SUCCESSFUL CASES

Successful DUI / DWI Cases Successful Vehicular Crimes Cases Successful Sex / Computer Crimes Cases Successful Juvenile Crimes Cases Successful Drug Offense Cases Successful Theft / White Collar Crimes Cases Successful Assault / Domestic Violence Cases Successful Probation Violation Cases Successful Miscellaneous Criminal Offenses Successful Appeals

*"Successfully" is defined as a dismissal, acquittal and/or reduction of DUI/DWI charges.
**Client acquitted of felony DUI/DWI charges.

Misdemeanor DUI/DWI Cases

• After leaving a Diamondbacks game, our client was driving home northbound on 7th Street in downtown Phoenix. A police officer estimated our client's speed to be 50 mph, while the posted speed limit for that area was 35 mph. Radar measurement of our client's speed showed that he was traveling at 51 mph. The officer activated his emergency lights and pulled our client over. The officer noted the odor of alcohol on our client's breath, directed him to perform field sobriety tests, and arrested him. Our client was taken to a DUI van, and was given a breath-alcohol test. The results showed breath-alcohol concentrations of .091% and .090%, above the legal limit of .08%. Our client was cited with driving under the influence, driving with an alcohol concentration greater than .08%, imprudent speed, and failure to show proof of insurance. After discovery and plea negotiations, we presented our client's defense at trial and challenged the scientific reliability of the two breath test results. Through expert testimony, we explained why we believed our client was actually below the legal limit and not impaired. The jury acquitted our client of driving under the influence and of driving with an alcohol concentration greater than .08%. Our client was also found not responsible for failing to show proof of insurance, as he brought such proof to court, and was only found responsible for speeding. Our client received a fine in the amount of $125.00.
  
  State v. P.M.C., Case No. 2890137, Phoenix Municipal Court
  
  
• Our client was driving on Glendale Avenue in a posted 40 mph zone. The officer visually estimated our client's speed at 30-35 mph, and for his lower-than-normal speed, the officer pulled our client over to investigate. Smelling the odor of alcohol on our client's breath, the officer called in backup who performed the eye test on our client, who was then arrested, and taken for breath-alcohol testing, which revealed BAC results of .151% and .149%. Our client was charged with driving under the influence, driving with an alcohol concentration of .08% or greater, and failure to have his vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device based upon a prior DUI conviction 3 months earlier. We challenged the validity of the traffic stop and moved to suppress all evidence based upon the officer's lack of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop our client. We argued that driving 5-10 mph below the posted speed limit was an insufficient legal basis for the officer to stop the vehicle. The court granted our motion to suppress and subsequently dismissed all charges against our client.
  
  State v. P.B., Case No. 3138361, Phoenix Municipal Court
  
  
• Upon observing our client's vehicle veer into a landscaped median, blowing two tires, Phoenix Police arrested our client for DUI and Unsafe Movements on a Roadway. At trial, we argued our client hit the median, not because she was impaired, but rather due to her inattention while looking at Christmas decorations. During the trial, the arresting officer stated our client had bloodshot and watery eyes, he smelled alcohol on her breath and that our client admitted having consumed four beers. Additionally, the officer testified he observed six clues of horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN), and testified she failed five additional field sobriety tests. However, we explained her poor performance on the field sobriety tests as the product of the officer's inadequate explanation and grading of the tests. During cross-examination we challenged the manner in which the officer administered the field sobriety exercises and his method of evaluating our client's ability to perform them. We used our expertise on field sobriety tests to our client's advantage by convincing the jury that because the field tests were improperly administered, the officer incorrectly determined our client failed the tests. Following a two-day jury trial, the jury acquitted our client of the DUI charge.
  
