Our Location

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

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
March 9, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 13467)

FELONY CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 13467) (Gilbert Police Department DR No. 2013-XXXXXXXXX): Mr. P was going through a particularly nasty divorce with his soon to be ex wife, and he was granted full custody of his 6 year old daughter under Temporary Orders. His daughter suffered from ADHD and was on the Autism spectrum. The mother had also been alienating the child from the father by talking badly about him.

Mother had contacted CPS and they had come and interviewed the child at school. Since that time, the child had been wetting her pants, touching her vagina and stating “it hurts”. After one of these incidents, the school nurse contacted CPS. The very next day, the child told her lunch teacher that her vagina hurt, and when asked why, she stated “my dad pushed inside too hard with a hammer”. Police were immediately called.

After the Police Officer received the initial information, he contacted a Detective to take over the investigation regarding potential Child Molestation a Dangerous Crime Against Children, charges per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1410, and to work with CPS. It was then learned that the prior CPS contact was regarding allegations that Mr. P and his girlfriend would walk around in front of the child naked and have her sleep in their bed naked with them. These allegations were brought forth by the mother.

The child was then interviewed at Child Help by a forensic interviewer. The child indicated that her dad had touched her crotch with a hammer inside of her panties. A physical examination was then conducted by the Doctor which did not reveal evidence of acute or healing injury. She also put in her report that “this does not preclude the possibility of sexual abuse, as most sexual abuse cases are not associated with physical abuse”. As the Detective was heading to the Police station to meet with and interview Mr. P, he called in and stated that he was going to consult an Attorney first.

The next day Mr. P retained our services. After that, our Pre Charge team met and we put together our strategy to (1) contact the Detective in order to buy some time to gather all the facts and leave the door open for a “free talk”, (2) conduct a polygraph on Mr. P, (3) gather and review his divorce records and information showing that his wife was coaching the child and, (4) obtain an Affidavit from the paternal grandmother regarding information that the child had made up the allegation.

We then called the Detective and indicated we would be in contact later with a potential interview of Mr. P. We did obtain an Affidavit from the grandmother in which she stated that the child told her “while at her mother’s house, a 5 year old friend hit her on the vagina with a hammer”, and that she had “made a mistake but nobody would listen to her”. In addition, we had Mr. P submit to a polygraph test which showed that he had not committed any crime against his daughter. We then forwarded all of this evidence to the Detective. She prepared a supplement in which she detailed the polygraph results and the Affidavit that we sent her. She finalized her report by stating “this case is being inactivated, due to the lack of evidence or independent witnesses to substantiate the allegation of molestation of a child”.

March 9, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 115 Assault/Violent Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 66-68 Child/Vulnerable Adult Abuse Victories, 68 Child/Vulnerable Adult Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 13376)

FELONY CHILD ABUSE NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 13376) (Phoenix Police Department DR No. 2012-02271258): Mr. P had a 5 year old daughter who was at school when a teacher noticed a bruise on her ear. When the child was questioned, she stated “my daddy spanked me”. The school then called the Police Department.  When Mr.  P arrived at school he was contacted by an Officer of the Phoenix Police Department and he was questioned. He denied noticing any bruising prior to the school day or causing any injury to his daughter.

 

CPS were called and they began an investigation for Child Abuse per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3623. After both Police contact and the CPS contact, Mr. P (who had just graduated from Law School) contacted our office. Once our services were retained, I met with the Pre Charge team and we decided (1) to have Mr. P take a polygraph, (2) we would be with him when he was interviewed by CPS, (3) we would contact the Detective and then later send him a letter with the polygraph results. 5 days after we were retained, we sat down with the CPS interviewer and his Supervisor we explained to the CPS investigators that the 5 year old had previously gotten in trouble for stealing gum from the Principal’s purse. The theft was previously documented by the school. We then also explained to them that the child admitted that she was mad at her father after she got in trouble for stealing the gum. The real story as to her injury was she fell off the monkey bars and blamed her father due to her anger. Ultimately, no parenting plan or sanctions were put into place by CPS.

 

Approximately 1 week after the CPS meeting, we spoke with the Detective. He stated that the daughter’s allegations were that Mr. P had slapped her, pulled her hair and spanked her. We explained the situation that she had made the story up, and we also informed him that we had met with CPS and they were taking no action. He then requested to speak with Mr. P’s wife in order to receive confirmation of the daughter’s story.

