Phoenix Criminal Lawyer Lavy Law Home
Fighting to Keep Families Together
Serving Clients Throughout Arizona, California, and New York
Start Your Case Today!Recent Cases
Criminal Court Trials
- Assault and Battery
- Child Endangerment
- Domestic Violence – Assault or Battery
- Driving While Intoxicated (“DUI” and “DWI”)
- Drugs
- Theft (Larceny, Grand Larceny, Auto-Theft…)
Assault and Battery Child Endangerment Domestic Violence – Assault or Battery Driving While Intoxicated (“DUI” and “DWI”)Drugs Theft (Larceny, Grand Larceny, Auto-Theft…)
People v. Griffin
Date: 02/22/2016
Outcome: Not Guilty on all counts
Description: Mr. Griffin was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, two counts of second-degree assault, and related charges. He was alleged to have sold cocaine to another suspect, and in the course of evading arrest, assaulting two police officers. Defense counsel argued that the Mr. Griffin was actually the victim of police brutality and the charges were part of a cover up. The jury agreed with Ms. Lavy’s version of the events, finding Mr. Griffin not guilty on all counts.
People v. Mejia
Date: 12/30/13
Outcome: Immigration safe plea
Description: Mr. Mejia was charged with two felony counts of aggravated assault and had an ICE hold placed upon him. He was alleged to have stabbed his brother and a roommate with a knife. Defense brought a successful 17B motion to reduce the felony charges to misdemeanors based on Mr. Mejia’s immigrant status, among other factors. Due to the strong case presented at the preliminary hearing, the People offered Mr. Mejia an immigration safe plea to misdemeanor battery, with probation and credit for time served. Mr. Mejia’s ICE hold was released and he was able to return home to his family.
People v. Xie
Date: 9/22/2011
Outcome: Guilty (*Mrs. Lavy was the prosecutor)
Description: Mrs. Xie was charged with child endangerment. The People, represented by Lavy Law, alleged that she hit her daughter on the arm as punishment for not playing the piano well. Mrs. Xie testified in her own defense that she was merely play biting, challenging one of the elements of the offense by showing that she did not have the intent to inflict unjustifiable physical pain on her daughter.
People v. Velazquez
Date: 8/08/2011
Outcome: Immigration safe plea
Description: Mr. Velazquez was charged with two different counts domestic against his spouse. On the day of trial, Mr. Velazquez won a plea agreement in his favor that reduced the charges to battery and prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement from removing him from the United States to Mexico. This plea agreement allowed Mr. Velazquez to remain with his family and seek treatment.
People v. Fung
Date: 09/04/2014
Outcome: No disciplinary action, including no probation, and professional license restored
Description: The California Board of Pharmacy served Mr. Fung with a notice to revoke his license due to a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and unprofessional conduct. He admittedly slapped his wife twice in the face and pushed her abdomen after catching her in the act of an affair in their home. After a bench trial, the Court agreed with Ms. Lavy, ordering Mr. Fung license to be restored.
People v. Diaz
Date: 11/10/2011
Outcome: Guilty (*Ms. Lavy was the prosecutor)
Description: Mr. Diaz was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. His blood alcohol level was .20%. The defense used the No Driving Defense- alleging that Mr. Diaz was not actually driving, but rather attempting to back out from the collision caused by his girlfriend. The prosecution, represented by Mrs. Lavy, alleged that Mr. Diaz was in fact driving when he collided into a traffic light’s electrical control box from the parking lot. The jury agreed with Mrs. Lavy, finding in favor of the People.
People v. Utterback
Date: 3/07/2011
Outcome: Guilty (*Mrs. Lavy was the prosecutor)
Description: Mr. Utterback was charged with driving under the influence of drugs. The toxicologist report showed that there was the presence of Carisprodol (Soma), Mebrobamate, and Phenobarbital. Defense counsel tried to challenge the officer’s competence to conduct the investigation as he was not a drug recognition expert (“DRE”), which is the standard practice for a drug DUI. Nonetheless, the People, led by Mrs. Lavy, turned the defense witness into their own witness by showing that he followed the same protocol and come to the same conclusion as a DRE.
