Jeremiah 9:23 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,’ declares the Lord.”
Kishida v. DMV (5-9-2013 )(Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED
This driver had a breath test of .09% so the DMV suspended his license. We requested an administrative per se hearing at the DMV, and had an expert testify. The expert explained that the device was not giving a true number, because the driver was still absorbing alcohol. In fact, this usually results in the breath test being .05 – .06 higher than the person’s true BAC. In this case, the expert explained that the driver’s BAC at the time of driving was actually about .06%. The DMV still suspended. We sought review in the superior court. The judge ruled that the expert testimony rebutted the DMV’s prima facie case, and without any additional evidence from the DMV, the suspension should be set aside. Writ GRANTED.
People v. Morris (5-8-2013)(Los Angeles County – Downey)
Case DISMISSED
This driver was visiting California from Hawaii. He was on the freeway in heavy traffic, travelling about 15 mph when he rear-ended another car. He exited the freeway and pulled over. The other driver (victim) stopped on the freeway. The victim thought the defendant had fled the scene, and called police. The victim and passenger claimed they had injuries to their neck and back, but did not seek medical attention until later. Eventually, the driver got back on the road to his destination – a BBQ at a relatives house. The police were able to locate the driver 2.75 hours later, and arrested him for Felony DUI and hit and run. After giving expert testimony on the BAC at the time of driving, and showing the court that the victims had been paid for their car and injuries ($6900 total), the court DISMISSED the case upon a motion by the defense.
People v Stout (4-19-2013)(Los Angeles County – Long Beach)
DUI DISMISSED – driver plead to wet reckless
Hassanzadah v. DMV (4-2-2013) (San Bernardino County – Rancho Cucamonga)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED
The DMV suspended this driver’s license under the theory that he refused to submit to a chemical test after being arrested for DUI. However, the driver never really refused. He told officers that he was afraid of needles, and was unable to perform a breath test due to a previous injury. Officers forcibly took his blood sample which showed 0.04% (half of the legal limit, and an amount that is expressly presumed to be NOT impaired by the vehicle code). The court agreed that under the circumstances, telling the officers that he was afraid of needles was not the same as refusing to do the test.
Mangin v DMV (3-28-2013)(Orange County – Santa Ana)
Motion to Quash DENIED.
The DMV reported a Louisiana “DUI” conviction on his California driving record. This is not permissible unless the DMV has proof that the conviction arose from actual driving, since other states make it illegal to simply have control over a vehicle (i.e. sleeping in your car even if the engine is not on, or similar facts). After filing a Writ of Mandate, the DMV removed the conviction. However, the DMV did not want to reimburse my client for his attorney fees he had incurred. The case consintued in court on that issue. We planned on taking the depositions of DMV employees to discover exactly how and why the Louisiana conviction appeared on his driving record in violation of law. The DMV attempted to get a court order to stop the depositions. The Court agreed with us, that the depositions are allowed under the law, and denied the DMV’s motion. The DMV promptly offered $7500 to settle the matter.
Quintero v DMV (3-7-2013) (Los Angeles County – Downtown)
Ex Parte GRANTED
The DMV suspended this driver’s license on the theory that he drove with a BAC of .08% or more. However, proper breath testing procedures were not followed, so the breath test results are not reliable. The Court agreed to put the suspension on hold while the case is pending in court.
People v. Luna (2-21-2013) (Orange County – Santa Ana)
REVERSED on Appeal
The trial court required the defendant to pay booking fees without any prior notice to defendant and without a hearing. We appealed. The Appellate Department reversed the trial court.
Manoukian v. DMV (12-13-2012) (Los Angeles County – Downtown)
Ex Parte GRANTED.
The DMV suspended this driver’s license on the theory that he was a negligent driver that caused a collision resulting in the death of another. This driver is a doctor, and the accident was not his fault. He was not drunk, and was not speeding. He simply collided with a vehicle that had become disabled on the freeway just moments before the collision. It was an accicent that could have happened to anyone. The Court agreed to put the suspension on hold while the case is pending in court.
Lewis v. DMV (11-29-2012) (Los Angeles County – Downtown)
Ex Parte GRANTED
The DMV suspended this driver’s license on the theory that his BAC was .08% or more. We filed a Petition with the Superior Court to seek review of that suspension. The Court agreed to put the suspension on hold while the case is pending in court.
People v Leighton (2-13-2013) (Orange County DUI)
Case DISMISSED.
This driver was charged with drunk in public while on DUI probation. After negotiating with the District Attorney for the driver to provide a DNA sample, the case was DISMISSED.
People v Smith (2-06-2013) (Orange County DUI)
Case DISMISSED.
