Payment PlansCharged with Sale or Transportation of a Controlled Substance in California?
Sale Charges (HS § 11352, HS § 11379, HS § 11351, HS § 11378) Carry Significant State Prison Time — But Specific Elements Are Frequently Challenged, Reduced, or Defeated Entirely.
California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended sale and transportation of controlled substance charges — including HS § 11352 (cocaine/heroin), HS § 11379 (methamphetamine), HS § 11351/11378 (possession for sale) — through suppression motions, intent challenges, informant reliability attacks, entrapment, and charge reductions in courts across every county in California. These are among the most aggressively prosecuted drug offenses, with serious prison exposure and aggravated felony immigration consequences. However, the prosecution must prove specific, contestable elements — and experienced defense often leads to suppression, reduction to simple possession, or outright dismissal. Act now.
IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED WITH SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:
- Do not make any statements to law enforcement or prosecutors without counsel — statements about transactions, knowledge, or intent are the prosecution's strongest evidence and can establish the specific elements they need to prove
- Do not contact co-defendants, alleged buyers, or witnesses — contact after arrest is used as evidence of tampering or consciousness of guilt regardless of the intent behind it
- Preserve all documentation — communications, alibis, evidence contradicting sale intent, and any records that provide context for the conduct alleged
- Contact experienced counsel immediately — sale cases involve informants, surveillance, and recorded buys; early investigation is critical for suppression motions and charge reduction strategy
Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174
THE STAKES ARE REAL — SALE CHARGES ARE FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN POSSESSION
Unlike simple possession (often a misdemeanor after Proposition 47), sale, transportation, and possession-for-sale charges are straight felonies with significant state prison exposure. Diversion like PC 1000 is generally unavailable. A conviction is an aggravated felony under federal immigration law — triggering mandatory deportation with almost no relief available even for long-term residents and lawful permanent residents.
Common Penalties:
- HS § 11352 / HS § 11379 (sale/transport): 3 to 5 years state prison — more with enhancements
- HS § 11351 / HS § 11378 (possession for sale): 2 to 4 years state prison
- Enhancements for large quantities, sales near schools or parks, prior convictions, or gang involvement add mandatory additional years
Additional Consequences:
- Permanent felony record — highly disqualifying for employment, licensing, and housing
- Professional license revocation risk for all licensed professionals
- Asset forfeiture — cash, vehicles, and phones connected to alleged sales
- Immigration — aggravated felony conviction triggers mandatory deportation and permanent bars
Proposition 36 (2024/2025 updates) has increased felony charging for some repeat hard-drug cases but still offers treatment pathways in qualifying situations.
Quick Statute Comparison:
| Charge | Statute | What It Covers | Typical Sentence Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sale / Transportation | HS § 11352 | Cocaine, heroin, Schedule I/II | 3–5+ years |
| Sale / Transportation | HS § 11379 | Methamphetamine | 2–4+ years |
| Possession for Sale | HS § 11351 | Cocaine/heroin with intent to sell | 2–4 years |
| Possession for Sale | HS § 11378 | Methamphetamine with intent to sell | 16 months–3 years |
Call (800) 755-5174 for a free 24/7 consultation.
WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE — AND WHERE THE DEFENSES LIE
For sale/transportation (HS § 11352/11379) or possession for sale (HS § 11351/11378), the prosecution must prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element is independently challengeable — and defeating any single element defeats the charge entirely.
