Select Drug Offense Results

If you want to read about our drug offense cases, please click on the case summaries below to read a detailed description of each case.

  1. West Covina, Client on Parole with Baggie of Meth, No File

  2. Airport Courthouse, 6.5 Pounds of Pot at FedEx, No File

  3. San Fernando, Veteran, Two Years of Prison Set Aside

  4. Redondo Beach, Cocaine, Pot & Meth for Sales, 1 Year Program

  5. Pomona, Over a Pound of Pot, Meth, Ecstasy, Probation

  6. Torrance, Possession of Meth for Sales, Prop 36 Granted

  7. Los Angeles, Transportation & Possession of Cocaine, Sales

  8. Lomita, Possession of Pot for Sales, Case Dismissed

  9. Redondo Beach, DUI and Possession of Pot, Treatment Program

  10. Manhattan Beach, Meth for Sales, Probation Violation, 16 Months

  11. Newport Beach, Under Influence of Meth, Retest, Dismissal

  12. Fontana, Ecstasy - 1000 pills, 180 Days County Jail

  13. Burbank, 73 Grams of Meth, on Parole, 2 Years County Jail

  14. Bellflower, Client with Bunk to Sell, Treatment Program

  15. Torrance, Xanax, Norco & Cocaine for Sales, Diversion Program

  16. Gardena Marijuana Sales, 45 Days of Cal-Trans, Dismissal

  17. Inglewood, Possession of Marijuana, Case Dismissed on Motion

  18. Torrance, Possession of 3 Drugs for Sales, 180 Day Program

  19. Torrance, Possession of Meth, While on Probation, Prop 47

  20. Pomona, 198 Grams of Pot, Second Offense, 90 Days County

  21. Bellflower, 17 Prior Felonies, One Strike, Possession Meth

  22. Long Beach, Possession for Sales, on Probation, Program

  23. Compton, 2nd Marijuana Sales Case, Greg Contacts DA, No File

  24. Long Beach, Motion to Suppress Drugs Wins, Case Dismissed

  25. Long Beach, Possession of Heroin and Xanax for Sales

  26. Inglewood, Marijuana in the Car and VC 14601.2(a), Dismissed

  27. Manhattan Beach, Arrest for Drug Sales, Judicial Diversion

  28. San Bernardino, Arrest at Rave, RISE Program, Case Dismissed

  29. Inglewood, Possession of Meth and Knife, Judicial Diversion

  30. Possession of Cocaine, Palos Verdes Estates, Dismissal

  31. San Pedro Arrest for Sale of Heroin to Cop, Joint Suspended

  32. Long Beach, First Marijuana Sales Case to Have Prop 64 Apply

  33. Lomita, Possession of Meth, Second Offense, No Jail

  34. Compton, New Sales of Drugs Case & Probation Violation

  35. Palos Verdes Drug Possession, Judicial Diversion, Dismissal

The case results summarized above represent a good sample of how drug cases have been handled by and large in our courts in the five years of so prior to the beginning of 2015.

Beginning on January 1, 2015, at least in Los Angeles County, Assembly Bill 2124 (AB2124) will vest judges with the power to give diversion to simple possession cases. Cases involving possession for sales or transportation will be unaffected. But in simple possession cases (those involving alleged violations of Health and Safety Code §§ 11350, 11357(a) and 11377), Prop 47 (Penal Code § 1170.18) will allow such former felony cases to be reduced to misdemeanors and then AB214 will permit the judge to craft a diversion plan for the individual.

Proposition 47 does have its exceptions. Not every 11350, 11357(a) or 11377 case will be reduced to a misdemeanor. For example, reduction will not be available if the individual is a registered sex offender under Penal Code § 290(c) or has a prior conviction for one of the “strike” offenses listed at Penal Code § 667(e)(2)(c)(iv). If one of the exceptions does not apply, the possession case will be reduced to a misdemeanor.

Select Drug Offense Results

AB2124 then also has its exceptions. The biggest one perhaps applicable or likely to apply in a drug case is that a judge cannot offer diversion under AB2124 if the individual has been offered diversion in the past, i.e. Prop 36 or PC 1000. The judge also cannot offer diversion under 2124 if the person has a prior conviction for a crime involving force, the meaning of which is not entirely clear at this time.

Under AB2124, it is most likely that the individual would be ordered to enroll in and complete a certain number of Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings and perhaps perform some community service, as well as other obligations that the judge decides. Therefore, if someone is confident that he or she will be eligible for AB2124, it is prudent to begin attending NA meetings ASAP and bring the sign-in sheet showing the meetings attended to court.

In all other cases, particularly those involving sales, the first issue that must be closely scrutinized is the basis for the traffic stop, if the police contact began this way, and the search that followed. When police have a hunch that evidence of drug sales is discoverable, police often become overly eager to search the car or house and often violate the Fourth Amendment, even with its many exceptions. As our results above describe, it is often this search that is unlawful that allows us to suppress the evidence (under Penal Code § 1538.5) gathered and then the prosecutor must dismiss the case.

It is next most important to re-test the sample if there is any chance that the substance seized by police may not be a controlled substance. We ask for such a retesting even when our client just bought the item, as sales of bunk do still exist. We have had more than one retest reveal that the alleged cocaine or methamphetamine was not such at all. It is therefore extremely important to retest the substance.

The case may also involve police planting drugs or using a warrant that really did not call for the scope of the search conducted. Therefore, there are a variety of requests for court orders (motions) to look at an officer’s personnel records (a Pitchess motion), unsealing a warrant or striking a strike on the client’s record for purposes of sentencing (a Romero motion) that our office may need to present the judge for his or her consideration.

For further reading on what AB 2124, Prop 47, motions to suppress, a Pitchess motion and a Romero motion, please search our article listing on this website.

Contact us.

Client Reviews
Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well.
★★★★★
Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him. S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards, L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help. V.L., Carson
★★★★★
Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot. C.R., Pomona
★★★★★