DUI Law | Criminal Defense Law

DUI Law | Criminal Defense Law

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 

In the Criminal Justice System, there are three category of offenses: 

1. Infractions: Typically no jail time, and only pay a fine. 

2. Misdemeanors:   A misdemeanor offense is considered as a crime. A crime more severe than Infractions. If you are charged with a misdemeanor offense, you are facing up to 1 year in county jail that may include fines and penalties. Misdemeanor offenses typically cannot have you sent to prison. All misdemeanor charges are governed by Penal Code  4019, which means that all jail sentence you are required to serve, will be at 50%. 

3. Felonies: Felonies are much more serious than misdemeanor. For felonies, the general rule is if you are charged with a felony, you could be sentenced to State Prison. The general rule is if you are sentenced to State Prison the minimum time for custody for a felony charge is 16 months, 2 years or 3 years in State Prison. It can usually be difficult to determine which crimes are generally felonies. Contacting a Criminal Defense Lawyer to talk about your case can always help 

SHAW 3 LAW FIRM CASE RESULTS:  

-DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE (DMV) LICENSE SUSPENSION 'SET ASIDE.' DMV CASE DISMISSED. (NEGLIGENT OPERATOR HEARING): W.M: Client is a Commercial Driver, where he is employed as a Trucker. The client's family was emotionally and financially dependent on him. The client then received an Order of Probation/Suspension from the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV), which declared the client as a Negligent Operator for accumulating multiple points on his driving record within 12 months. Since the client was declared a Negligent Operator, the DMV determined the date where his license was going to be suspended.  A license suspension could have affected his life as well as his family's life. The Client wanted to fight.  The Client contacted Mr. Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm to prevent his license from being suspended. Mr. Shaw appeared and handled the client's Negligent Operator DMV Hearing. After the Negligent Operator DMV hearing, the DMV Hearing Officer decided to set aside the suspension and decided not to suspend the client's commercial license. In other words, the DMV dismissed his case and the client's license is not going to suspended. Client can now go on with his life and keep his Commercial License.

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 422 (CRIMINAL THREATS): (PEOPLE Vs. A.S): Client was charged with PC 422 (Criminal Threats). After extensive litigation and negotiation with the District Attorney, the case was able to be dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 594 (VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs. L.C): Client was charged with Vandalism under PC 594. Was able to pitch Judicial Diversion where the client did community service and paid back any deductibles. Case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 12500 (UNLICENSED DRIVER): (PEOPLE Vs. L.I):  Client was charged for driving unlicensed. Mr. Shaw noticed that there was a Speedy Trial Rights violation. Mr. Shaw filed the Speedy Trial Motion (Serna). Case was argued and the judge granted the motion, therefore, case being dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 537(A)(1) (DEFRAUDING IN-KEEPER):(PEOPLE Vs. C.H.): Client was charged with PC 537(A)(1) Defrauding In-keeper. Mr. Shaw explained the conduct was only $35 where the client did not know her credit card would decline. The District Attorney understood the facts of the case and the case was later dismissed. 

- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) (HIT AND RUN DRIVING): (PEOPLE Vs. A.B.): Client was charged with CVC 20002(A) Hit and Run Driving. Client admitted to hitting the alleged victim's car with his car. After the collision with the victim, the client fled the scene. Eventually the officers found him and arrested him. Mr. Shaw spoke to the client and believed the client's story. Mr. Shaw prepped the case for trial. However, before the case was sent out to go to trial, the case was dismissed.   

