949-377-2280


EXPERIENCED DUI DEFENSE LAW FIRM

Recent Cases

D.I. v. DMV. Our client was unjustifiably pulled over by a law enforcement officer that resulted in a DUI arrest. Attorney Naidu argued that the officer wrongfully stopped our client at the DMV hearing, but our client’s license was still suspended. Attorney Naidu then challenged the DMV’s decision through a writ of mandate in the Superior Court of California. This challenge resulted in the client’s suspension being set aside and a reinstatement of his driving privileges.

People v. J.H. Client was 18 years old and faced 3 felony charges: 1) possession of a doctor’s prescription pad; 2) forging a prescription; and 3) commercial burglary. Client was facing 16 months to 3 years in a state prison. Attorney Naidu was successful in dismissing 2 charges, and reduced the third charge to a misdemeanor. Client faced no jail or prison time, only 3 years of informal probation.

People v. E.V. Our client was charged with a first offense DUI with a .10% BAC level. Even with a low BAC level, the prosecutor was not willing to reduce the charges. Attorney Naidu was able to aggressively negotiate with the prosecutor and judge, resulting in a dismissal of the DUI charges. The client was only charged with a “wet reckless.”

People v. I.A. Client was charged with a first offense DUI, along with excessive speed exceeding 100 mph, and was facing a 60 day jail sentence. Attorney Naidu challenged the speed allegation on a theory of the officer’s inaccurate method of calculating the client’s speed. The client faced no jail time and was charged with a regular DUI.

People v. M.T. Client was facing his fourth DUI offense, a felony charge, involving an accident with a BAC level of .20%. The client received 180 days in local jail only, no prison time, DUI programs, or fines were handed down.

People v. D.C. Client was facing 10 years in prison for a felony DUI with great bodily injury. Attorneys Ross and Naidu referring to the medical reports successfully showed that the victim did not in fact suffer great bodily injury and only suffered minor injuries. The client was released after serving 4 months in local jail, and informal probation.

People v. K.S. Client was charged with 2nd offense of driving on a suspended license and DUI, including probation violations for hit and run, as well as theft of property under $950. Facing a sentence of 90-180 days due to substance abuse, the client only served 90 days of residential rehab, and informal probation.

People v. N.P. Charged with a second DUI offense while serving probation for a previous DUI, the client faced a maximum of 180 days in jail, and a mandatory 2 year license suspension for refusing a chemical test. Attorney Naidu was able to suppress the blood alcohol evidence after showing the officer forced the client’s blood to be drawn without a warrant, which violated McNeely v. Missouri, a Supreme Court case. The client’s case was dismissed.

People v. A.R. Client was facing a third DUI charge with a BAC level above .20%, with his two prior DUIs in another stare. Attorney Naidu was successful in proving that the prior two DUI charges were inadmissible in California. The client was charged with a first offense DUI with informal probation.

People v. A.B. Client was charged with a first offense DUI involving marijuana, as well as driving on an invalid license. Client was driving on a Brazilian driver’s license while visiting the US. The officer stated the Brazilian license was not legal to drive with in the US, but attorney Naidu was able to establish that the client was not under the influence of marijuana and that the Brazilian driver’s license was a valid license allowing the client to drive in the US. The case was dismissed.

People v. A.N. Client was facing DUI involving accident that resulted in 2 people going to the hospital. During a span of 2 months, the firm and our private investigator K.T., along with the D.A. sent the case to the City Attorney. We received a notify letter stating that the case was going to be charged as a misdemeanor. The client had a BAC level over .15% and only received a fine and alcohol classes. No SCRAM, No CPAC, No Public work and No ignition interlock device had to be installed in the client’s vehicle.

People v. M.Z. Client faced charges of VC23513(a)(b); felony DUI fourth offense within 10 years while serving a summary probation from a previous DUI. The client was facing an offer of 18 months in jail at the first readiness conference. However, through aggressive negotiations, our firm was able to successfully negotiate a deal where the client served no jail time and ran the probation violation concurrent.

People v. D.S. Client was facing a first offense DUI involving a collision with a BAC level of .18% Client received no jail time, no ignition interlock device, no public work service, and no lengthy DUI classes.

