Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 34 Public Sexual Indecency Reduced

Felony Child Prostitution (4 Counts) Felony Sexual Exploitation of Minor/Child Pornography and (4 Counts) Sexual Conduct with a Minor, Public Sexual Indecency & Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor Reduced to 5 Years in Prison – State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 13606) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2015-114258): Mr. A had been living with a roommate for many years.  Also with the roommate had two young daughters who lived with them. Mr. A thought that one of the daughters was now 18 years of age, when in reality she was 15 years old.  He and another woman engaged in sex acts with the 15 year old, all while on videotape.  He also offered money for this activity along with alcohol.  He was ultimately charged with Child Prostitution per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3212, and 4 counts of Child Pornography (because some of the acts were filmed), 4 counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor, along with Public Sexual Indecency and Contributing to the Delinquency of Minor.

He was facing the rest of his life in prison, and his only defense was that he thought she was 18 years of age.  This defense was problematic, due to the fact that he also admitted that he knew her since she was 8 years old when he first met her, yet that was only 7 years prior.  This would put her age at 15.  Ultimately the state made several offers which eventually got down to a low offer of a stipulated 5 years in prison.  Mr. A accepted that offer, which was far below the standard offer for these types of charges.

2 COUNTS FELONY PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY TO A MINOR REDUCED MISDEMEANOR INDECENT EXPOSURE with PROBATION and ZERO DAYS of ACTUAL JAIL– State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 9098) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR 2008-173383): Mr. C was a 73 year old man who would work the grave yard shift and get off at 10:00 in the morning. He would routinely go to watch a movie at a local movie theater and would eat his dinner along with a 32oz soda. While he was in a movie theater he had to urinate (as he had bladder issues), and he reached inside his shorts in order to hold himself to keep from peeing. A family sitting next to him with two minor children observed this and the police were called. Although Mr. C stated he was only holding his penis to prevent peeing himself, the family stated that he was actually fondling himself. We were able to present mitigating evidence to the prosecutor would secure a misdemeanor offer with four months of defered jail (which was deleted when he successfully completed probation). He originally was facing years in prison, but ended up with probation, a misdemeanor and Zero days in jail.

 

2 COUNTS PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY and 2 COUNTS INDECENT EXPOSURE REDUCED to MISDEMEANOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT at JURY TRIAL AFTER EVIDENTIARY HEARING RE: CORPUS DELICTI RESULTED in SUPPRESSING DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS– Stave v. Mr. J (DMC No. 9696) (Mesa City Court No. 2009-069324): Mr. J was accused by two young children of driving around the neighborhood and exposing himself while engaging in masturbatory conduct. He was subsequently arrested on two counts of Public Sexual Indecency and two counts of Indecent Exposure. At trial, we were able to show at a Motion in Limine hearing that any alleged statements gather by Mr. J were improperly coerced by police. We are also show that they are no actual evidence he committed a crime without these statements. The judge agreed and suppressed all statements. Because of that development, the Prosecutor would most likely not win at jury trial, and therefore offered a plead to a single count of misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct (not for a sexual purpose).

 

REDUCED | 2 COUNTS of FELONY PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY to a MINOR REDUCED to a ATTEMPTED CLASS 6 OPEN/MISDEMEANOR with PROBATION and 60 DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 6217) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2005-034831): Mr. G. was accused of being at a factory outlet mall when he allegedly exposed and touched himself in front of 2 minor children and their mother.  He was subsequently arrested, and admitted that he had touched himself through the outside layer of his clothes.  He eventually went into counseling and voluntarily underwent a surgical procedure for castration, in order to curb his inappropriate sexual desires.  Due to the lengths that Mr. G., was going through, to address his issues, the State offered a probation deal.  Although Mr. G. had 2 prior misdemeanor convictions for similar offenses, the Judge chose not to give him the maximum 1 year in jail (under the plea) but instead he was sentenced to only 60 day with probation and counseling.

REDUCED | PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY REDUCED to “disorderly conduct” with zero jail – State v. Mr. R. & Ms. W. (DMC No. 10344 & 10345) (Mesa City Court 2011-068741 & 2011-068733): Mr. R. & Ms. W. were engaged to be married, when they went to a local park in his truck.  It was dark out and nobody else was around when they began engaging in sexual conduct.  Officers who were patrolling the park at night for high school curfew violators snuck up on the vehicle, and then looked inside.  Both Mr. R. & Ms. W. were cited.  We became involved in the case, and we convinced the Prosecutor that the officer’s had to “sneak up” on them and were “hoping” to see them engaged in sexual intercourse.  Due to the potential embarrassment if the case were to proceed to jury trial, the Prosecutor agreed to reduce the charges to a simple “disorderly conduct” with a small fine.

REDUCED | PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY REDUCED to disturbing the peace with zero days jail– State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 10169) (Phoenix City Court 2001-9002978):  Phoenix Police Detectives were conducting an undercover operation at the Dreamy Draw Park where gay men often went to engage in sexual activity.  The undercover officer made contact with Mr. D. and began to “flirt” with him.  Mr. D. eventually reached over and touched the officers crotch over his jeans, and was immediately arrested for public sexual indecency.  Due to entrapment defenses, along with the fact that no “reasonable” person would be offended in the same circumstance (i.e. two apparently gay men flirting in secluded area), we convinced the Prosecutor to reduce the charge to a simple “disturbing the peace” with a small fine.

REDUCED | PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY REDUCED to “disturbing the peace” with zero days in jail – State v. Mr. M.  (DMC No. 4712) (Phoenix City Court 3110269): Phoenix Police were conducting an undercover operation inside adult bookstores when they made contact with Mr. M.  They began flirting and went into a video booth together.  Mr. M. began rubbing his crotch on the outside of his clothes, and asked officer asked if he would “like to watch”.  The officer said yes, and then arrested him.  Due to possible entrapment defenses, and the fact that no “reasonable” person would be offended in these same circumstances, we had the case reduced to a simple “disturbing the peace” ticket with a small fine.

State v. Mr. R. (Phoenix Municipal Court No. 3598412): Mr. R. was charged with Public Sexual Indeceny. Police claimed they had gone in plainclothes into an adult theater in order to do an inspection. While they checked in a “single person booth,” they saw our client watching a video and allegedly masturbating. We explained to the prosecutors that this did not really fit into the definition of Public Sexual Indecency due to the fact that no reasonable person would be surprised by seeing that type of behavior in that location. The State dropped the Sex Crimes allegations and reduced the charge to Disorderly Conduct with no jail.

REDUCED | PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY – State vs. Mr. G. (DMC No. 10117) (Mesa City Court No. 2011-039996): Mr. G. was in a vehicle with another woman when an officer assigned to the central street crimes unit in Mesa walked by his car.  He claimed that he saw the woman’s head in Mr. G.’s lap.  Based on that, he then arrested both and charged them with Public Sexually Indecency.  We were able to show the prosecutor that the officer never actually saw Mr. G.’s penis, therefore the case was overcharged.  The prosecutor agreed to reduce it down to a simple Disorderly Conduct and Dismiss the sex crime.

Call Now Button