Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

Ali Achekzai, a 33 year-old Afghan national who once lived in Orange County, was convicted in an Orange County court on December 15, 2011 of sexually assaulting three Southern California women. The assaults occurred in Orange and San Diego Counties in 2002 and 2004. The media has described Achkezai as an "international serial rapist" because he has faced accusations and criminal charges abroad and has allegedly lived in multiple countries in Europe. His case combines serious accusations with salacious media coverage.

Prosecutors charged Achekzai with multiple felony counts such as forcible rape, aggravated assault, and assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense. The first case occurred in Laguna Beach in October 2002, when Achekzai reportedly sexually assaulted a woman in a limousine while she slept. In January 2004, Achekzai reportedly met a woman at a Laguna Beach nightclub and later followed her from the club in his car. He convinced her to pull over in a fast food restaurant parking lot and then raped her in her own vehicle, as indicated by DNA evidence in the car. The last case for which he was prosecuted occurred in May 2004 in San Diego, when he raped a woman while hiking at Mount Soledad. DNA evidence from each case linked Achekzai to the assaults.

Prosecutors accused Achekzai of fleeing to Canada before he could be charged for any of the attacks. He spent years on the Orange County District Attorney's "Most Wanted" list. During this time, authorities believe he lived in England, Germany, and Austria. He also reportedly changed his name multiple times. In 2009, while he was living in Salzburg, Austrian authorities arrested him for another alleged rape. That case was later dismissed and Achekzai was released from custody. When California law enforcement learned of the arrest in Austria, they submitted DNA samples from the 2004 cases to Interpol. Interpol matched it to DNA evidence taken in Austria. Austrian authorities arrested Achekzai again on January 26, 2010 in Neukirchen am Grossvenediger, and he was extradited to California that August.

Achekzai's trial began on December 8, 2011 in Orange County Superior Court. Prosecutors had the burden of proving all elements of the alleged crimes, including Achekzai's intent to commit sexual assault and the lack of consent of the victims. Achekzai argued that the encounters were consensual, but all three of Achkezai's alleged victims, who had reportedly never met one another, testified as to his conduct. The district attorney called their descriptions of Achkezai's conduct in all three cases "eerily similar" to each other. Additional witnesses offered testimony about violence used in the incidents, including evidence that he knocked out the victim's front tooth in the Mount Soledad case. The jury deliberated for less than three hours before returning a guilty verdict.

Continue reading "Alleged "International Serial Rapist" Convicted in Orange County" »

Yadira Torres, a 26 year-old resident of Hartford, Connecticut, will serve at least five years in prison under an agreement to plead guilty to driving while intoxicated and vehicular manslaughter in state Superior Court in Stamford. A judge will decide the exact length of her sentencing at a hearing scheduled for February 22. The case involves an accident in May 2011 that killed a truck driver and a pregnant teenager.

Early in the morning of May 7, Torres was driving a Dodge Caliber SUV home from a night out at a nightclub in Manhattan. As she was going north on Interstate 95 in Darien, Connecticut, Torres lost control of her vehicle while attempting to pass a tractor trailer. Her vehicle collided with the tractor trailer with enough force to cause it to turn over and spin, becoming separated from its trailer. The truck caught fire when it came to rest.

Passers-by managed to remove the truck's passenger, 18 year-old Kimberly Taborda. Rescue workers pronounced the truck's driver, 42 year-old James Sorto, dead at the scene. His burns were extensive enough that the medical examiner needed several days to identify his remains. Taborda died of blunt trauma injuries later at a nearby hospital. Police arrested Torres at a different hospital, where she and her three passengers were taken for minor injuries.

Torres was remorseful over the accident and admitted to full responsibility, according to the public defender who represented her. She is free on $35,000 bail pending her sentencing, and her attorney says that she has not driven a car since the accident occurred. She reportedly had minimal automobile insurance coverage, so the families of the victims have opted not to file civil claims against Torres for wrongful death. An attorney for Taborda's family, however, told the Stamford Advocate that the family is considering a dram shop lawsuit against the Manhattan nightclub that allegedly served Torres alcohol that day. Dram shop cases involve claims against people or businesses that serve alcohol, if they serve a visibly intoxicated person and that person goes on to cause injury to another person.

