Unparalleled Experience

Over three decades of work
as an attorney and police officer

Proven Results

Many cases dismissed or charges reduced

SF’s Top DMV Law Office

Thousands of
licenses saved

Negligent operator hearings
Excessive DMV points
Age discrimination
License re-examinations

DUI and Traffic Defense

Avoid jail and going to court
Save your license
Charge reductions

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!

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!

San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

October 3, 2026

Kern County District Attorney Lacked Authority to Appeal Alameda Resentencing Order on Behalf of the People

by Uthman Law Office

The People v. Joseph Toussaint III (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2026, No. A171743) 2026 WL 2932739

Holding: Only the Authorized Prosecutors Could Decide Whether the People Would Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Although the Alameda County Superior Court’s resentencing order was appealable by the People, the Kern County District Attorney lacked authority to invoke that right on the People’s behalf. The prosecutors with authority to decide whether the People would appeal were the Alameda County District Attorney, who participated in the resentencing proceeding, and the Attorney General, who has constitutional supervisory authority over district attorneys. Neither chose to appeal. The Kern County District Attorney could not override that decision merely because the resentencing order affected a conviction originally obtained in Kern County.

September 27, 2026

Youthful Offender Recall Relief Does Not Extend to a Non-LWOP Sentence

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Cortez (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 24, 2026, No. B348276) 2026 WL 2873876.

Summary: The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Carlos Cortez’s petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), holding that the statute applies only to juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), not to a juvenile sentence of 46 years eight months to life that includes youthful offender parole eligibility.

Convictions and Sentence Set the Context

September 19, 2026

Voluntary Intoxication and Attempted Murder Premeditation

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Ammons (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2026, No. 2D CRIM. B343669) 2026 WL 2730198

Issue and Holding: The Instructions Adequately Allowed Consideration of Intoxication

Charles Nelson Ammons appealed only his attempted murder conviction arising from a traffic stop that escalated into a struggle over a firearm with City of Pismo Beach police officer Christopher Siglin. Ammons argued the trial court’s voluntary-intoxication instruction was incomplete because it told jurors they could consider intoxication when deciding whether he intended to kill Siglin and knew Siglin was a peace officer, but did not expressly say they could also consider intoxication when deciding whether the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. He also claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a clarified instruction.

September 13, 2026

Court has broad power to impose probation conditions that serve justice and support the probationer’s reform and rehabilitation

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Putallez (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2026, No. A174094) 2026 WL 2674363, at *1–3

Defendant Joseph Kent Putallez pleaded no contest to theft of an elder or dependent adult by a caregiver. Under the plea agreement, the trial court placed him on formal probation for two years. On appeal, he challenges one probation condition, arguing that it gives too much judicial authority to the probation officer. We conclude the court set the condition’s basic policy and left only practical details to probation. We therefore affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 6, 2026

Eligibility for Resentencing Under Penal Code Section 1172.6

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Campbell (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2026, No. B334456) 2026 WL 2577310

Summary: In People v. Campbell, the California Court of Appeal reconsidered whether Sidney Campbell was entitled to resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 following significant developments in California law governing murder liability and resentencing petitions. The case arose after the California Supreme Court transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of People v. Lopez (2025) 19 Cal.5th 639. Although Lopez expanded the circumstances under which petitioners may seek relief, the Court of Appeal ultimately concluded that Campbell remained ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because the jury instructions in his case required a finding that he personally acted with malice.

The Crime and Conviction

August 30, 2026

DUI Injury Convictions Need Not Be Dismissed After Gross Vehicular Manslaughter Plea

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Lossing (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 24, 2026, No. 2D CRIM. B347919) 2026 WL 2474216, at *1–6

Summary: In People v. Lossing, the Court of Appeal held that DUI causing injury under Vehicle Code section 23153 is not a lesser included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code section 191.5, affirming the defendant’s convictions and related credit consequences.

The issue is whether convictions for driving under the influence causing injury under Vehicle Code section 23153 must be dismissed as lesser included offenses of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code section 191.5. Section 954 permits multiple convictions arising from the same act, but a judicially created exception requires dismissal when a defendant is convicted of both a greater offense and a lesser included offense.

August 23, 2026

Partial Habeas Relief Does Not Require Full Resentencing Review

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Esquivias (Cal., Aug. 17, 2026, No. S286371) 2026 WL 2386584, at *1–10

Summary: A habeas corpus court has broad equitable authority to craft relief “as the justice of the case may require.” (In re Palmer (2021) 10 Cal.5th 959, 976; Pen. Code, § 1484.) Petitioner Miguel Alberto Esquivias sought habeas relief based solely on Senate Bill No. 620, which gave trial courts discretion to strike previously mandatory firearm enhancements. The superior court granted that targeted relief by striking those enhancements, but declined to reopen the entire sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that habeas relief is not an “all-or-nothing” remedy. The California Supreme Court agreed thatbecause Esquivias’s original sentence was valid and neither the Constitution nor any statute required full resentencing, the habeas court could limit relief to the firearm enhancements.

Factual and Procedural History

August 16, 2026

A lack of meaningful understanding of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea may result in vacating the conviction

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Hernandez (Cal., Aug. 13, 2026)

Summary: People v. Hernandez addresses when a noncitizen defendant may vacate a criminal conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1) based on a lack of meaningful understanding of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The California Supreme Court held that courts must focus on the defendant’s subjective understanding and evaluate the totality of the circumstances rather than relying solely on written plea advisements. Applying that framework, the Court concluded that Angela Hernandez established both error and prejudice and was therefore entitled to withdraw her plea.

Background

August 9, 2026

California Supreme Court’s first decision Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, presumptively invalid reasons for peremptory strikes of potential jurors

by Uthman Law Office

Citation: People v. SanMiguel (Cal., July 30, 2026, No. S287786) 2026 WL 2195752.

Summary: The Court clarified that when a party strikes a potential juror for BEHAVIOR-BASED REASONS under section 231.7(g)–historically connected to racial stereotypes and implicit bias, the trial court must first CONFIRM the observed behavior and then require the striking party to EXPLAIN its relevance to the case (race-neutral reason) in order to overcome the presumption of invalidity for behavior-based reasons.The trial court here failed to get an explanation from the DA. Attempted murder conviction and life sentence reversed and remanded.

Facts

August 2, 2026

Failure to give jury instructions on speeding and failure to stop do not automatically require reversal

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Kazarian (Cal. Ct. App., July 30, 2026, No. E085048) 2026 WL 2198572

Summary: Kazarian, challenged his conviction for felony evading a police officer on the ground that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the legal definitions of several Vehicle Code violations that were used to establish the felony offense. The Court of Appeal concluded that any instructional deficiencies were either nonexistent or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the judgment.

Background: In January 2023, Deputy Sheriff Gabriel Dominguez responded to a medical aid call involving an unresponsive driver seated in a pickup truck with its engine running. Emergency personnel were already present and attempting to contact the driver, Kazarian. As Deputy Dominguez approached the vehicle, he observed the defendant suddenly placed the vehicle in drive and nearly collided with a fire truck parked in front of him. He exited the gas station and drove away.