Client, Age 18, Reckless Driving, Judicial Diversion

Our client, age 18, drove his parents’ 2020 Acura TLX from home in Rolling Hills Estates to the corner of Skypark and Madison in Torrance, where there is a large parking lot.  It was about 11:30 p.m. on a Saturday night.  The roads were dry on this particular evening in March.  The parking lot was empty.

The parking lot is bordered by the Torrance Airport runway to the east and medical buildings to the north and east.  The parking lot is owned by American Honda and is not associated with any building nearby.

Our client then began, as a passing Torrance Police Officer described, “conducting unsafe turning maneuvers to drift and slide in a circular motion and placing the vehicle tires at a high turning angle while applying full throttle to make the car spin uncontrollably.”  In other words, our client began “doing donuts.”  He had no passengers.  

The Torrance Police Officer then drove over and interrupted our client’s fun.  He then issued him a ticket for violation of California Vehicle Code § 23103(b), “reckless driving,” and had Van Lingen Towing tow our client’s parents’ car.

About two weeks later, the client called Greg Hill & Associates and spoke with Greg Hill about the case (Greg was retained by three young men who were cited for just this offense at the same location in a period of one or two weeks).  The client had no prior criminal history, as would be expected for someone his age.

The client described what had happened and asked Greg many questions.  His biggest concern was going to jail because he had read on the Internet that a violation of Vehicle Code § 23103(b) was punishable by a minimum of five days and a maximum of 90 days in county jail.

Greg explained that the client would most likely not spend any time in jail because the matter would be resolved through judicial diversion or “DA Diversion.”  Greg then explained how each form of diversion worked, and the differences and the advantages and disadvantages of each one.  Greg also explained what he anticipated to be the most likely terms of diversion for each form of diversion.  

Greg then told the client what he expected the terms to be diversion to be.  He thought it would be for a period of six to nine months, with an obligation that the client enroll in and complete a safe driving course, that he stay away from the parking lot where he was cited and that he perform a small amount of community service, which Greg estimated would be 20 to 40 hours.

Greg then recommended that the client enroll in and complete an online safe driving course immediately and to send Greg the proof of completion certificate so he could take it with him to the arraignment to show the Torrance City Prosecutor and the judge assigned to the case.

The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and quickly took an online safe driving course offered by Aceable.

About two months later, Greg then appeared at the client’s arraignment in the Torrance Superior Court.  The client remained in classes at high school, which he was finishing as a senior.  

Greg reviewed the short police report and then discussed the case facts with the Torrance City Prosecutor.  The Torrance City Prosecutor commented that our client’s case was one of about fifteen such cases for the same offense arising from the same parking lot over about a two week period.

The Torrance City Prosecutor said he would not oppose judicial diversion for our client, but would request that our client perform twenty hours of court-approved community service, complete an eight-hour traffic safety course and obey all laws for six months.  Greg showed the Torrance City Prosecutor our client’s proof of completion of the Aceable online traffic safety course and the Torrance City Prosecutor said that course would satisfy the eight-hour class he requested.

The judge then called the case and Greg requested judicial diversion for the client.  The commissioner handling the case as the judicial officer granted the request for judicial diversion and referred the matter to judicial diversion for a period of six months with an obligation that our client perform 20 hours of court-approved community service, obey all laws and stay away from the parking lot at issue.  The client also was obligated to pay a $100 court fee for judicial diversion.

Greg returned to the office later that morning and conveyed the outcome of the arraignment to the client, who was very happy to be referred to judicial diversion so he could “earn a dismissal” and later have the arrest report and court file sealed to erase it off his record.