Vandalism, also known as malicious mischief, is a serious crime in California involving the intentional destruction of the property of another. It is often committed out of anger, boredom, revenge, defiance, or during peer pressured dares or pranks. Though vandalism is a property crime generally considered less serious than a crime against a person, the consequences can be severe in California regardless of arguably mitigating circumstances such as youth, artistic expression, or political demonstration. 

"Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism: (1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material. (2) Damages. (3) Destroys."

Examples of acts of vandalism under PC § 594(a) include breaking objects, ransacking property, slashing tires, keying paint, removing car emblems, doing graffiti, and salting lawns.

Additionally, the California penal code has special provisions under sections 594 and 640 covering certain acts of vandalism relating to 1) use of noxious or caustic chemicals, etc.); 2) possession of vandalism tools (aerosol paint, drill bit, glass cutter, chisel, etc); and 3) distinct locations (religious sites, government facilities, highways, etc.).

Vandalism can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony, and potentially carry steep fines (from $1,000 to $50,000), jail or prison time, probation, restitution, and community service.  The punishments vary greatly depending on the amount of damage, gang enhancements, hate implications and prior convictions. A vandalism conviction leaves you with a permanent criminal record. 

If you have been charged with vandalism, you need to contact a law firm that has experience in dealing with these specialized types of cases.  The Jacot Law Firm has the expertise and dedication to fight and win your case.  Contact attorney Lance Jacot right away for a free consultation.  Call toll free 24 hours a day 888-823-4883.

College student named as suspect in slaying of woman in Costa Mesa

Print this Article Email this Article

Text Size: A | A | A

By Christian Burkin

Record Staff Writer

May 28, 2010 12:00 AM

STOCKTON - A man found beaten unconscious in January in the backyard of a south Stockton home died Tuesday.

Officer Pete Smith, a spokesman for the Stockton Police Department, said the death of 43-year-old Joseph Sandoval had not yet been ruled a homicide. Investigators were still waiting for the Coroner's Office to link the exact cause of death to the beating.

"We have to have a definitive nexus between his death and his injuries," Smith said.

Sandoval was found around 11:30 a.m. Jan. 24, lying on the ground in the backyard of a home in the 1400 block of South American Street. He was taken to San Joaquin General Hospital, where doctors found he was bleeding internally. Investigators found what they thought was a crime scene in a standalone building in the backyard.

The white clapboard home was condemned as a public hazard by the city on Jan. 25, according to documents still posted near its front door Thursday morning. The home stands out among its neighbors, which are generally well-kept. Araceli Gonzalez, who lives nearby, said it was once one of the nicest on the block.

"And now it's basically a crack house," she said. "Everyone on Charter Way knows that house is empty."

The home's windows and doors were boarded over with plywood, except for one window in the back, which appeared to have been pried open. Beneath that window, a man was taking a nap. He awoke and prepared to move on, insisting he had only stopped for a moment. He said he knew Sandoval, but not well.

"I just knew him from the streets," he said. He declined to give his own name.

Contact reporter Christian Burkin at (209) 546-8279 or cburkin@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com/burkinblog.

Contact The Jacot Law Firm at 888-823-4883.

DEJ

For violations of certain specified drug crimes, a defendant may be eligible to participate in a deferred entry of judgment program.  Deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) is the suspension of criminal proceedings for a proscribed period of time with certain conditions and a defendant's guilty plea.  If a defendant is found to be eligible for DEJ, he or she must plead guilty to the crime charged and waive time for the entry of judgment.  Entry of judgment on the defendant's plea is then deferred pending successful completion of a drug program.  Should the defendant successfully complete the program, criminal proceedings against the defendant are dismissed, and the defendant may legally answer that he or she has never been arrested for, nor charged with, the offense.  Should the defendant not successfully complete the program, however, the court will enter judgment and schedule a sentencing hearing.