People v. E.L. Client was facing a second DUI offense involving an accident while on probation for a prior DUI. The state filed a probation violation. Attorney Naidu was able to prevent the DMV license suspension. Additionally, after the DMV hearing, we were able to negotiate the charges from a DUI to a wet reckless and had the terms and conditions of the client’s probation reinstated.

People v. C.C. Client was charged for DUI involving a serious accident and injury to the passenger. The victim went to a rehab center and a full investigation of the accident was conducted. The client was facing several years in a state prison because she had a previous felony strike on her record. The client immediately participated in a 12-week in-patient treatment program, and upon completion began an outpatient treatment program, along with AA classes. Attorney Ross, over a period of several months reviewed the case with the help of our private investigator and negotiated the client’s prison time with the judge. The judge approved CPAC (ankle bracelet) for a period of 180 days and the client received early credit that will allow the device to be removed after 90 days.

People v. B.C. A first offense charge with a BAC level of .202%. The client received no jail time, No SCRAM, No CPAC, No ignition interlock device installation was required, No public work service. Only a participation of an 18-month alcohol program and paying fines.

People v. J.J. Client’s third DUI offense with one DUI within the last 3 years, and had a BAC level of over .15%. We successfully prohibited the DA from raising the bail at the arraignment hearing. Client served no jail time, and was subjected to CPAC, fine and classes. Client kept job, and did not miss any time off of work.

People v. B.R. Client faced DUI with great bodily injury, as well as child endangerment charges (2 children under 14 in the vehicle), with a high BAC level. Successfully settled case for a sentence of 180 days of electronic monitoring after facing 3 years in state prison.

People v. D.T. Client was charged with seventh lifetime DUI offense with a prior felony DUI, which the client served prison time for. The case was resolved with an offer of probation.

People v. C.S. Client faced DUI offense involving injury, with a high BAC. Case successfully reduced from felony to misdemeanor. No custody or ignition interlock device.

People v. B.G. A high BAC DUI from an out of state client involving collision. Client received 20 days public work that was converted to 160 volunteer hours at any non-profit.

People v. V.B. Client was charged with DUI involving alcohol and prescription drugs. DMV sought to hand down a lifetime driver’s license suspension to client. License was successfully reinstated.

People v. R.P. Client arrested for DUI after drinking in his vehicle on his own driveway. Case was dismissed and client’s license was reinstated.

People v. D.T. DUI causing accident where a high BAC was involved, as well as a hit and run. Client caused accident with a vehicle driven by a pregnant woman and fled the scene. Client had a BAC level of .15% and received no custody or ignition interlock device.

People v. J.W. Defendant was stopped by a park ranger for having too bright of lights when driving a four-wheel drive vehicle at night in the desert. Client had a BAC of .18% but the case was dismissed when we successfully argued that the traffic stop was unlawful with a suppression motion.

People v. A.L. Client was stopped by harbor police for not attaching a light to his 14’ dinghy. The case was dismissed at trial on a defense motion, even when it involved a BAC level of .10%.

People v. R.K. Client was pulled over by a law enforcement officer after leaving a bar at closing time. The officer justified the stop because the client’s headlights were not on. With the help of a factory expert who testified that the headlights of the vehicle are on at all times and are incapable of being turned off by the driver, the court determined the officer was lying. The case was dismissed.

People v. J.P. Client was sentenced to 120 days of custody that could be satisfied by house arrest. During this time, the client violated the conditions of the electric monitoring 6 times. After various court appearances and meetings with the judge, the judge agreed to keep the same sentence. Client escaped all probation violations and client will only serve 60 days of house arrest.

People v. V.C. Client was charged with second offense DUI while driving at 105 mph. DA was looking for a sentence of 180 days of actual custody. After numerous discussions with the judge and a few hours of advocating in court, the judge offered a sentence of 135 days of custody that could be served through electronic monitoring.

People v. S.T. Client charged with a DUI involving a high BAC. The client was sentenced to probation and alcohol program classes. No ignition interlock device, no custody, no SCRAM and/ or electronic monitoring device, and was not classified as a traffic hazard.

People v. B.R. Client was convicted of a second offense DUI and faced a warrant for a probation violation over a year old. The client escaped all punishment for probation violation and it was as if the warrant never existed.

People v. E.S. Client faced probation violation for a warrant over 2 months old. The client faced no punishment for this violation and was treated as if the warrant and violation never occurred.

