Case Results

Client was arrested and arraigned on 23 felony charges ranging from assault, battery, and rape after an intimate partner claimed that consensual intercourse was not consensual. The Nieves Law Firm was able to secure a dismissal of 22 of the 23 charges at a preliminary hearing, resulting in the client pleading no contest to one charge of PC 32 (Accessory After the Fact) which is not sexual or violent in nature. Client was also immediately released from custody.

Client was arrested and arraigned on 23 felony charges ranging from various allegations of forcible rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and domestic violence (corporal injury) after an intimate partner claimed that ongoing consensual intercourse was not consensual. Our attorneys successfully defeated all 23 charged allegations and resolved the matter as a PC 32 (accessory after the fact) that secured the client’s immediate release from custody. The client was not required to register as a sex offender, serve further jail time, and the PC 32 was reduced to a misdemeanor.

Client was accused of felony sexual battery and was served with a summons for a Restraining Order by the client’s ex-partner. The Restraining Order was ultimately dismissed after our team filed a forceful response countering the Petitioner’s accusations. The criminal charges were ultimately rejected and the client no longer had to face the threat of criminal prosecution or the requirement to register as a sex offender.

Client was undergoing the divorce process with a former spouse. A child custody dispute arose related to their divorce and the client was surprised to find that they were being served with a DVRO. The client, with the help of an attorney at The Nieves Law Firm, contested the DVRO in a hearing. The judge agreed with the argument made by The Nieves Law Firm attorney and the DVRO request was denied.

Client was renting a building to open their own small business. After the owner passed away, the client began receiving threats from the previous owner’s spouse and daughter related to contacting the Department of Health (DOH) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and was served with an EARO. After a trial, the judge ruled in our client’s favor and denied the EARO that was filed.

Client’s former employer filed a WVRO against our client due to allegations of threats made by the client. Five previous coworkers made allegations that our client threatened them in the workplace. Client hired The Nieves Law Firm to dispute the allegations and the WVRO. Her goal was to prove her innocence in the whole situation. The judge agreed with our argument and the WVRO filed against her was denied.

Client was in a unique situation with a former partner due to an employment dispute between the partner of the client’s daughter and the ex-partner. The situation became serious when the ex-partner started making threats of violence against the client, the client’s daughter, and the daughter’s partner. The judge agreed with the argument made by The Nieves Law Firm and granted our client a DVRO.

Client hired The Nieves Law Firm for assistance filing a CHRO. Client was receiving harassment related to a prior relationship she had with the respondent’s husband. The harassment escalated and the respondent was making attempts to impact her professional career and extort money from her. The judge agreed with our client’s argument and granted the CHRO. The court also required the other party to pay approximately $8,500 in attorney fees to our client.

Client was threatened by another individual related to the purchase/title of a vehicle. Client was receiving many different threats, including threats of physical harm, via text messages and email. Client’s reputation was also being attacked online. Our client pursued a CHRO to protect him and his family. The judge agreed with our argument and the client was granted a 5-year restraining order.

Client was having trouble finding adequate housing due to prior conviction. Our attorneys worked with the client to find recourse through post-conviction relief. The pardon was granted on behalf of our client.

Client was serving a sentence for a crime in a California jail. Based on information related to the case, we believed the client was eligible for resentencing. A new sentence was granted on behalf of the client.

Client was serving a sentence for a crime in a California jail. Based on information related to the case, we believed the client was eligible for resentencing. A new sentence was granted on behalf of the client.