-1538 MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE. MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE)& CVC 23152(B) (DRIVING WITH BAC LEVEL OF .08% OR HIGHER): (PEOPLE Vs. J.F.): Client was charged with two counts of DUI. Client was at a parking lot arguing with her boyfriend. Boyfriend got mad and called the police and told the police about a domestic violence taking place. Once police arrived, the police determined there was no domestic violence taking place. The police then later decided to unlawfully conduct a DUI Investigation. Mr. Shaw filed a 1538.5 Motion to Suppress the evidence due to the illegal questioning and/or detention. The judge agreed with Mr. Shaw's argument. Motion was granted and the whole DUI case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE)& CVC 23152(B) (DRIVING WITH BAC LEVEL OF .08% OR HIGHER)(PEOPLE Vs. J.F.): Client was charged with two counts of DUI. The day of the alleged DUI took place on 2011, but the District Attorney prosecuted the case in 2023. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case and weakness in the case. After the discussion, the case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(2)(A)(VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs. A.C.): Client was charged with Vandalism. Mr. Shaw spoke to the judge regarding the client partaking in a court program for dismissal called, Judicial Diversion. The judge allowed the client to be admitted. After the client completed the necessary terms, the case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED: PC 273.5(A)(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH TRAUMATIC INJURY)(PC 236)(FALSE IMPRISONMENT): (PEOPLE Vs. J.G): Client was charged with hurting her boyfriend after a heating argument, which led the client to prevent her boyfriend from going anywhere. However, the argument was instigated by the boyfriend causing the client to do what she believes was legally allowed. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding the facts and the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to resolve the case. The case was later dismissed.

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. G.U): Client stole beauty supplies from Sephora totaling $197. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the judge for the client to come up with ways to resolve the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the district attorney. The case was later dismissed.  

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) (HIT AND RUN DRIVING): PEOPLE Vs. G.D): Client got into a car accident with the alleged victim. Client was scared and drove away. They did not exchange any information. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw was able to provide mitigation to resolve the case. The case was later dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(G)(FRAUDULENT USE OF CREDIT CARD)& PC 496(A) (RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY): PEOPLE Vs. G.M.: Client received and used someone's else credit card to purchase items. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and provided the DA with mitigation. The case to later dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs J.N.): Client stole gift cards from Amazon and used the gift cards to purchase merchandise. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and provided the DA with mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed. 

-CHARGE REDUCTION: (PEOPLE Vs. J.C.): Client was charged with HS 11350 possession of drugs and PC 25400(A)(3)(Carrying a Concealed Weapon). Client was facing a potential felony. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and client pled to a reduced charge of HS 11350. The PC 25400(A)(3) charge was later dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 597(A) CRUELTY TO ANIMAL: (PEOPLE Vs. M.D): Client was charged for killing a possum and thought it was a rat. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney to explain the case and the case was eventually dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) GRAND THEFT:(PEOPLE Vs. J.R): Client was an employee worker for Home Depot and reasonably thought he can use the Home Depot pre-paid card as he did. Home Depot alleged the pre-paid card was used without their permission. Mr. Shaw spoke with the District Attorney to explain the case. The case was eventually dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. HS 11364 (POSSESSION OF METH PIPE): (PEOPLE Vs. D.C): Client was caught with possession of meth pipe. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney's office for a dismissal due to the nature of the case. The case was later dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 148(A)(1)(RESISTING ARREST) & HS 11550(A) (UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES)PC 243(B) (BATTERY ON PEACE OFFICER): (PEOPLE Vs. S.B): Client was charged with resisting arrest from a police officer. Mr. Shaw realized that on the day of the incident the client was under the influence and could not form the specific intent to commit the violation. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the judge that the drugs was affecting the client's mindset, preventing him from actually having the intent to commit the crime. The judge agreed. After the client completed the necessary terms requested by the judge, the case was later dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. M.N): Client was charged for stealing items with a co defendant at Wal-Mart. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the Judge and explained that the Co-Defendent is the main suspect. Mr. Shaw's representation was valid. The case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT):(PEOPLE Vs. S.R): Client was charged for stealing at a local store. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT), HS 11364(A) (POSSESSION OF METH), HS 11364(A): (PEOPLE Vs. T.E): Client was caught stealing but also determined to be under the influence of meth. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(1)(VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs.A.S): Client was caught damaging someone else's property. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney for dismissal after a civil compromise. The DA agreed. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CITY CODE VIOLATION 9.04.090 (CLOSING HOURS FOR PARK): (PEOPLE Vs. D.D): Client was at the park minutes after it was closed. Client was on the way out of the park, but the Police officer detained, and arrested the client for being at the park after hours. Mr. Shaw spoke to the City Attorney. After discussion of the case with the City Attorney, the case was later dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 148(A)(1)(RESISTING ARREST): (PEOPLE Vs. S.B): Client was charged with 2 counts of resisting arrest from a police officer. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the Judge about the case. The client was required to do an Anger Management class. After the client completed the Anger Management class, the case was then dismissed. 