Key Defenses at a Glance:
- Illegal search/suppression (PC § 1538.5): Unconstitutional searches lead to exclusion of drugs, cash, and packaging — often producing outright dismissal
- Lack of sale intent / personal use: Circumstantial evidence (quantity, scales, cash) can be explained as consistent with personal use for a heavy user
- Lack of knowledge: You didn't know the substance was present or didn't know what it was
- Entrapment: Government inducement of a crime you weren't predisposed to commit
- Informant reliability: Challenge the credibility, motives, and benefits given to confidential informants
- Charge reduction: Negotiate from sale or possession-for-sale down to simple possession — opening the door to diversion
- Enhancement challenges: Defeat quantity, location, prior conviction, or gang enhancements that add mandatory years
INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE EXPLANATIONS — HOW EACH DEFENSE WORKS
Defense One: Illegal Search and Seizure — PC § 1538.5 Suppression
In most sale and possession-for-sale cases, the controlled substance, the cash, the packaging, the scales, and the other physical evidence were discovered during a search. If that search was unconstitutional — conducted without a valid warrant, without valid consent, or without a recognized exception to the warrant requirement — everything it produced is suppressed under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. In sale cases, suppression of the physical evidence typically eliminates the case entirely — without the substance, the cash, and the packaging, the prosecution cannot prove the possession element, the intent element, or the transaction itself.
Common suppression grounds in sale cases include warrantless vehicle searches lacking probable cause, warrantless home entries without valid exigent circumstances, search warrants obtained based on informant tips that do not satisfy the probable cause standard, Franks v. Delaware challenges to warrant affidavits containing material falsehoods, consent searches where the consent was not genuinely voluntary, and unlawful traffic stops as the foundation of the subsequent vehicle search. Every search in every sale case is examined for constitutional defects from the first consultation — and dashcam footage, body camera footage, and surveillance footage preservation demands are issued immediately upon retention before the 30 to 90 day retention window closes.
Defense Two: Lack of Sale Intent — The Personal Use Defense
In possession-for-sale cases under HS § 11351 and HS § 11378, the prosecution's entire case rests on proving the intent to sell rather than possess for personal use. Every piece of circumstantial evidence the prosecution uses to establish sale intent — quantity, packaging, cash, scales, multiple phones — is challenged with an alternative personal-use explanation. A heavy drug user may possess what appears to be a distribution quantity while using exclusively for personal consumption. A digital scale used for personal portion control is not evidence of sale. Multiple cell phones reflect normal personal and business use in modern daily life. The specific personal-use defense is developed through evidence of the defendant's own substance use, the nature and amount of the alleged substance, the absence of other distribution indicia, and the alternative innocent explanations for each item the prosecution characterizes as evidence of sale intent.
Defense Three: Lack of Knowledge
HS § 11352 and HS § 11351 both require proof the defendant knew the controlled substance was present and knew its nature. A defendant who did not know the substance was in the location where it was found — in a vehicle they drove for someone else, in a location shared with others, in a package they transported without knowledge of its contents — did not have the required knowledge element and cannot be convicted of sale or possession for sale. The lack of knowledge defense is developed through evidence of the circumstances of the discovery, the defendant's relationship to the location, the presence of others with access, and all available facts consistent with genuine lack of awareness of the substance.
Defense Four: Entrapment
Where law enforcement — through undercover officers or confidential informants — induced the defendant to commit a sale that the defendant would not have committed without that inducement, the entrapment defense applies. California's entrapment doctrine protects defendants from government inducement of criminal conduct that the defendant was not predisposed to commit. The entrapment defense is available where law enforcement made repeated requests for a sale after initial refusals, exploited a personal relationship to overcome the defendant's resistance, offered extraordinary financial or personal inducements, or created a criminal opportunity that would not otherwise have existed. Where the facts of the undercover operation support an entrapment defense, it is developed and asserted from the first day of representation — because entrapment, when established, produces dismissal of the charge entirely.
Defense Five: Informant Reliability and the Confidential Informant Challenge
Many sale cases depend entirely or primarily on evidence from a confidential informant — a person who agreed to cooperate with law enforcement, typically in exchange for benefits in their own criminal case — and who provided the information establishing probable cause or participated in the controlled buy. Confidential informants have specific, identifiable motivations to provide information: to reduce their own charges, to satisfy financial interests, or to harm a person with whom they have a personal dispute. Challenging the reliability of the confidential informant — their credibility, their specific motive to fabricate or exaggerate, prior instances of unreliability, the specific benefits promised, and the extent to which law enforcement independently corroborated their account — is one of the most important defense strategies in sale cases where informant evidence is central.
