Case Results

  • Case Dismissed Immigration

    In 2012, Ms. C, a United States Citizen studying to be a nurse, was driving from Imperial Valley home to the Coachella Valley when she was stopped at an immigration checkpoint and detained for nearly an hour upon the request of the California Highway Patrol. Ms. C was subsequently arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. Ms. C, maintaining her innocence and concerned with possibly being expelled from her nursing program hired the Law Offices of Anastacio De La Cruz to defend her. After carefully reviewing the facts and evidence in this case, and reviewing the applicable law, Mr. De La Cruz filed a motion to suppress the evidence, alleging that Ms. C was unlawfully detained and arrested, in violation of her Fourth Amendment Rights. After taking testimony, the presiding judge agreed, and all evidence obtained after the unlawful stop was suppressed. The case was then suppressed. Ms. C was able to move forward in her chosen career.

  • Charges Dismissed DUI

    In 2017 Ms. Red, a United States Citizen, was arrested for a suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, commonly referred to as a DUI. After reviewing the police report and accompanying video, Mr. De La Cruz was able to get the officer to admit several key facts that would have made the stop of the vehicle unlawful. Unfortunately, the trial court was not persuaded, even when the law was clear. Mr. De La Cruz was able to effectively articulate to the Court of Appeals that the officer in fact violated Ms. Red’s Fourth Amendment and reversed the trial court’s decision on appeal and suppressed all evidence obtained after the illegal stop. The prosecution was unable to proceed, and the charges against Ms. Red were dismissed- nearly two years after the arrest took place.

  • Case Dismissed Possession of Drugs

    In 2006, Mr. Purple who has no legal status in this country, pled guilty to 2 separate violations of Health and Safety Code Section 11377(a), possession of methamphetamine. Mr. Purple was told by his public defender and the court that if he completed a drug program, that the convictions would be dismissed as though they never happened. Mr. Purple completed the intensive drug rehabilitation program, yet a number of years later was put into deportation proceedings. He found out that even though the convictions were dismissed for state purposes, they remained convictions for federal purposes. In 2019, Mr. Purple hired the Law Offices of Anastacio De La Cruz to vacate these convictions. After reviewing the court file, the client file, and the relevant law, Mr. De La Cruz noticed irregularities in the court paperwork, and filed a motion to vacate under Penal Code Section 1473.7, alleging that Mr. Purple was prejudiced by the court and trial counsel’s misrepresentation about the conviction being dismissed as though it had never happened. Further, Mr. De La Cruz argued that Mr. Purple had not been advised of the possible immigration consequences as required under Penal Code Section 1016.5. After providing evidence contemporaneous to the time of the plea that client would not have accepted the plea agreement had he known that he would have been deported and separated from his family, the prosecution submitted and judge granted the motion vacating the convictions. Mr. Purple is now eligible in immigration court for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Non-Permanent Residents.

    This example of the intersection between criminal and immigration law, is known as crim-imm, or “crimigration” and is a focal point of Mr. De La Cruz’ law practice.

  • Case Dismissed Child Endangerment

    In 2007, Mr. Green, upon the advice of his public defender, pled guilty to a violation of 273(a)(a), a form of child endangerment. Because the charge was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, client assumed he was safe for immigration purposes. He left the country several times over the years, raised his family, and for 11 years had no issues of any sort. Unfortunately, in 2018 he was detained while coming back into the United States after a family vacation due to this conviction. From another state, client contracted the Law Offices of Anastacio De La Cruz to represent him in post-conviction proceedings. Mr. De La Cruz reviewed the file, the court records, and the relevant law before filing a motion to vacate the conviction under Penal Code Section 1473.7 alleging that client had his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel violated. Mr. Green also alleged that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily as he did not fully understand the true immigration consequences of the plea. After a day-long tightly contested hearing, the presiding judge granted the motion based on a legal defect damaging clients ability to enter into the plea bargain knowingly and voluntarily. Due to this huge win, removal (deportation) proceedings against Mr. Green were terminated and he continues to reside with his family.