Proposition 36

Proposition 36 was passed by the electorate on November 7, 2000, and became effective July 1, 2001.  It mandates program and drug treatment for defendants convicted of a "nonviolent drug possession offense."  It prohibits incarceration as an initial term of probation, but does permit incarceration for a subsequent violation of probation.  The proposition also establishes procedures for violations of probation or parole that involve nonviolent drug offenses.  If the defendant successfully completes the drug treatment program, the defendant may petition the sentencing court to dismiss all charges against him or her.  If the court finds that the defendant has successfully completed the program and has substantially complied with the conditions of probation, the courtmust set aside and dismiss the indictment or information against the defendant.  The arrest will be deemed never to have occurred.  Notwithstanding the dismissal, the defendant remains subject to restriction on possession of concealable firearm, and must disclose the arrest and conviction in response to any law enforcement inquiry.  The defendant must also disclose the arrest and conviction in any application for public office, peace officer employment, licensing by any state or local agency, contracting with the state lottery, or purposes of serving on a jury.

Penal Code section 290 Registration:

Defendants who are convicted of certain sex crimes, or the attempt to commit them,for the rest of his or her life while residing in California, shall be required to register with the chief of police of the city in which he or she is residing, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is residing in an unincorporated area or city that has no police department, and, additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of the University of California, the California State University, or community college if he or she is residing upon the campus or in any of its facilities, within five working days of coming into, or changing his or her residence within, any city, county, or city and county, or campus in which he or she temporarily resides, and shall be required to register thereafter in accordance with the Act.

The following persons shall be required to register:

 Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, Section 243.4, paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b) of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, or 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses.

Special Sentencing Rules for Certain Sex Crimes:    

          An entirely separate sentencing scheme applies if certain enumerated sex offenses are perpetrated on a single victim on a single occasion.  When a defendant is convicted of one or more enumerated sex crimes, the trial court has discretion to ignore the usual rule of Penal Code section 1170.1(a) limiting consecutive terms to one-third the midterm.  Instead, the court may sentence some or all of the enumerated sex crimes under Penal Code section 667.6(e), which allows full-term consecutive sentences.  Therefore, the trial court has two decisions:

        ● Whether the terms should be concurrent or consecutive; and

● Whether any consecutive terms for the enumerated sex crimes should be imposed under 1170.1(a) (one-third the midterm) or under 667.6(e) (full consecutive terms).

If a defendant is convicted of enumerated sex offenses committed against different victims, or against the same victim on different occasions, Penal Code 667.6(d) requires full consecutive sentences.  This means the Penal Code section 1170.1(a) one-third the midterm formula does not apply.  The court has the usual discretion to choose between, and state reasons for, the lower, middle, or upper base term.  However, no statement of reasons is necessary for the mandatory consecutive terms. Under these circumstances, leniency may only be expressed by imposing consecutive full lower terms.

  Penal Code section 667.6, states:

  (a) Any person who is convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (e) and who has been convicted previously of any of those offenses shall receive a five-year enhancement for each of those prior convictions.

(b) Any person who is convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (e) and who has served two or more prior prison terms as defined in Section 667.5 for any of those offenses shall receive a 10-year enhancement for each of those prior terms.

(c) In lieu of the term provided in Section 1170.1, a full, separate, and consecutive term may be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve the same victim on the same occasion. A term may be imposed consecutively pursuant to this subdivision if a person is convicted of at least one offense specified in subdivision (e). If the term is imposed consecutively pursuant to this subdivision, it shall be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment, and shall commence from the time the person otherwise would have been released from imprisonment. The term shall not be included in any determination pursuant to Section 1170.1. Any other term imposed subsequent to that term shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person otherwise would have been released from prison.

(d) A full, separate, and consecutive term shall be served imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve separate victims or involve the same victim on separate occasions.

 In determining whether crimes against a single victim were committed on separate occasions under this subdivision, the court shall consider whether, between the commission of one sex crime and another, the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect upon his or her actions and nevertheless resumed sexually assaultive behavior. Neither the duration of time between crimes, nor whether or not the defendant lost or abandoned his or her opportunity to attack, shall be, in and of itself, determinative on the issue of whether the crimes in question occurred on separate occasions.