Prosecutors charged Torres with driving under the influence, reckless driving, and two counts of manslaughter. Her plea, entered in court on November 22, includes all four charges. At her sentencing hearing in February, her attorney and the prosecutor will each present arguments to the judge regarding an appropriate sentence. She will serve a minimum of five years, but could serve as many as eight years in state prison.

Continue reading "Driver Pleads Guilty to DWI, Vehicular Manslaughter" »

Luis Rosales Rivera lived in a converted garage with Miguel Delacruz and another roommate in Stanton, California. According to Rivera's indictment and conviction, on the night of March 26, 2008, Rivera came home after a night out with friends to find both roommates asleep. He then killed Delacruz as he slept by hitting him multiple times with a four-pound sledgehammer and fled the scene. The other roommate woke up, found Delacruz's body, and told the homeowner, who was in the main house at the time. Delacruz's body was discovered after midnight in an alley, where the homeowner had apparently dragged it. The homeowner was not charged with any crime. Rivera reportedly spent the rest of the night drinking and dancing at a nightclub.

Rivera was arrested and charged with murder. He reportedly told police that he would commit the alleged crime again if he had a chance. At his trial, his attorney did not deny the prosecution's allegations that Rivera attacked Delacruz with the sledgehammer. He characterized Delacruz as a tyrant who subjected Rivera to humiliation and control. Rivera's attorney alleged that Delacruz had tried to stab Rivera at least once, urinated on him, insulted and belittled him and insulted him and his family. He also alleged that Delacruz controlled most aspects of life in the apartment, including forcing Rivera to clean the bathroom and restricting when he could watch the television. Rivera's lawyer claimed that Delacruz woke prior to the attack, and that Rivera killed him because he was afraid of him.

A jury in Orange County convicted Rivera of a single felony count of murder on October 12, 2011. The conviction included an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. On December 9, a judge considered a statement from the victim's niece, and then sentenced Rivera to twenty-six years imprisonment. Orange County Superior Court Judge Steven Bromberg described Rivera's crime as "incredibly dangerous" and stated that, if released, he would pose a danger to the public.

At the sentencing hearing, Delacruz's niece, Rebecca Rodriguez, testified that Delacruz was well-regarded in the neighborhood. She stated that he had the nickname "Tio," the Spanish word for "uncle," among neighbors. Rivera and Delacruz both came from Ahuisculco, a small town in the Mexican state of Jalisco. Rodriguez said that Delacruz invited Rivera to live with him. The two lived together with the third roommate for about a year before the murder.

Continue reading "Orange County Man Convicted in Sledgehammer Killing" »

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that they will not file felony charges against Elizabeth Macias, who made headlines the day after Thanksgiving for allegedly pepper-spraying fellow shoppers at a Wal-Mart in Porter Ranch. The case gained worldwide attention when video of the incident appeared on the news and online. The DA's office has referred the matter to city prosecutors, who may decide to bring misdemeanor charges against her.

The alleged pepper spray attack occurred as part of the chaos of what is commonly called "Black Friday," the day after Thanksgiving and widely considered the biggest shopping day of the year. Retailers offer a variety of sales, and shoppers often line up in the middle of the night so as not to miss out on deals. This year saw a number of outbreaks of violence, but the case in Porter Ranch got a particularly large amount of attention. On Thanksgiving night, Macias allegedly used pepper spray on a crowd of people who were attempting to get half-price Xbox 360 video games. At least fourteen people were directly sprayed or came into direct contact with the substance, while another ten people suffered symptoms of exposure. Symptoms include sore throats and eye irritation, while direct contact can cause intense pain. No serious injuries were reported, but at least twenty people reported irritation to the nose and throat.

Macias turned herself in the day after the incident. Police did not take her into custody. She refused to answer any questions about her involvement. She later threatened to sue Wal-Mart for failing to provide adequate security on Thanksgiving, characterizing her actions as self-defense. She was in the store with her two teenage children. She claims that shoppers attacked her children while they were attempting to get Xbox video game consoles, punching and kicking both of them.