People v. Ortiz
Date: 2/15/2011
Outcome: Guilty (*Mrs. Lavy was the prosecutor)
Description: Ms. Ortiz was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Her blood alcohol level was .12/ .11%. Defense counsel alleged that Ms. Ortiz was not under the influence as she was stopped for faulty brake light, showed no objective signs of intoxication, and performed well on the field sobriety tests. In addition, the jury was instructed that the investigating officer did not follow Title 17 and wait the requisite 15 minutes in between breath samples for the chemical test. This case almost resulted in a mistrial as there was a disruptive juror and the court had to conduct an extensive inquiry into the juror’s alleged misconduct. The jury agreed with Mrs. Lavy, finding in favor of the People.
People v. Barrera
Date: 02/08/2011
Outcome: Guilty (*Mrs. Lavy was the prosecutor)
Description: Mr. Barrera was charged for driving under the influence of alcohol. His blood alcohol level was .12%. Mr. Barrera did not have a strong defense in this case, he just wanted to get his day in court. The jury agreed with Mrs. Lavy, finding in favor of the People.
People v. Koeut
Date: 01/18/2011
Outcome: Guilty (*Mrs. Lavy was the prosecutor)
Description: Mr. Koeut was charged for driving under influence of alcohol. He had a blood alcohol level of .17 %. Mr. Koeut’s defense in this case was called Necessity, which means that he acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to himself. He argued that he had no choice but to drive under the influence because he was at a party where there was a shooting. Despite evidence of this defense being admitted, the jury agreed with Mrs. Lavy, find in favor of the People.
People v. Capasso
Date: 10/15/2010
Outcome: Not Guilty (*Mrs. Lavy was the prosecutor)
Description: Mr. Capasso was charged with grand theft and giving false information to a peace officer. He was alleged to have stolen $35 in marked city funds from a decoy officer. Mr. Capasso succeeded with his two defenses in this case: (1) Entrapment, which means that the police officer’s actions caused Mr. Capasso to commit the crime; and (2) Voluntary Intoxication, which means that Mr. Capasso was so drunk that he did not specifically intend to steal the money.
People v. Cyprien
Date: 10/11/2010
Outcome: Guilty (*Mrs. Lavy was the prosecutor)
Description: Mr. Cyprien was charged with grand theft. He was alleged to have stolen $35 in marked city funds from a decoy officer. The defense in this case appealed to the jury’s emotion by depicting a homeless man, as a helpless victim of SFPD’s undercover robbery abatement operation. Nevertheless, the jury agreed with Mrs. Lavy, find in favor of the People.
People v. Griffin
Date: 02/22/2016
Outcome: Not Guilty on all counts
Description: Mr. Griffin was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, two counts of second-degree assault, and related charges. He was alleged to have sold cocaine to another suspect, and in the course of evading arrest, assaulting two police officers. Defense counsel argued that the Mr. Griffin was actually the victim of police brutality and the charges were part of a cover up. The jury agreed with Ms. Lavy’s version of the events, finding Mr. Griffin not guilty on all counts.
People v. Love
Date: 03/06/2015
Outcome: Bail reduced
Description: Ms. Love was placed in custody based upon an arrest warrant in the amount of $200K. After an extensive investigation, she was charged with five felony counts of embezzlement, identity theft, theft by false pretenses, and forgery. The People alleged that she misrepresented to her former employer being a cancer patient in order to obtain advance payroll, and forged checks in his name. It was further alleged by her former business partner that she had opened up and used credit cards without her partner’s permission. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Court agreed to significantly reduce the amount of bail and accept Ms. Love’s bail as coming from a legitimate source.
People v. Fulco
Date: 1/29/2013
Outcome: Dismissed
Description: Mrs. Fulco was charged with felony auto-theft and receiving stolen property. The prosecution alleged that she and a co-defendant stole the complaining witness’ vehicle after leaving a casino and sold it the next day. The defense, represented by Mrs. Lavy, brought a successful motion to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor based on numerous mitigating factors. The defense alleged that the co-defendant, who had a criminal history, was the guilty one and not Ms. Fulco. The People agreed with Mrs. Lavy by dismissing the complaint in the interest of justice.
People v. Camachovargas
Date: 10/11/2011
Outcome: Not Guilty
Description: Ms. Camachovargas was charged with auto-theft. The prosecutor alleged that the accused stole her ex-boyfriend’s car by forcefully driving it away from his house and forging the title documents. Ms. Camachovargas succeeded in her defense called Claim of Right, which means the jury found she had a right to the property, even if that belief was mistaken or unreasonable.
