until payday instead of taking it home as cash.

SEARCH WARRANTS: A driver suspected of DUI who refuses to submit to or fails to complete a blood test can be served a search warrant to draw blood in a “reasonable, medically approved manner.” This law went into effect Sept. 20.

Federal: Health care, of course, and vending machines

The biggest and most politically charged change comes at the federal level with the imposition of a new fee for those adults without health insurance.

For 2014, the penalty is either $95 per adult or 1% of family income, whichever results in a larger fine.

The Obamacare, of Affordable Care Act, mandate also requires that insurers cover immunizations and some preventive care.

Additionally, millions of poor Americans will receive Medicaid benefits starting January 1.

Thousands of companies will have to provide calorie counts for products sold in vending machines.

Judge Throws out “Coerced” Confession in Murder Case in Los Angeles

Can the statement that you gave police be used against you in court?   Most likely yes.  But it does need to pass some requirements.

First, your statement must be voluntary, as in not “coerced.”  This means that law enforcement can not physically harm you to get a statment.  Furthermore, detectives  cannot give you false promises of leniency.   Detectives can and usually do lie to people about the evidence they have against them.  Unfortunately, this is not against the law and by itself will not make a statement coerced.

Your age and the circumstances of your detention will also play into whether your statement is considered coerced.  Young age and mental competence will be considered voluntary or coerced.  For example, if you were detained for a long time and not allowed any water or bathroom visits during the interrogation, this may be a factor to show  involuntariness.  

The final factor if you are in custody when you make your statement is if you were given your miranda advisements prior to agreeing to talk to the police. 

 

 

Los Angeles judge finds confession was coerced, frees murder defendant

The jurist says ‘it wasn’t even a close call’ whether LAPD detectives coerced the man, 19 at the time, into changing his story, his lawyer reports. The teen had denied involvement dozens of times.

A man on trial for murder was set free this week after a judge found that Los Angeles police had coerced him into confessing.

Edward Arch, who was 19 at the time of his 2007 arrest and spent more than three years in jail awaiting trial, would probably have been sentenced to life in prison had the jury in the case convicted him.

However, before jurors were to begin deliberations, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Harvey Giss took the rare step of granting a request by Arch’s attorney Wednesday to dismiss the case because of a lack of evidence.

“I’ve been a criminal defense attorney for over 35 years and handled well over a hundred murder cases, and I’ve never had a judge grant a motion like this,” said Arch’s attorney, James Goldstein. “I don’t believe it was the officers’ intent to extract a false confession, but the tactics they used greatly increased the risk of that occurring.”



 

A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office refused to comment on the case, saying a co-defendant is still to stand trial in the case. Two of the detectives who interrogated Arch, Gene Parshall and Efren Gutierrez, did not respond to calls seeking comment. A third detective, John Macchiarella, declined to discuss the details of the case, saying only that he “disagreed with the judge’s decision.”

The trial stemmed from a shooting in May 2007 after a group of men in a North Hills neighborhood got into a verbal dispute with another man as he drove by. At least two men in the group allegedly gave chase and, when they tracked the man down, one of them shot him multiple times at close range.

Three weeks after the killing, detectives interrogated Arch at the LAPD‘s Mission Station. Arch, who had no serious criminal history, had allegedly been identified by residents in the neighborhood as one of the men in the group during the initial confrontation.

From the start of the roughly 90-minute interrogation, the detectives told Arch they had eyewitness accounts of him being in the car that chased down the victim. Two other suspects had also implicated him, the detectives told him.

“It’s not the question of whether you were in that car or not,” Parshall said, according to a transcript of the interview reviewed by The Times. “The question is, what led up to this guy getting shot?”

“I wasn’t in no Nissan,” Arch responded, calling the witnesses “liars.”

The teenager acknowledged that he knew the two other men whom police suspected of being involved in the killing. Despite intense questioning by the detectives, Arch said dozens of times that he had had nothing to do with the killing and hadn’t been in the car. He remained insistent that he had been in his aunt’s house playing video games when the men drove off. He offered to take a lie detector test.

There are no legal or ethical rules prohibiting detectives from lying to suspects or exaggerating the evidence they have in an effort to extract a confession. They cannot, however, entice a suspect by promising he’ll receive leniency or will be let go if he admits his involvement in a crime. Detectives must also be careful not to lead a suspect along by telling him what they believe occurred, since the suspect might then simply repeat the story he was told in a false confession.

The detectives apparently crossed both these lines in the eyes of the judge, who commented in court that “it wasn’t even a close call” whether Arch had been coerced, according to Goldstein.

Parshall, for example, laid out in detail for Arch how he believed the chase and the shooting occurred as he tried to get the teen to admit he had been in the car.

And later, Gutierrez told Arch that he wouldn’t get a “free pass” if he admitted to being in the car but that he was “gambling with [his] freedom” if he continued to insist on his innocence.

