Our Location

40 N. Central Ave, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
July 21, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Blog

Is an Extreme DUI the same as an Aggravated DUI in Arizona?

Extreme DUI vs. Aggravated DUI in Arizona

In Arizona, being charged with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI) is not as simple as one set of charges and penalties. There are a multitude of factors that can lead to felony charges when you are pulled over for a DUI. A DUI in the state of Arizona can be considered “extreme” or “aggravated,” beyond just a regular DUI case.

Extreme DUI penalties in Arizona are determined according to the severity of the crime, with a DUI rated as a regular misdemeanor, an aggravated DUI or extreme DUI.

Some of the possible penalties of a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) include: Read More

July 19, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Blog

Charged with DUI in Arizona with Suspended License

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol while your license is revoked, canceled, suspended or refused in the state of Arizona is considered an Aggravated DUI charge, as specified in Arizona Revised Statutes, ARS 28-1383(A)(1). There are a multitude of reasons why an individual’s license may have been revoked or suspended, including the below:

  • Driving under the influence (DUI) – ARS 28-1381
  • Extreme and super extreme DUI – ARS 28-1382
  • DUI involving serious injury or death – ARS 28-1385
  • Other reasons, as enough points are incurred against the driver’s license

If you are caught driving with a suspended license while under the influence, it is very important that you immediately contact an attorney who knows Arizona law and can help you defend yourself in court. These are serious issues with serious penalties for which you will need the help of a good criminal defense lawyer. Read More

April 21, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Blog

Civil Forfeiture Cases and Defenses

Civil forfeiture, also called civil seizure, or civil judicial forfeiture, is a controversial legal process in the United States in which law enforcement officers take assets from people suspected of being involved in a crime or some sort of illegal activity. The problem with forfeiture cases is that the person suspected of being involved with a crime or illegal activity will not be necessarily charged with a crime or wrongdoing.

Civil forfeiture is a controversial legal process. Sometimes, the law enforcement officers will simply threaten to seize property, or anything of value, such as gold, cash, real estate, a boat or a house. The actual act of seizure itself also falls under forfeiture if the officers suspect that it was being used in a crime. Those in favor of civil forfeiture see it as a powerful tool to thwart criminal activities and organizations. However, critics argue that the act itself leads to corruption and misbehavior by the law enforcement. There is an ongoing debate as to whether the overall benefits of forfeiture outweigh the drawbacks. Read More

April 19, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Blog

Pre-charge Investigation Stage Cases

‘Pre-charge’, also called the ‘Investigation Stage’ of a criminal case is the stage when someone is under observation for a criminal offense, but no formal action has been taken. When someone is involved in such a situation, it can have a significant negative impact on different areas of their life. This initial state precedes any formal charges. Usually, a person is considered to be involved in a pre-charge stage when they have been arrested by the law enforcement and have been questioned, but later released without facing any charges. This means that the person stands in imminent danger of getting arrested anytime if police find any evidence against them.

Even if the person has not been convicted, the arrest itself may be recorded and documented, which can have a negative impact on their personal life. Their story may make it to the newspaper headline, or it may be put up on any of the news reporting websites. The individual is stuck in the pre-charge stage after being arrested, until they are actually charged with the crime. Anyone who has been arrested in connection to a crime but was later released without charges, is advised to consult a qualified criminal defense attorney. Read More

April 18, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Blog

The Many Types of White Collar Crimes

Defined as nonviolent crimes committed by an employee for personal financial gain, white collar crimes most typically involve office-based workers, business managers, fund managers, accountants or executives. There are several common types of white collar crime in which you should speak with a criminal defense attorney in Arizona. These crimes include:

  • Bank Fraud, as part of which the employee engages in activity to defraud a bank of funds or commits a crime using the bank accounts of their employer
  • Blackmail, a scheme during which the criminal demands money in exchange for relief from threats to cause bodily harm, property damage or reputation damage
  • Bribery, during which the criminal offers money or something of value in exchange for influence over specific decisions or actions
  • Telecommunications Fraud, the unauthorized use, manipulation or tampering of telephone or cell phone services for one’s own benefit
  • Computer Fraud, the unauthorized use of or hacking into a computer system or network to illegally obtain information or proprietary secrets
  • Counterfeiting, the illegal reproduction or copying of an item for personal gain, such as the copying of clothing, watches, handbags, documents or money
  • Credit Card Fraud, the knowing or unauthorized use of credit cards to obtain personal items or for unauthorized purchases
  • Currency Schemes, such as speculation on currency future values

