Our Location

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

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
July 2, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 300 Sex Crime Victories, 36 Prostitution / Solicitation Dismissals, 38 Miscellaneous Sex Crimes Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47B Racketeering (RICO) / Illegally Conducting an Enterprise (State Charge) Victories, 47F Money Laundering (State Charge) Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Ms. L (DMC No. 9580)

ILLEGAL CONTROL of an ENTERPRISE (RICO), ASSISTING a CRIMINAL SYNDICATE, MONEY LAUNDERING, MAINTAINING a HOUSE of PROSTITUTION and PROSTITUTION all DISMISSED – State v. Ms. L (DMC No. 9580) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2009-172651): Ms. L worked at an Asian owned massage parlor in Scottsdale, Arizona. Scottsdale PD had received calls that the massage parlor was operating as a house of prostitution. They had sent in several undercover officers who negotiated sexual contact in exchange for money. A raid was later conducted on the establishment, and numerous people were arrested.  Almost every employee there was Asian, and Ms. L was accused by one of the detectives of being involved in the organization. We were able to show that Ms. L had a legitimate massage license and attended massage school in California. In addition, we were able to show photo lineups in which the Detectives could not pick out one woman from another as they all “looked alike” according to the Detectives. After a long protracted fight, all charges were dismissed against Ms. L. The main principles involved in the operation, however, went to prison.

July 2, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1800 Sentence Modification Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 8079)

LIFETIME SEX OFFENSE PROBATION (Attempted Child Molest) TERMINATED and CIVIL RIGHTS RESTORED- State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 8079) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR1995-091837): Mr. G was arrested in 1995 and accused of placing his hand on his granddaughter’s vagina two different times, and also having done the same to his daughter. Eventually he pled to an Attempted Child Molestation as a Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) and was placed on lifetime probation. After undergoing 12 years of treatment with Mountain Valley Counseling, we filed a Motion to Terminate Probation on his behalf. We had him submit to a separate Psychosexual Risk Evaluation, which showed that he was a very low risk to reoffend. This also included a polygraph examination. The judge agreed with our motion and terminated Mr. G’s lifetime probation. In addition, he Reinstated Mr. G’s Civil Rights.

May 4, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1800 Sentence Modification Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 9467)

LIFETIME PROBATION (ATTEMPTED SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR) TERMINATED State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 9467) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR 1998-013081): Mr. C (A transgender male) was bipolar and had a psychotic episode in which he believed he was a “king” and ordered his son to touch his penis. He was ultimately charged and plead guilty to Attempted Sexual Conduct with a Minor Under the age 15 and was placed on “lifetime probation”.  12 years later, Mr. C had gone through extensive psychological counseling, was regulated on medication and had numerous letters of support vouching for his character. We filed a Motion to Terminate Lifetime Probation, and over objection of the Prosecutor and Probation Department we were able to have the Judge grant that. He currently lives a probation free life.

May 4, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1800 Sentence Modification Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 9474)

MOTION TO MODIFY PROBATION (FELONY TO INDECENT EXPOSURE) to ALLOW CONTACT with DAUGHTER GRANTED– State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 9474) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR 2009-150549): Mr. D had gotten into a fight with his girlfriend after drinking, and that fight spilled into the living room. Unfortunately, Mr. D was naked at the time, and her 12 year old witnessed this. He ultimately plead to a felony Indecent Exposure and was ordered (as a condition of probation) to have no contact with his own 16 year old daughter. We became involved and filled a Motion to Modify Conditions of Probation to allow him to have contact with his own daughter. Although the Probation Department and Prosecutors objected, the Judge agreed with us and granted him the ability to see his own daughter and have contact.

May 4, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38B Sexual Abuse Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 8689)

2 COUNTS SEX ABUSE NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 8689) (ASU Police Department DR No. 08-0607, DR No. 08-0584): Mr. M was an ASU student who was accused of groping females at several of the buildings at ASU. When police questioned him, he briefly answered questions and then invoked his right to remain silent. We were able to speak with Detectives and pointed out that they had bearing flaws with the photo line ups shown to 4 different ASU students. In addition, we also presented some evidence of alibi indicating that Mr. M was not present at one of the building when this so called sex abuse took place. Ultimately, the Detectives agreed that they did not have enough evidence to move forward with charges.

 

May 4, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38B Sexual Abuse Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Ms. M (DMC No. 6881)

SEX ABUSE OF A MINOR INMATE NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 6881) (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office DR No. 06-196157): Mr. M was a Detention Officer working at the Durango Street Juvenile Jail when he was assigned to a suicide watch of a young male inmate. The inmate made allegations to the Doctors at the hospital that Mr. M had touched his buttocks several times, said that he ”loved him” and  tried to kiss him. After the Officer was put on paid leave, we became involved. We brought in Mr. M to be interview by Detectives, and we also agreed to submit to a lie detector test. We also presented them with a copy of a past polygraph test which we had independently administered. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office ultimately declined to press charges and Mr. M later went and honorably served in the United States Army.

 

May 4, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 300 Sex Crime Victories, 33-35 Public Sexual Indecency Victories, 34 Public Sexual Indecency Reduced, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 9098)

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.

 

May 4, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 31 Indecent Exposure Reduced, 33-35 Public Sexual Indecency Victories, 34 Public Sexual Indecency Reduced, Case Victories, Mesa City Court / Mesa Municipal Court Victories

Stave v. Mr. J (DMC No. 9696)

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).

 

May 4, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. S. (DMC No. 8009)

CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 8009) (Phoenix Police Department Investigated): Mr. C had gone through a divorce with his ex wife and had shared custody of his 6 year old son between North Carolina and Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. C’s ex wife had made numerous allegations against Mr. C in order to gain sole custody. She had made one allegation a year prior to us becoming involved stating that Mr. C had molested their 6 year old son.  He met with Detectives and passed the police polygraph and no charges were brought forward. When she made allegations again against Mr. C, we became involved. We presented evidence that Mr. C’s ex wife was not being truthful. We also allowed the detectives to polygraph Mr. C, in which he passed. We also gave them copies of an independent polygraph we had conducted, and the prior polygraph he had taken a year earlier (all showing that he had passed). We also asked the Detective to go more in depth with interviewing Mr. C’s son. Because it was obvious that the charges were being manufactured, the Detective did not have Mr. C arrested and charged under the Dangerous Crimes Against Children statute for molestation. If he were to have been convicted, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison.

 

May 4, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 115 Assault/Violent Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 66-68 Child/Vulnerable Adult Abuse Victories, 68 Child/Vulnerable Adult Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 8385)

2 COUNTS of CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) and 1 COUNT CHILD ABUSE NOT CHARGED– State v. Ms. M (DMC No. 8385) (Surprise Police Department Investigated): Mr. M had gone through a divorce and had joint custody of his son and two daughters. He was in the United States Air Force and was a strict disciplinarian. Police received a call at the hospital that his daughter was there with a burn on her chin which she had claimed that her father had given her from a hot marshmallow stick. Once police began questioning her, she also stated that she and her sister had been molested by Mr. M. We were able to show Detectives that Mr. M’s ex wife was now dating a man, and she and all of the children wished to move to California. However, Mr. M was holding up that process. Because of these allegations, they would now be able to move and would not have to be restricted to the state of Arizona. We also had Mr. M take and pass a polygraph test. The Detective was convinced that these allegations were manufactured, and no charges were brought against Mr. M. Unfortunately, the Family Law Court still allowed Mr. M’s ex wife to move the children out of state, and restricted Mr. M to supervised visits only.

 

1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 28
Call Now Button