Recent Cases 2013


Sexual misconduct allegations dismissed in August 2013

Our client was charged with a crime that would require mandatory lifetime registration as a sex-offender.

Through our investigation, we determined and successfully persuaded the prosecutor to dismiss those charges.

CLICK HERE FOR COPY OF DISMISSAL


DUI Charges Dismissed on May 10, 2013

CLICK HERE TO SEE COURT DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES

DUI charges (3 Misdemeanors) dismissed on May 10, 2013. We filed a motion to dismiss the charges and the motion was unopposed by the prosecutor.

Filed Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
VC M23152(A)  DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE  02/07/1999  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
VC M23152(B)  DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE W/0.08% OR HIGHER BLOOD ALCOHOL  02/07/1999  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
VC M12500(A)  DRIVE W/O LICENSE  02/07/1999  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 

Drunk in Public Charges Dismissed on May 10,2013

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE DISMISSAL FROM THE COURT

Our client had an old citation for being drunk in public from February 2004 where he was cited for the charge, but never appeared in Court. Our office recalled the bench warrant and filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges. Our motion was unopposed and the Judge granted the motion to dismiss on May 10, 2013

Filed Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
PC M647(F)  DISORDERLY CONDUCT:PERSON UND INFLUENCE OF ALCOH/DRUGS  02/08/2004  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 

Mr. Feyzjou concludes jury trial on 04/29/13. Result: HUNG JURY!

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE RESULTS FROM THE COURT

Our client, Jose, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. As we started investigating the case, we realized that the client acted in self-defense. We were given an offer of 6 years before preliminary hearing and 15 years right before we started trial. We knew our client is innocent so we decided to go to trial.

On April 29, 2013, the jury returned after 3 days of deliberations and indicated to the court that they were unable to find our client Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge asked if there was anything else that could be done for the jury to make a decision about guilt or innocence. The jurors all indicated that they just had a difference of opinion about the facts of the case. As a result, the court declared a mistrial.

A mistrial is not a conviction. It is essentially the court’s determination that the jurors are “hung” and cannot reach a verdict.

This is a great result. In order for the prosecution to convict our client, they will have to try him again. However, considering all of the prosecution witnesses lied on the stand and were impeached by each other and their own testimony, we find it unlikely that there will be a re-trial. And, if there is a re-trial, we are comforted by the fact that we have prior sworn testimony to use against these witnesses.


March 5, 2013 Update 6 Felony Charges Dismissed (Fraud and Perjury) Case Closed

CLICK HERE TO SEE DISMISSAL OF 6 FELONY CHARGES

CLICK HERE TO SEE ENTIRE CASE REPORT

We are pleased to report another successful victory at KIA LAW FIRM. In this case, our client was charged with 5 felony counts of Perjury, as well as 1 Felony charge of Fraud. Our client was facing multiple years in Prison based on these charges.

Not only did we persuade the Court to not put our client into custody on $150,000 bail (she was permitted to remain out of custody while the case was pending), we were also able to get the entire case dismissed.

Filed Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
WI 10980(C)(2)  FRAUD TO OBTAIN AID (OVR $400)  03/01/2011  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
PC 118(A)  PERJURY  03/01/2011  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
PC 118(A)  PERJURY  03/01/2011  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
PC 118(A)  PERJURY  03/01/2011  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
PC 118(A)  PERJURY  03/01/2011  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
PC 118(A)  PERJURY  03/01/2011  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 

Domestic Violence and Child Endangerment Charges Dismissed

Click Here to See Court Dismissal Of These Charges

Our client Monica was charged with Domestic Violence and Child Endangerment. Generally speaking, people who are convicted of Domestic Violence charges are required by the Court to attend a 52 week Domestic Violence Class. Additionally, people who are convicted of Child Endangerment charges are required to attend a 52 week Child Abuse Class.

In this case, we were successful in demonstrating through aggressive representation that our client was engaged in legal self-defense when her boyfriend and her boyfriend’s daughter attacked her.

On the eve of trial, we offered to resolve this matter for one Misdemeanor count of disturbing the peace.

Arrest Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
1 PC 273.5(A) F Inflict Corporal Injury/Spouse 08/02/2012
Filed Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
1 PC M273.5(A) M Inflict Corporal Injury on Spouse 08/02/2012 NOT GUILTY DISMISSED
2 PC M273A(B) M Abuse/Endanger Child 08/02/2012 NOT GUILTY DISMISSED
Amended Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
3 PC M415(2) M Malicious Disturb 08/02/2012 GUILTY CONVICTED

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one’s actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music), or using offensive words.

Our client resolved the matter for a reduced charge. By doing so, she avoided the mandatory program requirements explained above.

