Our Location

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

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
April 19, 2021
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 30 Indecent Exposure Dismissals, 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 700 Property Crime Victories, 82A Possession/Paraphernalia Dismissals, 95 Trespass Victories, Case Victories, Justice Court Victories, University Lakes Justice Court Victories

State v. Mr. C (DMC 15410)

State v. Mr. C (DMC 15410) – Animal Abuse – Reduced to 5 Days in Jail – Phoenix City Court (Case No. 5306674):  Mr. C was seen by people pulling his SUV over on the side of the road, retrieving a cat from the passenger side door, and throwing it over a fence.  The cat the scrambled off and hid underneath a car and was almost struck by Mr. C as he left the scene.  The witnesses then took the cat to the Humane Society and had it nursed back to health at a cost of almost $900.  Mr. C was ultimately tracked down and charged with Animal Cruelty.  We were able to present evidence that the cat dug his claws into Mr. C’s arms while he was attempting to remove it from the car, and that it then ran away after he flailed his arms due to the pain.  He had not abandoned the cat, nor had he tried to harm the cat.  Because of the strength of the witness’s testimony, the State was seeking a significant amount of jail time.  Although he was facing up to six months in jail, we were able to reduce the ultimately sentence to only five days.

April 19, 2021
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 30 Indecent Exposure Dismissals, 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 700 Property Crime Victories, 82A Possession/Paraphernalia Dismissals, 95 Trespass Victories, Case Victories, Justice Court Victories, University Lakes Justice Court Victories

State v. Mr. H (DMC 15877)

State v. Mr. H (DMC 15877) – Felony Tampering with Evidence – Dismissed (with Classes) – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-138288):  Mr. H had been arrested for misdemeanor DUI and had been taken to the police station.  After the police had drawn two vials of his blood and packaged them both in a single box, they informed Mr. H that he could get an Independent Test of his blood if he wished to challenge the State’s results.  He was also told that the second vial would be available for him to get tested.  Mr. H became confused, and thought that the box with both vials of blood contained his own sample to take with him.  He put the box in his pocket and left with it when he was released from the police station.

Ultimately, the police contacted him and informed him that he had taken their samples of blood.  They claim that he had denied that he had taken the blood samples, and then they produced videotape evidence showing that he had.  He was ultimately arrested and charged with felony Tampering with Evidence.  We were then hired by Mr. H to represent him on the felony, and not on the underlying misdemeanor DUI (in which he already had an attorney).  Ultimately, we were able to have the Prosecutor agree that this was a mistake and that they could lose at trial.  They then allowed the case to be Dismissed upon successful completion of classes for alcohol consumption by Mr. H.

April 19, 2021
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 30 Indecent Exposure Dismissals, 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 700 Property Crime Victories, 82A Possession/Paraphernalia Dismissals, 95 Trespass Victories, Case Victories, Justice Court Victories, University Lakes Justice Court Victories

State v. Ms. E (DMC 15445)

State v. Ms. E (DMC 15445) – Felony Arson and Felony Criminal Damage – Dismissed – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-151423):  Ms. E had suffered from PTSD and was on various medications.  She had taken two of those medications together and went to sleep, when she awoke was panicked because she thought her dog was locked inside of the car.  She smashed the car in order to get into it, and realized her dog was not there.  She then called her husband, who informed her that he had the dog.

During this ordeal, she had somehow set the car on fire.  We were able to show the prosecutor that she was having a medical episode, and that her husband (the co-owner of the car) did not wish for charges to be pressed.  Ultimately, the State agreed to Dismiss charges against Ms. E.  Originally, she was facing a large amount of prison time.

April 19, 2021
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 30 Indecent Exposure Dismissals, 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 700 Property Crime Victories, 82A Possession/Paraphernalia Dismissals, 95 Trespass Victories, Case Victories, Justice Court Victories, University Lakes Justice Court Victories

State v. Mr. F. (DMC 15474)

State v. Mr. F. (DMC 15474) – Felony Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – Teaching License Reinstated at Board Hearing – Arizona Department of Education (Case No. C-2017-697R):  Mr. F had been charged two years prior with Felony Possession of Marijuana and Felony Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  We were able to negotiate a resolution that involved classes, which, upon successful completion, would result in a Dismissal of all charges.  As Mr. F was a school teacher, he was informed that pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 15-534.02, that he would lose his license for a period of five years.  We requested a hearing in front of the Arizona State Board of Education, which was ultimately granted.