Police reportedly interviewed at least a dozen witnesses, getting an overall account of people screaming, getting shoved into shelves and displays, and pushing and pulling at each other. In this environment, people then encountered pepper spray, resulting in what police called "total pandemonium." Police had originally described Macias as a "competitive shopper" who used the pepper spray to keep shoppers away from merchandise she had claimed. Eyewitness accounts and other evidence led them to revise their characterization of Macias. The resulting uncertainty likely played a role in the district attorney's decision not to file felony charges.

Continue reading "Los Angeles District Attorney Declines to Prosecute Wal-Mart Pepper-Sprayer" »

The owner of a flight school in La Verne faces charges of visa fraud for an alleged scheme to falsify immigration documents and offer flight classes to foreign nationals without proper authorization from the government. Karena Chuang, the owner of Blue Diamond Aviation, which is now closed, allegedly enrolled students in her school using fraudulently-obtained visas. She also allegedly failed to obtain authorization for her school to train foreigners. Officials quoted by the media have played up the possibility of ties to terrorism among immigrants in general, while noting that no evidence connects any of Chuang's students to terrorism in any way. This just demonstrates how inflammatory topics, in this case terrorism, can inflate or enhance a criminal charge outside of the legal system itself.

According to authorities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that investigates and prosecutes alleged violations of immigration laws, Chuang helped prospective students from Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Egypt obtain permission to attend flight schools in the U.S. by posing as their cousin. She would help them get an authorization document from authorized flight schools, which had passed a government screening program. The students could use that document to obtain a visa based on their intent to attend an authorized flight school, and would then enroll in Chuang's school instead.

Under federal law, visa fraud is formally known as "fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents." It includes making false statements to immigration officials and posing as any other person in order to obtain immigration benefits. An offense can carry a prison term of ten to fifteen years, and the statute allows enhancements if the purpose of the fraud was to facilitate terrorism or drug trafficking.

The terrorism angle complicates Chuang's case. Flight schools must obtain government approval and follow various screening procedures for students in order to offer training to foreigners. By failing to follow these procedures, the government alleges, Chuang endangered national security. The ICE special agent in charge in Los Angeles stated that by not screening student through the official procedure, she lacked "the ability to know whether or not they have terrorist ties, which is why the whole procedure exists."

The agent acknowledged that they have no evidence of any ties to known terrorists among her students, but they also noted that at least two of her Egyptian students signaled an intent to go on to train on larger airplanes. Experts on anti-terrorism have cast doubt on the ability of a small airplane to do any major damage in an attack, and have noted that training on a small plane does not translate well to a large commercial jetliner.

Continue reading "California Flight School Owner Arrested for Alleged Fraud with a "War on Terror" Twist" »

Takoma Park, Maryland, in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, has used automated traffic cameras to enforce speed limits for several years. Fines collected from citations issued based on the cameras have become a substantial source of revenue for the town. California has also begun to use traffic cameras across the state to enforce speed limits and catch drivers who run red lights. While the system may offer a certain efficiency and reduce the expense of putting police in the field, it raises significant concerns about the due process rights of car owners who receive tickets through this technology.

A state law passed in 2009 in Maryland provided guidelines for cities and towns using traffic cameras. After several years of declining revenues, Takoma Park has seen an increase as a result of the cameras. From July 2009 to June 2010, the city reportedly received $1.28 million in net revenue from camera-based traffic fines. That number decreased to just under $900,000 the following year, but has remained a consistent money-maker. It recently added a sixth camera.

One of the city's cameras caught enough alleged violations to cause the city to issue 2,889 citations between October 1 and November 22 of this year. One police officer is assigned to review images captured by the cameras. Of the 2,889 images captured in that period, the officer rejected 192 of them. Each citation represents a $40 fine to the driver.

Individual fines for traffic violations allegedly captured by traffic cameras are small compared to more serious criminal penalties. Alleged traffic violations can have broader consequences, however. Aside from a relatively small fine, traffic violations can affect auto insurance premiums and even eligibility for insurance. Certain professions may require a clean driving records. A false accusation of a traffic violation based on a digital image captured remotely can have significant potential impact.