 

Shortly thereafter, we contacted the polygrapher and explained the situation. We crafted the 3 questions would be asked of Mr. P at the exam, and he went in and took the polygraph (which he passed). We then sent a letter with a copy of the results to the Detective. The Detective then reviewed all the evidence and stated “there is no evidence to support a charge of Child Abuse at this time. This report will be closed.” After another contact with the Officer, he filed a supplemental DR stating “This case has been previously closed, and will remain closed.”

March 9, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1300 Bench Trial Victories, 1300B Dismissed at Bench Trial, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 50A Assault / Violent Crime Bench Trial Victories, 51 Assault/Domestic Violence Dismissals, 57 Disorderly Conduct/Threats Dismissed, 57-59 Disorderly Conduct / Threats Victories, 700 Property Crime Victories, 90 Criminal Damage Dismissals, 97 Property Crime Jury / Bench Trial Victories, Case Victories, Scottsdale City Court Victories

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 12027)

ASSAULT, CRIMINAL DAMAGE and DISORDERLY CONDUCT DISMISSED at BENCH TRIAL – State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 12027) (Scottsdale City Court 2013-030918): Mr. T was a professional athlete who had played running back for the Arizona Cardinals. Police were called to his house by his then live-in girlfriend regarding a “domestic violence.” They had been arguing about personal matters and had “broken up” earlier that day. Mr. T had departed and then returned to the house with a plane ticket for his girlfriend to fly to New York (as a parting gift).

At that time, she walked into the bathroom and began smashing items on the ground. These items include of various perfumes and some picture frames. Mr. T held her in order to keep her from damaging any more property. She subsequently received a minor injury and then called Police.

When Police arrived, they observed various broken items and ultimately charged Mr. T with Assault, per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1203, Criminal Damage per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1602, and Disorderly Conduct per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2904. Pursuant to policy, he was arrested and taken to Jail at that time. His young daughter was also in the household and was taken away by CPS. I received a call from Mr. T’s sports agent immediately after Mr. T had been released on his own recognizance. I then met with Mr. T at his house, toured the alleged crime scene and went over the facts of the case. After we interviewed both Officers involved and the CPS Specialist who met with the child at the Family Advocacy Center, we then began to attempt to have the charges dismissed by the Scottsdale City Prosecutors Office. The case was eventually set to Trial, and on the day of Trial, the State dismissed all charges.

March 9, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 75 Orders of Protection / Injunction Against Harassment Victories, Case Victories, Mesa City Court / Mesa Municipal Court Victories

State v. Mr. J (DMC No. 11899)

VIOLATION of ORDER of PROTECTION DISMISSED – State v. Mr. J (DMC No. 11899) (Mesa City Court No. 2013-002170): Mr. J was a professional baseball player who pitched for the Red Sox organization. He had been going through a divorce with his wife and was served an Order of Protection. That Order of Protection included allegations of violence to his wife, children and the family pet.   The order issued by the Judge stated “Defendant shall have no contact with protected persons [wife and children] except through Attorneys, Legal Process, Court Hearings and as follows: Mail/ Writing”.

 

Ten months later, Mr. J showed up at his house with a trailer in order to pick up personal items. Mr. J had just driven in from California (where he was now living). This pick  up  had  previously  been  arranged  through  his  divorce attorney  and  his  wife’s  divorce attorney. In addition, his wife’s divorce attorney approved contact through text messaging in order to facilitate the pickup. When Mr. J arrived, his wife called Police and he was arrested for a Violation of the Order of Protection per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3602.

 

I was contacted by his divorce attorney and by his sports agent. I arrived at the Mesa City Jail in time for the morning docket on the weekend calendar. Mr. J was then released on his Own Recognizance. Subsequently, I received the police report and began to assemble documents in order to have the case dismissed. After meeting with the Prosecutor with all documents, she declined to dismiss charges and the case was set to Trial. At the time of Trial, the State moved to dismiss all charges.

March 9, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100A Computer Crime Victories, 100M Tampering with Evidence Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 43 Fraudulent Schemes Reduced, 45 Theft Reduced, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, 86D Acquisition of a Narcotic Drug Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 12321)

(40 COUNTS) FELONY COMPUTER TAMPERING, TAMPERING with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, ACQUISITION of a NARCOTIC DRUG, THEFT and FRAUD SCHEMES REDUCED to 3.75 YEARS in PRISON – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 12321) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2012-007417): Our office was retained after Mr.  M, a former Phoenix Police Detective, was arrested and extradited to Arizona. Initially, we were retained for just the Initial Appearance which involved a 40 count indictment for Computer Tampering per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2316, Tampering with Physical Evidence per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2809, Acquisition of Narcotic Drugs per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3408, Theft per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1802, and Fraudulent Schemes per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2310. Subsequent to this, the client retained us for the entire case.