During the hearing, we provided numerous witnesses that showed Mr. F was doing a good job as a substitute teacher.  We also showed that he was not an immoral person, and the reason that he had used marijuana was due to back pain.  His lack of a medical marijuana card was merely an oversite.  He had since obtained a medical marijuana card, which allowed him to legally use the drug.  We also showed that Mr. F worked with special education children, some who had Downs Syndrome who were non-verbal.  Because of his knowledge of sign language, and his specialized training, he was a very valuable teacher.  Ultimately, the Committee agreed to Reinstate Mr. F’s Teaching License.

March 31, 2021
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 23 Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct With Minor Reduced, 26-27 Luring a Minor Victories, 27 Luring a Minor Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38C Furnishing Harmful or Obscene Materials to a Minor, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 14909)

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 14909) – Felony Custodial Interference, Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor, Felony Luring a Minor for Sexual Exploitation, and Felony Sending Obscene Internet Materials to a Minor – Reduced to Probation With 90 Days of Jail – Yuma County Superior Court (Case No. CR2017-00299): Mr. R was a school teacher at the local high school and he was 32 years of age. He befriended a 17-year-old student at the high school while he was the sponsor of the chess team. She was constantly with Mr. R, and eventually she went on a three-day vacation with him to an out-of-state location. The student eventually told her friend that there had been some fondling, digital penetration and exchange of some lewd photographs via the Internet. The girl’s friend told the other girl’s boyfriend, and teachers were notified.
Mr. R was ultimately charged with Felony Custodial Interference for taking the minor out of state. He was also charged with Felony Luring a Minor for Sex Exploitation when he requested photographs from her on the Internet. Lastly, he was charged with Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor and also charged for sending obscene Internet materials to her. If he were to be convicted of all charges and sentenced to the maximum, he could have spent well over a decade in prison. Ultimately, the case was handled by a local Yuma attorney along with our Firm, and was reduced to Probation with 90 days in Jail and Sex Offender Registration.

March 31, 2021
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38A Failure to Register as a Sex Offender Victories, Case Victories, Yavapai County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. F (DMC No. 15669)

State v. Mr. F (DMC No. 15669) – Felony Failure to Register as Sex Offender – Reduced to Probation With Zero Days in Jail – Yavapai County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-01528): Mr. F was convicted in Wisconsin of Sexual Assault on a child in 1993 and was placed on probation for five years with lifetime sex offender registration. As part of sex offender registration, there is a requirement that within 72 hours of moving, the individual must notify the local Sheriff’s Office and register. Mr. F had worked both in Wisconsin and Alaska for approximately 15 years, but had moved to the Valley a year before the incident in question. He registered when he got into Arizona with the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office. He would travel back and forth to Alaska for work, and he would notify the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office.
At some point, a Detective for the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office claimed that Mr. F had not properly registered within 72 hours when he left for Alaska. He was ultimately charged with felony Failure to Register as a Sex Offender per ARS 13-3821(A). We retrieved all of Mr. F’s records and we were able to show that he had, in fact, notified Wisconsin of his travel plans to Alaska. We also pulled all of his phone records in order to show that he had been trying to leave messages and speak with the Detective in Yavapai County. Initially, the Prosecutor offered a plea to 2.5 years in prison. Ultimately, Mr. F was given an “no agreements” plea which could have resulted in Probation with no jail, all the way up to 3.75 years in Prison. At sentencing we were able to show the judge that he was attempting to properly comply, and the judge gave him the lowest possible sentence under the law – Probation with No Jail.

September 8, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2500 Professional Board Hearings, Case Victories

AZ Board of Education v. Mr. F (DMC No. 12888)

Teaching License Preserved (with Drug Test & Probation) – Arizona State Board of Education Hearing – AZ Board of Education v. Mr. F (DMC No. 12888) (Board of Education Case No. C-2013-037):  Police had responded to Mr. F’s neighborhood regarding reports of gunshots fired.  They made contact with various residents, and spoke with Mr. F and his girlfriend. Although there was no knowledge of the gunshots, or issues between them, the Police smelled an odor of marijuana. They subsequently entered Mr. F’s residence and questioned him and his girlfriend.