-CHARGE REDUCTION. PC 22210 (POSSESSION OF BILLY, BLACKJACK) , HS 11364(A)(POSSESSION OF METH): (PEOPLE Vs. J.W): Client was charged with having possession of a Billy. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. The District Attorney agreed to reduce the charge. Client plead to an Infraction of PC 415 (Disturbing the Peace) and dismiss the PC 22210 (Possession of Billy) and HS 11364 (Possession of Meth).

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A)(HIT AND RUN DRIVING):(PEOPLE Vs. A.R): Client was charged for colliding with another vehicle and leaving the scene. Mr. Shaw spoke with the District Attorney for a civil compromise. The case was resolved, which led the case to being dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): PEOPLE Vs.S.B): Client was charged for kicking a pregnant women. Mr. Shaw pitched a court program for the case to be dismissed. The judge granted the client to be in the program. After the client completed what she needed to do, the case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(1)(VANDALISM), PC 166(A)(4)(VIOLATING A PROTECTIVE ORDER): PEOPLE Vs. C.C: Client was charged with going to ex girlfriend house and throwing the ex girlfriend's phone out the window causing it to shatter. The client then ripped the ex girlfriend's ring camera from her door. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding the facts of the case. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT)(PEOPLE Vs. M.R): Client stole some items. Client did theft class. Mr. Shaw provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed. 

-CHARGE REDUCED TO WET RECKLESS (PEOPLE Vs. P.S): Client was charged with 2 counts of DUI and driving on a suspended driving license with a prior DUI conviction. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney regarding the weakness in the case. The 2 DUI counts and driving on suspended license was dismissed, and client pled to a lesser charge of Wet Reckless. 

-CASE DISMISSED. HS 11550 (UNDER THE INFLUENCE): PEOPLE V. J.A): Client was charged with being under the influence. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A) (DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE), CVC 23152(B)(DRIVING WITH A BAC OF .08% OR HIGHER), CVC 20002(A)(HIT AND RUN DRIVING) (PEOPLE Vs. P.G): Client was charged with Hit and Run and DUI. Client was driving back home from work an event. As he was driving back home to Chino hills, he hit a light pole. There were 2 witnesses who saw client hit the light pole. The two witnesses also saw the client walk away from the client's car hit the light pole. Client's blood alcohol concentration level was almost triple the legal limit. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw realized that the chemical test that was performed was by the a Breath Chemical Test. Mr. Shaw discovered the potential faults in the machine. Mr. Shaw filed necessary motions to invalidate the Breath Chemical Test. Prior to the case going to trial, the District Attorney realized the weakness of the case.  Both counts of DUI and the Hit and Run Driving charged was all dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) HIT AND RUN DRIVING. (PEOPLE Vs. V.S): Client was charged with using her mother's car and got into a car accident. Client fled the scene of the accident due to her fear of getting in trouble with her mother as well as the police officer. Mr. Shaw explained the story with the District Attorney. We provided the District Attorney with mitigation for dismissal. The DA agreed. Case dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. S.V): Client was charged for stealing. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided their office with mitigation. Case was later dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 2800.1(A)(EVADING THE POLICE). (PEOPLE Vs. J.T): Client was charged for evading the police while driving. Mr. Shaw pitched Judicial Diversion with the judge.The judge required the client to do Traffic Safety Class and Community Service. In 6 months, after all terms were completed, the case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 475 (POSSESSION OF COUNTERFEIT ITEMS). (PEOPLE Vs. D.G): Client was selling fake Universal Studios ticket and people bought them and realized the tickets were fake. Client was charged with possession of counterfeit items. Mr. Shaw told the District Attorney the weakness in the case. The case was dismissed on the first pretrial hearing. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 243(E)(1)(BATTERY ON SPOUSE/DOMESTIC BATTERY)(PEOPLE Vs. M.Z): Client was at home with her husband. Husband wanted to have sex with the client but client did not want to. The husband forced himself onto the client, but the client resisted. The client defended herself by pushing and punching the husband to get him away. Client was charged with Battery on a Spouse. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw explained the facts of the case to the District Attorney. Mr. Shaw provided the District Attorney with mitigation for dismissal. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) HIT AND RUN DRIVING. (PEOPLE Vs. T.S): Client was charged with Hit and Run driving. However, client was not the one driving the vehicle. Mr. Shaw explained the case to the District Attorney. The case was then dismissed. 