The defense is entitled to specific information about the confidential informant in many circumstances — and the prosecution's ability to withhold informant identity has specific legal limits. Where disclosure is required and the prosecution refuses, the case may be dismissed. Where the informant is disclosed, their background, prior cooperation history, promises received, and personal relationship with the defendant are examined and presented to the jury as impeachment evidence.
Defense Six: Charge Reduction — From Sale to Possession
In many sale and possession-for-sale cases, the most important achievable outcome is reduction of the charge from sale or possession for sale to simple possession. Simple possession under HS § 11350 or HS § 11377 is a misdemeanor for most defendants following Proposition 47 — dramatically less sentence exposure, no felony record, and in most cases access to PC 1000 DEJ diversion that produces a complete dismissal with no conviction recorded. For non-U.S. citizen defendants, the charge reduction from possession for sale to simple possession eliminates the aggravated felony immigration consequence that would otherwise produce mandatory deportation — making charge reduction not just a criminal defense goal but an immigration protection priority. Charge reduction is pursued through prosecution negotiation, suppression motions that weaken the sale evidence, and trial defense of the intent element.
Defense Seven: Enhancement Challenges
Sentence enhancements — for large quantities under HS § 11370.4, for sales near schools or parks under HS § 11353.1, for prior drug convictions, and for gang benefit under PC § 186.22 — can add mandatory years to the base sentence. Each enhancement must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and is subject to specific factual and legal challenge. Defeating a single enhancement can mean the difference between a sentence of 3 years and one measured in a decade or more — and challenging every alleged enhancement from the first day of representation is as important as challenging the underlying charge.
Defense Eight: Laboratory Analysis and Chain of Custody Challenge
The prosecution must prove through laboratory analysis that the substance seized is in fact the controlled substance alleged — and must establish an unbroken chain of custody from seizure through analysis. Chain of custody violations, analytical methodology errors, contamination, and inconsistencies between field test results and laboratory analysis all provide grounds to challenge the reliability of the prosecution's evidence. In cases involving large quantities divided into multiple samples, independent expert review of the laboratory analysis is assessed.
SALE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS
Sale and possession-for-sale convictions are aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) — triggering mandatory deportation, permanent bars to re-entry, and no relief in most cases. Even a plea can have devastating consequences. Charge reduction to simple possession or outright dismissal via suppression is often the only way to protect immigration status.
Why Sale Charges Are Categorically Different from Possession for Immigration Purposes
Under federal immigration law, drug trafficking offenses constitute aggravated felonies — and both actual sale under HS § 11352/11379 and possession for sale under HS § 11351/11378 constitute drug trafficking for federal immigration purposes, even if no actual sale occurred and even if the conviction is based solely on possession with intent to sell. An aggravated felony conviction triggers mandatory deportation with essentially no discretionary relief available — even for lawful permanent residents, even for long-term residents, even for defendants who have lived in the United States for decades. A simple possession conviction under HS § 11350 or HS § 11377 — a misdemeanor for most defendants — does not constitute an aggravated felony. The immigration difference between a sale conviction and a simple possession conviction is not a matter of degree — it is categorical, and it determines whether the defendant is deported or remains in the United States.