  State v. S.A., Case No. 53624421C, Phoenix Municipal Court
  
  

Aggravated (Felony) DUI/DWI Cases

• Avondale Police arrested our client for DUI, after which, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office charged our client with two counts of Felony/Aggravated DUI and two counts of Felony/ Aggravated DWI. In this case, Avondale Police Officers obtained a telephonic search warrant and drew our client's blood, which indicated a .208% blood alcohol concentration. However, we successfully argued the police obtained the evidence in violation of the proper legal procedure to obtain a blood sample pursuant to a telephonic search warrant as codified in A.R.S. §13-3918. Consequently, the trial court granted our Motion in Limine to Preclude the State from using the blood test results as evidence against our client at trial. At the close of the State's evidence, the Judge directed a verdict of not guilty for our client on the two felony DWI counts. At the conclusion of the trial, because the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, the Court declared a mistrial on the two remaining felony DUI counts. Thereafter, the State failed to retry our client in a timely manner pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for violation of our client's right to a speedy trial. The Court granted our motion and dismissed the case. State v. G.E., CR1999-010303, Maricopa County Superior Court. Following the dismissal the County Attorney re-presented the case to the Grand Jury and obtained a new indictment. However, the prosecutor failed to exercise due diligence in notifying the client, and our firm, of the new charges. After preparing and filing a motion to dismiss based upon unreasonable post-indictment delay the Court dismissed the case "with prejudice" - meaning the charges could never be re-filed against our client.
  
  State v. G.E., CR 2000-017638, Maricopa County Superior Court.
  
  
• Our client was charged with two counts of aggravated DUI, both class four felony offenses. Our client was facing a long mandatory prison term because he had a prior felony DUI conviction and a prior misdemeanor DUI conviction. After our investigation we concluded that the State would have little trouble proving our client was driving under the influence. Consequently we turned our attention to the prior felony DUI conviction which, under Arizona's sentencing scheme, was exposing our client to a long term of imprisonment. Indeed the original plea offer was 2.5 years in prison. Recent discoveries in the last few years of improper use of the Intoxylizer database records cast doubt on the Intoxylizer instrument used in our client's prior felony DUI case, and thus on the constitutional validity of that conviction. A notice of and petition for Post-Conviction Relief was filed for our client challenging the validity of his prior felony DUI conviction. Rather than facing this new litigation, the prosecutor agreed that in exchange for dropping our challenge to the validity of the prior conviction our client could plead guilty to one count of aggravated DUI and the allegation of a prior felony conviction would be dismissed. Our client received eight months of jail time and five years of probation.
  
  State v. A.M.L., Case No. CR02-018616, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  

• During the summer of 2000, our client was driving northbound in the southbound lanes of State Route 101 within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Our client's vehicle collided head-on with another vehicle, killing that driver. Tests revealed that our client was intoxicated at the time of the accident with a blood alcohol content of .158%. Because the accident occurred in Indian Country, rather than state charges, our client faced federal charges for involuntary manslaughter, a class D felony offense punishable by up to six years of federal imprisonment. After completing discovery, the Assistant U.S. Attorney offered the standard plea agreement, which left sentencing within the discretion of the court. After our client entered his guilty plea, we prepared a sentencing memorandum and mitigation packet that we presented prior to the sentencing. At the hearing we called several character witnesses who testified on behalf of our client. Fortunately, our presentation was well received by the Court and our client received a sentence of only fourteen months followed by three years of supervised probation.
  
  U.S. v. K.B.P., Case No. CR-00-0715-PHX-PGR, United States District Court
  
  
• During the summer of 2003, our client was driving at the posted speed limit of 45 m.p.h. at night in the eastbound median lane of University Drive in East Mesa when a pedestrian suddenly stepped out in front of his vehicle. Unfortunately, our client's vehicle struck and killed the pedestrian and, in a panic, he drove home where he was soon arrested. Several hours later his blood alcohol level was measured at .104%. Our client was charged with manslaughter and with leaving the scene of a serious injury accident. The state offered a plea agreement with a sentence of 9-14 years in prison, subject to the determination of the court. However, after interviews were conducted with the civilian witnesses, and deputies, we hired expert witnesses who specialized in accident reconstruction and lighting who determined that our client could not have seen the victim before he hit her. We then prepared a motion challenging the state's presentation of the case to the grand jury. After providing a copy of our motion to the prosecutor, she concurred with our opinion and we were able to negotiate a new plea agreement. In this plea agreement, our client pled guilty to misdemeanor DUI and to leaving the scene of a serious injury accident, a class four felony, and received a sentence of only two months in jail followed by 6 years of probation.
  
