The charge of Petty Theft under Penal Code Sections 484(a)-488 is a very commonly alleged crime and generally not considered serious as first time offenders generally face no jail time and small fines. However, the effect of such a conviction on professionally licensed persons like Nurses, Doctors, Lawyers and Teachers can be career ending.

The reason for this is that Petty Theft (and any theft offense) is considered a crime of moral turpitude and in the jobs indicated above convictions for crimes of moral turpitude call into question the character of the person. As such the licensing board of each vocation can convene a hearing to decide whether the person is of sufficient character to continue to perform that job in light of their conviction. For example, in the event of a Nurse getting a conviction for Petty Theft the Nursing Board can convene a hearing and could put the person on “license probation.” This status could make the person unemployable. Other lesser punishments may occur as well.

The way to prevent this situation is to avoid a conviction altogether. Attorney Will Bruzzo has successfully represented many professionals to include Nurses and Teachers accused of Petty Theft and other charges. Mr. Bruzzo has managed to negotiate arrangements which sometimes involve community service and charitable giving as a way to avoid a conviction or guilty plea.

Notably, some places like Orange County have programs which allow first time petty theft offenders to avoid a conviction by entering a diversion program. A diversion program usually requires a guilty plea with deferment (postponement) of sentencing and completion of a program; once the individual completes the program the guilty plea is withdrawn and the case dismissed. In this way there is no conviction since the person was never sentenced and California requires sentencing for a conviction.

However, what many people (and some attorneys) do not understand is that because the diversion programs requires a guilty plea the diversion program is not helpful for Nurses and other licensed individuals. This is because the Nursing Board, for example, treats a guilty plea as it if were a conviction.

Mr. Bruzzo has even counseled other criminal defense lawyers as to the dangers of diversion programs for certain individuals; it is very important that you hire a lawyer who knows what is at stake in your particular situation. Mr. Bruzzo also works with a licensing lawyer, Fred Ray Esq. to make sure that the client is getting the best representation possible and one that will preserve his/her ability to work in their chosen field.

Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bruzzo or look at the testimonials on his website under Petty Theft for more information.

A recent case in Arizona had a father leave his infant child in the vehicle while he went to work for an hour and smoked marijuana with a friend. The outside temperature was at 100 degrees meaning inside the car it was even hotter. The child was non-responsive when the father found him and efforts to revive the baby failed. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. This man will probably be charged with manslaughter.

Sometimes parents in a hurry will leave their children in a car while they run an errand. This is never a good idea no matter how inconvenient it is for the child to go with the parent. I also hear parents say they left the child in the car because he was napping and they locked the doors. The problem with this is that the child could be subject to harm from heat in the car or other injury; also, what if something happens to the parent and no one knows that a child is alone in the car? Regardless of the reason, in Orange County, unattended children left in vehicles even for short periods of time can result in an arrest for Penal Code Section 273(a) b. Obviously this is a very ugly charge since it falls under the child abuse statute.

In some cases I have been able to get the case dismissed if there are factors in mitigation like the parent was relatively close by and the time the child was left alone was relatively short. Also, the fact that the child was napping may be something considered in mitigation although it is not a defense. A poorly thought out decision is better then no thought being given to leaving the child unattended. Often passersby will see the child unattended and contact authorities. Taking parenting classes also often helps get a favorable result.

The bottom line is that regardless of the season infants should never be left unattended in a car and older children should only be left unattended if they will not be harmed or harm themselves.

In California, an individual can be charged with manslaughter if their conduct, while not intentional, was so reckless as to amount to criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is acting without a reasonable regard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act. In this matter Mr. Ocampo is alleged to have run a stop sign and run into the victims’ vehicle.

Vehicular manslaughter charges (Penal Code Section 192(b)) can be alleged in two different ways: The first way is that a person may be not have broken any law or traffic infraction but may have been doing something legal (driving down the street) but still acted with criminal negligence (not paying attention to what is in front of him). In so doing he might run over a child who was in the street in plain view. This could lead to a charge of vehicular manslaughter.

The more commonly prosecuted case is when a person breaks a vehicle code section like the drunk driving law, speeding law or as is the situation here, run a stop sign. Any violation of the law which led to the death of someone can be the basis for a vehicular manslaughter charge if the death of the victim was a necessary and probable consequence of breaking that law or infraction.

In this case, the Prosecution may be hard pressed to show that running a stop sign is something that the Defendant should have known directly, naturally and probably would result in death. For example, what if the Defendant is very familiar with the area and the stop sign is in a remote place with little traffic? In that situation he could argue the deaths of these individuals was not a probable consequence. On the other hand, someone who drives on the freeway drunk would probably be seen as acting sufficient recklessly to be found criminally negligent. Vehicular manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of 6 years in prison.