In plain sight was some marijuana and a bong. Neither of the occupants had a Medical Marijuana Card, and both were subsequently arrested.  The Arizona Board of Education became involved and a Hearing was held in front of the Professional Practices Advisory Committee (“PPAC”).  This occurred because Mr. F was employed by an elementary school in the Phoenix area. Although Mr. F was facing potential Felony charges, we were able to convince the Advisory Council that Mr. F should not permanently lose his teaching certification.

The Advisory Council agreed to allow him to be employed at a non-teaching desk job for 1 year while undergoing monthly drug tests.  His teaching certification would be restored in full upon successful completion of those requirements.  Mr. F successfully completed all requirements and went back to teaching full time.  He is currently at work is very well liked and successful teacher.

September 8, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Case Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC number 16291)

State v. Mr. B (DMC number 16291) – Felony Aggravated Assault – Not Charged – Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Investigated (DR  No. 20XX-XXXXXX7) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Declined to File Charges”.

 

Mr. B retained our firm, after he was served with an Order of Protection by his wife, who he was in the midst of divorcing. In the Order of Protection, it claimed that Mr. B punched his 14-year-old daughter in the head, causing her to obtain a concussion. At the time he retained our firm, he had not been contacted by law enforcement yet, however, due to the information in the Order of Protection, we were able to ascertain that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office was investigating.

 

After retaining the firm, the Pre-Charge Team began taking action on the case. We met and, thereafter, requested a copy of the Police report and sent a Trebus​ ​Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, advising of our representation and notifying them that if they proceeded by way of Grand Jury, that Mr. B would like to be present to testify on his behalf. We also reached out to the Detective assigned to the case and sent the Detective an email of our client’s signed and notarized Invocation of Constitutional Rights. After receiving a copy of the Police report and reviewing it, we also submitted a Public Records Requests for copies of the axon videos, along with the audio and video interviews of the children inside the home, along with clients soon to be ex-wife.

 

After consulting with his Family Law Attorney and gathering more information from Mr. B., we began preparing a Trebus​ Bashir Letter to send to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review. This letter detailed how Mr. B did not “punch” his daughter in the head and merely flicked her head in an attempt to have her get out of bed and get ready for school. We provided medical documentation showing there were no injuries to his daughter and also provided detailed information about Mr. and Mrs. B’s ongoing Divorce and his wife’s motivation to have a claim of Child Abuse or Aggravated Assault against him. This letter was then submitted to the County Attorney reviewing the case to make a charging decision.

 

After receiving and reviewing our letter, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “declined to file charges” against Mr. B and did not submit the case to the City of Phoenix for Misdemeanor prosecution.

September 8, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Case Victories

State v. Mr. P (DMC number 16287)

State v. Mr. P (DMC number 16287) – Felony Sexual Assault – Paradise Valley Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXXXXX3).

 

Mr. P was an 18-year-old man when he retained our services regarding an allegation of Sexual Assault. Mr. P, a high school student at the time, was being accused by another high school student of raping her at a high school party. She claimed that Mr. P brought her inside the home of the party against her will and had sex with her without her consent and while she was telling him “no”. She says this had happened at a party approximately a month and a half before her report. She told Police she was not pregnant and that she had taken a pregnancy test and also took a Plan B pill.

 

Upon retaining our firm, the Pre-Charge Team immediately met and began taking action. We first drafted and sent a Trebus​ ​letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, notifying them of our representation and notifying them that if the case was presented to a Grand Jury, that Mr. P would like to be present to testify, if they chose to hear from him. We also reached out to a contact at the young man’s school, to determine what action would be taken if police showed up there to interview Mr. P. We obtained the official protocol of the school and informed Mr. P and his family of the same.