  State v. W.M., Case No. CR 2004-038161, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• During the winter of early 2003, our client was involved in a serious traffic accident. Our client's vehicle collided with another vehicle, seriously injuring both drivers. At the scene of the accident, our client admitted to an officer that she had been drinking. Subsequently, our client was charged with a three-count indictment: one count for aggravated assault, one count for aggravated DUI for committing a DUI while her license was suspended, and one count for another aggravated DUI for committing a DUI while having committed two or more DUI's within the previous 5 years. As a class 3 dangerous felony, the aggravated assault charge alone carried a sentence of 5-15 years in prison. In addition, our client could have been ordered to pay restitution to the other party involved in the accident. We prepared a motion to dismiss the case based upon various evidentiary violations by the State and its officers. Because of the strength of our motion, and because of our negotiations with the prosecution, we were able to secure a highly favorable plea agreement for our client. In this plea agreement, our client pled guilty to endangerment, a Class 6 undesignated felony offense, a much less serious offense than any of the three original charges. Our client received a sentence of only 1 day in jail, with credit for time already served, and 3 years of supervised probation. In addition, she had to have her vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device. Further, based upon the facts of the case, we were able to secure a court order of $0 in restitution payments by our client.
  
  State v. D.O., Case No. CR 2004-01569, Pinal County Superior Court
  
  

• In 2003, the County Attorney charged our client with eighteen felony offenses for his use of a hidden video camera, including eight counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, class two felony offenses; nine counts of surreptitious videotaping, class five felony offenses; and one count of possession of a dangerous drug, a class four felony offense. Because of the "dangerous crime against children" status of the eight sexual exploitation charges, our client faced a potential minimum sentence of 80 years imprisonment. Using a recently-decided United States Supreme Court case to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona statute under which our client was charged, we successfully convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the majority of the charges in a very favorable plea agreement. In return for our client's guilty plea, all eight sexual exploitation charges were dismissed, and the possession charge was dismissed. Our client pled guilty to two counts of surreptitious videotaping, and received three years of probation for each, to be served concurrently. Although he had to register as a sex offender, our client's sentence was suspended, and he received no jail time.
  
  State v. R.P., Case No. CR02-012768, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• While being interviewed on a separate matter, our client was questioned regarding an unrelated past incident in which a computer file containing alleged child pornography was found on a computer in our client's home. After further questioning, the police requested and obtained a search warrant to seize a computer from our client's bedroom. Images of alleged child pornography were found on the computer hard drive. Subsequently, our client was charged with six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, class two felony offenses punishable as dangerous crimes against children. Upon conviction, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 102 years in prison. With the assistance of an expert witness, our investigation revealed four of the six charged computer images were retrieved from the "unallocated" space of the computer's hard drive, meaning the images had been "deleted" or only stored temporarily, but not yet overwritten; another of the images was found in the "temporary internet files" directory, where programs store downloaded files automatically and in many cases, without user intervention. In addition to challenging the State's presentation of the evidence to the Grand Jury, we also attacked the legality of the search warrant used to seize the computer. The Court accepted our position that the Grand Jury presentation was flawed and ordered the case remanded for a new determination of probable cause. Confronted with evidence that due to police exaggeration and concealing of exculpatory information the search warrant was overbroad, vague, and lacking in probable cause, the court agreed that the State's warrant was obtained illegally. The Court granted our motion to suppress all evidence seized after the police unlawfully obtained the warrant and subsequently dismissed all six counts against our client.
  
