(Main Page) (Contact the Younglove Law Firm)


Maricopa County Superior Court:

State v. R. H.

Client was charged with Aggravated Assault after a dispute with a neighbor erupted into a physical confrontation. Victim allegedly fractured hand during the fight, resulting in the County Attorney charging the matter as an aggravated offense, rather than a simple assault. The law firm presented an argument for self defense, alleging the victim was in fact the aggressor. After a week long trial the jury found the client not guilty on all charges.

State v. A.P.

Client was indicted for multiple counts of kidnapping, armed robbery and extortion, resulting from a rip crew’s interception of a band of immigrants being transported inside the interior of Arizona. The law firm challenged the identification of our client as a participant in the crimes, and developed a mere presence defense. Prior to trial the State agreed to dismiss all charges and released the client.

State v. G.P.

Client was indicted for kidnapping and armed robbery. He retained this law firm to pursue his defense of mistaken identity. The firm orchestrated the dismissal of all charges by the State by obtaining a successful polygraph test, then challenging the eyewitness lineup identification as unnecessarily suggestive.

State v. C.S.

The client was charged with two separate crimes occurring on the same date, involving the same parties, but occurring at two different locations. The Indictments charged two counts each of Armed Robbery, Kidnapping and Aggravated Assault. The law firm’s vigorous defense uncovered security surveillance videotape which was previously undiscovered and unknown to law enforcement. The videotape essentially exonerated the client and the State had no choice but to dismiss all charges.

State v. S.L.

Client was arrested in a large drug sting operation and charged with multiple high level felonies, including; Possession of Narcotic Drugs for Sale, Conspiracy to Possess Narcotic Drugs for Sale, Operation of a Criminal Enterprise, all class 2 prison mandatory felonies. Our law firm was able to successfully distinguish our client from the other co-defendants and build a strong defense based on a mere presence argument. After methodically chipping away at the allegations, the State finally relented and offered the client a pure misdemeanor plea agreement with no risk of prison, and no jail.

State v. T.R.

Client was indicted for three counts of Armed Robbery and Kidnapping resulting from a confrontation between two separate groups of young men near the ASU campus. Facing over thirty years of prison, this office aggressively and diligently worked the matter and was able to negotiate a plea agreement where the client received a sentence of three years of supervised probation instead.

State v. J.M.

Client was charged with two new charges committed on separate dates, both Theft of Means of Transportation (Car Thefts), both Class 3 felonies. At the time of the alleged offenses, the client was on probation for two prior felony car theft convictions while represented by the Office of the Public Defender.

This law firm was able to counsel the client into an appropriate substance abuse rehabilitation program, and then demonstrated that good faith effort to become law abiding into an extremely favorable plea agreement that changed a minimum/mandatory prison sentence of at least 4.5 years and potentially 11.5 years into a 4 month prison sentence and reinstatement to probation.

More importantly, the client is now completely drug free and has successfully completed probation. Having rebuilt her life, she is now thriving and attributes the law firm for “providing the necessary counseling and mentoring that resurrected and redirected her life”.

State v. R.R.

Client was charged with Theft of Means of Transportation (Car Theft). To complicate matters, the client had a prior felony conviction and was on probation at the time of the alleged offense. Despite the odds, the law firm mounted a substantial defense which resulted in a extremely favorable plea agreement that allowed the client to avoid prison entirely with a stipulated sentence of probation.



State v. J.E.

Client retained our services after being charged with Extreme DUI in the City of Surprise. After successful negotiation and litigation with the city prosecutor, the charges were dismissed.

State v. R. J.

Client arrested for DUI and faced the revocation of professional licenses if convicted, was able to retain licenses and avoid jail when this office negotiated a reckless driving plea agreement by challenging the validity of law enforcement’s blood draw.

State v. A.F.

Client retained the law firm after being arrested for DUI. Facing jail, license suspension and the installation of a vehicle ignition interlock device, the office was able to gain a dismissal of all charges by filing a Habeas Corpus Motion that challenged whether or not the client ever actually operated the vehicle.

State v. S.G.

The law firm was able to negotiate a DUI charge down to a simple moving violation by suppressing the client’s statements because of law enforcement coercion. The client faced a 2nd DUI conviction which would have resulted in an extended jail sentence of 90 days.



(Main Page) (Contact the Younglove Law Firm)