Read More

January 3, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100Q Criminal Impersonation Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories, Gila County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 7872)

FELONY IMPERSONATING a POLICE OFFICER DISMISSED – State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 7872) (Gila County Superior Court CR2007-713) Mr. H and a White Mountain Police Department Sergeant owned a dog breeding business together. At the behest of the Sergeant, Mr. H attempted to sell trained K-9’s to the White Mountain Police Department. He had identified himself in the paperwork he filled out that he was a Police Officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. In reality, he was only a Volunteer Posse Member. His partner, the Sergeant, was subsequently terminated from the White Mountain Police Department. Mr. H was charged with felony Impersonating a Police Officer per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2411(A).

We were able to convince the Prosecutor that this was really his partner’s idea. The paperwork was also filled out by the former Sergeant. The Sergeant had convinced Mr. P that his Posse status was the same as being a POST Certified Police Officer. Eventually, the Prosecutor dismissed all charged against Mr. H.

January 3, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100Q Criminal Impersonation Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 5633)

FELONY IMPERSONATING a DOCTOR REDUCED to Class 6 Open/ MISDEMEANOR with PROBATION and ZERO DAYS in Jail – State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 5633) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2005117450): Mr. C had been walking around the Thunderbird Samaritan Hospital pretending to be a medical student. Glendale Police were called out, and they made contact with Mr. C. He was wearing scrubs, a lab coat and had a stethoscope around his neck. He admitted to being in the hospital approximately 7 times prior in the doctor’s lounge and the baby nursery area because he was trying to get a feel for what it was like to be a doctor. He was subsequently arrested for Criminal Impersonating pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2406. We were able to convince the Prosecutor to offer him probation without jail, and eventually the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor. Mr. C has no felony convictions on his record.

January 2, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100 Miscellaneous Crimes Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories

State v. Ms. T. (DMC No. 5000)

(2 Counts) CHILD NEGLECT DISMISSED – State v. Ms. T (DMC No. 5000) (Peoria City Court CR2004-000920): Ms. T was in a custody battle with her ex husband, and she was the primary care giver of her 10 year old, 4 year old, and 2 year old. She had to leave at 6:00 PM to go to a work function, and when she called in at 6:40 PM to see how the children were doing, the Police were present. Her ex-husband had spoken to the 10 year old son and called the Police claiming that Ms. T was neglectful for leaving the kids home alone. When Ms. T arrived at the household, the Police cited her with (2 Counts) of Child Neglect per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3619. We were able to explain to the Prosecutor that leaving a 2 year old and 4 year old in a 10 year old’s care for 40 minutes should not rise to the level of Child Neglect. The Prosecutor agreed to Dismiss All Charges if Ms. T remained law abiding for 6 months and attended a Parenting Class. She complied, and she has no conviction on her record.

January 2, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1300 Bench Trial Victories, 1300A Complete Bench Trial Acquittal / All Criminal Charges, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 80 Drug Crime Jury/Bench Trial Victories, 86D Acquisition of a Narcotic Drug Victories, Case Victories, San Tan Justice Court Victories

State v. Ms. W (DMC No. 9176)

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL| ATTEMPTED ACQUISITION of PRESCRIPTION DRUGS – State v. Ms. W (DMC No. 9176) (San Tan Justice Court JC2009-105189): Ms. W had taken medications for seizures. Medications included Tramadol, Alprazolam, Ambien, in addition to her anti-seizure medication. She had taken Ambien and had then gone to the pharmacy in order to refill her prescription. The pharmacist described her as acting like a “zombie”. When the Police were called out, they found that she was attempting to fill her prescriptions too early. They then cited her with Attempted Acquisition of Prescription Drugs Per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3406(A)(6).

We set the case to Bench Trial, and presented evidence of numerous witnesses that it appeared that Ms. W was in fact sleep walking while under the influence of Ambien. One of the witnesses was a Registered Nurse who also was employed at one of the local hospitals. After all evidence was presented to the Judge, he found her Not Guilty of All Charges.

1 … 32 33 34 35 36 … 177
Call Now Button