Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 94 Burglary Victories

FELONY BURGLARY NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 13852) (Mesa Police Department DR No. 2013-12800119): Mr. G was a 21-year-old male who was accused of committing Burglary of a Retail Establishment in Mesa, Arizona per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1507 . The alleged Burglary occurred around midnight. There were two eyewitnesses who were working in the area who heard a loud crash and saw a small red pickup truck backed up to the retail establishment. They saw an individual coming out loading product into the small red pickup truck and then driving away. He also saw another individual assisting with the crime. The estimated value of the product stolen was approximately $3500. While the scene was being processed, the two eyewitnesses returned to the scene and advised Officers that they had located what they believed to be the same small red pickup a short distance away in a parking lot. The police immediately went to the location and conducted a search of the small red pickup. In the small red pickup they found the stolen items from the retail establishment.

Police officers then located eyewitnesses in the area who indicated that shortly after the time of the Burglary, they saw a white male with a red pickup truck. The white male asked for assistance pushing the pickup truck into the parking lot as it had run out of gas. They assisted the white male and indicated they could identify him again. Police investigated the vehicle and found that the vehicle was associated with a recent former employee of the retail establishment.

Police immediately went to the residence of the former employee (Mr. G). They questioned the former employee who indicated that he was the only one who had keys to the vehicle and he and that he had not loaned vehicle to anyone else. Under repeated questioning that story changed multiple times. The former employee was taken into custody and a one on one identification was conducted, the witness was not able to positively identify the former employee.

Another complicating factor was that according to the staff of the retail establishment, the Theft of  the  items included the  use  of  a  key  to unlock the  items inside  the  establishment. According to the staff, only employees of the establishment would know where to locate the keys. Investigators also located a large rock that had been used to break a plate glass window to get into the establishment. Numerous latent fingerprints were collected including one print from the rock. Mr. G was released but was requested to come in for additional questioning by Detectives.

At that point in time Mr. G retained our services.  We immediately instructed the client on how to invoke his Right to Counsel and Right to Remain Silent. We immediately made contact with the investigating Detective and advised our client would not be making a further statement at this time. We then obtained a copy of the police report as soon as it was available. We also immediately sent written notification to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that our client wished to be present and testify to the grand jury should they request that, pursuant to Trebus v. Davis.

Once we obtained the initial draft of the police report, we reviewed it and identified specific issues for the police. We then wrote a letter to the investigating Detective pointing out specific issues and weaknesses with their case in a letter drafted pursuant to Trebus, Bashir, and their progeny.

We continued to maintain contact with the investigating Detective over the next several months. As part of the ongoing investigation the Detective obtained a court order for our client’s fingerprints. We accompanied the client to provide a full set of fingerprints to the officer. The subsequent analysis of the fingerprints was very beneficial as the prints did not match Mr. G. The last 2 entries of the narrative in the police report from the investigating Detective specifically reference our contact with the Detective and includes the statement that the Detective was “inactivating the case.”

REDUCED (ALL) | THEFT ($160, 000)/BURGLARY (with prior) and CRIMINAL DAMAGE all REDUCED from 7 YEAR PRISON offer to 2.5 YEARS “soft” – State v. Mr. P. (DMC No. 5012) (Coconino County Superior Court CR04-0292): Mr. P. was accused of breaking into numerous County buildings along with several co-defendants and stealing $160,000 worth of computer equipment and other property.  Because he had a prior conviction, he was facing decades in prison.  With his previous attorney, he was being asked to plead to 7 years in prison.  When we took over the case, we were able to demonstrate mitigating factors (along with flaws in the case), and secure a 2.5 year “soft” offer.  Mr. P. only served 22 months in custody.

 

TRAFFICKING in STOLEN PROPERTY ($38,000), THEFT and BURGLARY REDUCED to ATTEMPT with PROBATION and 30 DAYS of DEFERRED JAIL – State v. Mr. BH; State v. Mr. CH; State v. AM (DMC No. 6017, 6024, 5993) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2004-023984-002; 003; 004): BH, CM, and AM were all college roommates who had gone into the Estanzia Golf Club and had stolen $38,000 worth of golf clubs and golf bags. They were then attempting to sell the items to various people when the police were contacted. Although they were all three charged with Trafficking in Stolen Property and Theft, we were able to show that due to their immaturity and youthful indiscretion they deserved not to be sent to prison and to have a much lesser charge. The Prosecutor agreed to give them each a plea to Attempt with 30 days of Deferred Jail. If they were successfully completing Probation and paying back the restitution, then the jail would be “Deleted”. It ultimately was Deleted, and they never had to do any time in custody.