DUI charges dismissed, client plead guilty to “wet” reckless.
This person was driving with no headlights, and had chemical test results of .12%
People v Ramos (1-30-2013) (Los Angeles County DUI)
Defendant found NOT GUILTY.
This driver was 18 years old, and had an initial breath test of .12% in the field.
He went to the station about 40 minutes later, and had a breath test of .10%
After several days of trial, he was found NOT GUILTY of DUI/.08%.
People v Araiza (11-19-2012) (Orange County DUI)
Case DISMISSED.
This client was arrested for suspicion of DUI six years ago. The prosecution did not file on time, waited almost a year to request a warrant, and then did not make any efforts to serve the warrant. The client didn’t even know there was a warrant. The delays resulted in a Speedy Trial and Due Process violation requiring dismissal.
Ward v DMV (10-02-2012) (Los Angeles County DUI)
Writ GRANTED.
Ward had a commercial license. He had 2 DUI’s and a Wet Reckless conviction. He was able to obtain a restricted license, but the DMV would not give him his commercial license back. He needed this to keep his job with the city. We filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The court agreed with our legal arguments, and ordered the DMV to reinstate the commercial lincense, and also awarded attorney fees and costs to the driver!
People v Garcia (7-9-2012) (Orange County DUI)
Case DISMISSED.
This driver was charged with driving on a suspended license. After negotiating with the District Attorney for the driver to provide a DNA sample, the case was DISMISSED.
Vega v DMV (7-6-2012) (Los Angeles County DUI)
Ex Parte stay of suspension GRANTED.
Vega is a person who is employed as a driver. Without his license, he is sure to lose his job. This driver was stopped at a DUI checkpoint and arrested. The DMV suspended his license, even though the records did not prove that the checkpoint was constitutional. We filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and an Ex Parte Application for immediate stay of the suspension.
The court GRANTED the stay so that this driver could keep driving while the case is pending a final resolution.
People v Abbruzzese (7-2-2012) (Orange County DUI)
Motion for Finding of Factual Innocence GRANTED.
This driver was stopped by Costa Mesa Police Department after allegedly weaving into an adjacent lane. After field sobriety tests, the driver was arrested. A chemical test later showed a BAC of .07%. The District Attorney did the right thing by not filing charges, but the arrest was still on the driver’s criminal record. We made a motion for the court to find that the driver was factually innocent, and have the arrest records destroyed.
The judge GRANTED the motion. The driver’s criminal record is now completely clean again.
Bodenmann v. DMV (06-13-2012) (Sacramento DUI)
Ex Parte stay of suspension GRANTED.
This driver’s license was suspended by the DMV. She hired us to seek review in the Superior Court. The judge stayed the suspension pending the outcome of the case.
People v. Villalobos (05-29-2012) (Long Beach DUI)
Case DISMISSED
Client’s BAC was .17%. He had a minor collision with a cop car. DUI charges DISMISSED. Client plead no contest to “wet” reckless. Client received no jail, reduced fines, no DUI suspension, and a short DUI class.
People v. Lewis (2012-05-08) (DUI Orange County)
Motion for Finding of Factual Innocence GRANTED.
This client has never been arrested in over 60 years. He drove through a checkpoint in Huntington Beach. Depsite having a BAC of only .03%, he was arrested for DUI. The DA’s Office did not press charges. However, this client still has the arrest on his record. We filed a motion asking a judge to find him Factually Innocent. It was GRANTED, so all the records related to his arrest will be destroyed and wiped clean.
People v. Quiseng (4-11-2012) (DUI Orange County)
Motion to Recalculate Custody Credits GRANTED.
This driver defended herself in a DUI case, and was convicted. The court sentenced her to 60 days of jail. After she started serving her time in the Orange County Jail, she was given a scheduled release date which would require her to serve 40 actual days in custody. Under the recent changes in the law, she should only serve 30 actual days. She hired me to rush to court to correct the calculation of her “good time/work time” credits. At the hearing, the judge agreed to correct the Court’s error. As a result, the driver was released 10 days earlier.
Ellis v. DMV (3-22-2012) (DUI Los Angeles County)
Ex Parte GRANTED.
This Fedex Driver lost her commercial license after a DUI arrest. The DMV claims she refused a breath test. The officer signed a statement under penalty of perjury stating that the breath samples she gave were rejected by the breath machine. After further investigation, my office discovered she had in fact provided two samples which were measured by the machine. I obtained a continuance to give the judge an opportunity to consider this additional evidence.
Koob v. DMV (3-22-2012) (Los Angeles County)
Ex Parte GRANTED.