People v. L.W. Client was a juvenile facing a DUI charge. The client’s age and immigrant status meant that if this case was lost, his immigrant status, schooling, driver’s insurance, and driving privileges at risk. The case was dismissed entirely.

People v. R.C. Client pled guilty to a DUI where his sentence did not require an ignition interlock device, custody, SCRAM, or special designations. The client was only sentenced to a 3-month alcohol class and attendance of a MADD panel. The client was then arrested for a bar fight, where the fight charges were dismissed and the DUI probation was not violated. The bar fight arrest was treated as if it had never occurred.

People v. J.V. Client was facing a warrant over a year old. Case involved an out of state client who faced grave consequences, both at current place of employment and future employment. The case was treated as if the probation violation never occurred.

People v. R.W. Client was charged with a DUI involving a car being flipped, knocking down a tree, and had many witnesses. The client was a UCSD student that would lose immigrant status if convicted for the DUI. After several months of negotiations, the client was offered a deal to plead to a wet reckless. The probation included no custody, ignition interlock device, SCRAM, special designation, and will last only 3 years. The client kept his status and did not receive any punishment from UCSD either.

People v. C.H. Client was facing a second offense DUI. Additionally, the client worked for the DOD and required a security clearance. After several months of negotiating, the client received an offer to plead to a regular DUI, and avoided the high BAC allegation. Also, the client avoided mandatory custody that is standard for a second offense DUI, as well as any designation. The client kept his clearance, job, and was only required to complete alcohol classes.

People v. J.P. Client was facing a fourth DUI. We challenged DUI convictions from out of state as inapplicable in California. The charge was reduced to a second offense DUI where the client was offered of 180 custody days in jail. Successfully negotiated that time to 120 days that can be served with an ankle bracelet with good time credit. Client only served 60 days with the ankle bracelet and avoided being designated as a habitual traffic offender, as well as the minimum 4-year driver’s license suspension.

People v. J.L. DUI involved a car collision and a totaled car where the sentence did not include custody, ignition interlock device, or public work service. Client’s probationary period went from 5 to 3 years.

People v. R.W. DUI involving a BAC twice the legal limit where the prosecutor insisted on an IID being installed because of the high BAC level. Client offered a deal that did not require IID, custody, or any additional military consequences that could have occurred.

People v. R.C. Client had pled to a DUI recently and was subsequently arrested for a bar fight. Client faced new charges in addition to a violation of his probation for his DUI offense. The case was dismissed and was not penalized for a violation of his probation. Client kept his restricted license and did not face any punishments for the bar fight offense.

People v. L.S. Client was facing felony domestic violence charges but the case was dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Client then faced a restraining order, where we gathered evidence through investigation and that evidence led to a dismissal of the civil and criminal cases.

People v. C.G. DUI where the client’s BAC level was over .20% and the prosecutor was seeking to impose a 10-day jail sentence to teach the client a lesson. Successfully negotiated a deal for client where no custody, IID, or ankle bracelet was required. The client was only required to perform public work service and was treated as if her BAC level was that of a standard DUI.

People v. B.P. DUI where the client’s BAC was .10% and multiple passengers were in the vehicle. Case was negotiated from a DUI to a wet reckless and required no custody, IID, public work service, or ankle bracelet.

People v. R.G. Client faced DUI causing injury charge where the prosecutor wanted at least 30-day jail sentence be served by the client. Deal was made that included credit for time served that resulted in client being released the same day and no IID, ankle bracelet, or home detention was required.

People v. L.W. Minor facing DUI and underage zero tolerance law charges. We successfully obtained a diversion plea that required the client to complete 3 classes and write an apology letter in order to avoid a conviction. Client avoided custody, IID, public work service, classes, and retained eligibility for an out of state restricted license.

People v. T.J. Client arrested for a second offense DUI and both DUIs involved a high BAC level. The prior DUI incident was dismissed and the client pled to a first offense DUI. Client avoided required custody for second offense DUI, IID, and ankle bracelet.

People v. J.H. Client was a foreign student facing a DUI involving collision and a car being totaled. Client was required to do 40 hours of alcohol counseling in China, but avoided custody, IID, public work service, and DUI classes in the US.

