Our Location

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

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
July 20, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47F Money Laundering (State Charge) Victories, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 55 Felony Aggravated Assault Reduced, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 79 Miscellaneous Violent Crimes Victories, 84 Drug Sales/Transportation Reduced, 86C Use of a Wire Communication on a Drug Transaction Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 13039)

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 13039) – Felony Money Laundering ($1,100), Felony Conspiracy to Commit Sale or Transportation of Narcotics; Felony Sale or Transportation of Marijuana, Felony Use of a Wire Communication or Electronic Communication Device in a Drug Related Transaction and (3 Counts) Felony Aggravated Assault – Reduced to Facilitation, Assisting a Criminal Street Gang and Class 6 Aggravated Assault – All with Probation and a Total of 1 Year in DOC– Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2015-105571 and CR2015-114161).

The Phoenix Police Department was conducting an investigation into the North Side Mexican Brown Pride 21st Street Gang (MBP 21). This was done after they observed numerous hand to hand drug transactions between various gang members. The police had also documented purchases of heroin, rifles, shotguns and/or stolen vehicles between some of the gang members. At that point, they initiated a traffic stop in connection to an armed robbery suspect and discovered a stolen vehicle and $1,100 in cash. Upon questioning the driver, he stated that Mr. D had sold him some marijuana.

When Mr. D was detained, he admitted to selling marijuana to the juvenile just prior to the traffic stop. He was ultimately charged with Felony Money Laundering, Felony Conspiracy to Commit Sale or Transportation of Narcotic Drugs and Felony Use of a Wire Communication or Electronic Communication Device in a Drug Related Transaction.

Approximately 11 months after this incident with the police, he was also contacted regarding a claim by his then girlfriend that he had assaulted her. The allegations were that he pushed her onto a bed, held a hand over her mouth and grabbed her neck, which caused her air supply to be cut off for approximately 30 seconds. The girlfriend also claimed that he grabbed her by the throat a second time, kept her from leaving the apartment, and that he punched her in the arm. He was charged with 2 Counts of Aggravated Assault for the choking, and 1 Count of Misdemeanor Assault.

We became involved and were able to wrap up all the charges while Mr. D was being held as non-bondable for approximately 5 months in the county jail. We wrapped up the case with 1-year prison sentence, with credit for the 5 months he had already served. In addition, he received a two-month early kickout at the prison, which meant he spent another 5 months in custody before being released. He originally was facing a potential of over 15 years in prison if he were to be convicted of all charges and sentenced consecutively.

July 20, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47F Money Laundering (State Charge) Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 82B Possession/Paraphernalia Reduced, 84 Drug Sales/Transportation Reduced, Case Victories

State v. Ms. H (DMC No. 13022)

State v. Ms. H (DMC No. 13022) – Felony Money Laundering ($162,622), Felony Possession of Marijuana and Felony Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – Reduced to Solicitation and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, both Class 6 Open/Misdemeanors with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Yavapai County Superior Court (Case No. CR2015-00506).

Ms. H was riding as a passenger in her husband’s truck along the I-40 when they were observed by a Yavapai County Sheriff’s Deputy. The deputy stated that the truck’s temporary license plate was flopping up and down, and that several items that were on the dashboard and the windshield of the truck were causing an obstructed view. Based upon this very questionable observation, the officer stopped Ms. H and her husband. When stopped, Ms. H’s husband stated that he borrowed the truck from a friend. The officer then claimed he smelled an odor of marijuana.

Ms. H’s husband said they were traveling from Kansas to Las Vegas, and when asked about the marijuana, he said he had an eighth of an ounce and a medical marijuana card. It was then discovered that he had an extraditable felony warrant out of Maricopa County for Possession of Marijuana and he was placed under arrest. The officer then began to question Ms. H and search the vehicle.