“You’re either a witness or you’re a defendant,” Gutierrez told Arch. “You were either in the car when you saw the murder go down and you didn’t know anything about it or you were part of it. And if you were part of it … we’re all going to be able to prove premeditated murder.”

Goldstein said the detectives had gone too far.

“Basically, they were telling him he could walk out that door if he admitted he was involved,” Goldstein said.

As soon as Gutierrez gave Arch the choice of being a “witness” or a “defendant,” Arch changed his story dramatically, saying he had, in fact, been in the car with Michael Brown, one of the other suspects.

He said he had gotten into the car because he wanted a ride to the store to buy cigarettes. As they chased the victim, Arch said, he asked several times to return home but Brown refused. He said he hadn’t seen the gun until Brown, who is awaiting trial, got out of the car and shot the man.

After the shooting, Arch said, Brown handed him the gun and he tossed it out of the car’s window.

The detectives asked why he had lied earlier.

“I knew, like, if I was in the car with him when something happened, I’m going to get in trouble,” he said.

Arch’s whereabouts are unknown, and he could not be reached for comment.

joel.rubin@latimes.com

jack.leonard@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

My Google Profile | My Short Bio

Rats! Say No to Drug Detectives!

If you’ve been arrested for Drug Sales or Transportation, there’s a chance that a detective will sit down with you and make promises he will never be able to deliver. Help him bust other sellers and he’ll make sure your case gets dropped or reduced. Say “NO Thank you.” Here’s why.

The Drug Detective has no power to get rid of your case!

No detective has the authority to sweep an arrest under the rug or tell the DA what to file. Detectives gather information on arrested individuals and have to pass it along to the D.A.’s office. They don’t have discretion to make decisions on your case. Only the DA can decide whether they will file or reject a case. So from your first conversation, the detective is already lying to you. He wants you to think that he has that power and get you to do whatever is necessary. Don’t fall for it.

It is a quick way to make deadly enemies.

Robert Deniro’s famous line to Ray Liotta in “Good fellas” is to remember these two rules, “always keep your mouth shut, and never rat on your friends” Being a confidential informant is basically setting your self up for a beatdown or worse. The people that you have to “turn on” or help bust are usually armed and on drugs. How do you think they will feel knowing you cost them their freedom and income?

The Drug Detective couldn’t care less about you.

I’ve seen many cases, where confidential informants have provided leads, helped make arrests and then find out that after they are all used up, the detective took the case over to the DA for a filing. So guess where you are now? You have a bunch of drug dealers/users waiting to get their hands on you and now youre facing county jail or prison time. And guess who is also in county jail? that’s right, the same guy you helped bust.

The ABC’s of IID’s. Ignition Interlock Device Basics for DUI’s.

Ignition Interlock DeviceIID is the new kid on the block when it comes to DUI’s.

In the year 2010, California lawmakers made it clear that they felt that the IID (Ignition Interlock Device) should be part of DUI punishment and rehabilitation. In a sweeping change, they now allow persons convicted of a DUI to install a IID device and significantly reduce the length of their license suspension. While IID devices have been used for years by the courts, their new implementation on a larger scale has left many to wonder: What is an IID?

Quite simply, its a device that is installed into the ignition of your vehicle to gauge if you have alcohol in your system. If the machine picks up a reading, then it can force your car to shut down and report it to the IID headquarters.

There are a number of providers in the Los Angeles area and I will provide the following link which provides basic info and names and contact information for them.

The costs vary, but there is traditionally a 75-100 dollar fee to install and there is a per day rate of 2 or 3 dollars. Some companies charge more for other services.

If you have questions regarding your DUI and its consequences on your license, feel free to email me or call us at 562 907-4448.

Thank you.

An Attorney must advise his client of all the possible consequences of his choices in court.

When you are facing Criminal Charges in Los Angeles, it is important to hire an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney who knows how to protect your rights and advise you of the consequences of what happens in court. I’ve represented clients in Los Angeles Criminal Courts for over a decade and firmly believe that every client needs to fully aware of their options and legal consequences before making decisions that may change their life. This recent U.S. Supreme Court decision further echoes my beliefs. If you are looking for a an experienced and aggressive Criminal Defense Lawyer in Los Angeles, please contact us for a free consultation.
Defense attorneys have a fundamental obligation to tell their immigrant clients they face possible deportation when pleading guilty to certain crimes, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 7-2 ruling was closely watched by the Justice Department and a number of immigrant rights groups.

“The severity of deportation — the equivalent of banishment or exile — only underscores how critical it is for counsel to inform her noncitizen client that he faces a risk of deportation,” said Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the opinion for the court.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the ‘mercies of incompetent counsel.’ To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” he wrote.

The high court’s conclusions affirm that constitutional guarantees of “effective assistance of counsel” extend to legal advice for noncitizens.