What Non-U.S. Citizens Must Do Before Any Plea:
- The immigration consequences of the specific charge — sale, transportation, or possession for sale — must be analyzed before any plea is entered; the aggravated felony designation attached to each of these charges must be understood before any plea decision is made
- Charge reduction to simple possession must be pursued as an explicit immigration priority alongside the criminal defense strategy — because the immigration consequences of a sale or possession-for-sale conviction and those of a simple possession conviction are categorically different and the difference determines deportation
- Every suppression opportunity must be assessed because a suppression dismissal — producing no conviction of any kind — is always the most immigration-protective outcome available and eliminates both the criminal and immigration consequences simultaneously
- No plea to any sale or possession-for-sale charge should be entered without a full understanding of the aggravated felony immigration consequences and a clear assessment of whether charge reduction to simple possession is achievable on these specific facts
Immigration analysis for non-U.S. citizens is conducted from the very first consultation in every sale of controlled substance case.
HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS SALE CASES
David Chesley personally handles every case — rapidly preserving evidence for suppression, challenging informants, developing personal-use defenses, and prioritizing charge reduction — especially for immigration protection. Southern, Central, and Northern California, every county, every major jurisdiction — available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No hand-offs. No junior associates.
Strategies pursued simultaneously from day one:
Search and seizure challenge — immediate evidence preservation — every search examined; dashcam, body camera, and surveillance footage preservation demands issued before footage is overwritten.
Sale intent — personal use defense development — each piece of the prosecution's circumstantial sale intent evidence examined for alternative personal-use explanation.
Informant challenge — informant identity, background, prior cooperation history, specific benefits promised, and personal motive investigated from the first day.
Charge reduction — criminal and immigration priority — the specific facts, the strength of the sale intent evidence, and the defendant's prior record analyzed to determine whether reduction to simple possession is achievable; pursued aggressively as both a criminal defense goal and an immigration protection priority.
Enhancement challenges — every alleged enhancement examined for legal and factual support; unsupported enhancements challenged directly.
Immigration analysis from the first consultation — aggravated felony consequences of every available outcome analyzed before any plea is entered.
Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com
YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.
The prosecution must prove specific, contestable elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Sale charges are serious — and they are genuinely defensible when the right defenses are identified and pursued from the first day. Common resolutions:
- Physical evidence suppressed — warrantless vehicle search lacking probable cause; controlled substance, cash, and packaging suppressed; sale charge dismissed
- Franks challenge succeeded — warrant affidavit relied on informant information containing material falsehoods; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charge dismissed
- Personal use defense — acquittal at trial — quantity and packaging consistent with personal use for habitual user; prosecution unable to establish sale intent beyond reasonable doubt; acquitted
- Entrapment defense established — undercover operation found to have induced defendant through repeated requests after initial refusals; entrapment sustained; charge dismissed
- Informant credibility destroyed — confidential informant's prior false cooperation, personal motive, and inconsistent statements presented to jury; sale charge not proven; acquitted
- Charge reduced from sale to possession — prosecution's sale intent evidence insufficient to distinguish from personal use; charge negotiated to simple possession; PC 1000 diversion pursued; no felony conviction recorded
- Enhancement defeated — quantity enhancement alleged based on total seizure including substances belonging to others; individual quantity attributable to defendant found below enhancement threshold; mandatory additional years eliminated
- Immigration-safe charge reduction — non-U.S. citizen facing aggravated felony deportation from possession-for-sale charge; suppression motion filed; charge reduced to simple possession; aggravated felony immigration consequence avoided; defendant able to remain in United States
WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY
Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7
David Chesley personally handles sale of controlled substance defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because in sale cases, informant evidence is developed, surveillance footage is overwritten, and preliminary hearing dates arrive on the court's schedule, not the defendant's.
Straight talk, always
Sale cases range from situations where the search was clearly unconstitutional and suppression produces dismissal — to situations where a recorded transaction makes full acquittal unlikely and the most important work is charge reduction, enhancement challenges, and immigration protection. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are actually in. No false promises. No sugarcoating.
Multi-front defense from day one
Suppression, intent challenge, informant attack, entrapment, and charge reduction are identified and assessed simultaneously. A defendant with a strong suppression motion who never heard about it because counsel focused only on plea negotiation loses the most powerful defense available. Every available defense is identified and pursued from the first consultation.
