Results
Not Guilty
Possession of Ammunition
Not Guilty
Criminal Threats and Brandishing Imitation Firearm
Medrano YA102096 Inglewood Superior Court- 6/11/21- Client was charged with felony PC 422 (criminal threats) and misdemeanor PC 417.4 (brandishing imitation firearm). The client was accused of pulling out a knife that resembled a gun and threatening to kill the complaining witness in front of his wife and daughter. At trial, the complaining witness and his wife testified. Through cross-examination, it became clear their testimony was inconsistent with each other’s testimony, inconsistent with what the complaining witness told the responding officer on the night of the incident, and inconsistent with physical evidence. The jury found my client not guilty of both counts after approximately 2 hours of deliberation.
Not Guilty
Felony Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Client was charged with a felony assault with a deadly weapon. Based on alleged prior strikes, client was facing life in prison for his third strike. One of the alleged prior strikes was an out-of-state offense. Before trial, the out-of-state prior was dismissed after successfully arguing the out-of-state offense was more broad than the California Penal Code equivalent offense. Ultimately, a successful self-defense claim resulted in client being found not guilty.
Not Guilty
Hit and Run
Client was charged with a hit and run. After a 10 minute deliberation, the jury found client not guilty. Client had initially stopped to exchange information, but left the scene because she was so afraid of the alleged victim, only to return when law enforcement officers arrived.
Not Guilty
Indecent Exposure
Client was charged with indecent exposure which carried a lifetime sex offender registration consequence. The jury found client not guilty after finding that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that client had the specific intent required to convict him.
Not Guilty
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Client was charged with possession of a controlled substance found in his bedroom he shared with other individuals. The prosecution could not proved that client had knowledge of the substance or dominion and control over the substances and client was found not guilty after trial.
Case Dismissed
3rd DUI
Client charged with his 3rd DUI. During pretrial, the case was dismissed after the court granted a Ca. Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence based on officers violating client’s 4th amendment rights.
Mental Health Diversion
Attempted Kidnapping
Client charged with attempted kidnapping. Client was granted mental health diversion after an expert witness opined that client suffered from a qualifying mental disorder and the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.
Charges Reduced
Attempted Murder
Client charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of felony discharge of a firearm at an occupied car. After hiring an expert witness on eyewitness identification to show weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, the case was settled for an accessory after the fact for probation with the opportunity to earn a misdemeanor.
Charges Reduced
Attempted Murder
Client charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of felony discharge of a firearm at an occupied car. After hiring an expert witness on eyewitness identification to show weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, the case was settled for an accessory after the fact for probation with the opportunity to earn a misdemeanor.
Case Dismissed
Robbery
16-year-old client charged with two counts of robbery. At an adjudicatory hearing, client was found not guilty of both counts of robbery, but placed on probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725 for petty theft. Client successfully completed probation and the case was ultimately dismissed.
Case Dismissed
Felony Possession of Brass Knuckles
Client charged with a felony possession of brass knuckles. Case was dismissed after a Ca. Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence was granted. The court ruled that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion that client was armed and dangerous and therefore, were not entitled to conduct a pat down search.