-CHARGE REDUCED TO DISTURBING THE PEACE FROM CVC 23110(A)(THROWING AN OBJECT AT MOTOR VEHICLE). (PEOPLE Vs. D.S): Client was in his car and as he was driving he threw a Monster Energy Drink at another car. The person in the other car got mad and called the police. Client was later arrested and charged. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and explained the case. The charged was then later reduced to disturbing the peace. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): (PEOPLE Vs. A.A): Client was charged with battery. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney for dismissal. The case was then dismissed. 

-SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 647.6(A)(1) ANNOY/MOLEST CHILD UNDER 18: (PEOPLE Vs. H.L): Client was facing a serious crime and also Immigration consequences. Mr. Shaw reviewed the case and filed the necessary motion because the case violated his speedy trial right. The judge agreed. The motion was granted. The case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. P.C): Mr. Shaw pitched a court program to the judge for the case to be dismissed. The judge granted the client into the program. After the client completed the terms the judge required, the case was dismissed.

-CASE DISMISSED.  PC 594(B)(2)(A)(VANDALISM). (PEOPLE Vs. S.G). : Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney for a civil compromise based on the nature of the facts. Client paid $450 and the case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. M.J): Client was going through a divorce and having a tough time with his life and resulted to using drugs. The use of drugs caused client to steal items from Home Depot. Mr. Shaw pitched court diversion and it was granted with terms. After completion of those terms, the case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 14601.2 (DRIVING WITH SUSPENDED DRIVING LICENCE WITH A PRIOR DUI CONVICTION), CVC 22450 (RUNNING A STOP SIGN)(PEOPLE Vs. A.R):  Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney for dismissal. The case was then dismissed. 

-SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/ SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 273.5(A)(DOMESTIC BATTERY ON PARTNER LEADING TO TRAUMATIC INJURY)(PEOPLE Vs. D.S): Client was accused of slapping, hitting and chocking the alleged victim. However, Mr. Shaw noticed the issue with the timeliness of the case being filed. Mr. Shaw filed the motion indicating that there was a Speedy Trial Right violation. The judge agreed. The motion was granted and the case was dismissed.

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 602.1(A) OBSTRUCTING OR INTIMIDATING BUSINESS (PEOPLE Vs. M.L): Client was a former Police Officer. The witnesses at the scene fabricated the case against the client. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney provided mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484 (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. I.S): Mr. Shaw Spoke with the client and spoke to the district attorney. The client completed terms that was requested by the district attorney. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. HS 11364(A) POSSESSION OF METH PIPE: (PEOPLE Vs. J.C): Mr. Shaw spoke to the DA in the case regarding the facts of the case. The case was dismissed on the first pre-trial. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23109(A) SPEED CONTEST, CVC 23103 (RECKLESS DRIVING):(PEOPLE Vs. J.M): Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney. The case was then dismissed.

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. F.P): Client was caught stealing items from a beauty supply store.Mr. Shaw spoke to the DA. Mr. Shaw then provided mitigation to the DA. The case was then dismissed.

-CASE DISMISSED. HS 11550(A)(UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE): (PEOPLE Vs. D.C): Client was found to be under the influence. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the DA. The case was then dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. CVC 14601.2(A) (DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED DRIVER LICENSE WITH PRIOR DUI CONVICTION): (PEOPLE Vs. J.G): Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding having the case dismissed due to the facts of the case. The case was dismissed.

-1538.5 MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 25400(A)(1)(CARRY CONCEALABLE WEAPON IN VEHICLE): (PEOPLE Vs. K.K):  Client was unlawfully stopped by Law Enforcement. Upon the illegal stop, Law Enforcement conducted an unlawful search of client's vehicle. Upon the search law enforcement found a gun. Mr. Shaw filed the 1538.5 Motion to Suppress Evidence, which if granted would dismiss the case. The Court agreed that the client was unlawfully searched. The motion was granted. Therefore, the case was dismissed.

