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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
State v. Mr. Z (DMC No. 13839) – (5 Counts) Felony Sexual Misconduct with Patient & (2 Counts) Attempted Sexual Misconduct with Patient – Reduced to Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2015-005788).
Mr. Z. was employed by Terros as an Independent Licensed Counselor. He was treating a young lady who was a convicted felon. Her treatment was for alcoholism, addiction to pills, meth, and heroin. She also suffered from depression. Somewhere during the course of their counseling sessions, a sexual relationship developed. She eventually became married and then sought out a civil attorney and attempted to secretly tape Mr. Z in order to get admissions. She reported the conduct to the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners, and their Investigator interviewed Mr. Z.
Mr. Z. stated that he had colon cancer and could not achieve an erection. However, he did admit to developing a relationship which included oral sex and digital penetration. He was unaware that this was a violation of the law, as he thought it was only an ethical violation. He was subsequently charged with Sexual Misconduct with a Patient per ARS 13-1418(B).
We became involved in the case and we began defending the criminal allegations. We also entered into a Consent Decree with the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners which included a revocation of Mr. Z’s license. We presented Mitigation to the prosecutor regarding the fact that his patient was an adult and they had a consensual relationship. It now appeared that she was trying to make it sound as if their relationship was nonconsensual in order to file a civil lawsuit. The Prosecutor agreed that the only violations were under ARS 13-1418(B), and an offer to a Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor plea was made. At Sentencing the judge imposed Probation with Zero Days in Jail. The judge also set a hearing for a year later to determine whether there would be Sex Offender Terms and whether the case could be designated as a Misdemeanor at that time. Originally, Mr. Z. was facing more than 11 years in prison if he were to be convicted on all charges and sentenced to the maximum.
State v. Ms. S (DMC No. 14220) – Felony Maintaining a House of Prostitution (per A.R.S. 13-3208 (b)) – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXX5).
Ms. S. worked for an escort agency by the name of Phoenix Girls. Their website was set up with a V.I.P. only access. You needed a TER (The Exotic Review) handle and references from other agencies in order to reference the site. The whole agency was run out of an apartment.
Police began running an undercover surveillance operation on the apartment. They observed 6 women go in and out of the business, along with numerous men, over a short period of time. Two Detectives approached Ms. S and attempted to interrogate her about Maintaining a House of Prostitution. She invoked her rights and immediately retained us to represent her.
Once we were involved, we contacted the Detectives to let them know that Ms. S was represented and they were to have no further contact with her. In the meantime, the lease was terminated by the apartment and all residents of that apartment were evicted. Also, the website was shut down and there was no further activity for The Phoenix Girls escort service/agency. Detectives tried to get some individual males to identify Ms. S as one of the escorts, but there were issues about whether they could positively identify her in a photo lineup. Ultimately, the Maricopa Attorney’s Office “turned down” the prosecution, and Ms. S was never charged with any crimes. Her record is clean.
State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 14072) – Felony Sexual Abuse on a Minor – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department Investigated.
Mr. W was friends with another family who had children. While he was in Prescott, their 13-year old daughter kept flirting with Mr. W and attempted to kiss him. He told her to stop and to go to bed. After that time, she kept continually flirting with Mr. W and sending him various text messages. This disturbed Mr. W because he was 37 years of age.
He eventually told the girl’s father about what she was doing and the girl’s father told him to “not worry about it.” Shortly, thereafter Mr. W received a call from the Scottsdale Police Department to discuss the issue. He then contacted our office and we became involved. First thing of note was that Scottsdale Police Department was investigating an allegation that supposedly took place in Prescott. That would make his case a Yavapai County case, and not a Maricopa County case, for purposes of jurisdiction. We let the Detective know that we were representing Mr. W, and that we would be following up with him in the near future.
We then had contact with the girl’s family, and she admitted that she had made everything up because she was “mad.” She wrote a letter basically stating that she lied, and this was sent to the Detective. The Detective received this letter and no charges were ever brought forward against Mr. W. If they had been brought forth, Mr. W very well could have done jail time, been forced to Register as a Sex Offender and lost his job. However, no charges were brought against Mr. W and he has no criminal record.
State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 14507) – (10 Counts) Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor – Not Charged – Casa Grande Police Department Investigated.
Mr. C was 22-years old and began dating a 17-year old girl. The girl lived at home with her parents and they were unaware that their daughter was dating an adult. The dad found her phone and alleged that he saw there were photos, texts and videos of Mr. C and his daughter having sex. These were indicative of potentially 10 separate sexual incidents. The father then turned the phone over to the police and forbid Mr. C from ever contacting his daughter again.
We became involved in the case and we immediately had Mr. C sign an Invocation of Rights form forbidding the Detective from interrogating Mr. C without us being present. We forwarded that form to the Detective who had been attempting to contact Mr. C. The Detective who was assigned was with the Casa Grande Police Department. We also let the Detective know that Mr. C would not be granting any interviews. Also, based on the information received from Mr. C., we were confident that none of the videos had identifying characteristics of Mr. C himself. Ultimately, the Casa Grande Police Department closed their investigation. If Mr. C had been charged and convicted of all 10 Counts, he could have been sent to prison. Instead, he has no criminal charges on his record.