Unparalleled Experience

Over three decades of work
as an attorney and police officer

Proven Results

Many cases dismissed or charges reduced

Unparalleled Experience - Proven Results
SF’s Top DMV Law Office
Thousands of
licenses saved
  • Negligent operator hearings
  • Excessive DMV points
  • Age discrimination
  • License re-examinations
SF’s Top DMV Law Office
DUI and Traffic Defense
  • Avoid jail and going to court
  • Save your license
  • Charge reductions
DUI and Traffic Defense
Criminal Defense
  • Hire a former police officer with a team of “top flight”
    private investigators and experts with law-enforcement
    backgrounds.
  • If you are innocent or have facts that have been ignored
    by the police, we can help!
Criminal Defense
Since 1985
San Francisco Traffic Law Clinic
  • SF’s largest and longest running traffic law firm
  • Experienced traffic attorney will handle your ticket for less
    than cost of the fine!
  • We successfully represent over 3000 cases annually
  • Special Internet discount: SF 1 point infraction only $99.00!
Since 1985 San Francisco Traffic Law Clinic

by

People v. Corbi (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 25, 35 [327 Cal.Rptr.3d 284, 289], as modified on denial of reh’g (Nov. 20, 2024), review filed (Dec. 4, 2024)

Summary: Corbi was convicted in the Superior Court, San Diego County, of second degree murder with a firearm enhancement. Corbi appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument comments about defendant did not preserve defendant’s appellate argument alleging the prosecutor’s remarks violated the California Racial Justice Act (RJA).

Continue reading

by

People v. Hodge (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2024, No. B337339) 2024 WL 5243001, at *1

Summary: Hodge filed a notice of appeal from a trial court order denying relief for  (1) a motion under the Racial Justice Act (Pen. Code, § 745); and (2) a request for resentencing under section 1172.1. The trial court’s order was not appealable and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Hodge pleaded no contest in 2012 to three felony counts and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 21 years.

Continue reading

by

People v. Stubblefield (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 26, 2024, No. H048598) 2024 WL 5231745, at *1–2

Summary: A jury found Stubblefield guilty of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and false imprisonment of Jane Doe, an intellectually disabled woman. The jury found he personally used a firearm in the commission of the first two offenses. The trial court sentenced Stubblefield to a term of 15 years to life in prison.

The prosecution alleged Stubblefield threatened Doe with a handgun while she was at his house. The police decided not to search Stubblefield’s house after Doe reported the incident, and no gun was introduced into evidence. In closing arguments, the prosecutor asserted the police made the decision not to search Stubblefield’s house based partly on the fact that he was a famous Black man. The prosecutor claimed a search would have created “a storm of controversy,” and added, “Can you imagine in Morgan Hill when they search an African-American –,” defense counsel objected. The trial court sustained the objection but gave the jury no admonishments with respect to this part of the prosecutor’s arguments.

Continue reading

by

People v. Lattin (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2024, No. D083262) 2024 WL 5153046, at *1

Summary: Lattin contends a gun must be loaded to commit assault with a firearm unless it is used as a club or bludgeon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) He argues that the present ability element of assault cannot be satisfied with an unloaded gun if the defendant is too far from the victim to inflict injury with the firearm as a club or bludgeon. Lattin requested a pinpoint instruction that an assault with a deadly weapon is not committed by a person “pointing an unloaded gun … with no effort or threat to use it as a baton” or “pointing an unloaded gun in a threatening manner” at another person. The trial court declined to give his pinpoint instruction to the jury. Lattin claims this was prejudicial error, and the evidence was insufficient on present ability to support his conviction for assault with a firearm. The Court of Appeal rejected these claims, concluding that there is no brightline rule in California that, unless it is used as a club or bludgeon, a gun must be loaded for an assault to be committed. Proof that a firearm was unloaded can be a complete defense to charges of assault, but it is not a complete defense in all circumstances as a matter of law. If ammunition is readily available-as it was in this case—it is a question for the jury whether a defendant with an unloaded gun possesses the means to load the gun and shoot immediately, or whether he is too many steps away from inflicting injury to have the present ability to commit assault.