Hit and Run (Vehicle Code Sections 20001-20003) involves any situation where the Defendant has an accident and fails to remain at the scene and exchange information with the other party OR fails to call the authorities to report the matter. Generally speaking an accident must be reported within two hours. Most Hit and Run cases are misdemeanors as they involve property damage only. However, an individual who flees the scene after killing people in a vehicular manslaughter situation faces an additional 5 years in prison if he does not stay at the scene to talk with authorities and render aid to the victims if possible. The idea being that the victims of the crime may benefit from the Defendant calling authorities and/or the ambulance and otherwise rendering aid.

Criminal Law Updates the Law Offices of Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636.

Related Articles

• Fatal Santa Ana hit-and-run suspect charged, pleads not guilty (abclocal.go.com)
• Suspect Accused In Double Fatal Hit-And-Run In Santa Ana Surrenders (losangeles.cbslocal.com)

In the state of California sex between one individual and a person who is under the age of 18 years is known as ‘Unlawful Intercourse’ under Penal Code section 261.5. This crime is commonly known as ‘statutory rape.’ Presumably, that description came about because regardless of whether the underage person gives consent, it is still a violation of the law to have intercourse with them. This law only applies to actual intercourse and not oral sex or anal sex. The laws regarding oral and anal sex with underage individuals are much harsher, almost always felonies and usually require sex registration. A conviction under Penal Code Section 261.5 does not require sex registration.

Sex between someone over the age of 18 and someone under the age of 18 where there is three years or less of age difference may be filed as a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 261.5(b); if there is more than a three year age difference the crime may be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony (Penal Code Section 261.5(c)). If the Defendant is 21 years or older and the minor is under 16 then the maximum punishment may be four years in state prison although such a long sentence is very unlikely (Penal Code Section 261.5(d).

The most perplexing issue surrounding Penal Code Section 261.5 for most people is that although it prohibits intercourse with a minor it does not require registration as a sex offender. This seems inconsistent with other Penal Code Sections that require life time sex registration for oral sex between an individual and someone who is underage.

More than likely this inconsistency arose from puritanical notions on sex which found oral sex deviant. Legally however, the California Supreme court saw this legal inconsistency as being a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution and determined that oral sex with someone who was 16 or older should not be registerable under Penal Code Section 288. (See People v. Hofsheier (2006) Regardless, violations of Penal Code Section 261.5 are not registerable and that fact has led to other penal code section violations not being registerable.

As a practical matter, it is possible for two individuals in high school engaging in consensual intercourse that result in the one who is 18 being charged with Penal Code Section 261.5. For example, if an 18 years old high school senior has sex with his 17 or 16 year old girlfriend he can be charged with this crime. It is rare when this occurs and of course the District Attorney has discretion whether or not to file the matter. Usually when a filing does occur in this instance it is because the parents of the younger individual wish to discourage the relationship or the younger female has become pregnant and the parents are outraged. Often times, it is the angry parents who spur the District Attorney into action. Similarly though, parents of the younger person may be persuaded to ask the District Attorney for leniency since few realize that these charges can result in jail. Other times, the Defendant agreeing to a paternity test, which will then result in support payments, may soothe a parent up-in-arms over the unexpected pregnancy of the minor.

Attorney Will Bruzzo has successfully handled many Penal Code Section 261.5 cases to include complete dismissals.

One of the most confusing issues in criminal law concerns liability under conspiracy or aiding and abetting theory. Put succinctly, if someone helps another in the commission of the crime but does not actually commit the crime, both people are still guilty of the offense. For example, if two people agree they will work together to rob a home and person A acts as the lookout for the untimely return of the homeowners and person B actually enters the home, then the law recognizes that both persons may be charged with burglarizing the home even if person A never actually enters the home.

The elements for conspiracy or aiding and abetting in California are as follows:

1. The perpetrator committed the crime; 
2. The defendant knew the perpetrator intended to commit the crime; 
3. Before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime;  AND
4. The Defendant’s words or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator’s commission of the crime.  

Notably, as long as the elements above are met the defendant does not even have to be present at the crime scene to be considered an aider and abettor. Similarly, the presence of someone at the scene does not necessarily mean they aided and abetted; the elements above must be met.

A person who begins as an aider and abettor may avoid criminal liability by withdrawing before the crime is committed. To do so they must:

1. Notify everyone they know who is involved with the crime that they are withdrawing; and 
2. Must do everything within their power to prevent the commission of the crime although they need not actually prevent the crime from occurring. 

