Greg Hill & Associates Home
Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
Orange County Road Rage, Reckless Driving Charge, Probation
Our client, age 51, was cited for a violation of Penal Code § 245(a)(1) after a car accident on the eastbound 22 Freeway during morning rush hour traffic. Our client was cooperative with the police. Alcohol was not involved. Neither party was injured.
The driver of the other vehicle, age 27, was cited for the same thing as well as a violation of Vehicle Code § 23110(a), throwing objects at vehicles, because the video from our client’s Tesla showed the other party throwing an unidentified object at the Tesla.
Our client had no criminal history in the last 20 years, but he did have a misdemeanor conviction for violation of Penal Code § 192(c)(2) (gross vehicular manslaughter) in 1994 and a Vehicle Code § 14601, driving on a suspended license, conviction from 2001. In the gross vehicular manslaughter case, we had collided with a pedestrian who was jaywalking. Our client received summary probation and no jail.
Our client was traveling to work at the time, where he was a “Senior Front End Web Developer,” which he described as being a programmer.
Our client was cited and released at the scene after signing a promise to appear in the Santa Ana Superior Court for his arraignment in about three months. After a few days of researching on the Internet what could happen to him, he called Greg Hill & Associates.
The client described what had taken place and how he had cut off the other driver and then the other driver did the same thing to him, causing a minor collision. The client also explained his criminal history from 30 years earlier.
Greg explained that he did not expect the Orange County District Attorney to file a complaint for assault with a deadly weapon, Penal Code § 245(a)(1). Instead, Greg explained, a misdemeanor complaint for a violation of Vehicle Code § 23103(a) against both our client and the other driver was more likely.
Greg further explained that he thought the judge would grant judicial diversion for our client. Greg then explained what judicial diversion was and how it worked, if granted. To help the chances that the motion would be granted, Greg recommended that the client enroll in and complete an online safe driving course.
The client immediately enrolled in and completed such a safe driving course.
Greg then appeared at the client’s arraignment and, as Greg expected, the complaint alleged a single violation of Vehicle Code § 23103 against our client. Greg also got a zip drive with about two dozen videos from our client’s Tesla that he had given to the police at the scene.
Greg also asked the specially assigned prosecutor to the case for a plea bargain and she stated she needed to review the videos first.
Greg then returned to the office and reviewed the videos, which were not good for our client, as they showed him driving past the other driver and then immediately swerving into the space in front of the other car. The other driver was also quite aggressive in his driving.
Greg then prepared, filed and served a Motion for Imposition of Judicial Diversion. The motion was assigned to a special judge for hearing such motions.
Much to Greg’s dismay, the judge denied the motion, explaining that our client 30-year old prior conviction of vehicular manslaughter, as a misdemeanor no less, showed our client was an unsafe driver. Greg explained that the intervening 30 years since the prior event (when our client was 21 years old) with no further unsafe driving episodes suggested our client was extremely safe.
It was an amazing ruling, Greg thought, particularly because the prior event was resolved as a misdemeanor, suggesting our client had very low criminal responsibility.
At the next court appearance, Greg sheepishly asked the prosecutor for her plea bargain to resolve the case. She replied with one year of informal probation, 25 hours of community service and a $145 court fine, plus requiring the client to provide a DNA sample.
Our client accepted this offer, as a jury or judge would convict him certainly based on the videos of the collision.
The driver of the other vehicle, age 27, was cited for the same thing as well as a violation of Vehicle Code § 23110(a), throwing objects at vehicles, because the video from our client’s Tesla showed the other party throwing an unidentified object at the Tesla.
Our client had no criminal history in the last 20 years, but he did have a misdemeanor conviction for violation of Penal Code § 192(c)(2) (gross vehicular manslaughter) in 1994 and a Vehicle Code § 14601, driving on a suspended license, conviction from 2001. In the gross vehicular manslaughter case, we had collided with a pedestrian who was jaywalking. Our client received summary probation and no jail.
Our client was traveling to work at the time, where he was a “Senior Front End Web Developer,” which he described as being a programmer.
Our client was cited and released at the scene after signing a promise to appear in the Santa Ana Superior Court for his arraignment in about three months. After a few days of researching on the Internet what could happen to him, he called Greg Hill & Associates.
The client described what had taken place and how he had cut off the other driver and then the other driver did the same thing to him, causing a minor collision. The client also explained his criminal history from 30 years earlier.
Greg explained that he did not expect the Orange County District Attorney to file a complaint for assault with a deadly weapon, Penal Code § 245(a)(1). Instead, Greg explained, a misdemeanor complaint for a violation of Vehicle Code § 23103(a) against both our client and the other driver was more likely.
Greg further explained that he thought the judge would grant judicial diversion for our client. Greg then explained what judicial diversion was and how it worked, if granted. To help the chances that the motion would be granted, Greg recommended that the client enroll in and complete an online safe driving course.
The client immediately enrolled in and completed such a safe driving course.
Greg then appeared at the client’s arraignment and, as Greg expected, the complaint alleged a single violation of Vehicle Code § 23103 against our client. Greg also got a zip drive with about two dozen videos from our client’s Tesla that he had given to the police at the scene.
Greg also asked the specially assigned prosecutor to the case for a plea bargain and she stated she needed to review the videos first.
Greg then returned to the office and reviewed the videos, which were not good for our client, as they showed him driving past the other driver and then immediately swerving into the space in front of the other car. The other driver was also quite aggressive in his driving.
Greg then prepared, filed and served a Motion for Imposition of Judicial Diversion. The motion was assigned to a special judge for hearing such motions.
Much to Greg’s dismay, the judge denied the motion, explaining that our client 30-year old prior conviction of vehicular manslaughter, as a misdemeanor no less, showed our client was an unsafe driver. Greg explained that the intervening 30 years since the prior event (when our client was 21 years old) with no further unsafe driving episodes suggested our client was extremely safe.
It was an amazing ruling, Greg thought, particularly because the prior event was resolved as a misdemeanor, suggesting our client had very low criminal responsibility.
At the next court appearance, Greg sheepishly asked the prosecutor for her plea bargain to resolve the case. She replied with one year of informal probation, 25 hours of community service and a $145 court fine, plus requiring the client to provide a DNA sample.
Our client accepted this offer, as a jury or judge would convict him certainly based on the videos of the collision.
We present this summary as a cautionary tale of how our judicial system can be unpredictable and subject to the biases of a single judge, who we believe made an incorrect ruling in this case on our motion for judicial diversion.