This driver had her license suspended after a DUI arrest. The DMV claims she refused a chemical test, but we question whether she was ever told that her license would be suspended if she refused a test. She could not understand the officer when he was reading the admonition. We filed a Writ with the Superior Court and sought an Ex Parte stay of the suspension. It was GRANTED. She can continue to drive while the court has time to decide if the suspension was proper or not.
Murphy v. DMV (3-22-2012) (Los Angeles County)
Ex Parte GRANTED.
This driver had his license suspended after a DUI arrest. His BAC was very low, and we hired and expert which testified that he was in fact lower than .08% at the time of driving. The DMV suspended his license anyway. We filed a Writ with the Superior Court and sought an Ex Parte stay of the suspension. It was GRANTED. He can continue to drive while the court has time to decide if the suspension was proper or not.
Coffey v. DMV (3-12-2012) (Orange County)
Ex Parte GRANTED.
This student had her license suspended after a DUI arrest. Her BAC was very low, and she had an expert testify that she was in fact lower than .08% at the time of driving. The DMV suspended her license anyway. We filed a Writ with the Superior Court and sought an Ex Parte stay of the suspension. It was GRANTED. She can continue to drive while she graduates college this semester. Meanwhile, the court will decide if the suspension was proper or not.
Weber v. DMV (3-2-2012) (Orange County)
Ex Parte GRANTED.
This person’s license was suspended after the police arrested him. They had come to his house after someone claimed his vehicle was in a traffic collision. There were no witnesses to identify the real driver. He now has his license back while the court considers the merits of the suspension.
Verdin v. DMV (2-29-2012) (Orange County)
Writ GRANTED by Superior Court – AFFIRMED by the Court of Appeal.
After the DMV denied this driver an opportunity to present expert testimony at his DMV hearing, we filed a Writ in Superior Court. The Judge GRANTED the Writ, ordering the DMV to give him another hearing. At the new hearing, the DMV ignored the expert and suspended his license anyway. We filed another Writ in the Superior Court. It was also GRANTED, requiring the DMV to give back his license. Instead, the DMV filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal AFFIRMED the Superior Court decision. Therefore, the DMV has to give back his license. In addition, the Court of Appeal awarded the driver his costs for fighting the appeal.
Nurse v. DMV (01-17-2012) (Orange County DUI)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
The DMV claimed this driver had suffered a prior DUI in Iowa. We challenged the use of the Iowa prior here in California because the Iowa law does not define the crime the same way we do here. Iowa makes it illegal to be impaired while operating a vehicle – which could mean the person never actually drove a car. In California, we require actual driving. The judge agreed and ordered the DMV to remove the “prior” from the record AND ordered the DMV to pay the driver more than $4,000.00 for her attorney fees and costs incurred by bringing the suit!
People v. Travis Webb (12-19-2011) (Orange County)
Case DISMISSED!
This person was arrested for a first offense over a year ago. His BAC was reported to be right at .08%. He was stopped at a checkpoint. He wanted to fight the case. When he went to court, there was no case filed. About a year later, he received a notice from DMV telling him his license was suspended for failing to appear in court. He hired me to correct this error and defend the case. I made a motion to dismiss based on a violation of his speedy trial right. The court agreed, and his record remains clear of a conviction now.
Collins v. DMV (11-23-2011) (Orange County)
Ex Parte to Stay the DMV Suspension GRANTED.
DMV claims this person refused a chemical test. What he actually did, was simply say that he would comply with anything as long as it did not violate his rights. The officer interpreted that response as a refusal. The OC judge agreed to stay the suspension in this case until he can hear all the evidence.
Jaffe v. DMV (11-03-2011) (Los Angeles County)
Ex Parte Stay of Suspension GRANTED.
DMV alleges this driver refused the chemical test, but the evidence shows he was not offered a blood test because it was considered too inconvenient. We sought review by a Superior Court judge, and the suspension is on hold until he can hear all the evidence.
Ellis v. DMV (10-27-2011) (Los Angeles County)
Ex Parte Stay of Suspension GRANTED.
The DMV claims this driver refused the chemical test, but she has medical reasons why the test was unavailable, therefore she should have been offered a urine test. Of course, she was never offered a urine test. We sought review by a Superior Court judge. The suspension is on hold until the judge can hear all the evidence.
Cirel v. DMV (8-12-2011) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ording the DMV to issue a restricted license.
Ogaz v. DMV (8-11-2011) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ording the DMV to issue a restricted license.
Deardorff v. DMV (6-28-2011) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
The DMV used an Ohio conviction against this driver to increase his suspension period from 30 days to 12 months. I filed a Writ alleging the DMV did not have sufficient evidence to use the Ohio prior. The court agreed. The DMV was forced to treat his California DUI as a first offense.
