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

November 8, 2020

Penal Code 1170.94 did not abolish implied malice for a DUI Murder

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Roldan (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2020, No. B298570) 2020 WL 6375578, at *1

Summary: Marlon Roldan was convicted of second degree murder under an implied malice theory for killing a person while driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). He filed a petition in the superior court for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. He also requested appointment of counsel. The court found he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he was convicted under a theory of direct rather than vicarious liability. The court denied the petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing.

Roldan appealed claiming that Penal Code section 1170.95 should apply to his conviction for DUI murder, and he should have been appointed counsel to assist with his petition. The Court of appeal disagreed and affirmed the tail court’s ruling.

October 25, 2020

San Quentin Prison acted with deliberate indifference, failing to protect inmates from COVID-19

by Uthman Law Office

In re Von Staich (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2020, No. A160122) 2020 WL 6144780, at *1–2

Petition claiming San Quentin does not adequately protect against COVID-19 infection

Ivan Von Staich, incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison,serving a sentence of 17 years to life for a second degree murder consecutive to a 13-year sentence for the attempted murder.

October 18, 2020

Veterans with military related trauma eligible for resentencing if sentenced before January 1,2015

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Valliant (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 14, 2020, No. G058568) 2020 WL 6054332, at *1–6

Summary: Valliant petitioned pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.91, subdivision (b),1 which authorizes recall of sentencing for military veterans who suffer from military-related trauma and substance abuse, who did not have those factors considered as mitigating factors when they were originally sentenced. The court denied his petition on the basis that section 1170.91, subdivision (b)(1)(B) (subdivision (b)(1)(B)) authorizes resentencing relief only for persons who were sentenced before January 1, 2015. Valliant who was sentenced in March of 2015.

Valliant argued that resentencing relief is available to all veterans whose military-related trauma was not considered at their initial sentencing, without regard to when that sentencing took place. The Court of Appel affirmed the order. Subdivision (b)(1)(B) clearly specifies that its resentencing relief is limited to cases in which “[t]he person was sentenced prior to January 1, 2015.” It further specifies that “[t]his subdivision shall apply retroactively, whether or not the case was final as of January 1, 2015” (italics added). The statutory limitation is unequivocal.

October 12, 2020

Pre-sentence Conduct Credits Earned in County Jail

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Brown (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 899, 904–910 [267 Cal.Rptr.3d 79, 84–89, 52 Cal.App.5th 899, 904–910], review filed (Sept. 8, 2020)

Brown was convicted by jury of murder and at his sentencing, the trial court resentenced him for a cocaine possession case. He was sentenced to consecutive terms and the court and applied Penal Code section 2933.21 (which prohibits defendants convicted of murder from earning presentence conduct credits) and Brown received no presentence conduct credits. It then awarded 923 days of actual custody credits.

Brown challenges the application of section 2933.2 to the period of custody following his cocaine possession charge and preceding his murder charge. He also challenges the award of actual custody credits. The Court of Appeal addressed these issues.

October 7, 2020

Re-sentencing under 1170(d)-limits to court’s authority

by Uthman Law Office

Court discretion under 1170(d)

Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) states: “The court resentencing under this paragraph may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment and modify the judgment, including a judgment entered after a plea agreement, if it is in the interest of justice.” (Pen. Code, § 1170(d)(1))

Does the court’s authority to “modify the judgment” include reducing or dismissing charges?

October 4, 2020

Liberty interest in recommendation for re-sentencing under PC 1170(d) gives right to present information to court

by Uthman Law Office

People v. McCallum (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2020, No. B301267) 2020 WL 5810212, at *1

Resentencing under Penal Code 1170(d)(1)

Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) authorizes the trial court to modify a defendant’s sentence upon a recommendation from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department), the Board of Parole Hearings, or the district attorney to “recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced ….”

September 24, 2020

A conviction set aside pursuant to section 1210.1, subdivision (e)(1), still exists for some purposes and the arrest cannot be sealed

by Uthman Law Office

People v. D.C. (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2020, No. F078629) 2020 WL 5542090, at *1–5

Summary:

D.C. petitioned to seal his arrest record under Penal Code section 851.91 after pleading no contest to possession of a controlled substance and successfully completing treatment and probation pursuant to section 1210.1.the trial court ruled that he was ineligible for relief under section 851.91. D.C. appealed claiming he qualifies for relief under section 851.91 as a person whose arrest did not result in a conviction because his arrest and conviction are deemed never to have occurred pursuant to section 1210.1, subdivision (e)(1).

September 13, 2020

The Right to Counsel Under Section 1170.95 Attaches Upon the Filing of a Facially Sufficient Petition

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Cooper (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 1, 2020, No. A156880) 2020 WL 5175210

Summary:

Cooper was convicted by no contest plea of one count of second degree murder and filed petition for resentencing, alleging he pleaded no contest because he had faced possibility of conviction of first or second degree murder under felony murder or natural and probable consequences theory. The Superior Court, Alameda County, denied the petition without appointing counsel. Cooper appealed and the Court of Appeal, Humes, held that:

September 6, 2020

Murder conviction reversed because trail court excluded significant evidence of the victim’s violent character

by Uthman Law Office

People v. DelRio (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2020, No. B298637) 2020 WL 5104917

Facts:

DelRio and his cousin Raul Prieto had a gunfight in front of a house on a cul-de-sac. Prieto shot his nine-millimeter pistol 15 times but missed every time. DelRio fired his .40-caliber pistol twice and each bullet hit Prieto. Each shot was fatal.

August 30, 2020

California Supreme Court states financial circumstances must be considered in setting bail (Humphrey)

by Uthman Law Office

The State Supreme Court posted an order on the docket of In re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006, pending as # S247278, making Part III of the Court of Appeal decision in the case legal precedent. That part of the appellate opinion holds that due process requires consideration of the defendant’s financial circumstances in setting conditions of release. And it holds that bail schedules cannot be used by the court in setting conditions for release of a defendant when pretrial detention is not required.

Background of the case in San Francisco Superior Court

Humphrey, a retired shipyard laborer, then 63 years of age and a lifelong resident of San Francisco was arrested and charged with first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),3 first degree residential burglary (§ 459), inflicting injury (but not great bodily injury) on an elder and dependent adult (§ 368, subd. (c)), and theft from an elder or dependent adult, charged as a misdemeanor. (§ 368, subd. (d).)