Results – Notable Cases

  • A San Diego County Superior Court judge DISMISSED a lawsuit seeking to enforce a $31 million money judgment in Russia against a defendant now living in the U.S. Anton Vialtsin, managing partner of Lawstache Law Firm in San Diego, represented the defendant. OAO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev
  • Federal Felony Case DISMISSED. Client charged with knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute approximately 34.5 pounds of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of Title 21 USC Sec. 841(a)(1) [Federal Court, Southern District of California]. United States of America v. J.A.
  • Federal Felony Case DISMISSED, December 2019. JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL in Criminal Case as to “D.C.” Count 1, knowingly and intentionally importing approximately 8.03 pounds of cocaine, and Count 2, knowingly and intentionally importing approximately 2.11 pounds of methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21 USC Sec. 952 and 960 [Federal Court, Southern District of California]. United States of America v. D.C.
  • Federal Felony Case DISMISSED. Client charged with 18 USC 1546(a) – Fraud and Misuse of Entry Document (Felony) and 18 USC 1546(a) – False Statement in Immigration Application (Felony). Client allegedly misstated information on his/her asylum application. A conviction would have had negative immigration consequences, including deportation.  [Federal Court, Southern District of California]. United States of America v. W.N.W.
  • Client convicted of 22 counts fraud and embezzlement in excess of $500,000 and losses of nearly one million dollars received straight probation and no jail time. The government’s offer and the probation departments recommendation was over eight years in prison. People of California v. K.P 
  • Attempted Murder charge PC664/PC187(a) plus special allegations PC1192.7(c)(23), PC1192.7(c)(8), PC12022.7(e) | Felony Charge | Prison Sentence Range: Minimum 5 years and Maximum 14 years in California State PRISON. Results: 365 days sentence in local JAIL. People of California v. K.M. 
  • Successfully negotiated a DISMISSAL through a one year diversion with no prison time for a client charged with knowingly transporting aliens within the United States in furtherance of the violation of the immigration law; in violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). [Federal Court, Southern District of California]. United States of America v. D.R. 
  • Felony Case DISMISSED. Client charged with knowingly transporting aliens within the United States in furtherance of the violation of the immigration law; in violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). [Federal Court, Southern District of California]. United States of of America v. A.E.B. 
  • Felony Case DISMISSED. Client charged with knowingly transporting three aliens within the United States in furtherance of the violation of the immigration law, which was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain; in violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). [Federal Court, Southern District of California]. United States of America v. A.M. 
  • Felony Case REDUCED. Client charged with knowingly transporting five aliens within the United States in furtherance of the violation of the immigration law, which was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain; in violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Felony). The charge was reduced by superceding information to Accessory After the Fact a Class B Misdemeanor. Client sentenced to time served (1 month 28 days). [Federal Court, Southern District of California]. United States of America v. T.P.R.
  • Case REJECTED. Negotiated a rejection of the case with the San Diego City Attorney. The client was arrested for a violation of the restraining/protective order PC 273.6, which triggers immediate deportation because it was issued pursuant to California Family Code 6320. Prepared a pre-arraignment mitigation packet for the City Attorney. The deputy city attorney agreed not to file charges. [San Diego State Court]. People of California v. I.M.
  • .405% BAC. Second (2nd) Driving Under the Influence (VC 23152) offense with a crash.  Pre-Trial plea to 96 hours of custody, 26 days SCRAM ankle monitor with permission to travel, AA meetings, 15 days public work service (post conviction modification to 120 hours of volunteer work to be completed in one year).  People of California v. G.B. 
  • Second and Third DUI. Second DUI at .14% BAC with speeding and reckless driving with speeds of 30 MPH above the posted speed limit. While on bond, third DUI at .22% BAC with misdemeanor evading while driving recklessly (VC2800.2) at 113 MPH and driving with a restricted license (VC 14601.21(b)). Result: Convinced the prosecutor to transfer the case to the DUI court, 45 days in custody, 18 months DUI Court program. Post-conviction court fees waived.  People of California v. G.H. 
  • BP Code 4060. Misdemeanor Possession of a Controlled Substance without Prescription. DISMISSED after counsel proved that the drug in question did not meet the definition of a controlled substance.  People of California v. S.R. 
  • B & P 25662. Any person under 21 years of age who has any alcoholic beverage in his or her possession on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or the person shall be required to perform not less than 24 hours or more than 32 hours of community service during hours when the person is not employed or is not attending school. 13202.5. (a) For each conviction of a person for an offense specified in subdivision (d) (which includes B & P 25662), committed while the person was under the age of 21 years, but 13 years of age or older, the court shall suspend the person’s driving privilege for one year. Case DISMISSED May 2019. 
  • 1203.4 Expungement. Client successfully granted the petition of dismissal and expungement of his Vehicular Code 23152(b) DUI conviction. People of California v. DV

*The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. The outcome of each legal case depends upon many factors, including the facts of the case, and no attorney can guarantee a positive result in any particular case.