Ogaz v. DMV (6-13-2011) (Orange County)
Motion for Preliminary Injunction GRANTED.
Judge determined that we were likely to prevail on the underlying Writ and ordered the DMV to stay the suspension. This is another Writ forcing the DMV to comply with the new IID license for 2nd offenders.
Petrosian v. DMV (4-27-2011) (Los Angeles)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
This driver lost his DMV hearing. He had an expert testify, but so did the DMV. We had to have a real judge weigh the evidence to get the correct decision. The judge ruled in favor of the driver, and he got his license back. The Court granted the Writ.
Viani v. DMV (4-19-2011) (DUI San Diego County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
This 2nd offender had an offense date prior to 7/1/2010 AND a conviction date prior to 7/1/2010. DMV claimed the new law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply. We challenged that in San Diego County and the Court granted the Writ, ording the DMV to issue a restricted license.
Wedemeyer v. DMV (4-14-2011) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ordering the DMV to issue a restricted license.
Medina v. DMV (4-14-2011) (Orange County)
Another Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ordering the DMV to issue a restricted license.
McFarland v. DMV (3-24-2011) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
The DMV used a Florida conviction against this driver to increase his suspension period from 30 days to 12 months. I filed a Writ alleging the DMV did not have sufficient evidence to use the Florida prior. The court agreed. The DMV was forced to treat his California DUI as a first offense.
Segundo v. DMV (3-16-2011) (Los Angeles)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
I handled this client’s 2nd offense DUI, and resolved his case as a 1st offense to avoid jail time. The DMV claimed that he did not have 2 DUI convictions, despite the 1-year suspension imposed by the DMV after he was arrested the 2nd time. The court agreed with my client, that he had suffered 2 convictions, and therefore was eligible for a restricted license after 90 days. He was not required to suffer the entire 12 month suspension.
People v. Lewis (3-16-2011) (West Covina DUI)
Red Light Camera Ticket – Trial: NOT GUILTY.
Please note: I only handle DUI cases and related DMV matters. I handled this red light camera ticket as part of the defense provided in a DUI case.
Doan v. DMV (3-11-2011) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED. Driver awarded $2,000.00 + costs.
After the DMV ruled against the driver at the APS hearing, we challenged the DMV decision. The DMV claimed the arresting officer did not have to sign the arresting document (DS-367), and that when another officer signed the proof of service section that was sufficient. After we filed the Petition for Writ of Mandate, the DMV conceded we were right and gave back the driver license. The court required the DMV to reimburse the driver the attorney fees and costs he had incurred in the process.
McNerny v. DMV (3-10-2011) (Los Angeles)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ording the DMV to issue a restricted license.
Vargas v. DMV (3-9-2011) (Orange County)
Ex Parte GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted a restricted license pending the outcome of the case.
Viani v. DMV (3-3-2011) (San Diego County DUI)
Ex Parte GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in San Diego County and the Court ruled that the driver made compelling arguments, and granted a restricted license pending the outcome of the case.
Black v. DMV (2-17-2011) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claimed that the new 7/1/2010 law giving a restricted license to 2nd or 3rd offenders does not apply to drivers with offense dates prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged this claim in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. The Judge ruled that it did apply to my client, despite the offense date being prior to 7/1/2010.
Enoc v DMV (2011-01-21) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
Driver arrested for DUI. DMV attempted to suspend his license without giving him an oportunity to present expert testimony. We sought review from the Superior Court. The court ruled the DMV was required to give the driver a new hearing to present the expert testimony. The expert testified that the driver’s BAC was .01-.07% at the time of driving. The DMV ignored the testimony and suspended the license. We sought review from the Superior Court again. The court overturned the DMV decision, and the driver’s license was reinstated.
Celso v. DMV (2011-01-20) (Los Angeles)
Fee Waiver – GRANTED.
Driver is challenging unlawful suspension of his license by DMV. He applied for a fee waiver and the Superior Court held a hearing to determine if the waiver should be granted. It was granted.
Lisa v. DMV (2011-01-7) (Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
Driver was arrested for DUI. She was asked to do a blood or breath test and she declined. The officer never advised her that her license would be suspended if she refused. The DMV suspended her license anyway. We challenged the DMV at the Superior Court. The court GRANTED the Writ, overturning the 1-year suspension.
People v. Jason (2010-12-27) (Whittier DUI)
Client found NOT GUILTY.
After beginning a jury trial, and winning an important motion limiting the admissibility of breath evidence, the prosecution dropped one charge, and the judge found the driver Not Guilty of the other charge. This outcome avoided a conviction for DUI, and resulted in an immediate reinstatement of the driver license.