Disclaimer - Results depend upon factors unique to each case and that results in one case do not predict similar results in others.
Attempted Child Prostitution Dismissed with Predjudice
ATTEMPTED CHILD PROSTITUTION CONVICTIONS REVERSED, CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE & ARREST RECORD CLEARED – State v. Mr. M (DMC Case #:)
Mr. M. pled guilty to two counts of Attempted Child Prostitution. Despite the fact that Mr. M. was adamant during the change of plea proceedings that he did not know the alleged victim was under the age of 18, the Court accepted his pleas of guilty and sentenced Mr. M. to five (5) years of supervised probation. Along with the probation term, Mr. M. was required to serve one (1) year in the Maricopa County Jail and was mandated to register as a sex offender, a lifetime requirement. During the time that Mr. M. was serving his one year jail sentence, he retained the services of The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor in order to file a Petition for Post Conviction Relief, pursuant to Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Our firm filed this petition with the sentencing judge on Mr. M.’s behalf, arguing that the crime of child prostitution is not a strict liability offense and given Mr. M.’s clear statements that he did not know that the alleged victim was under the age of 18, the conviction should be reversed based on an insufficient factual basis. After this request was denied by the sentencing judge, we took the issue to the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Review of the Superior Courts Denial of Post Conviction Relief. After review of the pleadings, the Court of Appeals and the State agreed with our position that there was not a sufficient factual basis to support the guilty pleas and thus, the conviction was reversed and the case was remanded back to the Superior Court for a new trial. Once remanded, and based on the arguments set forth in the post conviction pleadings, the State filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, which was granted by the Court. After this dismissal, our firm was successful in having Mr. M.’s arrest record cleared after we filed a Motion to Clear Mr. M.’s Arrest Record pursuant to A.R.S. §13-4051.
NOT CHARGED – Solicitation of Prostitution- State v. Mr. P. (DMC No. 9869)
NOT CHARGED – Solicitation of Prostitution- State v. Mr. P. (DMC No. 9869): Mr. P was one of the individuals on the “Desert Diva” list that was released to the media. This list involved an escort service that was determined to be a prostitution ring. The police obtained all credit card numbers and information and released the names of the potential “John’s” to the public. Mr. P hired us, and we were able to prevent the State from proceeding with any further evidence that he engaged in prostitution. No charges were ever brought.
NOT CHARGED – Prostitution Enterprise
(DMC No. 4046) State v. Ms. B.: Police executed a search warrant at Ms. B’s home apartment, and her business apartment. She lived at her home apartment, and was running a beauty salon in her business apartment. She had friends who would also give private massages at the business apartment. During a sting operation, an undercover police officer was in the apartment for a massage and was fully naked. It appears there may have been some sexual contact with him before he left. Because of this fact, and the potential embarrassment to the police agency, we were able to convince the prosecutor to decline any charges.
DISMISSED – Solicitation for Prostitution, State v. Mr. S.
(2936843CR) (DMC No. 3795): Mr. S. was at a local hotel with a young woman when police came knocking at the door “looking for drug activity.” When they separated Mr. S. and the young woman he was with, the police determined he was soliciting her for prostitution. He was subsequently arrested and charged. We filed Motions based on illegal search and seizure, and the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all charges.