 

We submitted a Public Records Request to get a copy of the Police report and reached out to the Detective, to speak with him regarding the allegations and our client. We immediately scheduled a Polygraph examination for our client and drafted the questions to be asked during that examination. Those questions focused on whether there was any non-consensual sexual conduct with the alleged victim and whether there was any forced sexual contact. The results of the Polygraph showed that no deception was indicated. We also retained the services of a Private Investigator to interview the other people who were at the party the night of this alleged rape. The Private Investigator conducted those interviews, focusing on claims of intoxication of Mr. P or the young girl making the accusations, and whether anybody saw or heard anything suspicious that evening. This Private Investigator also contacted Mr. P’s ex-girlfriend to testify that he was never aggressive sexually.

 

After obtaining all of the information from the Private Investigator and our own independent research, we began drafting a detailed Trebus Bashir letter to submit to the Detective, for his review and determination of whether he would submit the case to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for charging. This 10 page letter, not including the exhibits, had 112 bullet points delineating Mr. P’s denial of the accusations, a description of what occurred that evening and the days after the sexual contact, and our believed motive for the false allegations. Specifically, our investigation found that approximately a week after the consensual intercourse, Mr. P received a text message from his accuser, telling him that she believed she was pregnant. After a number of text messages back and forth regarding what they would do if she was, Mr. P was notified that she was not pregnant. At this time, she asked for $50 to pay for the Plan B pill. At no point in time during the text messages, just a week after their consensual sex act, did she claim that she was “raped”, or that Mr. P did anything inappropriate.

 

After submitting this letter to the Paradise Valley Police Department along with the relevant attachments, the Detective declined to submit the case to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review.

September 8, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Case Victories

State v. Mr. M (DMC number 16288)

State v. Mr. M (DMC number 16288) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXX).

 

Mr. M retained our firm and the Pre-Charge Team became involved after he was accused of Sexually Assaulting an acquaintance of his. This acquaintance had claimed that Mr. M came over to her home, invited, and that while there, forced sexual intercourse with her. Mr. M had denied the accusations, claiming that the two had had consensual sexual conduct, on multiple occasions, and that he believed this acquaintance was trying to extort money out of him.

 

The Pre-Charge Team immediately met and sent a signed Invocation of Constitutional Rights to the Detective. We ordered a copy of the Police reports, through a Public Records Request, and immediately got our client scheduled for a Polygraph examination, where we drafted the questions to be asked. The Polygraph examination surrounded the allegation of forced or nonconsensual sexual contact. Mr. M’s result came back that “no deception was indicated”. We also reached out to the Detective assigned and advised of the curious nature of the allegations being made by Mr. M’s acquaintance. We followed that call up with a detailed Trebus​ Bashir Letter to the Detective, in an effort to have her close the investigation against Mr. M.

 

This letter detailed how Mr. M and his accuser were acquaintances, due to her purchasing consulting services from Mr. M and thereafter, not being satisfied with the product. It detailed how the evening that Mr. M was at her house was part of the consulting process where Mr. M had gone there to hear her ideas regarding a new business she wanted to start. When Mr. arrived at the home, his accuser was dressed in workout pants and a sheer see-through shirt. Her home was dimly lit with soft music playing when he arrived. She took Mr. M into the living room where a bed had been made out on the floor. They began by watching a marketing video she had prepared but she soon became physical with Mr. M, and started kissing him. This kissing turned into more and eventually, consensual intercourse. After the intercourse, the two sat down to discuss his accuser’s idea for a new business after taking a shower together. It was at this time that Mr. M told his accuser that there were apparent issues with her strategy, which would likely negate any financial success in the venture. This caused her to become upset and Mr. M indicated he would help her as much as he could with her business concept.

 

At this point, Mr. M left for the evening. The following day, Mr. M saw his accuser at a seminar for people who he was consulting. The letter also detailed the enthusiastic involvement from his accuser at the seminar – the day after she was allegedly raped – by her taking photographs with Mr. M., and how after the seminar concluded his accuser contacted Mr. M demanding a refund of the money that she had paid. She followed this demand up with a letter by an Attorney again demanding payment. After hiring an Attorney to demand the return of the money and receiving no response of payment, and nearly 5 months since the sexual encounter with Mr. M, she reported the alleged “rape” to Police.

 

After sending this letter to the Police Department with relevant exhibits, and after further investigation by the Scottsdale Police Department, the case was “closed as inactive and no criminal charges would be pursued”.

1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 160
Call Now Button