At KIA LAW FIRM, we strive to get your case dismissed. Alternatively, we will also strive to reduce your charges so that the collateral consequences of pleading guilty or no-contest are minimal.

If you have any legal questions, please email kia@kialaw.com.


Client charged with robbery. Case dismissed on Feb 26, 2013.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE COURT TRANSCRIPT WHERE THE JUDGE DISMISSES THE CASE

Our client was charged with Robbery. Robbery in California is a straight felony, which, for most people, results in a hefty jail sentence, often including State Prison.

We have attached three documents above that you can review to see how serious this case was and how we ultimately had all of the charges dismissed against our client.

In this case, the prosecutor believed that they had sufficient evidence to prosecute our client beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, even the probation officer who reviewed the allegations in this case recommended that the Defendant be sent to State Prison.

The original offer in this case was 3 years in State Prison.

On February 26, 2013, Kia Feyzjou appeared and announced ready for the Preliminary Hearing in this matter.

In California, a preliminary hearing (evidentiary hearing) is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. In this State, the judge must find there is probable cause that a crime was committed.

Prior to the commencement of this hearing, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office decided to dismiss the charges against our client.  Our experience can make all of the difference.


DUI charges dismissed on day of trial 02/25/13. Client pleads to reckless driving

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE COURT RECORDS DISMISSING THE DUI CHARGES ON 02/25/13

Arrest Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
VC M23152(A)  Driving Under the Influence  11/20/2012     
Filed Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
VC M23152(A)  Driving Under the Influence  11/20/2012  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
VC M23152(B)  Driving Under the Influence BAC .08 or Higher  11/20/2012  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
Amended Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
VC 23103(A)  Reckless Driving  11/20/2012  GUILTY  CONVICTED

On November 20, 2012, our client Pedro was detained for a DUI investigation. On January 10, 2013, the Riverside District Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges against Pedro alleging violations that he violated California Vehicle Codes 23152(a) and 23152(b).

On January 14, 2013, our office appeared on his case and entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Our client had a right to force the prosecutor to announce ready for trial within 45 days of the date of the arraignment. That is exactly what we did. We set the case for trial immediately upon arraignment and did not waive time.

Once the matter was set for trial, this forced the prosecutor to get all of their witnesses and evidence in order within 45 days.

On February 25, 2013, we appeared for jury trial in this matter ready to demonstrate to the jury that our client was innocent. However, prior to commencing with jury selection, our client asked that we submit an offer to the prosecutor to determine if they will accept what is commonly referred to as a “dry reckless”.

One of the lesser offenses is a “dry reckless” driving charge under Vehicle Code 23103.

A “dry reckless” is simply a misdemeanor defined as driving with a flagrant disregard for people or property. A “dry” is always better than a “wet” reckless – as the “wet” refers to an alcohol or drug related drug offense. A “dry” reckless has advantages over a California DUI, including,

  1. No DUI school
  2. No mandatory sentencing enhancements for repeat offenders
  3. No automatic increase for each subsequent conviction
  4. Reduced fines
  5. In Pedro’s case, no jail sentence or requirement to do community service.
  6. A dry reckless driving conviction will not typically lead to a cancellation of your policy or cause the insurance premium to increase significantly as it would with a DUI type of conviction

At KIA LAW FIRM, our firm focuses on obtaining the best result for the Client.

As you can see, we have obtained dismissals and better offers on cases we have set for trial because we constantly challenge the State’s evidence and force the prosecution to “prove up” their case.

At KIA LAW FIRM, we always provide a free consultation. Call 951.686.4818 with any questions. We take cases all throughout Southern California


Drunk driving charges dismissed on February 4, 2013

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE DISMISSAL OF THE DRUNK DRIVING CHARGES

Arrest Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
VC M23152(A)  Driving Under the Influence  04/13/2008     
Filed Charges
Count Charge Severity Description Violation Date Plea Status
VC M23152(A)  Driving Under the Influence  04/13/2008  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
VC M23152(B)  Driving Under the Influence BAC .08 or Higher  04/13/2008  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 
VC 12500(A)  Unlicensed Operator  04/13/2008  NOT GUILTY  DISMISSED 

Luis approached our office with concerns that he had a bench warrant for failing to appear in Court and address a drunk driving charge from several years back.

While many criminal defense attorneys would have just recalled the arrest warrant and pled the client to a Misdemeanor conviction for drunk driving, our office filed a Motion to Dismiss the Charges in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional rights.

On February 4, 2013, a Judge of the Riverside Superior Court agreed with our position and ruled in our favor, dismissing the charges against Luis.

With this dismissal, Luis avoids mandatory DUI classes, a $2500.00 fine, and a loss of his driving privileges.

At Kia Law Firm, we take pride in providing the best legal services possible. If you have any legal questions, contact our office.