-1538.5 MOTION TO SUPPRESS GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(F)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS): (PEOPLE Vs. F.R): Client was being followed by law enforcement. Law enforcement conducted a traffic stop for speeding. Without Law Enforcement having any additional information besides speeding, law enforcement unlawfully decided to conduct a DUI Investigation. The DUI investigation exceeded the purpose of the stop. The client was arrested and charged with DUI with Drugs. A chemical test revealed the client had at or around 1,000 ng of meth in his system.  Mr. Shaw came onto the case and spoke to the client and spoke to the District Attorney. Mr. Shaw informed the District Attorney of the weakness of the case and needed to be dismissed. The District Attorney refused to dismiss the case. Mr. Shaw filed a 1538.5 Motion to Suppress. The court agreed with Mr. Shaw and granted his motion. The whole case was dismissed. 

-SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 273A(B)(WILLFUL CRUELTY TO CHILD):(PEOPLE Vs. D.G): Client was charged with Willful Cruelty to Child. Mr. Shaw noticed the case was not timely filed within the compliance of the speedy trial rights of client. Mr. Shaw filed the Speedy Trial Motion/Serna Motion. The court agreed and granted the motion. The case was dismissed. 

-CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): (PEOPLE Vs. J.P):  Client was being wrongfully accused of hitting his daughter. Mr. Shaw spoke to the client and it was revealed that the daughter was not telling the truth on what happen on the day of the incident. Mr. Shaw prepped the case for trial as he was very confident what the outcome of the case would be. On the day of the trial, the district attorney dismissed the case.  

-SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 148.9(A)(FALSELY REPRESENTED ID TO PEACE OFFICER), PC 22610(A) FELON IN POSSESSION OF A STUN GUN: (PEOPLE Vs. A.S): Client was charged with providing false information to the police authorities when she was pulled over. Client was also found with a stun gun in her vehicle. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw evaluated the case and realized there is a constitutional violation of client's rights. Mr. Shaw filed the righteous motion to dismiss the case. The court agreed with the motion and granted the motion. The case was dismissed. 

-CHARGE REDUCED TO DRY RECKLESS DRIVING (PEOPLE Vs. D.F): Client was charged with CVC 23152(G), which is driving while under the influence of both alcohol and drugs. Mr. Shaw took on the case and evaluated the case. After evaluating the case, Mr. Shaw was able to negotiate and reduce the DUI charge to Dry Reckless Driving due to an obvious weakness in the case.



COMMON CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE (CVC) CRIMES

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI): CVC 23152 

You can be found guilty of DUI if you are found to be driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both.You can also be found guilty if you are driving a vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08% or higher. The California Vehicle Code sections are usually 23152. 

If you are arrested for a DUI, you have ten days from the date of your arrest to contact the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) to request a DMV Hearing. If you fail to do so, then your license will be suspended after thirty days automatically.  The DMV Hearing simply focuses on whether you were driving a vehicle, whether the police had a lawful reason to stop your vehicle, and whether your BAC is .08 or higher. 

However, do not let a DUI get you down. There are defenses that area available to defend your case. At Shaw 3 Law Firm, we can evaluate if the police officer had a good basis to "stop" you. The police officer must be able to articulate and specify the reason for the traffic stop. This matters because if the police officers did not have a valid reason to stop your vehicle, your entire case can be thrown out for a violation of your Federal and State constitutional rights for unreasonable searches and seizures. We can also evaluate if the police officer had a good basis to investigate you. 

In California, if there is an incident where police made an illegal or unlawful stop of you, or unlawful arrest,  then under PC 1538.5, you can move to suppress any evidence that came after the illegal conduct. This means any admissions you made that you were drinking, the Breath or blood test you took, which would, in turn, win you your case. Shaw 3 Law Firm has handled hundreds of DUI cases to spot the relevant issues to successfully defend your case.

RECKLESS DRIVING: CVC 23103

For person to be convicted of violating CVC 23103, the prosecution/DA must prove the following: 

1. You Drove a vehicle on a highway/street/ in an off-street parking facility); AND

2. You intentionally drove with wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. 

An example of this could be doing donuts, burnouts, speeding, driving too fast in the rain, swerving/changing lanes quickly, tailgating other drivers, and others. 