Flexible payment plans
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a sale of controlled substance charge goes without experienced legal representation to pursue the defense their case demands.
Representative Results:
- HS § 11352 sale charge dismissed — vehicle search found to lack probable cause; all physical evidence including controlled substance, cash, and packaging suppressed as fruit of illegal stop; sale charge dismissed immediately following suppression ruling
- Franks challenge succeeded — warrant for residence relied on confidential informant information containing material inaccuracies; Franks hearing held; warrant invalidated; controlled substance and sale evidence suppressed; charge dismissed
- Personal use defense — acquittal at trial — quantity alleged as distribution amount found consistent with personal use for habitual user; prosecution's sale intent evidence insufficient; not guilty verdict returned
- Entrapment defense sustained — undercover officer made repeated requests for sale after defendant's initial refusals; entrapment established and sustained; charge dismissed before trial
- Informant credibility destroyed at trial — confidential informant's prior false cooperation, personal grudge against defendant, and financial motive fully established; jury found informant not credible; sale charge not proven; acquitted
- Charge successfully reduced — HS § 11351 possession-for-sale charge; personal use defense raised; prosecution agreed to reduction to HS § 11350 simple possession misdemeanor; PC 1000 diversion pursued and completed; no felony conviction recorded
- Enhancement defeated — quantity enhancement alleged based on total quantity at shared residence; individual quantity attributable to defendant established through evidence analysis; enhancement threshold not met; mandatory additional years eliminated
- Immigration-safe charge reduction — non-U.S. citizen defendant facing aggravated felony deportation from HS § 11351 possession-for-sale charge; suppression motion filed and charge reduction negotiated simultaneously; charge reduced to HS § 11350 simple possession; aggravated felony immigration consequence avoided; defendant able to remain in the United States
Client Feedback:
"Facing years in prison for sale of cocaine. David identified that the vehicle search was unconstitutional, filed the suppression motion, won it, and the entire case was dismissed. The right attorney at the right time made all the difference." — Anonymous former client
"The prosecution's case depended entirely on a confidential informant who had every reason to lie about me. David investigated his background, exposed every inconsistency and every motive to fabricate, and presented all of it to the jury. Acquitted." — Anonymous former client
"I was facing possession for sale. David raised the personal use defense, showed the prosecution the quantity was consistent with my own use, and negotiated the charge down to simple possession. I ended up in a diversion program instead of prison. No felony on my record." — Anonymous former client
"Non-citizen. David explained from the first meeting that a possession-for-sale conviction meant deportation with no way back. He made reducing the charge to simple possession the priority from day one — and achieved it. I am still in the United States." — Anonymous former client
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is the difference between sale and possession for sale?
Sale of a controlled substance under HS § 11352 or HS § 11379 requires proof of an actual sale, transportation for sale, furnishing, or offer to sell — a specific completed or attempted transaction. Possession for sale under HS § 11351 or HS § 11378 does not require proof of any actual transaction — only proof that the defendant possessed the substance with the specific intent to sell it, established through circumstantial evidence including large quantities, distribution packaging, scales, multiple phones, and cash. Both are serious felonies — but the specific elements and specific defenses differ in important ways that are analyzed in every case.
Can sale charges be reduced to simple possession?
Yes — often, and this is one of the most important defense goals in sale cases. Simple possession under HS § 11350 or HS § 11377 is a misdemeanor for most defendants after Proposition 47 — eliminating the felony record, dramatically reducing sentence exposure, and opening access to PC 1000 DEJ diversion that can produce a complete dismissal with no conviction recorded. For non-U.S. citizens, reducing from sale or possession for sale to simple possession eliminates the aggravated felony immigration consequence that would otherwise produce mandatory deportation. Charge reduction is pursued through prosecution negotiation, suppression motions, and trial defense of the intent element in every applicable case.
Does diversion apply to sale charges?
