When Discretion Meets Diligent Defense: Lessons from the Garver Sentencing
July 30, 2026
In serious felony cases, the difference between a life sentence and a fixed term can turn on preparation, timing, and the willingness of both sides to engage in realistic negotiation. In the recent sentencing of Samantha Garver, that difference became concrete. Through sustained advocacy, our office secured an offer from the District Attorney’s office resolving the matter on a lesser charge that carried a determinate prison term—removing the risk of a life sentence and providing the client with a clear, finite outcome.
Ms. Garver faced exposure that included the possibility of an indeterminate life term. After careful evaluation of the evidence, realistic assessment of the risks of trial, and persistent professional engagement with the prosecution, we obtained a resolution to voluntary manslaughter and a related child-abuse count. The resulting determinate sentence of 14 years gives the client certainty about the length of her custody and eliminates the open-ended uncertainty of a life sentence.
We greatly appreciate the discretion exercised by the District Attorney’s office in this matter. Prosecutorial discretion, when applied thoughtfully, allows the justice system to account for the specific circumstances of a case rather than defaulting to the most severe available punishment. In a case of this seriousness, the willingness of the prosecution to consider a structured, determinate resolution reflects a measured approach that serves the interests of justice.
Our office is proud of the work performed on behalf of Ms. Garver. Achieving this result required thorough preparation, clear-eyed analysis of both the strengths and vulnerabilities in the case, and consistent advocacy aimed at protecting the client from the most severe possible consequences while still acknowledging accountability. Results of this kind do not happen by accident; they are the product of focused, client-centered representation.
We remain committed to providing that same level of diligent defense to every person who entrusts us with their case. Whether the charges are among the most serious or comparatively less severe, our goal is the same: to pursue the best available outcome through careful preparation, strategic negotiation, and, when necessary, vigorous litigation. We look forward to continuing that work for clients who need it.
— Lucero, PC
The California State Assembly recently passed Assembly Bill 366 which would mandate the installation of Ignition Interlock Devices for all persons convicted of driving under the influence, including first-time offenders. An Ignition Interlock Device prevents a car from starting unless and until the driver blows into the device with no detectable amount of alcohol on his or her breath. The devices' manufacturers would be required to adopt a specified fee schedule for the costs of the device, relative to and commensurate with, the convicted driver's income. Interestingly, the Ignition Interlock Device provider is responsible for absorbing the remaining costs not paid by the convicted driver. The mandatory installation of an Ignition Interlock Device and its concomitant costs to even first-time DUI convictions is a hefty penalty that drivers should be aware of. If passed in the Senate, which should be expected, the law could go into effect as early as January of 2026. Contact our office at 213-668-7569 to discuss how to handle your DUI matter.
The California State Assembly recently voted on and passed AB-1231, "The Safer Communities Through Opportunity Act". The bill must still pass through the Senate, but, if signed into law, would offer defendants charged with felonies the opportunity to enter into a term of diversion. Upon successful completion of the term of diversion, the defendant's case would be dismissed and the arrest for the alleged felony offense would be deemed to have never occurred. The maximum length of felony diversion is twenty-four months from the date of admission. The Court would impose certain requirement upon the defendant, which would be expected to be satisfied. If not satisfied, the Court may reinitiate criminal proceedings. Certain enumerated offenses are excluded from eligibility into diversion, including, but not limited to, offenses that would require the defendant to register per section 290 of the Penal Code, felony DUI, and felony domestic violence. As it stands, only felonies that are punishable by up to three years' imprisonment are eligible for diversion. The law could go into effect as early as January, 2026. If you are facing a felony charge and interested in diversion for your felony matter, contact our office to discuss.
In California, defendants charged with misdemeanors may file a motion for what is colloquially referred to as "judicial diversion". Beginning in 2021, judicial diversion permitted bench officers to divert misdemeanor cases. In so doing, the judge will require the defendant to complete several tasks over a specified period of time. Upon completion of the terms, the judge is required to dismiss the case; the dismissal will happen even if the District Attorney or other prosecuting agency disagrees or objects. Judicial diversion provides great benefits to defendants as they do not have to plead guilty or no contest to any crime. Certain misdemeanors are precluded from judicial diversion, including: 1. domestic violence charges; 2. any charge requiring the defendant to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290; and 3. driving under the influence. Judges are not required to grant a defendant's motion for judicial diversion. In the event such a motion is granted, however, the maximum term length is two years from the date of admission. If you are facing misdemeanor charges, contact our office today to discuss a possible grant of judicial diversion.
In civil matters, Requests for Admissions are a form of written discovery that require the responding party to admit or deny certain facts that are pertinent to the lawsuit. The party propounding the Requests for Admissions may serve them by way of e-mail (assuming the parties agree to this form of service) or U.S. Mail. If the responding party has an attorney, the subject discovery must be served on the party's attorney. Within thirty (30) days of service of the Requests for Admissions, the responding party must serve written responses under oath. If the responding party fails to respond within the thirty-day timeline, the Court may deem the matters contained in the Requests for Admissions admitted. This has severe impacts on the party as it may preclude the party from offering certain defenses or evidence favorable to them, or cause them to lose the lawsuit, altogether. As the issues involved and information sought in Requests for Admissions are particularly sensitive, you must have an attorney assist with this form of discovery.