 The term shall be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment and shall commence from the time the person otherwise would have been released from imprisonment. The term shall not be included in any determination pursuant to Section 1170.1. Any other term imposed subsequent to that term shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person otherwise would have been released from prison.

(e) This section shall apply to the following offenses:

 (1) Rape, in violation of paragraph (2), (3), (6), or (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.

 (2) Spousal rape, in violation of paragraph (1), (4), or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 262.

 (3) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration, in concert, in violation of Section 264.1.

 (4) Sodomy, in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c), or subdivision (d) or (k), of Section 286.

 (5) Lewd or lascivious act, in violation of subdivision (b) of Section 288.

 (6) Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5.

 (7) Oral copulation, in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c), or subdivision (d) or (k), of Section 288a.

 (8)  Sexual penetration, in violation of subdivision (a) or (g) of Section 289.

 (9) As a present offense under subdivision (c) or (d), assault with intent to commit a specified sexual offense, in violation of Section 220.

 (10) As a prior conviction under subdivision (a) or (b), an offense committed in another jurisdiction that includes all of the elements of an offense specified in this subdivision.

(f) In addition to any enhancement imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), the court may also impose a fine not to exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for anyone sentenced under those provisions. The fine imposed and collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund to be available for appropriation to fund child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse victim counseling centers and prevention programs established pursuant to Section 13837. If the court orders a fine to be imposed pursuant to this subdivision, the actual administrative cost of collecting that fine, not to exceed 2 percent of the total amount paid, may be paid into the general fund of the county treasury for the use and benefit of the county.

If you or a loved one has been accused of a sexual offense you need to contact Attorney Lance Jacot at The Jacot Law Firm for a free consultation.

Violent Crimes

Assault and Battery

Assault with a Firearm

Assault with Force Likely to Cause Great Bodily Injury

Assault on a Police Office

Car Jacking

Child Abuse

Criminal Threats

Domestic Violence

Drive by shootings

Elder Abuse

False Imprisonment

Home Invasion Robbery

Homicide/Murder

Kidnapping

Mayhem

Shooting into an occupied structure or vehicle

Stalking

Residential Burglary with Person Present

Robbery

Torture

Firm Overview

Attorney Lance Jacot was born in Newport Beach and grew up in Huntington Beach, California .  After receiving his bachelor’s degree from UC Irvine in 1996, Mr. Jacot began law school at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco . During law school Mr. Jacot interned at the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office and the Office of the State Public Defender.

The Jacot Law Firm represents persons accused of criminal offenses in California .  For over a decade, attorney Lance Jacot has fought hard and successfully for the rights of thousands of criminal defendants.  He has earned a reputation as an honest, fully qualified, hardworking trial attorney who is totally dedicated to achieving the best possible outcome for his clients.  Among his clients and his fellow attorneys, he is known to have the judgment, expertise and confidence to aggressively provide the highest quality of legal defense in or out of court.

 Mr. Jacot has handled thousands of cases, from traffic violations to capital homicide cases, including numerous misdemeanor and felony trials. His success in the courtroom has earned him the reputation as an exceptionally capable trial attorney who will not accept a bad deal for his clients. If you have been accused of a crime you need an attorney who will not hesitate to demand a trial and fight for your rights.

 Mr. Jacot is also known as an expert in criminal law and procedure.   If you have been arrested for or charged with a crime, you need an attorney who thoroughly knows his way around the criminal law and court system--who has the specialized knowledge to fight and win your case through all means, arguments and avenues available within the law.   Mr. Jacot has the experience, knowledge, and reputation required to prevail in criminal cases, even where the cards are stacked against the accused.

 Hands-on Representation & Direct Attorney Access.

 The Jacot Law Firm prides itself on supporting our clients with hard work, hands-on service, and open communication.  We are committed to going the extra distance to defend your rights and ensure your peace of mind. We are here to help you and your family throughout a difficult and stressful process with the best possible result.

 You need an attorney who is available to speak to you directly, at any time, in any emergency, 24/7/365 so you can receive the legal representation that you need and deserve. When you call The Jacot Law Firm, you will receive an immediate response.  If you are incarcerated, Attorney Lance Jacot will counsel you at the jail or prison so that you are not left alone in custody.  You will know what the ultimate fees for our services will be before you start.  We are here to protect your rights and support you in every way through the entire criminal process.

