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

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.

July 26, 2026

Electronic transmission of abstract of judgment to the DMV is a valid certified court abstract

by Uthman Law Office

Pipitone v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Cal. Ct. App., July 21, 2026, No. 2D CIV. B348229) 2026 WL 2094997, at *1–5

Summary: Pipitone appealed the denial of his petition for writ of mandate challenging the DMV’s revocation of his driving privilege after he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale. The drugs had been discovered during a traffic stop while he was driving. His appeal claimed that there was no basis for finding that his crime involved the use of a motor vehicle, and second, that the DMV failed to prove it received the type of certified court abstract required by Vehicle Code section 13350 before revoking his license. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.

Facts and procedural background:In 2020, law enforcement stopped Pipitone while he was driving and found more than a pound of methamphetamine and other evidence suggesting drug sales. He was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale and transportation-related drug offenses. In 2024, he pleaded no contest to the possession-for-sale charge.

July 19, 2026

Defendant seeking mental health diversion cannot be compelled to submit to a mental health examination

by Uthman Law Office

Sua v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Cal. Ct. App., July 16, 2026, No. D087742) 2026 WL 2056609.

Facts and Procedural Posture

Miguel Sua and Alexander Guthrie, defendants in separate felony cases, sought pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. The prosecution moved under Penal Code section 1054.3(b)(1) to compel each defendant to submit to a mental examination by a prosecution expert. The superior court granted the motions, and the defendants petitioned for writ relief.

July 12, 2026

DUI Causing Injury is not a lesser included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated

by Uthman Law Office

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANTANA DOMINIQUE YANEZ, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., July 10, 2026, No. F090098) 2026 WL 1998663, at *1–3

Summary: Yanez argued that his convictions for driving under the influence causing injury should be reversed because that crime is a lesser included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The Court of Appeal concluded otherwise.

Yanez was charged with two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (counts 1 & 2, Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)), driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage causing injury (count 3, Veh. Code,1 § 23153, subd. (a)), driving with a 0.08 blood alcohol content causing injury (count 4, § 23153, subd. (b)), driving under the influence of alcohol in combination with any drug causing injury (count 5, § 23153, subd. (g)), driving without a license (count 6, § 12500, subd. (a)), driving without evidence of financial responsibility (count 7, § 16028, subd. (a)), speeding (count 8, § 22350), speeding over 100 miles per hour (count 9, § 22348, subd. (b)), and failing to yield the right of way (count 10, § 21800, subd. (a)). The information also alleged great bodily injury enhancements (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) as to each victim on counts 3 through 5, and alleged as to counts 1 through 5 that defendant had caused bodily injury or death to more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23558).

July 4, 2026

Blood Draw of Unconscious DUI Suspect at Hospital does not Automatically Excuse Warrant Requirement

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Castro (Cal. Ct. App., July 1, 2026, No. D085983) 2026 WL 1894067, at *1–3

Summary: The United States Supreme Court Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) 588 U.S. 840 (Mitchell), held that where a police officer at the scene of an automobile accident discovers that one of the drivers suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is unconscious,“the officers’ many responsibilities may be incompatible with the procedures that would be required to obtain a warrant.” Mitchell articulated a “general rule” that exigent circumstances will “almost always” permit a blood test without a warrant.

In People v. Alvarez (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 531 (Alvarez), the police officer encountered the suspect-driver at the hospital sometime after the accident. Alvarez held that the record failed to support a finding of exigency sufficient to excuse the officer’s failure to obtain a blood draw warrant. Here, an unconscious suspect-driver was first contacted by police at the hospital several hours after the accident, and the Court held there was not exigent circumstances excusing a failure to obtain a warrant.

June 28, 2026

Presentence credits may only be applied to a case for which a defendant is sentenced

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Cofer (Cal., June 25, 2026, No. S286297) 2026 WL 1830928, at *1

Summary: After a plea agreement, Cofer was sentenced at a single hearing on five separate pending criminal cases. Cofer had been in presentence custody for extended periods in some of these cases and for shorter periods in others. The trial court awarded Coffey custody credits in each case that reflected the time he spent in custody in that specific case. The Court of Appeal agreed with defendant that under Penal Code section 2900.5, he should receive presentence custody credits in each of his five cases for all the time he served in custody on any of these cases, except for custody time that preceded his arrest in a particular case. (People v. Cofer (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 333, 341–342, 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 891 (Cofer).) The Court of Appeal held that the resolution of these cases through a single sentencing hearing meant that they all involved the same “proceedings” for purposes of section 2900.5, subdivision (b), under which “the custody to be credited” against a sentence must be “attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.” (See Cofer, at p. 341, 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 891.) This interpretation of the statute would result in Cofer receiving more than 300 additional days of custody credit on his six-year term, compared to credits awarded by the trial court.

The California Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of section 2900.5 and concluded that “proceedings,” as used in section 2900.5, subdivision (b), is properly understood as referring to an individual criminal case. Therefore, custody credit is not automatically applied across multiple, distinct prosecutions merely because those cases are resolved and sentenced at a single hearing. Here, the trial court correctly interpreted the statute in awarding credits in each case for the time defendant spent in custody in that matter, rather than awarding him credit in each case for time served in other cases. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

June 20, 2026

Court’s failure to explain imperfect self defense jury instruction requires reversal of murder conviction

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Brim (Cal. Ct. App., June 17, 2026, No. A170747) 2026 WL 1746369, at *1

Summary: Brim boarded a BART train and got into fight with another passenger, Williams, during it Williams drew a knife and attempted to stab Brim. Brim gained control of the knife, fatally stabbed Williams in the head and neck, and ran from the train. The fight was captured on two BART surveillance cameras.

Brim was charged with murder and tried by jury, where he testified that he had acted in self-defense. The jury found him guilty of second degree murder and he was later sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. Brim asserted that the trial court erred in: instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 3474 regarding the right to self-defense, and in responding to the jury’s question about that instruction during its deliberations. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court prejudicially erred in responding to the jury’s question regarding CALCRIM No. 3474, and reversed Brim’s murder conviction. The Court also concluded that there was substantial evidence to support that conviction, so People may retry Brim for murder. If they elect not to do so, the Court directed that the judgment be modified to reflect a conviction for voluntary manslaughter.