The appeal involves Jose Padilla, a Vietnam-era veteran living in Kentucky but originally from Honduras. He had been a resident of the United States for more than 40 years, but never applied for citizenship. He was arrested in his tractor-trailer and charged with transporting and trafficking marijuana, an “aggravated felony” under federal law.

He pleaded guilty in 2001, and said his lawyer assured him he “did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long,” according to court records.

But the fact that the crime was an aggravated felony meant he would automatically be sent back to Honduras after serving his jail sentence. A state court said he could not withdraw his guilty plea, and that lawyers have no obligation to inform defendants on immigration.

Padilla is not related to a convicted terrorist conspirator and “enemy combatant” with the same name, who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks. That defendant is now in a federal prison serving a life term.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia already mandate that immigrant defendants be given the right extended by the high court. Stevens noted previous plea deals are not likely to be affected by the Supreme Court ruling.

Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts agreed in this case that Padilla’s lawyer misled her client on the consequences of a guilty plea. But they said that, in general, defense attorneys cannot be forced to have a “mastery of immigration law” in service to their clients.

“A criminal defense attorney should not be required to provide advice on immigration law, a complex specialty that generally lies outside the scope of a criminal defense attorney’s expertise,” Alito wrote.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagreed entirely with the majority, saying the Constitution does not guarantee “accurate advice” to criminal defendants, immigrants or citizens alike.

Immigrant rights groups hailed the ruling as one of fundamental fairness.

“Even though most immigrants’ primary concern is their ability to stay in the U.S., they often plead guilty unaware that the result would be permanent exile from their families and communities,” said Michelle Fei, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project. “We’re thrilled that the Supreme Court has recognized that deportation is an extreme penalty and that noncitizens have a constitutional right to legal advice about the consequences of pleading guilty.”

The case is Padilla v. Kentucky (08-651).

Running for 20 years. Client can finally stop and breathe.

Nearly 20 years ago, my client fled los angeles after finding out he had a felony warrant for his arrest.  He was young and foolish and had gotten himself into some bad company and some serious trouble.  His warrant was for the sale of narcotics and could have landed him some serious prison time.   So he ran.    He ran far away and started a new life. 

He changed his ways.  Got an education and a career.  Raised a family and became a productive member of society and his community.   But all along, in the back of his mind, he knew that he was still running and a  brush with the law would devastate his life and take it all away.   He  was wrong for getting caught up in the crime and also for running away but he couldnt run anymore.

He contacted my office to help him with this 20 year old felony warrant.  And just so you know, the people that tell you that warrants just get wiped out automatically after some years are lying to you.   I made some calls and the warrant was active and in the systems.  My client wanted to resolve all of this and knew there was a likelihood that he would go directly to jail and stay there. 

We were able to secure a bail for his warrant and posted it and then came the day in court.   Our client had flown in expecting to go into jail and full of jittery nerves but still willing to take responsibility for the actions.

Fortunately we were able to have his felony case dismissed entirely on that court date.  He flew back to his life and family and finally had a chance to stop and breathe as he is no longer running from the law.    I wish him the best of luck.

Best Regards,

Anthony A. Arzili

Vital Tips for those arrested for Domestic Violence

If you are arrested for Domestic Violence,  you not only face the possiblity of losing your freedom, you also face the likelihood of being precluded from  your house and your family.    Those arrested for Domestic Violence face and incredible burden not usually handed out for misdemeanors.  Unlike many other crimes, If you are arrested for a Domestic Violence charge, you will likely be ordered to move out of your residence, (even if you have legal right to live there).   This Protective Order can also preclude you from having any contact with your girlfriend, wife or mother of your child. 

Once you appear in court, the prosecutors always request a “stay-away” protective order which will make it a crime for you to return back to your home.  It will also make it a separate crime to attempt to contact the alleged victim.  In 12 years, i’ve seen many people attempt to sidestep or ignore the court’s rules, only to be locked up and brought back to court.   Handling the protective order properly is not only key to keeping yourself out of jail, its also important to resolving your underlying domestic violence charge.

An experienced domestic violence attorney can arrange for the protective order to be lifted or modified to allow for safe and non-abusive contact.  Please be advised that your alleged victim is key in having the order lifted or modified, but you cannot contact the alleged victim yourself.  This would be directly against the court’s order.  Only your attorney can contact the alleged victim. 

In certain cases, I give my client’s an option of taking some voluntary anger management classes to assist in reducing tensions and showing the court that it is safe to let the parties stay together.  Some see this as a admission of guilt, but I disagree.  Most judges agree that to maintain a safe and hospitable environment while charges are pending, some counseling is necessary.

Finally, my advice to most people in this unfortunate circumstance is not try to handle any of this yourself, because emotions will likely make you overreact.   Leave this serious situation to a professional criminal defense attorney that handled domestic violence cases.

For a free consultation, feel free to contact me at anthonyarzili@gmail.com   562 907-4448

Best of Luck,

 

Anthony Arzili