However, you can fight the case. Depending on the facts of the case, a dismissal may be likely. A common defense to reckless driving could be something called a “necessity” type of situation. By that, it means you could be driving your pregnant wife to the hospital because she is giving birth. Another example could be that you are driving your injured friend to the hospital because they received a stab or gunshot wound. Either circumstance here shows a valid defense of Necessity for this charge.

Shaw 3 Law Firm has handled hundreds of Reckless Driving cases, depending on the facts, where most lead to it being dismissed. We can help spot the relevant issues to successfully defend your case.

HIT AND RUN LAW (CVC 20001/CVC 20002): 

For a person to be convicted of a violation of VC 20001(a), the prosecution must prove the following:

  1. While driving, you were involved in an accident;
  2. The accident caused the death of/permanent, serious injury to someone else;
  3. You knew you either had been involved in an accident that injured another person or knew from the nature of the accident that it was probable that another person was likely injured; AND
  4. You willfully failed to perform one or more of the following duties:
  • (a) To immediately stop at the scene of the accident;
  • (b) To provide reasonable assistance to any person injured in the accident;
  • (c) To give to the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with or any police officer at the scene of the accident all of the following information:
    • The defendant’s name and current residence address; AND
    • The registration number of the vehicle you were driving; AND
    • The name and current residence address of the owner of the vehicle if you are not the owner; AND
    • The names and current residence addresses of any occupants of your vehicle who were injured in the accident; AND
    • When requested, to show your driver’s license to the driver or occupants of any vehicle that collided with or any police officer at the scene of the accident; AND
    • You must, without unnecessary delay, notify either the police department of the city where the accident happened or the local headquarters of the California Highway Patrol if the accident happened in an unincorporated area.

For a person to be convicted of a violation of VC 20002(a), the prosecution must prove the following:

  1. While driving, you were involved in an accident;
  2. The accident caused damage to someone else’s property;
  3. You knew you either had been involved in an accident that caused property damage or knew from the nature of the accident that it was probable that property had been damaged; AND
  4. You willfully failed to perform one or more of the following duties:
  • (a) To immediately stop at the scene of the accident; OR
  • (b) To immediately provide the owner or person in control of the damaged property with their name and current residence address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle you were driving. The driver of a vehicle may provide the required information in one of two ways:
  1. The driver may locate the owner or person in control of the damaged property and give that person the information directly. On request, the driver must also show that person their driver’s license and the vehicle registration; OR
  2. The driver may leave the required information in a written note in a conspicuous place on the vehicle or other damaged property. The driver must then also, without unnecessary delay, notify either the police department of the city where the accident happened or the local headquarters of the California Highway Patrol if the accident happened in an unincorporated area.

What is important here is your knowledge. If you hit a parked car in a parking lot, but do not know you did, and based on the nature of your driving, would not have assumed you did, you could not be convicted of the crime. Likewise, if you are unsure that you hit another vehicle causing that personal injury, you could not be convicted. However, if you are speeding on the freeway, and cut across several lanes of traffic, and think you may have nicked another driver’s car, but are not sure, then the nature of your reckless driving would likely have caused some kind of property damage or injury to the other driver’s car.

Shaw 3 Law Firm has handled hundreds of Hit and Run cases. We can help spot the relevant issues to successfully defend your case.

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 12500/14601.1(a)/14601.2(a): DRIVING AS AN UNLICENSED DRIVER AND/OR DRIVING WITH SUSPENDED DRIVING LICENSE

Under CVC 14601(a): No person shall drive a motor vehicle at any time when that person’s driving privilege is suspended or revoked for reckless driving. 

For a person to be convicted under CVC 14601(a)/14601.1(a)/14601.2(a), the prosecution must prove the following:

  1. You drove a motor vehicle while your driving privilege was suspended/ revoked; AND
  2. When you drove, you knew that your driving privilege was suspended/revoked.

The prosecution usually must show you had knowledge of the suspension by proof that the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) mailed a notice to you telling you that your driving privilege had been suspended/ revoked. The must also prove that the notice was sent to your most recent address reported to the DMV. The prosecutor also must show proof that the notice was not returned to the department as undeliverable or unclaimed.

A license can be suspended for several reasons such as but not limited to too many points for too many point violations within a year (the limit is 4 points in a year), too many unpaid parking tickets, failure to appear, unpaid child support payments, and others. 