A core right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in a criminal matter is the right of a defendant to confront his or her accuser. This right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment. The use of traffic cameras, and the act of basing citations on videos or still images captured remotely, eliminates much of a defendant's ability to challenge the state's account of the alleged crime. Ordinarily, if challenged, a police officer would have to explain the justification for a traffic stop, and a defendant would have an opportunity not only to cross-examine the officer but to evaluate the functionality of the radar gun and other technology used in the traffic stop. Now a defendant may not even know of the citation until days or weeks later.

Continue reading "Traffic Cameras Raise Revenues for Cities and Due Process Concerns for Drivers" »

A Fullerton woman, Lydia Delrio Montelongo, pleaded guilty to one count of medical insurance fraud on December 8, 2011. She was accused of fraudulently collecting more than $118,000 in public assistance. The court imposed a sentencing enhancement, since the offense involved white collar crime in an amount greater than $100,000. She must serve nine months in prison and pay back the $118,000 as restitution. She will also serve five years' probation, during which time the court will stay an additional six-year prison sentence. She will not have to serve that additional sentence if she successfully completes probation.

According to the Orange County district attorney's office, Montelongo collected public assistance by claiming that she was divorced from her husband, and that she did not receive any financial assistance from him. She further claimed that she did not know her husband's whereabouts. In reality, she was still married and living with her husband. She was not employed while receiving public benefits, but she was receiving support from her husband and had coverage under his health insurance. Her husband, an officer with the Los Angeles Airport Police Department, apparently did not have any knowledge of the scheme.

The district attorney presented evidence that Montelongo fraudulently collected three separate forms of public assistance. She first applied for and received social security benefits in December 2004 with a fraudulent application. In June 2005, she began illegally receiving Medi-Cal benefits. In June 2008, she began receiving benefits from In-Home Support Services, part of the Orange County Social Services Agency. The district attorney alleged that she did not qualify for any of these benefits. An anonymous tip to law enforcement led to the discovery of her scheme.

California's Insurance Code, Penal Code, and Welfare and Institutions Code contain provisions for the investigation and prosecution of alleged insurance or welfare fraud. Any false statement made for the purpose of obtaining benefits may be prosecuted if the statement was material to the application for benefits. This case further involves fraud on the public, since all of the benefits obtained came from public sources funded by the taxpayers. The law generally defines "welfare fraud" in part as deliberate misstatement or omission of relevant information in order to obtain benefits for which one would otherwise be ineligible. Statewide hotlines set up to allow reporting of suspected welfare fraud trigger investigations by police and district attorneys' offices, many of which have full-time welfare fraud investigators.

Continue reading "Orange County Woman Pleads Guilty to Public Assistance Fraud" »

A 55 year-old Orange County man recently received his thirteenth conviction for driving under the influence, sparking a debate about how California treats multiple convictions spread out over time. Police arrested Dennis Malavasi after they found him in the driver's seat of a pickup truck with the engine running, sitting with a half-empty malt liquor bottle, as reported by the Orange County Register. According to police records, his blood alcohol content that night was 0.24, which is three times the legal driving limit. Police and prosecutors were shocked to find that he had twelve prior convictions for DUI. Malavasi claimed pain from a back injury led to his drinking.

A jury found Malavasi guilty of felony driving under the influence, and the judge sentenced him to six years imprisonment. The judge suspended Malavasi's sentence to give him an opportunity to check into a treatment program. Malavasi did check in, but then checked out early, citing back pain. His whereabouts, according to the Register, are currently unknown, and the judge has issued a warrant for his arrest.

Prior to his thirteenth conviction, Malavasi's last DUI conviction occurred in 2001, almost ten years earlier. Under a California law that only allows ten years' of criminal history to be considered in sentencing, the court almost had to charge him with a misdemeanor. He missed the ten-year cutoff by barely one year, so he was charged with a felony because of the number of prior convictions. Had he met the ten-year cutoff, the state could only have charged him with a misdemeanor, with a maximum jail sentence of one year. This law creating the ten-year cutoff date has come under scrutiny by lawmakers, who hope to prevent additional habitual DUI defendants from getting lesser sentences, or who at least see an opportunity to appear tough on crime.

