Uthman Law Office Blog
2 FOLLOWERS
David Uthman is an experienced trial litigator and San Francisco DMV lawyer with a track record of success defending criminal, DUI, and DMV cases. As a former police officer and Public Defender he brings insight, knowledge and commitment to defending his clients. Explore his expert insights and advice on California criminal laws in the blog.
Uthman Law Office Blog
1d ago
People v. Barooshian (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 16, 2024, No. D081050) 2024 WL 1629664, at *1
Summary: Barooshian was convicted him of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) under a Watson murder theory. In People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, (Watson), the California Supreme Court concluded that a person who kills another while driving under the influence of alcohol may be charged with second degree murder if the circumstances support a finding of implied malice. This is “informally known as a Watson murder.”
At Barooshian’s first trial, the jury did not reach a verdict on a murder charge but ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
1w ago
People v. Serrano (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2024, No. A166011) 2024 WL 1320422, at *6–9
Exercise of Discretion Under Section 1385(c)
Serrano argued that the trial court erred by failing to exercise its discretion under section 1385(c) to consider striking the jury’s premeditation and deliberation findings ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
2w ago
Knudsen v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 4, 2024, No. F085992) 2024 WL 1453228, at *1
Summary: Knudsen appealed the suspension of his driver’s license at an administrative per se (APS) hearing. A hearing officer for the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) concluded that Knudsen had driven his car with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or greater. Knudsen challenged the hearing officer’s decision through a writ of mandate in the Kern County Superior Court. The writ of mandate was denied, and the suspension sustained, by the trial court. On appeal, Knudsen argues ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
3w ago
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.FREETOWN HOLDINGS COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants.2024 WL 1325949 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), 1
Summary: The People of the State of California sued Holiday Liquor for enabling a public nuisance claiming the store allowed illegal drug buyers and sellers to meet for sales. Holiday tolerated loitering and drug dealing, had no guards, stayed open until 2 a.m., and sold alcohol in cheap single-serving containers. The trial court granted summary judgment for the People and ordered Holiday to hire guards, to stop selling single-serving containers of alcohol ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
1M ago
People v Felix, 2024 WL 979674 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.)
Summary: Felix was arrested in Utah after being stopped for a traffic violation. He consented to a search of his car which resulted in the recovery of a handgun, ammunition and over five kilograms of methamphetamine. While in custody in Utah on drug charges, Felix became a suspect in two murders that occurred in Southern California. After his return to, California, Felix invoked his right to counsel while being interviewed by the detectives investigating one of the murders. Felix was placed in a cell with an undercover detective to whom he made ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
1M ago
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 15, 2024, No. B328954) 2024 WL 1131026, at *1
Summary: Two Los Angeles police officers in a cruiser saw Jackson, an African American man, alone in a parked car. They pulled alongside, boxing Jackson in so that he would have to squeeze to get out. One officer went to Jackson’s side of the car, while the other walked to Jackson’s passenger side. Both shined flashlights on Jackson. Surrounding Jackson, the officers’ actions meant a reasonable person in his position would not feel free to l ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
1M ago
Search of parolee’s car following unlawful detainer was not consensual
People, v Paul 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 142
Summary: Paul pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm with a prior violent conviction (Pen. Code, § 29900, subd. (a)(1)) after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. Paul argues that the trial court should have excluded evidence of the firearm because officers discovered it only after they obtained his parole status by unlawfully detaining him ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
1M ago
Persiani v. Superior Court, 2024 WL 833043 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.), 1
Summary: A trial court has authority under Penal Code section 1370.01, subdivision (b)(1)(A) to order treatment through mental health diversion for a mentally incompetent misdemeanor defendant charged with driving under the influence.
Persiani was charged in four misdemeanor cases with driving under the influence (Veh. Code § 23152, subd. (a)). While the charges were pending Persiani was found incompetent to stand trial ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
2M ago
Bonds v. Superior Court; D082187; 2/14/24;2024 WL 617245 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)
Summary: Bonds was charged with a misdemeanor concealed firearm violation filed a motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act. The Superior Court denied the motion and Bonds filed petition for writ of mandate.The Court of Appeal held that the trial court applied wrong legal standard in denying defendant’s motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act, and statistical studies regarding practices of city’s police department were admissible in determining whether a violation of the Racial Justice Act occurred du ..read more
Uthman Law Office Blog
2M ago
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.Kevin Eugene CARTWRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. 317 Cal.Rptr.3d 472
Summary: The Court of Appeal held that police did not conduct a warrantless search when they accessed footage from city’s streetlight cameras that captured defendant’s image.
A jury convicted Cartwright of first degree murder with special circumstances ..read more