If you are convicted of driving on a suspended license it is usually only a misdemeanor crime in California.  You could be sentenced to County Jail for upwards of 180 days. You would be required to serve 50% of that time. In addition, you would likely receive two more points on your license. 

Other relevant violations under this section

1. VC 12500: Unlicensed Driver

A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless the person then holds a valid driver’s license

If you are convicted of this crime, you can be charged as an Infraction or Misdemeanor, depending on certain factors as well as your criminal background. If you are convicted of this charge as a Misdemeanor, you could be sentenced to County Jail for up to 180 days. You would be required to serve 50% of that sentence. If convicted of this as an infraction, you would only be required to pay fines. This is commonly referred to as the reduction of VC 14601.1(a).

2. VC 14601.2(a)

A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at any time when that person’s driving privilege is suspended or revoked for a conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 if the person so driving has knowledge of the suspension or revocation.

Shaw 3 Law Firm has handled hundreds of these type of cases. We can help spot the relevant issues to successfully defend your case. 

If you have other vehicle related crimes, then please do not hesitate to reach out to Shaw 3 Law Firm to talk about your case. 

COMMON FINANCIAL AND/OR THEFT CRIMES 

SHOPLIFTING LAW: PC 459.5: 

Shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950). 

To convict you of this crime, the prosecution must show prove: 

1. You entered a commercial establishment;

2. When you entered the commercial establishment, it was open during regular business hours; AND

3. When you entered the commercial establishment, you intended to commit theft.

To intend to steal from the establishment, it must be shown that you intended to deprive the owner of it permanently/to remove it from the owner’s or owner’s agent’s possession for so extended a period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property. This can be hard for the prosecution because usually a statement is usually their strongest evidence. Therefore, if you do not enter a commercial establishment with the intent to steal, you cannot be found guilty of Shoplifting.

Shaw 3 Law Firm is very experienced and a trustworthy Criminal Defense Firm handling these cases. We have handled several hundreds of these cases. 

PETTY THEFT LAWS: PC 484-488/490.1

Petty Theft is defined as: You took property or money from another person or business with the intent to never return the property or money. The value of the property must be $950 or less to be Petty Theft.

As example of this would be shoplifting from a store, going into a store with
empty plastic bags, filling them with items, and either leaving the store with
those items or attempting to return items you never bought. You must also do this without the consent of the owner item. Property can be any tangible item like clothing, books, cells phones, or even money. 

Shaw 3 Law Firm is very experienced and a trustworthy Criminal Defense Firm handling these cases. We have handled several hundreds of these cases.

GRAND THEFT: PC 487

Grand Theft is usually defined as the unlawful taking of the property of another when the value of the taken property exceeds $950 dollars.  However, you may be charged with Grand Theft – regardless of the value of the property taken – if the property taken is a firearm or an automobile, or if the property is taken from somebody’s person (E.g., pickpocketing).

The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following:

  1. You took possession of property that belonged to somebody else;
  2. You did so without the owner’s consent;
  3. When you took possession of the property, you did so with the intent to keep the property permanently, or for such an extended period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property;
  4. You moved the property, no matter how little you moved it, or for how long you had possession of it;
  5. a) The property of the value was more than $950.00, or b) the property taken was a firearm or c) the property taken was an automobile, or d) the property taken was on the body of/in the clothing of/in a container held by that person.

The value of the property, formally known as “fair market value”, is the highest price the property would be reasonably sold for in the open market at the time, and in the general location of, the theft.

Grand theft consists of stealing money/property worth more than $950, or a firearm, or a vehicle, or of stealing property from somebody’s person.  “Stealing” means taking the property without the owner’s consent, with the intent to keep it permanently (or for a prolonged period of time), and moving the property, no matter the distance or the time.

The value of the property is the highest price a reasonable person would have paid for the property at the time and place the property was taken.

Shaw 3 Law Firm is very experienced and a trustworthy Criminal Defense Firm handling these cases. We have defended several hundreds of these cases. 

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 503/504: EMBEZZLEMENT: 

Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted.

