Initially, our client’s family hired our office after he had been arrested in Los Angeles County on felony drug transportation charges. While in custody in Los Angeles County pending the litigation of his drug case, our office learned that our client also had a “custody hold” for an arrest warrant in San Bernardino County for an old arrest stemming from conduct in 2015. Our client then hired our office to represent him on the San Bernardino County case as well.
Upon speaking to our client about his arrest warrant from San Bernardino County, it became clear that our client was unaware that this case had been filed against him in 2016 and that he had failed to appear at his arraignment for this matter, resulting in the arrest warrant being issued.
We then appeared in-person at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse to inspect the physical court file for this case. Upon inspection, it was discovered that a Complaint had been filed in February of 2016 alleging that our client had committed violations of Penal Code section 530.5(a) (“Identity Theft”), Penal Code section 496(a) (“Receiving Stolen Property”), and Penal Code section 484g(a) (“Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card”), felonies, in November of 2015. An arrest warrant was issued on the same date that the case was filed.
It was not until our client was arrested in Los Angeles County in 2019 and a “custody hold” was placed on him that he was informed that he had an arrest warrant for a case filed against him in San Bernardino County. According to the documents in the court file and booking paperwork our office was able to obtain, when our client was originally arrested in 2015 for the theft offenses, he was released without charges being filed and he was not issued a citation with a date to appear in court nor was he subsequently provided with a notify letter informing him that a case had been filed against him. Thus, our client had no reason to know of the case filing in San Bernardino County. Therefore, our office wrote a Serna motion, arguing that our client’s Federal and California Constitutional rights to a speedy trial had been violated.
We then placed our client’s case on calendar in San Bernardino County and had the arrest warrant recalled and quashed. At the next appearance on this case, attorney Steve Escovar presented the prosecution with our Serna motion and argued that the case should be dismissed for denial of our client’s speedy trial rights. After reviewing our motion, the prosecutor agreed to completely dismiss the case and the three felony charges filed against our client.
This is a great result for our client and we look forward to continuing to zealously advocate against the drug charges filed against him in Los Angeles County!
DISCLAIMER:
The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Escovar Law, APC or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. The information on this website is a communication and is for informational purposes only. The facts of every case are unique and nothing on this page or on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information on this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and viewing of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. The result portrayed in this advertisement was dependent on the facts of this case. Results will differ if based on different facts.