  State v. R.L., Case No. CR2003-040023, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• Our client was confronted by a police officer at a mall when he refused to pay for a meal while dining with a 15 year-old girl. During the ensuing questioning, the 15 year-old girl alleged that she had been engaged in sexual relations with our client during the preceding week. As a result, our client was arrested and charged with six counts of sexual conduct with a minor. Ordinarily, each count of sexual conduct with a minor over the age of 15 would be a probation eligible offense. However, because our client had a prior felony conviction, each count carried a mandatory prison sentence of up to 2.75 years. Moreover, if convicted for this offense our client would be required to register as a sex offender. During our representation, we recommended our client submit to a psychosexual evaluation with an expert witness. The evaluation came back favorable and established our client was not a paraphiliac. We were able to negotiate a highly favorable plea agreement for our client. In the plea agreement, our client pled guilty to one count of child abuse, and all six counts of sexual conduct with a minor were dropped. As a result, our client was sentenced to lifetime probation, was not required to serve any jail time, and was not required to register as a sex offender.
  
  State v. R.R., Case No. CR2003-032693, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  

• The State alleged that our client, a 12 year-old boy, exposed himself to a 4 year-old girl and touched her genitals. The State charged our client with two crimes in juvenile court: indecent exposure, a class 6 felony, and molestation of a child, a much more serious class 2 felony. While our client admitted exposing himself, he vehemently denied touching the little girl's genitals. Our client submitted to a polygraph examination, which he passed, confirming his credibility. In addition, we had our client submit to a psychosexual evaluation. This evaluation determined that our client did not possess any traits of sexual deviancy. Finally, we prepared a motion in limine arguing in advance that the State's intended use of certain evidence at trial would violate the constitutional rights of our client. We were aware of the fact that the State intended to present a video of the alleged victim's recorded testimony as substantive evidence instead of having her testify in court. As this precluded our client from facing his accuser and cross examining her, we argued that this violated our client's rights under the Sixth Amendment. Finally, we showed that the Arizona statute that allowed the State to admit the video as evidence had recently been held unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court. Based on the strength of the polygraph, the psychosexual evaluation, and our motion, we were able to negotiate a highly favorable plea agreement for our client. In this agreement the State agreed to dismiss the charge of child molestation, and our client pled delinquent to only the charge of indecent exposure. Our client received a sentence of only probation and was not required to register as a sex offender. Furthermore, although indecent exposure is a class 6 felony, the State allowed the offense to be redesignated as a misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation.
  
  Matter of S.C., Case No. JV523704, Maricopa County Superior Court Juvenile Division
  
  
• Our client was driving northbound on State Route 51 after entering the freeway on the Shea Blvd. onramp. The car behind him on the onramp swerved to avoid another car, lost control, struck a light pole, and rolled over. The driver of that car was partially ejected and seriously injured. Our client stopped his vehicle and called 911 on his cell phone. After speaking to police, our client was given permission to leave the scene of the accident. However, after further investigation, the State alleged that our client had been engaged in a street race with the car that rolled over at the time of the accident. Our client was charged with aggressive driving. We conducted an investigation during which we interviewed the witnesses and the police officers. Based upon their testimony of the events, we convinced the prosecutor that their was insufficient evidence to prove that our client was involved in a street race or that he had driven erratically or in an illegal manner other than perhaps speeding. Accordingly, we were able to secure an agreement in which our client completed a defensive driving course and 16 hours of community service in exchange for the State dropping the charges against him.
  
  Matter of M.R.J., Case No. JV539023, Maricopa County Superior Court Juvenile Division
  
  