Discovered inside the vehicle, was three jars filled with marijuana that totaled 3.3 ounces. In addition, there was a purse which contained $75,000 in cash; a backpack which contained $86,000 in cash; and Ms. H’s purse which contained $37,000 in cash. This totaled $162,000. Ms. H and her husband were placed under arrest, and their 5-year old and 10-month old children were turned over to DCS workers

During questioning, Ms. H’s husband said that he was the one selling marijuana, and that his wife had no knowledge. Ms. H admitted to knowing there was marijuana in the bag and that she knew she had $37,000 in her purse. We were able to argue that the stop was a pretext stop (most likely as a result of a confidential informant), and that due to the fact English was a second language, her interrogation could have been misconstrued, plus the fact that her husband had stated that she had no knowledge. Because of all of this, we were able to secure a plea to 1 Count of Facilitation to Commit Money Laundering and 1 Count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, both as Class 6 Open/Misdemeanors. This included Probation with zero days in jail. Also included was an agreement to forfeit the $162,000 and the 2012 Chevy Silverado which they were driving at the time. Originally Ms. H was facing well over a decade in prison if convicted of all charges and sentenced to the maximum, instead she successfully completed probation and only has a misdemeanor on her record.

July 20, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47F Money Laundering (State Charge) Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 82B Possession/Paraphernalia Reduced, 84 Drug Sales/Transportation Reduced, Case Victories

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 13884)

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 13884) – Felony Money Laundering ($14,000), Felony Transportation of Marijuana For Sale and Felony Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – Reduced to Facilitation Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor with Probation and 2 Days in Jail – Navajo County Superior Court (Case No. CR2015-00846).

A Sergeant with the Navajo County Sheriff’s Office claimed that he was on the side of the road doing paperwork when he saw a car drive by with beads and a triangular air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror. He claimed that it was obstructing the driver’s view, so he then followed and pulled over the driver and the two passengers. The Sheriff’s Sergeant claimed that he smelled marijuana, and then did a search, and found a backpack containing three jars of marijuana and a glass pipe. When the three co-defendants were questioned, they all began blaming each other. Eventually, a deal was struck where one of the co-defendants told the Sergeant that Mr. W was also driving a different car that contained marijuana and a large amount of cash. That co-defendant was then released from custody.

When Mr. W was driving down the road, another officer received a radio call asking to stop a car matching Mr. W’s description. Mr. W was stopped, he was not Mirandized, and a search took place of his vehicle. A container with green residue of marijuana was contained in his backpack, along with $14,000 in cash. Mr. W had a medical marijuana card from California and the amount of marijuana found was well within the legal amounts authorized by the AMMA. Once we became involved in the case, we were able to show the Prosecutor that the stop was very questionable. After interviewing the arresting Officer, he could not even remember whether he saw any driving violations or why he was instructed to stop Mr. W. Because of the threat to file a Motion to Suppress All Evidence, the Prosecutor agreed to instead offer a Facilitation plea to a Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor Distribution with only two days in jail. Mr. W was even allowed to do the jail time in the state of Kansas (where he was from). Although he was initially facing a potential of 10 years or more in prison if convicted of all counts and sentenced to consecutive terms, he ended up ultimately completing probation and having only a misdemeanor on his record.

July 17, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47F Money Laundering (State Charge) Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 82A Possession/Paraphernalia Dismissals, Case Victories

State v. Mr. K (DMC No. 14721)

Mr. K was driving on the I-40 when a Mohave County Sheriff’s Deputy stated that he was following a truck too closely. He also claimed he was traveling 80 in a 70 miles per hour zone. After Mr. K was pulled over, the Deputy had a dog circle his vehicle. The Deputy claimed the dog alerted to drugs. Eventually, Mr. K stated he had money in the car. As the Deputy began searching the car, he was about to cut off the locks to a toolbox when Mr. K said “you can’t do that.“ A search warrant was never obtained because they couldn’t get one at that time.

Once the locks were cut off the toolbox, $20,000 in cash was found inside. Mr. K told Officers that it was investors’ money for dirt bikes that were in San Diego. After the locks were cut, Mr. K asked multiple times “is this legal.” Because the money was all twenty-dollar bills wrapped in Ziploc baggies, Mr. K was arrested for Money Laundering and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. When Officers began questioning him, he stated “do I need a lawyer because I don’t want to incriminate myself.” He also said “I believe I should talk to a lawyer.” However, Officers continued to question him relentlessly.

We ultimately filed a Motion to Dismiss for both Illegal Search and Seizure, and Violation of Right to Counsel. These Motions were filed on September 21, 2017.  By October 10, 2017, the Prosecutor filed a Motion 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.