TRAFFICKING AND STOLEN PROPERTY ($67,800), THEFT OF MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION and BURGLARY ALL REDUCED to PROBATION with 6 MONTHS DEFERRED JAIL – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 9012) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2009-119368): Mr. D had stolen a trailer along with various all-terrain vehicles from his former landlord. He then painted the trailer and removed the VIN numbers on the vehicles before putting them on Craigslist for sale. The vehicles and trailers were ultimately purchased, and then it was discovered they were stolen during the titling process. Mr. D was contacted by police and arrested. His wife admitted to Mr. D’s crimes, and also the police pulled up video surveillance from a local U-Haul storage facility showing Mr. D with the trailer and vehicles. Although the original Victim and State Farm Insurance company sought prison time, we were able to convince the Judge to give Mr. A 6 months of “Deferred” jail which was later Deleted after he had paid back full restitution. Mr. D originally was looking at years in prison.

DISMISSED | POSSESSION of BURGLARY TOOLS/THEFT and FICTITIOUS PLATE – State v. Mr. K. (DMC No. 7870) (Maricopa/Stanfield Justice Court TR07-369): Mr. K. had been diagnosed with Asperger’s, and had become obsessed with concept of being a cat burglar. He was pulled over for having a fictitious license plate, and burglary tools and guns were found in his vehicle. When he relayed to the officer his fascination with the theory of being a cat burglar, he was charged with having a fictitious plate, a stolen gun and possession of burglary tools. We were able to present medical evidence to the County Attorney regarding Mr. K.’s mental impairment, plus they were not complying with the proper Discovery requirements, and they dismissed all charges against Mr. K.

DISMISSED | ATTEMPTED SEX ASSAULT/BURGLARY – State v. Mr. C. (DMC No. 10665) (Apache County Superior Court CR2011-0228): Mr. C. had a prior sexual relationship with the alleged victim in the past.  He had now started a relationship with one of her girlfriends who was currently pregnant.   Mr. C. and the alleged victim had been out earlier in the night, drinking and partying, before she went home.  He texted and called her, and then showed up at her house and let himself in.  She claimed that he attempted to sexually assault her, and she had fought him off and then he left.  During a recorded “confrontation call”, in which the alleged victim called Mr. C., he denied that he was ever aggressive with her.  He also had stated that she invited him over.  We were able to produce evidence that she had made false allegations in the past, and all charges were dismissed.

 

NOT CHARGED | BURGLARY – State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 6766) (Pinal County Juvenile Court 0012061149): Mr. B. was 13 years old and was accused of going onto construction sites of houses under construction and breaking windows and pouring out grout.  Initially, the claimed damage was over $12,000.  We were able to demonstrate that the damages were not that high, and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office agreed to allow Mr. B. to enter into a diversion dismissal program.  No charges were ever brought against him.

 

DISMISSED | Solicitation of Burglary, State v. Mr. C. (DMC No.7244) (University Lakes Justice Court No. JC2007-115374): Mr. C. was an ASU student. While returning from class with a friend they sighted a golf course cart on ASU’s campus. Mr. C. acted as a lookout while his friend stole various items from the golf cart. We were able to explain to the prosecutor that a conviction would keep Mr. C. from ever obtaining a job in the Federal Government. In addition, this would potentially have caused him to be thrown out of his dorm room by the University. Ultimately, were able to convince the State to dismiss charges “in the interests of justice.”

DISMISSED | Burglary, State v. Mr. M. (DMC No.7307) (United States District Court No. CR06-507-PHX-NVW): Mr. M. worked at a pawn shop where he was accused of stealing $150,000 in jewelry and electronics. During the course of the investigation he admitted to taking one firearm while he worked there, but denied the other thefts. He was able to pass a polygraph test, and we were able to show that the Government lacked any evidence of the items alleged to be stolen. Ultimately he was allowed to do Diversion in exchange for a dismissal of the Theft of Gun charge which had been brought against him. In the end, all charges were dismissed and he had no convictions on his record.

NOT CHARGED | AGGRAVATED ASSAULT / BURGLARY – Mr. P. was a security guard at a local apartment complex and was called to respond to a complaint of loud noise. When he arrived, one of the people at the party pointed a BB gun at Mr. P. A fight then ensued, and police officers arrived. While breaking up the fight, one of the officers was struck by Mr. P. We were able to convince the prosecutor not to file charges against Mr. P.

Call Now Button