After being placed on probation, a defendant may file a motion with the court to have his or her probation terminated pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.3. The reviewing magistrate is permitted to grant the motion "when the ends of justice will be subserved thereby, and when the good conduct and reform" of the probationer warrants it. If the motion to terminate probation early is granted, the probationer is discharged from probation, ending his or her probation sentence early. When negotiating a matter with the prosecutor, it is important that the defense attorney keep this is mind. Many times, when fashioning a plea agreement, the parties can agree that the prosecutor will not oppose a defendant's motion for early termination of probation; the non-opposition is usually conditioned upon completion of all of the terms of probation and payment of fines. The early termination of probation may then warrant the matter's expungement and dismissal per Penal Code section 1203.4. With so much riding on the outcome, it is necessary that early termination of probation be considered when litigating a criminal case. Contact our office to discuss terminating your probation early.
When charged with domestic violence, a judge will typically address the issue of whether a criminal protective order should be issued at the time of arraignment. A criminal protective order may be issued in two forms: 1. No contact; or 2. No negative contact. A "No contact" criminal protective order prohibits the defendant from contacting the person identified in the order, whatsoever. A "No negative contact" criminal protective order will permit the defendant to have contact with the person identified in the order, but prohibits negative contact such as harassing, annoying, stalking, threatening, and striking that person. Because there is usually a pre-existing relationship as between the parties identified in the criminal protective order (for example, husband and wife), the issuance of a "No contact" criminal protective order will have drastic consequences, including, but not limited to, forcing the defendant to move out of the home. After the issue is litigated by the parties' attorneys, the judge uses his or her discretion as to what type of criminal protective order to issue. With the stakes being so high, it is necessary to have a trained attorney at arraignment to guide a defendant through these issues. Contact our office at 213-668-7569 to strategize for arraignment and issuance of a criminal protective order.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people against unreasonable search and seizure. A search or seizure is presumed unreasonable unless it is done pursuant to a warrant authorized by a magistrate. However, in California, law enforcement officers may seize a person's cellphone if they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of crime. At that point, because they are merely seizing, as opposed to searching, such seizure will oftentimes be deemed Constitutional. However, should the police wish to search the phone, ie., open it up and peruse its contents, such search will require a search warrant. Courts have indicated that because the seizure is less intrusive than a search, the seizure of the cellphone is acceptable assuming the officer does indeed have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of crime. Thus, even if the officer waits for a period of time to obtain a search warrant, the seizure will not later affect the officer's ability to search. The longer the officer waits to obtain the warrant to search, the greater the likelihood the seizure and subsequent search are tainted. If your cellphone has been seized by the police, contact our office today to discuss your plan of attack.
Oftentimes we are asked whether a privately-retained lawyer is necessary in a DUI case. Predictably, our answer is "It depends." For one, budgetary restrictions may make it difficult for a person accused of DUI to retain a private lawyer. With respect to the criminal case that arises out of a DUI arrest, the defendant is entitled to the appointment of a lawyer on their behalf if they cannot afford one. The appointed lawyer will represent the defendant throughout the case from arraignment through trial. The problem for many people in that scenario, however, is that a DUI case is broken down into two portions: the administrative portion and the criminal portion. The Court-appointed attorney will not assist the DUI recipient with the administrative portion of the case and will be limited to the criminal case. For many, having a lawyer represent the accused for the administrative hearing with the DMV is the greatest advantage to retaining private counsel. Because these matters are complex, you need someone who speaks the language necessary to defend you. Losing the APS hearing with the DMV comes with serious consequences including suspension of the person's drivers license. If you are unsure whether you need a private attorney for your DUI case, contact our office at 213-668-7569 to discuss whether our office is right for your situation.
When a person is arrested, the arresting officer must identify the law violation justifying the arrest. Once the officer has identified the law violation, bail is usually set according to the county's Bail Schedule. The Bail Schedule lists the provisions of the Penal Code and identifies a set bail for the offense. By cross-referencing the bail schedule, one can estimate what the arrestee's bail will be. If the arrestee cannot make bail according to the bail schedule, in California, bail is subject to judicial review at or near the time in which the arrestee is arraigned for the offenses. Thus, even if the bail schedule provides some guidance, the judge reviewing bail is not beholden to that amount; he or she can set whatever bail they feel appropriate. When faced with a bail decision, the judge will consider several factors, such as: -the defendant's prior criminal history; -the seriousness of the charges alleged; and -whether the defendant has any prior failures to appear for prior court cases. Arguments must be made by a skilled a skilled defense attorney highlighting the good facts for the defendant notwithstanding the criminal charges. If you or someone you know is in custody, contact our office at 213-668-7569 to schedule a bail hearing.
California Penal Code section 245(a)(2), commonly known as "Assault with a Firearm", is a felony that is punishable by two, three, or four years in state prison. The statute defines a firearm as a: -pistol; -rifle; -shotgun; -semiautomatic firearm; -machine gun; -.50 B