Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories

FELONY DISRUPTION of an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, FELONY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT on a TEACHER and DISORDERLY CONDUCT NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 7616) (Chandler Police Department DR No. 2005-13-4523): Mr. T was an emotionally challenged student at Chandler High School who was being bullied by fellow classmates. On that particular day, there was a substitute teacher teaching the class. When Mr. T got up to leave the class and walked directly to his counselors office to report what had occurred, the substitute teacher ran outside and alerted Security that Mr. T was leaving the classroom. When Security confronted and emotionally distraught Mr. T, he had a breakdown and they grabbed him.

One of the Security Guards was bending his thumb back and stating “I will break your thumb if you don’t comply”. Mr. T was struggling with the Security Guards and he kicked his teacher. He was subsequently charged with Felony Disruption of an Educational Institution pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2911(A)(1). He was also charged with Felony Aggravated Assault on a teacher pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1204(8)(d), and Disorderly Conduct. We were able to fully explain the situation to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Officer, and the Prosecutor elected not to file any charges against Mr. T.

PREVENTION of the USE of a TELEPHONE in an EMERGENCY, DISORDERLY CONDUCT and (2 Counts) ASSAULT DISMISSED at BENCH TRIAL – State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 7952) (Scottsdale City Court CR2007-032630): Police had received a 911 call in which the person calling hung up the phone and did not speak, when they arrived at the location to conduct a “Welfare Check”, they contacted Mr. A’s wife. She said that she had called Police and had been arguing with her husband, and that she had been pushed down on the couch and that he had hung up the phone. Mr. A was then charged with Prevention of the Use of a Telephone in an Emergency per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2915(A)(3). He was also charged with 2 Counts of Assault and Disorderly Conduct. We argued that it was his wife who choose to hang up the phone, and that she had actually attacked Mr. A first. When it came time for a Bench Trial against Mr. A, the Prosecutor choose to dismiss the charges against him.

PREVENTION of the USE of a TELEPHONE in CASE of EMERGENCY, ASSAULT and DISORDERLY CONDUCT DISMISSED at BENCH TRIAL – State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 8204) (Apache Junction Justice Court DV2007-0291): Mr. C and his girlfriend were engaged in an argument when he was accused of slapping her on her buttocks in a hard manner. His girlfriend called Police, and then the phone was grabbed out of her hand and hung up. When Police arrived, they arrested Mr. C and charged him with Prevention of the Use of a Telephone in a Case of Emergency pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2915 (A)(3). He was also charged with Assault and Disorderly Conduct. We argued that he was not the one who grabbed the phone and hung up, but in fact it was his girlfriend who hung up the phone. There were also issues about Mr. C defending himself against his girlfriend’s attacks. When it came time for the Bench Trial, the Prosecutor choose to dismiss all charges against Mr. C.

(2 COUNTS) FELONY VEHICULAR SECOND DEGREE MURDER and (1 COUNT) FELONY HIT & RUN REDUCED to 19 YEARS in PRISON – State v. Mr. N (DMC No. 6998) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2005-011605): In this high profile vehicular homicide case, Mr. N had blown through a red light and rear ended another vehicle containing 2 passengers. One of the passengers was pregnant at the time. Their car then struck a bus stop and bursts into flames. Both passengers inside burned to death. Mr. N then got out of his car and fled the scene. When he was apprehended, he was found to have cocaine in his system along with alcohol. He also had prior felony convictions. He was ultimately charged with 2 Counts of Second Degree Murder and 1 Count of Felony Leaving the Scene of a Fatal Accident.

The family hired us to attempt to challenge the evidence and secure the lowest possible prison offer for Mr. N. His initial plea offer was to stipulate to 25 years in custody. We then negotiated an offer to a range of 16-32 years in prison, with the  exact prison sentence to be left up to the Judge. After putting together an extensive Mitigation Package that include interviewing all if Mr. N’s family members, along with a history of his upbringing and drug dependency, we convinced the Judge to give a sentence of 19 years. The Prosecutor wanted 25-32 years. Our involvement helped shave 6 years of prison off of the original plea offer.

CONVICTION REVERSED PCR (Rule 32) (7 YEAR PRISON SENTENCE) and NEW PLEA OFFER GIVEN with LESS PRISON TIME/ FELONY MANSLAUGHTER (with GUN) and (3 COUNTS) FELONY ENDANGERMENT (DANGEROUS) – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 11460) (Yuma County Superior Court No. S1400CR2009-00194): Mr. M had been reckless with a firearm while in the presence of a woman and her three children. The gun discharged and killed the woman. Mr. M was subsequently charged with Manslaughter (Dangerous) and 3 Counts of Endangerment (Dangerous). His first Attorney had the case for 2 years and conducted no interviews. In addition, that Attorney advised Mr. M not to take an offer to Negligent Homicide with a range or 4-8 years in prison. Mr. M subsequently terminated that Attorney and hired another Attorney. That Attorney had the case for 7 months and conducted no interviews. An offer was secured by that Attorney to probation with 1 year in jail, or prison with 5-12.5 years of incarceration. That Attorney told Mr. M that he could most likely get the probationary term with only a year in jail. He was ultimately sentenced to 7 years in prison.

