DUI & criminal defense blog
-
California Supreme Court Asks For Briefing On Dui Diversion Under Penal Code Section 1001.95
California Supreme Court orders briefing on DUI Diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95.
-
Riverside County Superior Court Appellate Division Continues Argument On Dui Diversion Case
On June 11, 2021, our firm was scheduled to argue one of many cases regarding whether DUIs are eligible for diversion under the new judicial diversion law Penal Code section 1001.95. The case was set for argument in the Riverside County Superior Court, Appellate Division. The Appellate Division handles appeals and writs in misdemeanor cases.…
-
AB 1950’s probationary term limitations apply retroactively to cases not yet final
AB 1950’s amendments to Penal Code sections 1203a and 1203.1 also apply to cases still on appeal.
-
Are DUIs Eligible For Diversion? Penal Code Section 1001.95
In 2020, California introduced a new law called Penal Code section 1001.95, which allows people who commit certain misdemeanors to enter a special program instead of getting a criminal record. This program helps them avoid a conviction by completing some kind of rehabilitation. Surprisingly, this law also includes DUIs (Driving Under the Influence), which means…
-
The court abused its discretion in denying military diversion in a DUI case
In Wade v. Superior Court (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 694, the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision that denied a defendant’s request for military diversion in a DUI case. In denying the request, the trial court had noted that the charge of driving under the influence was “inherently dangerous.” Id. at 704. The trial…
-
Challenging a search warrant
A search conducted by a warrant can be challenged under the Fourth Amendment.
-
Covid-19 and speedy preliminary hearing rights
The Court of Appeal found the trial court abused its discretion in continuing a preliminary hearing due to the pandemic over the defendant’s objection.
-
Surrogate witness drug testimony violated the Sixth Amendment
The testimony of a laboratory supervisor who had no involvement with the drug analysis, and the admission of the non-testifying analyst’s report, violated the Confrontation Clause.
-
Undisclosed evidence leads to reversal of triple murder
The trial court allowed the prosecution to present expert testimony that was never disclosed to the defense. Finding that the court should have granted the motion for a mistrial, the Court of Appeal reversed the Watson murder convictions.
