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. Sanchez, 2019 WL 5304531 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2019)

Summary:

Angel Sanchez (Sanchez) was charged by re-filed complaint with robbery, assault with a deadly weapon on a transit passenger, and receiving stolen property. The  magistrate granted Sanchez’s  motion to dismiss the complaint for prosecutorial vindictiveness,  The Superior Court, San Francisco County, No. MCN17010380, Garrett L. Wong, J., denied reinstatement of complaint. The People appealed.

Continue reading

by

Dickerson v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty., 40 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1, 252 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871, 874–82 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2019)

Petitioners contend that delays in charging each of them resulted in a deprivation of due process rights under the California Constitution. In both cases, the trial court found that Petitioners suffered prejudice due to the prosecution’s delays in charging them. The trial court then erred in failing to require competent evidence justifying the delay by the prosecution.

People v. Buggs-Ten Month delay in filing of complaint

Continue reading

by

History of San Francisco County Jail #4

The San Francisco County Jail at  850 Bryant St. is formally known as County Jail #4 is described by the Sheriff’sDepartment as “a traditional linear jail facility located on the 7th floor of the Hall of Justice. This jail is the maximum security facility of the San Francisco County Jail system. The rated capacity for this jail is 402 inmates and it houses both sentenced and pre-sentenced inmates. Deputy Sheriffs monitor inmate conduct and patrol in cells located on each side of a central corridor or “mainline”. This jail offers inmate programs such as parenting, independent study, alcoholics anonymous, and narcotics anonymous. Parenting skills classes and inmate-child visitation is also offered to mend and heal broken family relationships.״

(See: City and County of San Francisco Sheriff’s Department https://www.sfsheriff.com/jail_info.html)

Continue reading

by

People v. Wehr, No. E070345, 2019 WL 5166227, at *1–8 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019)

Proposition 47 and Receipt of Stolen Property

The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47) amended Penal Code § 496 so that receiving any stolen property worth $950 or less is a misdemeanor. (§ 496, subd. (a).) Receipt of a stolen vehicle (Penal Code §496, subd. (a).)  is a ‘wobbler,’ an offense that may be punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Here, the Court of Appeal determined which statute governs when a defendant receives a stolen vehicle worth $950 or less.

Continue reading

by

Barajas v. Appellate Division of Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2019 WL 4894231 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2019)

Arraignment on Misdemeanor charge of carrying a dirk or dagger

Eliseo Barajas was arrested and arraigned on a misdemeanor charge of carrying a dirk or dagger. Barajas sought to have the case dismissed for lack of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 991.1. Barajas argued that his initial detention was not based on conduct that could give rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal conduct had occurred. He also argued that the evidence establishing probable cause was illegally obtained and should be excluded from the probable cause determination. And he asked that the misdemeanor complaint be dismissed.

Continue reading

by

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff & Respondent, v. MICHAEL DAMION JUDE MEDRANO, Defendant & Appellant, No. E070042, 2019 WL 4894333 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019)

Medrano sentenced to life at age 19

Michael Damion Jude Medrano was 19 years old when he committed the crimes of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count 1), two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 2 & 4), and one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3). Medrano was sentenced in December, 2017 to 25 years to life, plus seven years. His sentencing took place one and one-half years after the Supreme Court decided People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), which held that a juvenile offender who is sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence, must be “given adequate opportunity at sentencing to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to his youth.” (Id. at p. 269.) The Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the juvenile offender had been given an adequate opportunity to make such a record. (Id. at pp. 286-287.)

Continue reading

by

People v. Lee, No. D073740, 2019 WL 4871480, at *3–10 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2019)

Vehicle stop and warrantless search of the vehicle

In 2017 San Diego Police Officers Robles and Cooper stopped a gold-colored Cadillac DeVille with no front license plate and tinted windows in violation of Vehicle Code section 26708. They initiated a traffic stop and Officer Robles asked the driver, defendant Brandon Lee, for his driver’s license. Lee said he did not have his license with him. Robles instructed Lee to step out of the vehicle and performed a pat-down search to confirm he did not have any sort of identification.

Continue reading

by

People v. Bay, 2019 WL 4564854 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.), 1 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2019)

The Stop and Search

A Napa County Sheriff’s deputy was on patrol at 2:00 a.m. on September 9, 2017, when he noticed a Cadillac SUV parked illegally near a popular overlook. The deputy approached and saw three people in the vehicle, including Bay, in the driver’s seat. When asked what they were doing, Bay said “they were just sitting there looking at the view and asked … if they were doing something wrong.” The deputy cited a no-parking sign and asked Bay for identification. Bey had none and provided a false name. Knowing that Bay was on post-release community supervision (PRCS) and subject to a warrantless search, the deputy asked him to get out of the vehicle.

Continue reading

by

Felony Murder Rule Changed by SB 1437

Senate Bill No. 1437 revised the felony murder rule in California.  Under the felony murder rule, someone who aided and abetted an underlying felony was strictly liable for murder if a co-participant killed someone during the commission of the felony (People v. Cavitt (2004) 33Cal 4th, 187, 197.) SB 1437 amended Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e) effective January 1, 2019.  Now a participant in an enumerated felony in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven:

  • The person is the actual killer.
Continue reading

by

People v. Gutierrez-Salazar, 38 Cal. App. 5th 411, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178 (Ct. App. 2019), reh’g denied (Aug. 30, 2019)

Defendant Dionicio Gutierrez-Salazar was by a jury of two murders for homicides committed in 2013 and 2015. As to the 2013 homicide, defendant was convicted of first degree murder on a felony-murder theory.

SB 1427 Amends Felony Murder Rule in California

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 © 2026, Uthman Law Office
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design