At the not guilty Arraignment, a brief discussion was had with  the  assigned  prosecutor, who  advised  that  there  was  over  5000  pages  of discovery. He advised he would be filing a motion to designate the case “complex.” After this hearing, which was attended by my partner, Certified Criminal Law Specialist Christine Whalin, she and I met to discuss the motion to modify release conditions that had been filed and the anticipated voluminous discovery that was forthcoming.

In Court, co-counsel and I appeared to address the bond on the matter. We ascertained a $50,000 secured bond, which the client’s family subsequently posted. At the initial pretrial conference the, Commissioner granted the State’s motion to designate the case “complex” and reset the last day. An additional motion to modify release conditions had been filed at this time and a hearing was set to address that two weeks after the IPTC date. Subsequent to this court hearing co-counsel and I met with Mr. M to discuss his options in this case and the strategy that would be taken. During this meeting, we determined the best strategy would be for us to try to negotiate the best plea offer possible and  potentially  have  our  client  speak  with  the  Prosecutor  and/or  Detective.  Soon after this meeting, we received our first offer from the Prosecutor, which was five years in the Department of Corrections with a probation tail.  On Two weeks later, myself and co-counsel appeared to address our additional motion to modify release conditions – specifically requesting that Mr. M be able to reside in Pennsylvania while the case was ongoing. This motion was granted by the court.

After having received the voluminous discovery on this case, both co-counsel and I spent hours reviewing and summarizing the accusations being made by the State. We also spoke with our client about sending information to provide in a deviation letter to the Prosecutor.

A deviation letter was prepared and submitted to the Prosecutor for review. Although the deviation was denied, the Prosecutor indicated he was open to reconsideration with additional information. Subsequently, interviews began to commence. Soon after this, the Prosecutor approached us regarding a potential “free-talk” with our client. A free-talk occurred another free-talk occurred shortly thereafter. After the second free-talk, a modified offer was extended to either five years in the Department of Corrections or a range of three to seven years. After conveying this new offer to Mr. M, he requested we counter with a request for intensive probation for a stipulated term of seven years with counseling, community service and a fine of $10,000. This counter-offer was requested and staffed by the Prosecutor and ultimately we were successful in getting a meeting scheduled with the elected Maricopa County Attorney and the Prosecutor. We met at the County Attorney’s Office in an effort to have a probation offer extended. Unfortunately, there was no agreement on that, however, the State advised that we could pick a judge for change of plea and sentencing and they would not oppose whoever we chose.

Eventually a settlement conference occurred before a settlement Judge. At this time, Mr. M entered the plea agreement that allowed for a range in the Department of Corrections of anywhere between three to seven years. The plea was not accepted at the time that it was entered, in order to allow Mr. M to remain out of custody pending sentencing. I appeared for the sentencing and argued mitigating factors. Mr. M was sentenced to the low end of the range at 3.75 years in the Department of Corrections, and given credit for 53 days of presentence incarceration. He was placed on probation for 3 years following that term in the Department of Corrections.

March 9, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 29 Sexual Assault Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 79E First Degree Murder Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa City Court Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 12994)

FELONY FIRST DEGREE MURDER and FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT REDUCED to 13 YEARS in PRISON – State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 12994) (Maricopa City Court CR2013-002605): This “cold case” involved a Rape / Murder per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1105 and ARS 13-1406, which occurred on January 20, 1980. In 1988, Mr. B plead to 2 Counts of Sexual Assault which occurred in Chandler, AZ in the mid 1980’s. In both of those cases, he tied up the victims with shoe laces prior to raping them. He had been sentenced to Prison and was not scheduled to be released until the summer of 2015. When the 1980 murder had first occurred, Mr. B was a suspect and he was questioned by Police (even though he was only 14 years old). After his 1988 convictions, the Police revisited Mr. B because the 1980 Rape/Murder had the same modus operandi as the 1988 cases.

They eventually tested his DNA in 2005 while he was in Prison. However, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office held off indicting Mr. B until June of 2013. We were then contacted and hired by Mr. B’s family.