October 12, 2016
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1400 Appeal/Post Conviction Relief/Habeas Corpus Victories, 16 Miscellaneous Vehicular Crimes Victories, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 86 Miscellaneous Drug Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Ms. S (DMC No. 12505)

Approximately 3 years before ms. S hired our firm, she had been arrested while driving her vehicle. The police gave her a preliminary breath test which revealed no alcohol in her system. When ms. S refused to do field sobriety test’s, they arrested her and searched her vehicle. They found a tylenol bottle which contained various prescription drugs inside. They then charged her with dui drugs and possession of dangerous prescription drugs.

It was later shown that she did not have any impairing quantities of the drugs in her system while she was driving. In addition, she did have prescriptions for all of the medication found in her possession. At that time, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all charges “in the interest of justice”. However, this arrest still appeared on her record and was causing her problems with employment. She then hired us to have her arrest record cleared by way of a “notation on the record”. We were able to explain to the judge all of the proceeding facts, and he agreed with our motion argument, and issued a “notation of cleared person on the record.” this resulted in cleaning up her arrest record, and that prior arrest no longer appears when employers run background checks regarding ms. S.

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.

September 1, 2015
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, Case Victories

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 9119)

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL: POSSESSION of DRUG PARAPHERNALIA – State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 9119) (Phoenix City Court No.4000922): Mr. S was with a group of other teenagers in the parking lot of a city park located at 23rd Street and Kristy Drive in Phoenix, Arizona. It was just after 10 o’clock when Officers pulled into the parking lot and shined a spotlight on Mr. S vehicle. They then came up and had everyone exit the vehicle because the park had closed and they were “trespassing”. Subsequently, a bottle of Vodka and a Marijuana bong were found in the car. Mr. S was cited for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. At Bench Trial, we argued to the Judge that there were multiple people who could have had access or actually possessed the bong. In addition, the Police did not conduct Fingerprint Analysis of the bong. Lastly, we argued that Mr. S never admitted that the bong was his, even though Police said differently. The Judge agreed with us and found Mr. S Not Guilty of all charges.

September 1, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 4AA DUI Drugs Reduced, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 82A Possession/Paraphernalia Dismissals, Case Victories, Round Valley Justice Court Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 9016)

POSSESSION of DRUG PARAPHERNALIA DISMISSED / DUI DRUGS (MARIJUANA) REDUCED to REGULAR DUI (ALCOHOL) – State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 9016) (Round Valley Justice Court CR09-0142): Mr. B was coming back from a ski trip when he was stopped on State Route 260 at milepost 375 near Round Valley, Arizona. The Officer smelled the odor of Marijuana and had Mr. B exit his vehicle. He subsequently conducted a Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) and arrested Mr. B based on a DUI Drugs charged. After he was arrested, 3 small baggies of Marijuana were found. Due to the questionable nature of the stop at subsequent search, we were able to convince the Prosecutor to dismiss the Felony Possession of Marijuana/ Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charge. In addition, he converted the DUI Drugs charge to a DUI Alcohol charge.  If Mr. B were convicted of DUI Drugs, he would have had his license suspended for 1 full year. Because he was only being convicted of DUI Alcohol, he was able to get his license back after 30 days.

August 19, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 112 Other Vehicular Crimes Pre-Charge Victories, 19 Vehicular Homicides/Manslaughter Pre-Charge Victories, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 4A DUI Drugs Dismissals, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 63-65 Homicide Victories, 65 Homicide Pre-Charge Victories, 79G Manslaughter Victories, 81 Drug Crime Dismissals, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Apache Junction City Court Victories, Case Victories, City Court Victories

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 10610)

NOT CHARGED/DISMISSED | VEHICLUAR MANSLAUGHTER /DUI DRUGS (Marijuana)  – State v. Mr. C. (DMC No. 10610) (Apache Junction City Court TR20120026): A motorcyclist had been involved in a minor collision at Broadway Road & Meridian Road in Apache Junction. The motorcyclist then wandered around the car as Mr. C.’s car came up and struck and killed him.  Although no impairment was observed, the police ordered a blood draw from Mr. C., which revealed the presence of marijuana.  We filed a Motion to Suppress the blood draw, which was granted and the DUI drugs charge was dismissed.  We also were able to convince the prosecutors not to file charges for manslaughter as Mr. C. was not at fault for striking the motorcyclist.  No charges for manslaughter were ever brought.

1 2 3 4 … 12
Call Now Button