We were hired by Mr. M’s family to file a Post Conviction Relief Petition pursuant to Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. We had evidence in our Petition that both previous Attorney’s were “ineffective” because they had not interviewed any witnesses. In addition, when Mr. M was sentenced, 8 other mitigating factors were not presented to the Judge. Just prior to an Evidentiary Hearing in front of the sentencing Judge, the Prosecutor offered a new plea agreement which allowed Mr. M to be sentenced to 5.5 years in prison, with credit for the time he had already served. Our involvement in the case saved him 1 and a half years of prison time.

CONVICTION REVERSED PCR (Rule 32) (15 YEAR PRISON SENTENCE)/ FELONY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (DANGEROUS) RESULTING in BLINDNESS in EYE– State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 7772) (Maricopa County Superior Court No, CR2004-018577): Mr. C was accused of viciously attacking his wife while in an argument and jamming both thumbs into her eyes into an attempt to blind her. He proceeded to Trial and his Trial Attorney argued that the victim had injured herself by falling and striking her face on a towel rack or a bath tub. Mr. C was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. His mother then hired DM Cantor to file a Post Conviction Relief Petition under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

We showed the Trial Judge that the original Trial Attorney had conducted no interviews. In addition, he had made statements during closing argument that Mr. C “could have probably done that.” We argued that Mr. C’s Trial Attorney was “ineffective” by not interviewing witnesses, and that he also argued for the State and in contradiction to Mr. C’s theory of the case. The Judge agreed, and Reversed Mr. C’s Conviction in its entirety.

FELONY VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER and FELONY HIT & RUN DISMISSED – State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 8667) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2005-134626): An individual was crossing the roadway near McClintock and Apache Boulevard in Tempe, Arizona, when he was struck and killed by Mr. A’s car. When the Police arrived in the area, they acted on a “hunch” and searched all neighboring apartment complexes. They saw Mr. A’s vehicle parked in a parking space concealed with a car cover. The Officer lifted up the car cover in order to inspect for damage. When he saw damage, he ran the license plate and ascertained Mr. A’s apartment number. Mr. A was then brought out, questioned and arrested for Vehicular Manslaughter and Felony Hit & Run.

We filed motions to have the entire case dismissed due to an “improper search” issue. The Officer could have sought out a search warrant before lifting the car cover but he did not do so. The Trial Judge agreed with us and ruled that this was an illegal search and all charges were Dismissed. Although the State Appealed to the Arizona State of Appeals and that decision was reversed, they choose never to re-file charges against Mr. A due to various other problems with the case.

CONVICTION REVERSE/ ASSAULT– State v. Ms. K (DMC No. 11328) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. L2010-147459): Ms. K was involved in a divorce proceeding with her ex husband in which she was to gain possession of a Goldwing motorcycle. Per court order, she appeared with a Deputy in order to remove the motorcycle. Her ex husband had let the battery go dead, and he was stating that he could keep the license plate on the motorcycle. The Deputy told him that he could not remove the plate, as it was part of the motorcycle.

Later on that afternoon, Ms. K returned to retrieve the vehicle with a flat bed tow truck, and Mr. K again was attempting to remove the license plate. Ms. K told him 3 times not to remove the plate and she pushed him away from the motorcycle. He then called Police and she was charged with Assault. At Trial, the Judge did not allow Ms. K to argue “justification” of physical force in defense of property. We were then retained to handle the court case on Appeal. We argued to the appellate Judge that she did use reasonable force while defending her property. He agreed, and Reversed Ms. K’s Conviction and dismissed all assault charges against her. This allowed Ms. K to keep her nursing license.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DANGEROUS (with GUN and 2 PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 9521) (DPS DR No.2010-011410): Mr. D was traveling in the area of the I-17 and State Route 101 interchanges in Phoenix, Arizona. Another vehicle had cut him off and had engaged Mr. D in a “road rage” incident. The other vehicle pulled up to Mr. D and was attempting to force him off the road. Mr. D held up a gun to display that he was armed, but did not point it at the other vehicle. The other vehicle backed off and called Police. Mr. D was then arrested and charged with Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon. This charge carries a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 15 years in prison. Because of this, it was important that we argued to the Detective involved in the case that this was a situation of Self Defense. We also wrote a letter detailing all of the facts of the case to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Subsequently, everything was reviewed and the County Attorney Declined Charges against Mr. D.

COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL | ASSAULT (August 18, 2009) – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 8918) (Maricopa City Court CR2008-566): Mr. W. was a teacher at Maricopa High School who taught Algebra.  A student was being disruptive and Mr. W. asked him to leave the classroom.  The student became aggressive with Mr. W. and the two made physical contact with each other.  Another student called 911 as security was being called by Mr. W.  Eventually, various students got together and told the officer an untrue story which resulted in Mr. W. being charged with Assault.  At trial, we were able to pick apart each of the students stories to show that they were not being truthful.  Mr. W. was found Not Guilty of all charges.

Call Now Button