Immediately after being retained, a three person defense team from our firm was assembled to defend this particular case. Board Certified Criminal Law Specialists David Cantor, Joey Hamby and an Associate Attorney met to discuss strategy. The 3 major defenses we focused on were pre-indictment delay due to the fact the DNA matched a single pubic hair taken from the victim’s vagina in 1980, which was not tested until 2005, and matched thirteen loci on our client. Our goal was to look for “actual prejudice” due to the delay between 2005 and 2013. Our second defense had to do with chain of custody because that single hair was tested in Mesa, then Los Angeles, then the FBI, then retested a fourth time by Mesa in 2005. The possibility of contamination was high. The third defense we looked for was whether there was an actual root on the hair. According to our DNA expert, you cannot do an analysis on a dead hair that does not have a root. Our theory was that when they executed a search warrant on our client in 2005 and plucked one of his pubic hair, that they then claimed that was the actual hair from the crime scene.

As the case developed, we also found evidence of a potential serial rapist/serial killer who had been in Mesa in 1980. We used private investigators to attempt to track him down, along with one of his surviving victims. This individual had a habit of keeping photographs of his victims. One of the surviving victims was actually interviewed by Police early into the investigation and had indicated that she thought she saw a photograph of the 1980 victim in this other person’s house.

Ultimately, the case was set to a settlement conference and a plea was received which resulted in 13 additional years of Jail from the time of the sentencing. Mr. B was in his late 40’s at the time of the sentencing and is now going to be a free man at approximately 60 years of age.

March 6, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100 Miscellaneous Crimes Victories, 100A Computer Crime Victories, 100J Obstruction/Hindering Operation Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 43 Fraudulent Schemes Reduced, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 11855)

FELONY TAMPERING with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, FELONY CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT PERJURY, FELONY OBSTRUCTION of a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION and FELONY FRAUDULENT SCHEMES REDUCED to PROBATION with ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 11855) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2013-000547):

Mr. A was cited with a Misdemeanor DUI in the City of Gilbert. He then retained the services of Mr. K (a high profile defense attorney in the Phoenix area) in order to defend him. He provided Mr. K with a cell phone video purporting to be video taken from the front of his vehicle as a “dash cam” at the time of the stop. On the video, it showed him properly exiting a bar parking lot and driving correctly without any traffic violations. He was also narrating while he was driving, and claimed that an Officer was pulling up behind him and stopping him. He then stopped the cell phone video.

Unbeknownst to Mr. K, Mr. A falsified the video. He then had a co-worker alter the date time stamped on the video. It was of such quality that Mr. K’s forensic expert analyzed the video and wrote a report finding the video was accurate and untampered with. All of that information was then submitted to the Gilbert City Prosecutor and the DUI charge was dismissed against Mr. A.

The co-worker who had altered the video for Mr. A subsequently had a falling out with him. He then contacted Police and reported Mr. A. Mr. A was subsequently charged with Fraudulent Schemes, Tampering with Evidence, Obstructing a Criminal Investigation and Conspiracy to Commit Perjury. We were then retained by Mr. A. Myself and my partner, Christine Whalin met and formulated the strategy to (1) legally attack some of the charges as not  being  factually  sufficient  as  to  the crime  actually  committed,  (2)  gather  all  mitigating evidence regarding Mr. A, (3) agree to full restitution as to the Gilbert Police Department’s estimation  (which  was  in  the thousands  of dollars),  and  (4) meet  with  the Prosecutor and Prosecutor’s Supervisor to try and achieve an offer which would not result in any prison or jail time.

As the case progressed, my partner, Certified Criminal Law Specialist Christine Whalin and myself met at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office with the Prosecutor and her Supervisor. Although we could not secure an offer which would allow for only a Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor, we did secure an offer which resulted in the dismissal of the Class 2 Fraudulent Schemes per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2310. Mr. A pled to Obstructing a Criminal Investigation per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2409, (a Class 5 Felony), an amended charge of Tampering with Physical Evidence per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2809, and Solicitation to Commit Perjury per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2704 and 13-1002,  (both Class 6 Open Felonies). There was also no agreement as to sentencing. After I conducted the mitigation hearing, the Judge sentenced Mr. A to supervised probation with no jail time. This was a very high profile case that was covered by the press throughout each and every step of the proceedings.