One of the more difficult notions to understand about the laws surround aiding and abetting is when there is a foreseeable but unexpected consequence of the conspiracy to commit a crime. For example, if two individuals conspire to rob a bank and person A acts as a lookout and person B goes into the bank with a gun to rob it and ends up shooting and killing the bank guard, then both person A and person B may be charged with murder. The jury instructions require that the jury first find the Defendants guilty of the initially contemplated offense (bank robbery) before moving on to the indirect offense (murder). In order to prove the Defendants guilty of murder, they must find that murder was a natural and probable consequence of bank robbery. See Penal Code Section 182.

The Officers could be charged with manslaughter or even murder if the warranted by the facts. Unusual for a case of this nature is the number of witnesses who seemingly without exception found the conduct of the police to be extreme and unnecessary. See Penal Code Sections 187 and 193.

Here is a video provided by VoiceofOC:

None of the jurors would speak to the media but an alternate juror who heard all the evidence but did not deliberate stated that he was surprised by the public’s reaction because he did not believe that the state had proved its case. While it was clear that Ms. Anthony had lied the juror said no motive for killing Caylee was presented and that they had no idea how Caylee died. The latter is important because a murder finding requires that a specific intent to kill be proven by the prosecution. In addition, a manslaughter charge generally requires a killing involving sudden passion or a death resulting from an illegal act. The jurors apparently felt that this could have been an accident which might cause it to fall short of murder or manslaughter. The alternate juror, who is a high school teacher, said that there was evidence from Ms. Anthony’s friends who testified that she was a good mother. The alternate juror felt then that this implied that the death could have been accidental. The alternate juror did not comment on his opinion of her failing to report the child missing for 30 days as a reflection on her mothering ability.

Notably, the prosecution did face a considerable challenge since the body was so badly decomposed they could not establish how the child died. This left open the possibility of an accidental death. Regardless, many Americans are clearly outraged at Ms. Anthony’s failure to report the child missing for so long and her partying during that time period. While acquitted in the court of law she was clearly found guilty in the court of public opinion. See Penal Code Sections 187 and 192.

So while the Orange County District Attorney’s decision to charge the Irvine 11 is controversial it appears to be supported by the law in this area and not an infringement of the 1st Amendment right to Free Speech. See, Penal Code Sections 415, 415.5, 416.

Because the student is a minor (under age 18) his case will be prosecuted in the juvenile justice system. On some occasions criminal cases involving juveniles may be prosecuted in the adult system, however, that is generally only the case in very serious matters. While this crime is serious because one bullet passed through two students, it appears to have been accidental in nature and will probably remain in the juvenile system. As a juvenile the student could face up to 6 years at the California youth authority or remain incarcerated until he is 21 years of age. See, California Penal Code Section 246.3 and Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602.

In Westminster three suspects were apprehended for burglary. Police arrived at a residence as four individuals drove off, only to crash into a wall. Four people ran out of the car and three were caught by police. One of them was hiding in a backyard and when he refused to come out a police dog was successfully utilized. The three were booked on suspicion of burglary while the fourth suspect is still at large. Residents of the neighborhood were encouraged to keep a look out and contact police if they have any information. See, Penal Code Sections 459-460

Paul Richardson, Shaquille Richardson and Josh Shirley were all set to play football for UCLA. Each was a regional star for his local high school. Paul Richardson was a wide receiver at Sierra High School in Gardena, Shaquille was a cornerback who attended Los Alamitos High School and Shirley was a linebacker from Kaiser High School in Fontana. Shirley was an especially desirable recruit who considered attending University of Southern California before signing on with the UCLA Bruins. The three are now facing potential charges for felony theft after allegedly stealing a student’s purse. The three were arrested on the UCLA Campus and booked at a Los Angeles County jail but released early the next day on bail. Police were not aware whether any of the three had hired an attorney.

The three athletes have been dismissed from the team by UCLA coach Rick Neuheisel. The coach said the three players might be able to return to the team in January should they meet unspecified requirements. Additionally, the three will not be allowed to continue at summer school or to enroll for fall quarter at UCLA. See, Penal Code Sections 487, 211.

A computer hacker did more than steal credit card information from victims: FBI computer forensics experts found evidence of computer hacking, video voyeurism, and identity theft by Luis Mijangos. Mijangos infected other computers by using files encoded with malicious software disguised as music files. Once he could retrieve personal information, he accessed contact lists and sent those people malware. He would also search files for explicit photos or videos of the user. The police affidavit further explains that Mijangos would then tell the victims that unless they sent him more explicit material of themselves he would distribute the images and videos he was able to collect to the people in their contact list. Mijangos explains that he was requesting the information because husbands or boyfriends of the victims were trying to determine if the victims were being unfaithful. See Penal Code Sections 518, 530.5, 530.6.