People v. A.O. Client arrested for a felony DUI involving an accident with possible GBI. Client had 2 strikes and hired our firm immediately after being released from custody. We used our private investigator to conduct an accident scene investigation and interview possible victims. The client’s felony case was rejected by the DA’s office and has been passed to the City’s Attorney’s office to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor.

People v. V.T. A first offense DUI was filed as a felony DUI because it included an accident resulting in injury. Victim was unable to work due to the injury suffered. Our private investigator was able to conduct surveillance and determine that the injury claim had been falsified. The case was conditionally rejected from the DA’s office.

People v. A.Z. Client had BAC of .197% and was charged with a first offense DUI that involved an accident. Client had passed out and collided with 2 cars. We successfully had charges reduced to a misdemeanor and the client faced no jail time, IID, public work service, SCRAM, CPAC. Only had to attend classes and pay a fine.

M.R. Charged with DUI and driving on a suspended license. Case dismissed after a speedy trial motion was filed and granted.

K.C. Client pled to misdemeanor, serving only probation and custody not required after being charged with 2 felonies.

R.W. Client faced DUI charge involving a totaled/ flipped car. Client pled to wet reckless, no custody or public work service was required.

L.W. Client completed diversion program after being charged with DUI. Attended 3 classes in order for case to be dismissed.

T.J. Client faced second offense DUI charge with a high BAC. Pled to a regular DUI and was not required to install ignition interlock device, or subjected to custody.

B.P. Client charged with DUI with a BAC of .10%. Pled to a wet reckless and was not subject to custody, ignition interlock device, or public work service.

R.C. Client charged with DUI and involved refusal and resisting arrest. Pled to DUI, refusal allegation was stricken and was not subjected to custody.

R.G. Client charged with felony DUI with accident and bail was set at $100,000. Charges were reduced to misdemeanor, and credit was awarded for time served. Client was released after 5 days and served no additional time.

T.L. Misdemeanor DUI with a child endangerment charge. Client served no jail time, and charges were reduced to a wet reckless.

J.A. Client facing a second offense DUI and the prosecutor was pushing for custody as a sentence condition. No jail time was served.

A.J.J. Client faced third DUI offense that involved a minor accident and a BAC level of .183%. Client served no jail time, and only received CPAC, public work service, and other charges were dismissed.

E.W. Charged with a DUI involving accident while BAC level was .166%. Successfully negotiated charged down to a first offense DUI. Client served no jail time, IID, public work service, or SCRAM. Only had to pay fine and attend classes.

A.B. Charged with DUI involving property damage and a BAC level of .211%. Client served no jail time, IID, SCRAM, or public work service. Only had to pay fine and attend classes.

B.P. Charged with DUI and a BAC of .121% Case was reduced to a wet reckless.

J.L. Charged with DUI involving accident with a BAC of .11%. Client served no jail time, public work service, IID, or SCRAM. Client was only subjected to 3 years probation.

J.H. Charged with a DUI and driving without a valid license. Client served no jail time, IID, SCRAM, multiple conviction program, or work release. Client only had to pay fine and attend classes.

People v. B.R. Client was charged with DUI that involved great bodily injury and child endangerment while having a high BAC level. Was initially offered 3 years in a state prison but only served 180 days of electronic monitoring.

People v. D.T. Client facing seventh lifetime DUI and was offered only probation.

People v. C.S. Client was charged with DUI involving injury with a high BAC. Case was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor and client served no custody or IID.

People v. B.G. Client was charged with a DUI involving collision while having a high BAC. Client was out of state and subjected to 20 days public service but converted it to 160 hours of volunteering at a non-profit.

People v. V.B. Client was charged with DUI of alcohol and medication. DMV argued for a lifetime driver’s license suspension but we negotiated to have license reinstated.

People v. R.P. Defendant arrested for DUI in own driveway. Case was dismissed.

People v. D.T. DUI causing accident resulting in injury while having a high BAC level, and hit and run. Not subjected to custody and no ignition interlock device.

People v. J.W. Client stopped by park ranger in desert for driving vehicle with too bright of lights. Client had BAC of .18% but we proved that the stop was unlawful and case was dismissed.

People v. A.L. Client was stopped by police after not having a light in front of boat. Even with a BAC of .10, we had case dismissed after filing a defense motion at trial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Diego DUI Attorney Featured on NBC

Los Angeles DUI Attorney on NBC

Featured on NBC

Click to Watch

Get Expert
Help Now