March 6, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38B Sexual Abuse Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 134643)

(11 COUNTS) FELONY SEXUAL ABUSE REDUCED to PROBATION with ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 134643) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2014-140803):

Dr. A was practicing as a Nephrologist and Kidney expert at the medical office he founded. A client was examined by him and alleged that he fondled her vagina area and pressed his erect penis against her while conducting an exam. After this was reported to Police, they arrested Dr. A and publicized the case on the local news. As a result, 8 other women came forward claiming that they had also been sexually abused by Dr. A during medical examinations. Ultimately, he was indicted with 11 Counts of Sex Abuse per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1404, involving 8 different women. The 9th women’s allegation had previously been investigated by Police (in which I represented Dr. A several years prior), and he was not charged because the Statute of Limitations had since run regarding that particular victim’s case.

We subpoenaed and interviewed many of his medical staff and we were able to show that only 1 patient had ever complained of any type of misbehavior by Dr. A. We also used a private investigator to research the backgrounds of many of the alleged victims, and we were able to show that some of them had prior mental health issues. After the case had been ongoing for over a year, we were able to secure a settlement conference in front of a settlement Judge. During that settlement conference, I argued to the Judge that Prison was inappropriate, and any plea should not contain Jail as a condition of probation. We finally settled on a plea which would require some deferred Jail, thereby allowing Dr. A to remain free during his probation. The final plea was to 2 Counts of Sexual Abuse, (1 a Class 5 Felony, and 1 a Class 6 Felony), with a stipulation to Probation and Jail to be left up to the Judge.

At sentencing, I argued to the Judge numerous mitigating factors and requested deferred Jail. After the victims spoke, the Prosecutor requested 2 full years of Jail and a request that Dr. A be taken into custody in front of the victims. Ultimately, the Judge gave Dr. A supervised Probation and deferred Jail time. Dr. A is performing admirably on Probation, and it is our expectation he will not serve even 1 day in Jail.

December 4, 2017
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1 DUI / Vehicular Crime Jury Trial Complete Acquittals, 1000 Complete Jury Trial Acquittals / All Criminal Charges, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, Case Victories, Jury Trial Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 14803)

NOT GUILTY/COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL- (4COUNTS) FELONY AGGRAVATED DUI & DWI (.117 BAC) – State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 14803) DEC 4, 2017 (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2016-109074): Mr. S had 2 prior Misdemeanor DUI convictions, 1 prior Felony Conviction and was on Felony Probation when he was arrested for a second offense aggravated DUI. He was facing a minimum of 4 and a half years if he were to be convicted at trial. The State initially offered 3 years of prison, and later reduced the offer to 8 months of prison. Mr. S turned down the offer because he was not driving the vehicle.

At trial, against the Maricopa County Attorney Office’s top Vehicular Crimes Prosecutor, we utilized the officer’s AXON video camera’s footage (which they wear on their bodies). We were able to show that while Mr. S was being arrested and searched, only his watch, wallet and cell phone were recovered and placed on the hood of his wife’s vehicle. The car keys were never found. As he was being arrested, the cars panic button went off momentarily (for 3 beeps), and nobody could determine who triggered the vehicle’s alarm. At trial, we were able to show through witnesses that his wife actually had the keys and she had triggered the alarm.  Mr. S had never driven the vehicle, and was merely seated inside the vehicle using the cell phone when officers arrived on scene. We were able to show that the officer’s testimony that she saw him drive 1-2 feet was not credible.

October 23, 2017
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1 DUI / Vehicular Crime Jury Trial Complete Acquittals, 1000 Complete Jury Trial Acquittals / All Criminal Charges, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, Case Victories, Jury Trial Victories

State v. Ms. P (DMC No. 14776)

NOT GUILTY/COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL/DUI & DWI (.143 BAC) – State v. Ms. P (DMC No. 14776) OCT 23, 2017 (West Mesa Justice Court TR2017-101500): Ms. P was traveling on the 101 near  Shea Boulevard when she was alleged to have been driving 90 miles per hour. She was pulled over by Salt River Police Department officers and subsequently investigated for DUI. During the one leg stand, she was able to keep her foot up 26 seconds out of the 30 seconds requested. In addition, when she got to the station, 3 breath tests were given, which included a deficient .137 reading, followed by a .143 and a .133 reading.

At Jury Trial, we were able to show that the readings were so drastically different that there must have been a problem with the breath testing device. In addition, we presented expert witness testimony that if an individual can stand with their foot raised off the ground for more than 25 seconds, they are below a .08 BAC. Lastly, we were able to impeach the officer during her testimony and we were able to have her admit to lying about previous testimony. The Jury came back within 15 minutes and found Ms. P Not Guilty of all charges.

1 … 22 23 24 25 26 … 156
Call Now Button