    This example of the intersection between criminal and immigration law, is known as crim-imm, or “crimigration” and is a focal point of Mr. De La Cruz’ law practice

  • Relief Granted Domestic Violence

    In 2002, Mr. Blue, a Legal Permanent Resident, pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code Section 273.6, commonly known as disobeying a court order related to a domestic violence charge. He was not sentenced to time in jail but was put on probation for 2 years. Years later, after marrying the protected party in the domestic violence case, and having 3 children with her, Mr. Blue was put into deportation proceedings as a result of this conviction. His immigration attorney correctly determined that, even though Mr. Blue had been living in the United States for over 30 years (since the age of 11), and had a family (all United States Citizens) who depended on him, this conviction rendered him ineligible to receive a Cancellation of Removal waiver in immigration court. In 2017, Mr. Blue retained the services of the Law Offices of Anastacio De La Cruz. After carefully analyzing all court records available and pertinent law, Attorney De La Cruz filed a motion to vacate the conviction under Penal Code Sections 1016.5 and 1473.7. Relief under Penal Code Sections 1016.5 was ultimately granted when the prosecution was not able to prove that Mr. Blue was fully advised of his rights at the time of the plea. Because of this, Mr. Blue was then statutorily eligible for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Non-Permanent Residents.

    This example of the intersection between criminal and immigration law, is known as crim-imm, or “crimigration” and is a focal point of Mr. De La Cruz’ law practice.

  • Case Dismissed Traumatic Injury

    In 2019, Mr. A and his wife were charged with violations of Penal Code Section 273d(a), commonly known as the infliction of traumatic injury upon a child. The Law Offices of Anastacio De La Cruz was retained to defend against these false accusations, and protect Mr. A’s rights. After a diligent review of the “evidence” presented by the Office of the District Attorney, Mr. De La Cruz noted some serious issues and inconsistencies with the “proof” provided. After contracting a private investigator, it became clear that the complaining witness had fabricated a series of events, which ultimately lead to all charges against Mr. A, and his wife, being dismissed.

  • Charges Reduced DUI

    In 2019 Mr. Y was arrested for suspected violation of Vehicle Code Sections 23152(a) and 23152(b), commonly known as driving while under the influence. His blood-alcohol level was tested at nearly double the legal limit. Concerned with losing his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, and being subject to deportation, Mr. Y retained the Law Offices of Anastacio De La Cruz in order to defend him and mitigate the disastrous criminal/immigration consequences. Seeing a few legal defenses, Mr. De La Cruz worked with Mr. Y to show substantial rehabilitation, even before charges had officially been filed. Based on the equities, and the tremendous amount of rehabilitation shown by Mr. Y, the Supervising Assistant District Attorney agreed to substitute the charge to a violation of Vehicle Code Section Vehicle Code Section 23103 per Vehicle Code Section 23103.5, commonly known as a “wet reckless.” Mr. Y was able to keep his DACA status, and remains in the United States, working and providing for his family.

  • Case Dismissed Wrongful Death
    In 2019 Mr. and Mrs. E was made aware that warrants for their arrest had been issued in 2014 stemming from an unfortunate incident in 2013 where two family pets perished. The couple indicated that they had never been arrested, never signed a notice to appear, and in fact, had no knowledge that charges had ever been filed. The couple maintained their innocence and were concerned about these charges interfering with their current jobs, as well as future employment prospects. The Law Offices of Anastacio De La Cruz was hired for representation. After carefully reviewing the evidence and facts of the case as well as the pertinent case law, it became clear that the couples’ Sixth Amendment Right to a Speedy Trial had been violated. Mr. De La Cruz carefully addressed the factors set forth by case law and noted the prejudice that the couple suffered from the unreasonable delay. At the motion hearing, the presiding judge granted the speedy trial motion, and the case was dismissed.
  • Dismissed Charges Felony
    In 2014, Mr. G, a Legal Permanent Resident of the United States, had charges in two separate cases filed against, alleging automobile insurance fraud as felonies. Mr. G, tremendously concerned with his immigration status, immediately retained the services of the Law Offices of Anastacio De La Cruz to defend him. After carefully analyzing the case, including the facts and evidence presented, it was clear that Mr. G’s role was very minor. It was equally as clear, in reviewing the applicable criminal and immigration case law that a conviction in both cases would lead to Mr. G’s deportation. Through skillful negotiation and presentation of Mr. G’s tremendous equities, the prosecution agreed to dismiss one of the cases outright and accept an immigration neutral plea on the other case. Mr. G continues to reside in the United States with legal status.
1 / 2