Print this Article   Email this Article  

Text Size:  A | A | A

Photo 1 of 1  |  Zoom Photo +

By  Scott Smith

Record Staff Writer

May 16, 2010 12:00 AM

STOCKTON - Police monitoring downtown surveillance cameras tipped off a pair of bicycle patrol officers to a large brawl Friday night at Dean De Carli Waterfront Square, netting a total of five arrests, the Stockton Police Department reported Saturday.

The arresting officer had to manhandle hostile teens - one armed with a large, fixed blade hunting knife and a second who tried to kick and spit at them even after his arrest, officers reported.

The first of two related incidents happened at about 9 p.m., when the camera operator told two officers about the large group of young people fighting. DeCarli Square is at 141 North El Dorado Street opposite the City Centre Stadium 16 + IMAX movie theater.

Upon arriving, the crowd had scattered, but officers tried talking to two boys - ages 16 and 17. The 17-year-old ran and pulled out the hunting knife, police reported. But he fell, dropping the knife, police said, adding that the boy took a fighting stance once he got up.

An officer hit the boy once on the arm with a baton, placing him under arrest as he again tried to run, police said. The boy was later released to his parents. Officers arrested the 16-year-old boy without incident on an outstanding felony warrant, police said.

Half an hour later, the same two bicycle patrol officers broke up a fight also at De Carli square between two young men. A 19-year-old tried to pull his friend away from officers and then advanced on police, who had told him to stand back, police said.

Officers arrested the 19-year-old man identified as Andres Marroquin, who remains in the San Joaquin County Jail. Officers said he tried to kick and spit on them as they led him to the patrol car, police reported.

While officers next tried to disperse the crowd, a 17-year-old boy refused, police said. The boy was verbally abusive and bumped an officer with his shoulder, leading to his arrest. Police said he violently struggled with officers.

Contact reporter Scott Smith at (209) 546-8296 or ssmith@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com/smithblog.

Contact Stockton Criminal Attorney Lance Jacot at The Jacot Law Firm if you need an experienced, dedicated and aggressive attorney to represent you or a family member.  Stockton Criminal Attorney Lance Jacot has extensive experience defending people accused of violent crimes like assault and battery.  

Call Stockton Attorney Lance Jacot for a free initial consultation. 

Local Number:          (209) 463-1800

Toll Free Number:     888-823-4883

Print this Article   Email this Article  

Text Size:  A | A | A

STOCKTON - A 31-year-old Stockton man was arrested Friday morning in connection with two bank robberies this month.

The Stockton Police Department reported that detectives turned up information connecting Demarko Payne to robberies of Stockton banks May 3 and 14, and the attempted robbery of a bank customer last Saturday.

Payne was arrested at his home in the 8100 block of Palisades Drive and booked into the County Jail on suspicion of two counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery. He was being held in lieu of $150,000 bail.

He is scheduled to appear in court at 1:30 p.m. Monday.

Print this Article   Email this Article  

Text Size:  A | A | A

By  Scott Smith

Record Staff Writer

May 01, 2010 12:00 AM

STOCKTON - Revelations a week ago that methamphetamine samples at a state crime lab in Ripon may have been altered continue to reverberate in the San Joaquin County legal community.

Many local defense attorneys believe the state drug bust on the lab casts serious doubt on its credibility in handling evidence. Some attorneys are considering strategies to attack past drug convictions. Yet another said he doubts that the acts of one bad analyst will have far-reaching ramifications.

"It's the exception, not the rule," said private Stockton attorney Michael Platt. "It's more important to some attorneys than others."

The California Department of Justice announced last week that a protocol breach in the handling of meth samples had occurred at the Central Valley Bureau of Forensic Service laboratory in Ripon. Certain evidence handled by a particular analyst weighed less than originally reported.

The lab serves San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced and Calaveras counties.

The unidentified criminalist was put on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.