For a person to be convicted of a violation of PC 503, the prosecution must prove the following:

1. An owner or the owner’s agent entrusted their property to you;

2. The owner or owner’s agent did so because they trusted you;

3. You then fraudulently converted/used that property for your own benefit

AND

4. When you converted/used the property, you intended to deprive the owner of its use.

A common example is a cashier at a grocery store, who, every time she makes a transaction within the cash register, takes out $20, and leaves it next to her, to take it. She’s entrusted to ring up items, but instead, steals the money that should be put into the cash register.

Shaw 3 Law Firm is very experienced and a trustworthy Criminal Defense Firm handling these cases. We have defended several hundreds of these cases. 

If you have any other financial/theft crimes Shaw 3 Law Firm can assist you with that. 

COMMON OTHER GENERAL CRIMES WE HANDLE 

ANIMAL CRUELTY: PC 597: 

The prosecution must prove the following:

1. You maimed/mutilated/tortured/wounded/killed a living animal;AND

2. You acted maliciously.

Someone acts maliciously when he or she intentionally does a wrongful act or when he or she acts with the unlawful intent to disturb, annoy, or injure an animal.There are several common ways you can be found guilty of this charge using the above elements:

  • You place animals in small kennels for long periods of time or with other animals in the same kennel without sufficient room to move for long periods of time (PC 597(a) & PC 597f)
  • You deprive the animals of food, water, or proper shelter for a very long period of time (PC 597f).
  • You work with an animal, such as a horse or a dog, for a long period of time without proper rest for that animal (PC 597(b))
  • You inflict an unreasonable amount of physical pain on an animal (PC 597(a) & PC 597(b))
  • You have your animals engage in fighting, such as dog or cockfighting (Think Michael Vick) (PC 597j(a) & PC 597(b))
  • You kill or maim an animal on purpose and without any legal justification for doing so (PC 597(a))
  • You leave an animal unattended in your vehicle (PC 597.7(a) & PC 597f)

Shaw 3 Law Firm is very experienced and a trustworthy Criminal Defense Firm handling these cases. We have defended several hundreds of these cases.

VANDALISM (PC 594):

The prosecution must prove the following:

  1. You maliciously defaced with graffiti or with other inscribed material/ damaged/destroyed real/ personal property; AND
  2. You did not own the property/owned the property with someone else; AND
  3. The amount of damage caused by the vandalism was $400 or more. (PC 594(b)(1))

An example of vandalism would be intentionally damaging someone car's window. 

Shaw 3 Law Firm is very experienced and a trustworthy Criminal Defense Firm handling these cases. We have defended several hundreds of these cases. 

DRUNK IN PUBLIC: PC 647(f): 

The prosecution must prove the following:

1. You were willfully under the influence of alcohol/a drug/a controlled substance/toluene;

2. When you were under the influence, you were in a public place;

AND

3a. You were unable to exercise care for your own safety or the safety of others;

OR

3b. Because you were under the influence, you interfered with, obstructed, or prevented the free use of a street, sidewalk, or another public way.

You have to be so intoxicated, that you are not able to walk, talk, or do anything, such as care for yourself. In other words, you need someone to help you function. The other and less common part of this is being so intoxicated that you block some public street or walkway, which generally can only happen if you are passed out on the ground in public. Being in public is crucial too, simply because you cannot get drunk in public for passing out at home, you need to be in public. A public place means a place that is open and accessible to anyone who wishes to go there, not including a person’s home.

However, this case can be successfully defended. Shaw 3 Law Firm is very experienced and a trustworthy Criminal Defense Firm handling these cases. We have defended several hundreds of these cases. 

BATTERY: PC 242: 

California Penal Code defines the crime of battery as the willful and unlawful use of force or violence on another person, even if it does not cause injury or actual pain. 

To be convicted of this crime, the prosecutor must prove: 

     1. You touched someone else

     2. You touched someone else willfully, 

     3. The touching was in a harmful or offensive manner. 

Shaw 3 Law Firm is very experienced and a trustworthy Criminal Defense Firm handling these cases. We have defended several hundreds of these cases leading to favorable results for the client. 

If you are accused of any other crimes besides the above, Shaw 3 Law is happy to speak to you about your case. 


If you are charged with a criminal case, then it is very important that you get the right CA Defense Attorney on your side to advocate for your aggressively.