REDUCED | INSURANCE FRAUD – (20020151938CR): Ms. M. was accused of filing a false insurance claim for over $10,000 after her house had been burglarized. Although the County Attorney’s Office wanted a designated felony and jail time, we were able to negotiate a deal to a class 1 misdemeanor without any jail being imposed.
REDUCED | EMBEZZLEMENT – (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2002095418CR): Ms. R. was accused of embezzling over $100,000.00 from a former employer. Through negotiations with the prosecutor and the victim, we were able to secure $55,000.00 in restitution (up front) in exchange for a plea to misdemeanor charge with zero days in jail.
REDUCED | TRAFFICKING IN STOLEN PROPERTY – State v. Mr. H. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2002018916CR & 200200173CR): Mr. H. had 2 prior felony convictions, and was now accused of selling 2 stolen vehicles to undercover police. The State originally wanted 2.5 years in prison, however, we were able to show (through mitigation), that Mr. H. had suffered from drug addiction. We were able to have the plea reduced to probation with 120 days in jail.
REDUCED | FRAUDULENT SCHEMES AND EMBEZZLEMENT – State v. Mr. J. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2002099493): Mr. Johnson was employed at Costco. He was accused of embezzling approximately $7,500.00 worth of cash and merchandise. Initially, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office wanted prison time. We were able to work out a civil resolution with the victims, and reduce the charge to probation and no jail.
REDUCED | SALE OF COUNTERFEIT MERCHANDISE – State v. Mr. and Mrs. C. (Maricopa County Superior Court No.: 2002-015703CR) Mr. and Mrs. C. were accused of selling over 2,000 items of counterfeit merchandise (mainly Nike products) from their store. Although they were facing numerous years in prison, we were able to work with the prosecutor in the case and demonstrate a possible defense as to knowledge of all of the counterfeit items. Eventually the case was reduced to a non-designated felony (which means it became a misdemeanor after probation). Mr. and Mr. C. were placed on 2 years probation and received no jail.
REDUCED | EMBEZZLEMENT – (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2001016720CR): Ms. R. was accused of embezzling $10,000.00 from her former employer. Although the State initially wanted prison time, we were able to work out a civil settlement, and the charges were ultimately reduced to Theft, which involved probation and no jail.
DISMISSED | FORGERY AND POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY – State v. Mr. L. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. A664747CR): Mr. L. was tricked into using a stolen credit card by a friend who claimed it was his step-father’s card (which they were using with permission). He was tricked into purchasing almost $15,000.00 worth of items. We explained to the prosecutor that Mr. L. was tricked, and provided the name of the person who truly had stolen the credit card. All charges against Mr. L. were dropped.
DISMISSED | CREDIT CARD FRAUD – (Maricopa County Superior Court No. A693743CR): Mr. G. was accused of trying to use a stolen credit card at a local grocery store. He was also accused of using that credit card to purchase numerous gift cards at a Home Depot. We were able to work out a civil compromise with the alleged victim, and all charges were dismissed.
DISMISSED | AUTO THEFT – (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 0100166CR): Mr. B. borrowed a vehicle from a friend of his. The person he borrowed the vehicle from misunderstood the amount of time that he would be borrowing the vehicle, and made a stolen vehicle report. During the interview process, the alleged victim admitted that he may have been intoxicated when he filed the report. Mr. B. was released from custody and all charges were dismissed.
DISMISSED | FRAUDULENT SCHEMES/FORGERY – (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 1996-003152CR): Mr. S. was accused of writing 8 checks which totaled approximately $8,000.00. We were able to bring in a handwriting expert who showed that the handwriting on the checks was not Mr. S.’s. In addition, the videotape of the bank surveillance was inconclusive as to the identity of the person cashing the checks. We were able to have the case dismissed in its entirety.