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

September 4, 2021

Drunk driving under Vehicle 23152(a) and 23152(b) are separate offenses and a driver may be convicted of both

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Grabham (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2021, No. A160384) 2021 WL 3909628, at *1

Summary: Grabham was convicted of violating Vehicle Code 1 section 23152, subdivision (a) (section 23152(a)) and section 23152, subdivision (b) (section 23152(b)). Grabham arguesd that section 23152(a) and (b) are different statements of the same offense and Penal Code section 954 trequires vacatur of one of his convictions. The First Appellate District concluded that section 23152(a) and (b) are separate offenses and Grabham may properly be convicted of both.

Facts: California Highway Patrol Officers initiated a traffic stop due to Grabham’s cellphone use and expired registration. After smelling alcohol coming from the truck and observing that Grabham’s eyes were red and watery and that his speech was slurred a full DUI investigation was conducted.

September 1, 2021

Collection of DNA from felony arrestees does not violate the Fourth Amendment

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Roberts (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2021, No. C081843) 2021 WL 3700319, at *1

Summary: Roberts’ DNA had been collected after an unrelated felony arrest for which he was not charged. Based primarily on the DNA evidence, a jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree and he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 26 years to life.

Issue: Whether using a DNA sample taken from a defendant who is validly arrested for a felony on probable cause but never formally charged, violates the defendant’s federal or state constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure or his state constitutional right to privacy.

August 28, 2021

Parole period for crimes other than sex offenses and those carrying life terms limited to two years under section 3000.01

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Tan (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 19, 2021, No. B308687) 2021 WL 3673888, at *1–2

Summary: Tan was convicted of robbery and first degree murder. In 2020, the trial court vacated Tan’s murder conviction under Penal Code section 1170.95, resentenced him on the robbery count, and ordered him released on time served. The court also imposed a three-year parole term. Tan appealed and claimed that section 3000.01, which was enacted before he was resentenced in this case, limits his parole term to two years. The People conceded the point, and, as a matter of first impression, the court of appeal agreed and modifed Tan’s sentence to reflect a two-year parole term.

Legal Principles and Standard of Review for an Unauthorized Sentence and Section 3000.01

August 22, 2021

Judicial Diversion for Misdemeanor DUI- depends on the county

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Sup. Ct. (Espeso); BS 175803; 7/14/21; Los Angeles Superior Court App. Div. ruled no diversion for DUI

People v. Sup. Ct. (Diaz‑Armstrong); APR12100008; 7/27/21; Riverside Sup. Ct. App. Div.-ruled diversion available for DUI

There is a split on this question. The Riverside Superior Court appellate division says that 23640 does not bar diversion for a misdemeanor DUI.

August 15, 2021

Elimination of the Probation Supervision Fee under PC 1465.9 Applies Retroactively

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Clark (Cal. Ct. App., July 29, 2021, No. A158238) 2021 WL 3205435, at *1

Summary: Clark appealed and challenged the imposition of a monthly $100 probation supervision fee, following a violation of his probation while his appeal was pending. Assembly Bill 1869 repealed the statute authorizing the probation supervision fee, Penal Code section 1203.1b.

Clark argued that he is entitled to the retroactive benefit of Assembly Bill 1869, and asked that the court order vacatur of the fee imposed on him under section 1203.1b.

August 7, 2021

Challenges to reasonableness of mandatory supervision conditions are evaluated under the Lent Standard for probation conditions

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Bryant (Cal., July 29, 2021, No. S259956) 2021 WL 3201079, at *1

Summary: The 2011 Realignment Act (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1; Realignment Act or Act) provides for a period of mandatory supervision after a county jail sentence for eligible defendants. The California Supreme Court assessed the validity of a challenged condition of mandatory supervision and concluded that discretionary conditions are to be evaluated for reasonableness on a case-by-case basis under the test set out in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545 (Lent).

Facts: Bryant was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. (Pen. Code,1 § 25400, subds. (a)(1) & (c)(6).) The court imposed a split sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)), of two years in the county jail, with the last 364 days to be served at large on mandatory supervision. Over Bryant’s objection, the court imposed the following condition: “Defendant is to submit to search of any electronic device either in his possession[,] including cell phone[,] and/or any device in his place of residence. Any search by probation is limited to defendant[’]s text messages, emails, and photos on such devices.”

August 1, 2021

Prisoners entitled to appointment of counsel when making a prima facie case under SB 1437

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Lewis (Cal., July 26, 2021, No. S260598) 2021 WL 3137434, at *1

Summary: The California Supreme Court reviewed Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015; Senate Bill 1437) which eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder and limited the scope of the felony murder rule. (Pen. Code, §§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e), as amended by Senate Bill 1437.) Senate Bill 1437 also added section 1170.95 to the Penal Code,1 which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief.

In this case, the court decided two issues.

July 25, 2021

DUI probationary period is not shortened by AB 1950

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Schulz (Cal. Ct. App., July 20, 2021, No. F080978) 2021 WL 3047264, at *2–8

Summary: Schulz appealed claiming that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to reduce his felony convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol to misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b).1 He also claims that under the Estrada presumption, he is entitled to relief under Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) which amended section 1203.1, subdivision (a), to limit probation for felony offenses to no more than two years, subject to certain exceptions. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2.)

The court ordered the parties to file supplemental letter briefs pursuant to Government Code section 68081, addressing whether, assuming Assembly Bill No. 1950 applies retroactively, defendant’s convictions for violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivisions (a) and (b), qualify for a reduction in the probationary period under section 1203.1, subdivision (a), given that subdivision (m) of section 1203.1, which was added by Assembly Bill No. 1950, excludes “an offense that includes specific probation lengths within its provisions.” (See Veh. Code, § 23600, subd. (b)(1) [“If any person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 and is granted probation, the terms and conditions of probation shall include … a period of probation not less than three nor more than five years ….”].

July 18, 2021

Veterans sentenced to indeterminate terms are not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.911

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Stewart (Cal. Ct. App., July 9, 2021, No. E074907) 2021 WL 2883176, at *1

Summary: Stewart was honorably discharged from the Army in 1976 and suffers from schizophrenia related to his military service. In 1986 and a1992, he was convicted of first degree burglary. In 2001, after being convicted on two counts of spousal battery, he was sentenced, as a third-striker, to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison.

In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1170.911 to allow convicted veterans who suffers from a specified disorder as a result of their military service to petition for resentencing, so that that disorder may be considered as a mitigating factor when imposing a determinate term.

July 11, 2021

Juveniles pre-arrest statements made to police violate Miranda

by Uthman Law Office

In re Matthew W. (Cal. Ct. App., July 8, 2021, No. A159931) 2021 WL 2850407, at *1

Summary: Matthew W. appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional order, in which the court sustained an allegation of assault with a deadly weapon and placed him on probation.

On appeal, Matthew W. contended that the jurisdictional findings must be reversed because the juvenile court improperly admitted defendant’s pre-arrest statements to police made during a custodial interrogation, in violation of Miranda v. Arizona(1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (Miranda).