• In the summer of 2003, our client was charged with attempting to mail a package containing 209.32 grams of cocaine. As a result, he was indicted for one count of possession of illegal narcotics and one count of transportation of illegal narcotics. Each count was designated as a class 2 felony, and because the State alleged that client had two prior felony drug convictions, he faced a potential sentence 4 - 15 years in prison for each charge. However, during our investigation, we discovered that although the police claimed they had searched the package after obtaining a warrant, the State was unable to provide a copy of the warrant in response to our request for disclosure. Accordingly, we filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from this illegal search. Based on the strength of this motion, we were able to negotiate a plea agreement for our client in which the state dismissed the alleged prior convictions. Our client pled guilty to one count of solicitation to commit possession of narcotics. Solicitation to commit possession of narcotics is a class 4 felony and is a lesser charge than either of the two original charges alleged against our client. As a result of this plea agreement, our client received a sentence of only 2½ months in jail and 4 years of supervised probation.
  State v. K.C., Case No. 2004-017983, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• In 2000, our client was stopped for alleged suspicious driving. When the officer determined that our client was driving on a suspended license and arrested him, the officer decided to search our client's vehicle. During this search, for which the officer had neither consent nor a search warrant, the officer found in the trunk a backpack containing nearly 2 pounds of marijuana in several containers in addition to a scale. Our client was charged with possession of marijuana for sale, a class four felony offense, as well as possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, both class six felony offenses. After interviewing the police officers and conducting legal research, we submitted a motion to suppress all evidence seized from the illegal and unconstitutional search. We argued, although the officer may have had the right to search the vehicle's passenger compartment, he was not entitled to search inside our client's trunk. The state responded and the judge scheduled a hearing on the motion. However, prior to the hearing, the state moved to dismiss the case against our client.
  
  State v. M.S., Case Nos. CR01-008535 and CR01-007281, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  

• One night our young client and three of his friends drove around northwest Phoenix as they broke into several retail stores. Our client was charged with three counts of burglary in the third degree, class four felony offenses, and one count of attempted burglary in the third degree, a class five felony offense. Following discovery and productive negotiations with the prosecutor, our client was offered a very favorable plea agreement, in which our client would plead guilty to one count of possession of burglary tools, a class six undesignated felony offense. Our client pled guilty, and received one year of probation with no jail time, eighty hours of community service, and restitution. After completing his community service and payment of his restitution, we requested that our client's probation be terminated and his offense designated a misdemeanor. Although our client had only been on probation for 90 days, after hearing arguments from both counsel, the Court granted our request so that he could join the military and serve and defend his country.
  
  State v. J.S.C., Case No. CR2003-014857, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• In 1998, our client was indicted for scheming to defraud a local lending corporation out of approximately $1.6 million dollars through a series of complex loan transactions involving our client, the corporation and a local attorney. Our client was indicted for one count of fraudulent schemes, a class two felony, and six counts of theft, each class three felony offenses. During our extensive pretrial investigation of the case, we discovered evidence the attorney had significant involvement in several of the transactions, having provided advice to both our client and the corporation. Consequently, we developed a strategy that statements made by our client during meetings with the attorney regarding the alleged fraudulent transactions were confidential communications and, therefore, inadmissible at trial under the legal doctrine of the attorney-client privilege. In addition, we filed a motion to dismiss counts two through seven of the indictment as being multiplicitous to count one in violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double punishment. As a result, the Attorney General's office offered our client a very favorable plea agreement. In addition to restitution, the government stipulated to probation, no jail time and after successful completion of the probationary period, agreed all the charges would be reduced to misdemeanor offenses.
  
  State v. W.P., Case No. CR98-04002, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• In 2002, our client was indicted by a Grand Jury for theft of approximately $12,000 from her employer's general and payroll accounts over a one year period. Our client was charged with two counts of theft, each a class three felony offense. The State filed an allegation of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion. Following discovery and plea discussions with the Deputy County Attorney, our client was offered a very favorable plea agreement. At sentencing we provided the Court with mitigating circumstances relating to our client's emotional problems and background, including documentation that our client had been molested by her own father as a child. In addition to restitution, our client received probation, but no jail time.
  
  State v. K.A.W., Case No. CR02-016136, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• In 2001, our client was charged with diverting approximately $9,000 from her employer and using it to make personal purchases. Our client was charged with two counts of theft, one a class three felony and one a class five felony. After discovery and discussions with the prosecutor, our client was offered a plea agreement requiring payment of restitution to her former employer. Our client received only three years of probation, with no jail time.
  