The purpose of the ten-year law was to allow DUI offenders an opportunity to "change their ways." A person who got a DUI in their youth and again in middle age presumably poses less of a risk to public safety than someone who habitually drinks and drives. California law imposes progressively harsher sentences on repeat DUI offenders, but such mandatory sentencing is only based on 10 years' worth of conviction history. In effect, a person gets a clean slate after ten years, at least where sentencing is concerned.

Continue reading "Orange County Man's 13th DUI Conviction Leads Some Officials to Seek to Change Mandatory Sentencing Laws" »

Over sixty prisoners in Orange County's jail had to sleep on the floor recently while they waited for beds to become available. County jails around the state are reporting difficulties handling an influx of prisoners as the state shifts many detainees out of state prisons and makes them the counties' problem. Counties are now scrambling to find room, often releasing detainees early and looking for other methods of punishment for new offenses.

A new state law that took effect October 1 made counties responsible for people convicted of certain offenses that had previously been the state's burden. The new law covers about five hundred felony offenses deemed "nonviolent, nonsexual and non-serious." It sets aside money for counties to help them bear the additional burden. The law resulted from a May ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a lower court's order for the state of California to reduce its prison population by at least 30,000. California has one of the largest prison populations in the country, and the U.S. has one of the largest prison populations in the world. The ruling held, in part, that overcrowding in California prisons led to conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Since October 1, state prisons have been transferring detainees to county jails. Many jails are now full or even overcrowded, but officials expect this to balance out over time. In an attempt to stem the inflow of detainees for new offenses, counties are looking into alternatives to incarceration. Fresno County, for example, has announced that it will no longer incarcerate people solely for parole violations. It will still put people in jail for new criminal offenses, but it is looking for alternative punishments wherever possible.

Some prosecutors and other critics of the new law allege that the sudden rise in the jail population results in part from an effort by criminal defense attorneys to delay their clients' sentencings until after October 1, to minimize the possibility of a term in state prison. The Los Angeles County district attorney has stated that he will train his prosecutors in ways that allow them to continue to charge alleged offenders with offenses allowing a state prison sentence, by digging through their criminal histories and searching for other factors that could lead to enhanced charges. Others may lobby the Legislature to pass new laws expanding the scope of state prison sentences.

Continue reading "California Jails Deal With Shift of Inmates from State Prisons" »

A Connecticut man who allegedly dropped a joint in his 18 month-old son's lunch has been charged with drug possession and child endangerment. Staffers at the child's day care in Clinton, Connecticut noticed something in the child's lunch box around noon on Thursday, December 1, 2011. Upon inspection, it appeared to be a marijuana-filled cigarette. The observant staffers contacted the police, who interviewed the child's father that afternoon. Upon ascertaining that the father had apparently dropped the joint by accident into the lunch box the night before while preparing the child's lunch, police arrested the man. A search of the man's home turned up less than an ounce of marijuana and some drug paraphernalia, according to police. Despite ever-harsher tactics in the government's War on Drugs, police thankfully did not arrest the man's toddler son.

Police charged the man with possessing a controlled substance and with risk of injury to or "impairing the morals of" a child. They released him on his own recognizance. He must return to court December 22. Generally speaking, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, by itself, is not treated as a serious criminal offense. When combined with other offenses, however, any drug possession offense can become quite serious.

The offense of "injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children" is a class B felony under Connecticut law, with a potential prison sentence of one to twenty years. The statute defines it as willfully or unlawfully placing a child in a situation that could injure the child's health or impair the child's morals. The definition of "morals" is almost by necessity a fuzzy one, but here presumably prosecutors would argue that allowing a young child to possess an outlawed drug is dangerous to the child's health and/or morals. The health risk of letting a child come into contact with marijuana is not too far-fetched. The moral risk to an 18 month-old child is not nearly as clear, unless they mean the criminal risk inherent in possessing marijuana in and of itself, a tautological argument if ever there was one. Should this case ever go to trial, prosecutors would likely cast it in terms of child protection more than drug possession, focusing on the father's alleged lapse in judgment rather than the legally negligible amount of marijuana involved.

