Our Case Results in Los Angeles

People v. J.M. (August 2022; Criminal Courts Building (C.C.B.)/Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center)
Initial Charge: 

Maximum Sentence of Six Years in Prison for Robbery (California Penal Code section 211) and Carrying a Loaded Firearm (California Penal Code section 25850(a))

Outcome: 
Misdemeanor Plea, No Jail Time, Informal Probation

Facts:

The alleged victim/accuser was a delivery guy who made a pizza delivery to the Client's residence. The accuser alleged that when he arrived there, the co-defendant snatched the pizza box from his disabled arm. The Client then allegedly hurled two 20-dollar bills at him, which turned out to be fake.

The complainant asserted that the Client displayed then clutched a gun holstered in his waistband while giving him a menacing glare. Then the co-defendant purportedly banged the door in the accuser's face. The accuser then went back to his workplace and made a call to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

When police showed up to carry out an investigation, the Client unfortunately admitted to having a firearm inside his car trunk.

(You should never admit to anything when questioned by police aside from your name – otherwise, tell them you respectfully assert your Constitutional rights to speak with your attorney before providing any statements. Only in extremely rare circumstances will your statement to police help your defense.)

However, the Client denied possessing or displaying the gun as purported. Notwithstanding, however, the Client thereafter authorized a warrantless search of his car by the police, which led to the discovery of a loaded firearm and a box of hollow-point ammunition in the vehicle's center console.

See also Use of Armor-Piercing Ammunition (California Penal Code section 12022.2)

Soon thereafter, and certainly not surprisingly, both the co-defendant and the Client were taken into custody.

Charges:

• Robbery in the Second Degree (under Penal Code § 211);

See also Judicial Council of California’s Criminal Jury Instructions (“CALCRIM”) “Robbery -- Pen. Code § 211”: CALCRIM Number 1600.

• Strike Offense (California Penal Code section 667(a) & (b) and California Penal Code section 1192.7(c). Both of these offenses are considered "Serious Felonies"; and
• Possessing a Loaded Weapon on Your Person or Inside a Motor Vehicle. This offense is a misdemeanor under (California Penal Code section 25850(a)).

Maximum Sentence:

The Client was facing one year in jail for a misdemeanor charge and a five-year state prison sentence for robbery.

Process:

Ninaz Saffari persuaded the prosecution – the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (DA’s Office) -- that the accuser's allegations were exceedingly weak beause he had altered his narrative four to five times, including changing the description of the perpetrator, who allegedly possessed a handgun.

Ms. Saffari further stressed that the Client was not acquainted with California's stricter firearm laws because he had just recently relocated from the Florida, where having a gun in your vehicle's trunk is legal.

Result:

The judge dismissed the Strike and Robbery charges on the initial day of trial. The Client entered a plea deal for one misdemeanor that included no jail sentence, summary probation for a year, and a mandatory class on gun safety.

People v. E.V.S. (February 2022; Compton Courthouse)

Initial Charge:

The Client faced a 4.5-year prison sentence for Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW) (California Penal Code section 245(a)(1))

Outcome:

Case Dismissed after the Preliminary Hearing

Facts:

Client, a prominent retired actor with nearly two dozen titles to his record, including huge roles across several big Hollywood films, brought his car to a mechanic's garage to be repaired. After a month, the mechanic eventually informed him that he was done working on the car. The Client proceeded to the mechanic's shop using a friend's vehicle.

The mechanic informed the Client that although he had resolved the original issues, he had also replaced many outdated parts. As a result, the Client would need to pay the mechanic five times what they had initially agreed. The Client, as expected, was enraged and told the repairman that he did not authorize the repairs. The repairman relented, and they were able to negotiate a significantly lesser amount.

However, things quickly went downhill from there. When the Client got inside his ostensibly repaired car, he realized it would not start! He then exited the vehicle and confronted the mechanic.

The Client then dropped his friend’s car keys by accident. The mechanic picked them up and would not give them back, thereby committing the crime of False Imprisonment under California Penal Code section 236.

The mechanic then pushed the Client backward, thereby committing misdemeanor Simple Battery, a.k.a. Battery Upon Another (California Penal Code section 242). Next, the Client went back and ordered the mechanic to return the car keys.

At that point, the mechanic attacked the Client by hitting him over the head with a large metal object or instrument (perhaps a pipe or a wrench). The Client tried to fight back and hit him with the hammer he had in his hand, but even then, the mechanic injured him worse.

Deputies from the nearby Compton Sheriff’s Station arrived minutes later. The mechanic denied hitting the Client, denied using the metal object, and alleged that the Client had assaulted him with the hammer. The Client was therefore apprehended and accused of felony ADW per California's Penal Code § 245(a)(i).

Maximum Sentence: 

4.5-year prison sentence.

Process:

Ninaz Saffari called the deputy sheriff who had made the arrest to testify during the preliminary hearing. He acknowledged that the repairman had declined to give the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) access to surveillance recordings from his numerous CCTV cameras, which would presumably have shown what had transpired that day.

He also acknowledged that the mechanic had behaved suspiciously during questioning, repeatedly backing away and acting defensively and uncooperatively.

Then, Ms. Saffari revealed that the mechanic refused to return to the Client the car keys to his friend's car.

Eventually, even the sheriff's deputy felt the mechanic had been lying about the attack since Client came forth with blood gushing from his mouth and head when LASD first arrived.

Result:

Dismissal of the ADW charge after the preliminary hearing.

People v. J.C. (February 2021; Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center)

Initial Charges: 

Deliberate and Premeditated Attempted Murder (“First-Degree Attempted Murder”) (California Penal Code section 664 & California Penal Code section 187(a)) (Life in Prison + 20 Years)

Outcome: 

Reduced to an Assault with a Firearm (California Penal Code section 245(a)(2) Conviction, No Jail Term

Facts:

The Client was charged with Willful and Pre-Planned Attempted Murder (also known as Attempted First-Degree Murder) pursuant to Penal Code section 664 and Penal Code section 187(a).

See also “Attempted Murder -- Pen. Cod, §§ 21a, 663, 664”: CALCRIM Number 600; and

“Attempted Murder: Deliberation and Premeditation -- Pen. Code §§ 21a, 189, 664(a)”: CALCRIM Number 601.

In addition, he was charged with multiple sentencing enhancements, including Personally Discharging a Weapon During the Perpetration of a Felony, under Personal Discharge of a Firearm During the Commission of a Serious Felony (California Penal Code section 12022.53(c)) (20 years).

Process:

Ninaz Saffari, the founder of the Los Angeles Defense Attorney Law Firm (LADALF), fought the matter like she always has, fiercely pushing it forward to trial and having the prosecution constantly on the verge of defeat. She submitted numerous motions, including but not limited to the following:

Motion to Dismiss (California Penal Code section 995);

Motion to Suppress Evidence (California Penal Code section 1538.5); and

Pitchess Motion (California Evidence Code section 1043).

Ninaz pushed the prosecution to acknowledge the flaws in the case at every turn. Eventually, the Client agreed to a plea bargain when the Deputy District Attorney saw the court was leaning toward dismissing the whole case.

Result:

The outcome was a reduced charge of Assault Using a Firearm under California P.C. § 245(a)(i).

See also “Assault with Deadly Weapon or Force Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury -- Pen. Code §§ 240, 245(a)(1)-(4), (b)”: CALCRIM Number 875.

The deal included two years of formal probation and an early release (after serving nine months in the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail while waiting for trial).