  State v. S.D.B., Case No. CR01-001928, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• In 1998, our client was accused of embezzling almost $90,000 from her employer's personal and business accounts. Our client was charged with one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class two felony, and three counts of theft, class two, class three and class four felony offenses. After extensive investigation we determined that, not withstanding the alleged theft, the Employer could not properly account for all of the money that should have been in the company's pension plan. As it turned out the company owed our client a significant amount of money for all her years of service under the company's profit sharing plan. This money owed to our client became a bargaining chip that we were able to utilize in our plea negotiations. The prosecutor offered to dismiss the charge of fraudulent schemes and artifices, as well as two of the felony theft charges. In addition, the final count against our client was reduced to a class six undesignated felony. Our client received three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution of approximately $50,000.00.
  
  State v. B.L.W., Case No. CR98-010587, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• As a young man, our client received federal student aid while attending college. Some financial difficulties led our client to default on his student loans, which meant he could not receive any more financial aid. In order to continue his education in social work, our client reapplied for admission and student aid using a second identity and proof of identification. Our client subsequently continued his education and received additional substantial federal student aid. Again due to financial difficulties, our client was forced to default on his student loans under this second identity. Through some investigation, our client's dual identities came to the attention of the school financial aid office, and the Department of Education was contacted. Claims totaling $42,000.00 were submitted to the U.S. Attorney's office, and our client was charged with three federal offenses: student aid fraud, social security fraud, and false statements to a bank. Through pretrial motions, discovery and investigation, we were able to secure a favorable plea bargain for our client that resulted in the dismissal of the charges of social security fraud and false statements to a bank. Based upon recent changes in the application of the U.S. Sentencing guidelines, we were able to convince the judge that our client's otherwise law-abiding history and noble reason for committing the offense - to continue his social work education in order to help others - required a minimal sentence. In addition to the restitution of the loans, our client received only three years of probation - no time in custody, no house arrest, and not even supervised probation.
  
  United States v. V.B., Case No. CR04-0261-PHX-SMM, U.S. District Court for Arizona
  
  

• Our client was indicted by a grand jury for aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony punishable by a minimum five years incarceration with no probation or suspension of sentence, following a stabbing that the state alleged to have been domestic violence between husband and wife. Following extensive discovery and successful negotiations, the prosecutor offered a favorable plea agreement that in exchange for pleading guilty to one count of aggravated assault, a class six undesignated felony offense (meaning it may become a misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation), the allegation of dangerousness would be dismissed in addition to the reduction of offense level. Our client received a suspended sentence and three years of probation, with no jail time.
  
  State v. M.A.B., Case No. CR00-096733, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• In 2002, our client was charged with domestic violence assault and domestic violence custodial interference, a class three misdemeanor offense and class six felony offense, respectively. Our client had traveled with his son-in-law from another state to Arizona to find his grandson, whom his daughter had taken so that they could join a "cult" that our client and his son-in-law feared would put his grandson in danger. Our client's son-in-law had obtained a Court Order in Wisconsin giving him primary custody of his child. Our client and his son-in-law found his daughter and grandson driving on the highway in Sedona, and attempted to get her to stop her vehicle. When she refused and sped away, our client followed her. During the chase, our client's vehicle came into contact several times with the daughter's vehicle; she finally came to a stop in the parking lot of the "cult." Our client and his son-in-law jumped out of the vehicle, and confronted the daughter; they served her with the court papers, took our client's grandson to their vehicle, and left. Employees of the "cult" phoned the police, and our client and his son-in-law were subsequently found and arrested. A grand jury indicted both men; our office represented our client, while another attorney represented his son-in-law. After substantial investigation and filing of motions, the prosecutor offered to dismiss the felony count of custodial interference, and reduce the assault charge of disorderly conduct. Our client accepted this offer, and received a sentence of one year unsupervised probation, with no jail time.
  