Continue reading "Man Allegedly Packs Pot in His Son's Lunch, Now Faces Drug Charges" »

The trial of a man accused of murdering the University of North Carolina student body president in 2008 began on December 7, 2011 in Orange County Criminal Superior Court in Hillsborough. Laurence Alvin Lovette is charged with murder in the death of Eve Carson on March 5, 2008. Jury selection proceeded for a week and ended the afternoon of Tuesday, December 6. Lovette's alleged co-conspirator, Demario Atwater, previously pleaded guilty to both state and federal murder charges and received two consecutive life sentences. Lovette is charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping, larceny, armed robbery, and possession of stolen goods, all felonies. Because he was only 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense, he does not face the death penalty. If convicted of the murder charge, though, he could face life in prison.

Chapel Hill police found Carson's body after responding to 911 calls reporting a woman screaming and gunshots. Carson had been shot five times with two different guns and left in the middle of the street in a neighborhood near the UNC campus. Prosecutors allege that Lovette and Atwater kidnapped Carson and took her in her car to an ATM. They then allegedly made her withdraw $700, the maximum daily withdrawal amount. The two allegedly continued to use her ATM card after her body was found and withdrew another $700. Police arrested both Lovette and Atwater and charged them with her murder.

The Washington Post provided coverage of the opening statements to the jury. According to prosecutors, both physical evidence and witness testimony will connect the two defendants to the murder. They claim police found Lovette's DNA on the inside door of Carson's vehicle. ATM surveillance footage allegedly shows a man matching Lovette's Description using Carson's card. Friends of the two defendants, including Atwater's girlfriend, will apparently testify as to statements and actions of the two that connect them to the crime. Observers of the trial doubt that prosecutors will call Atwater as a witness.

Lovette's attorney has stated that, although her client knew Atwater, he was not there when the murder occurred. She also observes that many of the prosecution's witnesses have extensive criminal records, with potential motivation to lie. None of the forensic evidence touted by the prosecution, she notes, connects Lovette to the actual murder. Even if his DNA is inside the vehicle and he used the ATM card, that does not prove he committed the alleged crime. The prosecution is instead trying to use the heinous nature of the crime and the popularity of the victim as a means of inflaming the jury and hiding flaws in their case.

Continue reading "Trial Begins for Alleged Murder of North Carolina College Student" »

After Orange County officially barred all registered sex offenders from entering county parks, county beaches, or other county recreation areas in April, district attorney Tony Rackauckas began to lobby the cities of Orange County to do the same. This process started a dialogue about whether toughening already tough laws is the best use of public resources, whether local governments can afford any further enforcement, and whether further enforcement is even necessary. Some registrants themselves have even stepped forward to speak out about treatment of registered sex offenders.

The Orange County Register recently offered an overview of California's different laws dealing with sex offenders, their critics, and their supporters. California has several laws that address registered sex offenders that passed in the wake of specific tragedies. These laws often bear the names of specific victims.

Megan's Law first passed in California in 1996 and requires that sex offender lists be available to the public. The law was amended in 2004 to make the information available online.

Jessica's Law, passed in California in 2006, prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. It also requires lifetime GPS supervision of people on the registry.

Chelsea's Law, which originated in California and became law in 2010, provides for enhanced sentencing for certain criminal offenses when children are involved.

Although these laws have broad popular support, they have a considerable number of critics with a wide array of valid criticisms. The state's own Sex Offender Management Board, the agency charged with "decreas[ing] sexual victimization and increas[ing] community safety," complains that the system has been created piece by piece and lacks coordination. Laws tend to get passed in the wake of public outrage, with little inclination or opportunity for debate about a law's merits.

Critics further charge that the laws often apply a one-size-fits-all approach to a complex set of problems. The Register describes several cases that are unintended consequences of overzealous legislation. The most infamous of these cases involve children forced to register for life as sex offenders because of "sexting," sending images of themselves in states of undress to each other via cell phone. These people, as well as many other people who end up on the registry, do not pose so great a threat to public safety that they require lifetime monitoring, yet they occupy the same registry as serial molesters.

Continue reading "Reconsidering California's Sex Offender Laws" »