The Court noted its disagreement with the Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions. One of the practice notes for CALCRIM No. 875, the model instruction for assault, states a “gun must be loaded unless used as [a] club or bludgeon” in order “to have [the] present ability to inflict injury.” (Use Note to CALCRIM No. 875.)

Continue reading

by

People v. Superior Court of Ventura County (Cal., Dec. 12, 2024, No. S281950) 2024 WL 5100944

Summary: The Supreme Court held that: The Superior Court had no authority to reduce wobbler offense; The order reducing wobbler offense was not appealable;An unauthorized order reducing wobbler offense is act in excess of jurisdiction and is therefore reviewable by writ when balance of interests supports intervention of higher court; and The Court of Appeal’s temporary stay of all proceedings deprived Superior Court of jurisdiction to recommence proceedings at request of prosecution.

Facts: In 2018, Mitchell was charged with one felony count of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The prosecution alleged that Mitchell had a prior “strike” conviction for battery with serious bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 243, subd. (d), 667, subd. (d)(1).) Five years later, with a jury trial about to begin, the trial court ordered that the felony count be reduced to a misdemeanor,  under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b).1 The court then granted a defense motion to continue the trial and referred the matter for screening for entry into a veterans court program.

Continue reading

by

People v. Clymer (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 4, 2024, No. A166279) 2024 WL 4983030, at *1

Summary: Clymer, pled no contest to possession of diazepam for sale. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of a motion to quash and suppress evidence obtained from searches of electronic devices. The first was a warrantless search of electronic devices used by an individual who purchased drugs from defendant and who died prior to the search. The second was a search pursuant to a warrant of defendant’s own cell phone. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Background

Continue reading

by

In re Nguyen (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 27, 2024, No. B329158) 2024 WL 4901809, at *1

Summary: Nguyen was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term with the possibility of parole. Penal Code section 3046 establishes a minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for when that hearing will occur. Additionally, because Nguyen was under 26 years of age when he committed his crimes, Nguyen is entitled to a youth offender parole hearing, and Penal Code section 3051 establishes a youth parole eligible date (YPED) for when that hearing will occur. Nguyen thus has two parole hearing dates, one set by the MEPD and the other by the YPED. Per California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) regulations, Nguyen can earn good conduct credit, milestone completion credit, rehabilitative achievement credit, educational merit credit, and extraordinary conduct credit to bring forward his MEPD. However, those same regulations provide that only educational merit credit can bring forward his YPED; good conduct credit, milestone completion credit, rehabilitative achievement credit, and extraordinary conduct credit do not impact a youth inmate’s YPED.

Nguyen petitioned for review in the California Supreme Court, it granted review, and the court ordered the Court of Appeal to issue an order to show cause.

Continue reading

by

ROBERT MANN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2024, No. B328374) 2024 WL 4834847, review denied (Nov. 20, 2024)

Summary: The State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) appeal from a judgment requiring it to revise its vehicle impound procedures. CHP contends the injunction improperly requires it to contravene valid statutes, relies on inapplicable case law, conflicts with the existing statutory scheme, and mandates unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed.

Background

Continue reading

by

Sanchez v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 22, 2024, No. E083015) 2024 WL 4717472, at *1–2

Summary: Sanchez filed for a writ of mandate ordering respondent superior court to vacate its order directing the San Bernardino County Public Defender (public defender) to assign a new attorney from its office to represent him in his criminal proceedings. The trial court issued the order after receiving evidence that the deputy public defender currently assigned to represent him made remarks citing Sanchez’s race as a factor to consider during plea negotiations, potentially in violation of the Racial Justice Act (RJA) (Pen. Code,1 § 745). The Court held that Sanchez failed to establish an abuse of discretion calling for reversal of the trial court’s order and denied  the petition.

Background

Continue reading

by

Mountain View Police Department v. Krepchin (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 4, 2024, No. H050872) 2024 WL 4664207

Summary:Police department filed application for emergency gun violence protective order against Krepchin , and after it was issued, applied for three-year gun violence restraining order (GVRO). The Superior Court, Santa Clara County, granted GVRO, and defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeal held that:

Continue reading
Contact Information
855 Bryant St #200
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415.556.9200

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Uthman Law Office
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design