  State v. M.C.K., Case No. CR82002-0495, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• Our client was charged with attempted first degree murder, a class two felony offense; influencing a witness, a class five felony offense and; misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony offense. In a previous case, our client was indicted for an aggravated assault after stabbing another individual in a fight in which both men were seriously injured. Our client pled guilty in that case. After entering his guilty plea but before the sentencing hearing scheduled for that offense, a former acquaintance of our client reported to police that our client was planning to kill the aggravated assault victim, and had purchased a gun to do so. Through our investigation we were able to determine that this former acquaintance had himself threatened our client and another mutual acquaintance with a gun before filing this "report" with the police. We also established the aggravated assault victim was no longer in the state and our client had no way of finding him. However, after securing a search warrant, the police did find a firearm in our client's residence which was a violation of his conditions of release. After extensive discovery and investigation, based upon the unreliability of the informant, we filed motions challenging the grand jury indictment, the warrant and the search of our client's residence as unconstitutional. In the face of these challenges, the prosecution offered a very favorable plea agreement. In exchange for a guilty plea to misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony, the state would dismiss the charges of attempted murder and influencing a witness. Under this agreement, rather than face a minimum nine year imprisonment upon conviction, our client received only two and one half years.
  
  State v. J.D.D., Case No. CR2003-05131, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• While driving southbound on 7th Avenue, our client became involved in an altercation with another driver. Our client drove his vehicle close to the other vehicle's bumper, and the other vehicle braked suddenly. Our client maneuvered his vehicle beside the other vehicle as both drivers shouted at each other. Then the other driver "flipped off" our client, and claimed our client displayed a firearm in an act of intimidation. The other vehicle then slowed down and the driver called the police. Our client was stopped, arrested, and charged with disorderly conduct involving weapons, a class six felony offense with an allegation of dangerousness. Upon conviction he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 1.5 years in prison. Due to his arrest on the felony charge, our client was at risk of losing his ability to teach in Arizona, his profession of 25 years. After extensive factual investigation, we were able to convince the prosecutor to accept a misdemeanor plea of guilty to disorderly conduct, which would allow our client to continue teaching. This offer was accepted, and our client received straight probation with no jail time.
  
  State v. S.A.R., Case No. CR2003-026611, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• The Maricopa County Attorney's Office charged our client with Aggravated Assault, a class 3 dangerous felony, punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment. At the trial, the State's witnesses testified our client was driving erratically on a residential street at a high rate of speed when he turned the corner and nearly missed hitting the complaining witness. Further, an eye witness confirmed the complaining witnesses account that after our client stopped his vehicle he aimed a pistol at the complaining witness while shouting "I'll shoot you right here!" However, our independent investigation revealed the so called eye witness could not have seen the incident from where she told the police she was positioned inside her home when she claimed to have witnessed the alleged incident. Furthermore, during cross-examination, we exposed a pre-existing relationship between the two witnesses and confirmed our suspicion the complaining witness phoned the eye witness prior to the arrival of the police asking her to confirm his false allegations against our client. Consequently, we completely destroyed the credibility of the State's two primary witnesses. At the conclusion of the two-day trial, the Court rendered a verdict of not guilty and entered a judgment of acquittal for our client.
  
  State v. S.D., Case No. CR96-03652, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  

• Our client was convicted in 1995 for possession of dangerous drugs and forgery. He was sentenced to four years of probation including nine months of jail time. Soon after his jail time, an arrest warrant was issued after our client fled the state to avoid being found in violation of his probation for using illegal drugs. Our client lived for eight years in another state. Our representation began in 2004 when our client voluntarily returned to Arizona to take care of his outstanding warrant. By this time, our client had serious medical difficulties which required numerous medications and special treatments that could best be provided by the treating doctors in his new home state. The prosecution recommended revocation of probation and imprisonment in the Department of Corrections. However, after numerous discussions with his Adult Probation Officer, the officer agreed to recommend that our client be reinstated to complete his remaining probation term, and that he be eligible for the interstate compact so that he could serve out his remaining probationary term in his new home state. After presenting documentation of our client's serious medical problems, the court accepted the recommendation, reinstating our client with no jail time. Our client was able to immediately leave Arizona and serve out his probation in his new home state with the support of his family and medical providers.
  