Platt said that the criminalist in question analyzed drugs allegedly seized from one of his clients who awaits trial. The controversy likely won't benefit his client, Platt said.

"The cases that it will impact are those where there is no dope left," said Platt, explaining that in older cases, drug evidence is destroyed after analysis.

Other attorneys said they are gearing up for motions to overturn past convictions.

Stockton attorney Gregory Davenport said that in light of the news, he's preparing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea that put one client in state prison a year ago. His client took a plea deal for two years in prison, Davenport said.

In that case, police in Stockton stopped his client and found suspected meth in his pocket. Davenport said the analyst in question was the one who confirmed it as meth, and now questions over that state employee's conduct raise suspicion about the entire criminal-justice system.

"When you have somebody in that type of position engaging in this type of conduct, it creates reasonable doubt," Davenport said.

The San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office declined to comment on the investigation nor say how many criminal cases it puts into question.

The Ripon lab's assistant director, Katy Ciula, referred questions to state justice officials, who did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

Suspects arrested with small quantities of meth might also benefit from the lab's controversy, said Patrick Piggott, a Stockton attorney and dean of the Humphreys College Laurence Drivon School of Law.

A missing quantity of some drug samples won't make a difference to the outcome of most cases. But it could in those where a suspect is charged with possession for sales. In these, the weight determines if a charge applies, Piggott said.

"That's the one time when weight is most important," he said.

Attorney Doug Goss said he believes the drug-testing process has been corrupted. He wonders now if the analyst was mixing up evidence and taking other substances collected as evidence.

"I'm in the process right now of having all my old cases pulled back," Goss said. "I'm trying to sort it out myself."

If you have been charged with a drug crime, contact Stockton drug attorney Lance Jacot at The Jacot Law Firm for a free consultation.  (209) 463-1800.  Attorney Lance Jacot has been representing people accused of drug related offenses for over a decade in the central valley.

No charges against Tito Ortiz

Mixed martial arts fighter was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence, but authorities say there is "insufficient corroboration."

By Ruben Vives, Los Angeles Times

May 14, 2010

Orange County prosecutors said Thursday that they are declining to file charges against mixed martial arts fighter Tito Ortiz, who was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence in Huntington Beach, where he lives with his girlfriend, adult film star Jenna Jameson.

"We declined to file charges based on insufficient corroboration to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt," said Farrah Emami, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney's office.

Last month, Huntington Beach police responded to a domestic violence report in the 16700 block of Baruna Lane, authorities said. Ortiz, an Ultimate Fighting Championship fighter and light heavyweight champion, was taken into custody and later released after posting $25,000 bail, police said.

If you have been charged with a domestic violence battery contact Newport Beach domestic violence attorney Lance Jacot at The Jacot Law Firm for a free consultation.  Call toll free 24 hours a day at 888-823-4883.

Print this Article Email this Article

Text Size: A | A | A

Photo 1 of 1  |  Zoom Photo +

STOCKTON - Police are investigating the death of a man found shot Thursday night in north Stockton. A juvenile has been arrested and booked on murder charges in that case and another homicide in the same neighborhood earlier in the month.

Stockton police found Corry Rojas, 32, shot about 9:45 p.m. Thursday at his residence in the 700 block of Ponce de Leon Ave. He was taken to St. Joseph's Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead a short time later.

The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, was found in the residence and arrested without incident. He was booked into juvenile hall on felony murder charges related to Thursday's slaying and the earlier homicide, which occurred May 1 in the 8600 block of Santa Paula Way.

In that case, police found a 30-year-old man shot to death in the alley between Santa Maria and Santa Paula ways after they received a report of a shooting about 10:30 that night. Three days after the killing, the Stockton Police Department still had not released the identity of the victim, because family had not been notified.

The first shooting occurred around a cluster of apartments just west of Kennedy Elementary School. One bullet also struck the gas main to a nearby building, requiring authorities to shut off the gas to several apartments, according to police.

No further details were available Friday.

If you are need of an experienced homicide attorney in Stockton then contact The Jacot Law Firm and speak with Lance Jacot.