  State v. R.A.M., Case Nos. CR1994-009565 and CR1994-008398, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  
• Our client was previously convicted of attempted molestation of a child, a class two felony, for which he received lifetime probation and sex offender status. His probation was revoked and reinstated once prior to our representation of him; at the time of that revocation, he had to serve approximately eight months in custody. Our representation began when our client's probation officer filed a second petition to revoke our client's probation when he was charged with aggravated assault in 2002 for an alleged incident of domestic violence. The County Attorney was recommending revocation of probation, subjecting our client to a potential 10 year prison term. However, at our urging the County Attorney subsequently reviewed the details of the alleged incident, including a statement by our client's girlfriend, the alleged victim of the assault. Once the County Attorney's office was convinced that there was another side to the story (not adequately documented by the police) they determined the alleged assault was not worthy of prosecution. With the underlying charge completely dropped, we were able to convince the judge to reinstate our client's probation with only a three month jail term.
  
  State v. C.G.K., Case No. CR94-91901, Maricopa County Superior Court
  
  

• In 1985, due to a clerical error, the Arizona Department of Corrections erroneously released Stephen Schwichtenberg from prison five years prematurely. Eleven years later in 1996, during a bitter divorce proceeding, Mr. Schwichtenberg contacted us because he was concerned authorities would soon discover their mistake. On our advice, Mr. Schwichtenberg agreed we would notify the Department of Corrections and request administrative relief under a legal theory entitling him to credit for the last eleven years he was at liberty against the unserved five year sentence. The Department of Corrections denied relief and ordered our client back to prison. We then appealed the decision to the Superior Court; again seeking relief under the theory our client should receive credit for his time at liberty. The Superior Court upheld the Department of Corrections' decision and denied relief. On further appeal, the Court of Appeals similarly denied relief and affirmed the Department's decision, finding our client was partly to blame through his failure to speak up and contest his early release. We then petitioned Arizona's highest court for relief. The Arizona Supreme Court accepted our argument and held Mr. Schwichtenberg was entitled to credit against his unserved sentence for his eleven years at liberty. Arizona's highest court reversed the two lower courts and the decision of the Arizona Department of Corrections and set our client free.
  
  State v. Schwichtenberg, 190 Ariz. 574, 951 P.2d 449 (In Banc 1997).
  
  
• Arizona Department of Public Safety (D.P.S.) officers arrested our client for DUI, DWI and Driving While Suspended. Upon arrival at the police station, a D.P.S. officer advised our client of his Miranda warnings and read him the Admin Per Se/Implied Consent Affidavit. At that time, our client requested to speak with an attorney. However, the officer ignored the request, and attempted to subject our client to a breath test. Our client stuck to his guns and insisted upon speaking with counsel. Nevertheless, the D.P.S. officer obtained a telephonic search warrant and drew our client's blood, which showed a blood alcohol concentration of .133%. Prior to trial, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the case based on the State's violation of our client's constitutional right to consult an attorney before deciding whether to submit to testing. Although the trial court denied our Motion to Dismiss, we were confident the trial court's decision would be reversed on appeal. On appeal, the Maricopa County Superior Court reversed the trial court based on the officer's violation of our client's right to counsel and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case.
  
  State v. J.D., Case No. LC2000-000162, Maricopa County Superior Court, reversing TR99-00990CR, East Phoenix Justice Court
  
  
• During the winter of early 2003, our client was pulled over by a police officer while driving at night in Scottsdale. The officer performed a series of field sobriety tests on our client, and she was placed under arrest for suspicion of DUI. Our client was taken to a health center, and her blood was drawn for the purposes of determining her blood alcohol level. The test allegedly came back with a .273% blood alcohol concentration, well over the legal limit of .08%. Our client was charged with two felonies: aggravated DWI and aggravated DUI. We filed a motion in limine arguing that the State could not prove that the person who drew our client's blood was qualified to do so. We elected to proceed to trial because we were certain the State wouldn't be able to lay the proper foundation for the blood test. However, the trial court denied our motion and our client was convicted by the jury on both counts. We appealed the conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals, and successfully argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying our motion by allowing the state to present evidence of the blood test results without first proving the blood was drawn by a person qualified to do so. The Court of Appeals reversed our clients' conviction and remanded the case to the trial court.
  
  State v. T.L.R., Case No. 2003-021975, Maricopa County Superior Court