Generally no — PC 1000 DEJ and Proposition 36 are not available for sale and transportation charges. Drug court may be available in some counties for some defendants. For most defendants charged with sale, the available pathways are full defense of the charge through suppression, trial, or entrapment — or charge reduction to simple possession, which then opens the door to PC 1000 diversion. Charge reduction is frequently the most important strategic goal in sale cases where full acquittal is not achievable on the specific facts.
What are the immigration consequences of a sale conviction?
Catastrophic and essentially permanent. Sale and possession-for-sale convictions are aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) — triggering mandatory deportation, permanent bars to re-entry, and bars to naturalization with essentially no discretionary relief available, even for lawful permanent residents who have lived in the United States for decades. Even a guilty plea to a possession-for-sale charge triggers these consequences. Reducing to simple possession eliminates the aggravated felony designation and is often the only immigration-protective outcome available short of full dismissal.
Can the evidence be suppressed in a sale case?
Frequently yes — and suppression of the physical evidence in a sale case typically produces immediate dismissal. Unconstitutional searches — invalid warrant, bad consent, unlawful stop, Franks-vulnerable affidavit — lead to exclusion of drugs, cash, and all other physical evidence. Without the physical evidence, the prosecution cannot prove the possession element, the intent element, or the transaction itself. Every search in every sale case is examined for constitutional defects from the first consultation.
What is entrapment — and when does it apply in sale cases?
Entrapment applies where law enforcement induced the defendant to commit a sale the defendant was not predisposed to commit — through repeated requests after initial refusals, exploitation of personal relationships, extraordinary financial inducements, or creation of a criminal opportunity that would not otherwise have existed. It does not apply where law enforcement simply provided an opportunity for a sale the defendant was already predisposed to commit. Where the facts of the undercover operation support entrapment, it is a powerful defense that produces complete dismissal — and it is assessed in every case involving undercover operations or confidential informant controlled buys.
Are payment plans available?
Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a sale of controlled substance charge goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.
More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174
FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7
Sale charges move fast — with informants, surveillance, and recorded buys — and every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the most important defense opportunities narrow without anyone protecting them. Every day the search that produced the controlled substance evidence goes unexamined is a day the dashcam footage, body camera footage, and surveillance footage that could establish the constitutional violation — and produce a suppression dismissal that ends the prosecution without any conviction — moves closer to being permanently overwritten on the 30 to 90 day retention cycle before a defense attorney has had the opportunity to review it and file the suppression motion it supports. Every day the confidential informant's background, prior cooperation history, and personal motive go uninvestigated is a day the prosecution's informant narrative solidifies into the foundation of a preliminary hearing presentation that is significantly harder to challenge once testimony has been locked in and the informant's account has been presented without cross-examination that exposes its specific weaknesses. Every day a non-U.S. citizen defendant faces a sale or possession-for-sale charge without immigration-specific analysis of the aggravated felony consequences and without a charge reduction strategy built around the immigration priority is a day the most consequential immigration decision in their life — whether to accept a plea that means permanent deportation — moves closer to being made without the only analysis that can protect them. Every day the personal use defense goes undeveloped in a possession-for-sale case is a day the prosecution's characterization of every gram of quantity and every piece of packaging as evidence of sale intent goes uncontested — when a defense attorney developing the alternative innocent explanation right now could be creating the reasonable doubt that produces acquittal or charge reduction.
Don't make statements without counsel. Don't assume the sale evidence is too strong to challenge. And don't wait. If you have been charged with sale, transportation, or possession for sale of a controlled substance in California, call now.
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Honest assessment of your specific case — including suppression opportunities, intent challenges, informant vulnerabilities, and immigration risks.
Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone facing a sale of controlled substance charge goes without the experienced defense this charge demands.
David Chesley handles sale of controlled substance defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.
Se habla español.
📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com
"Sale and transportation charges carry heavy prison time and devastating immigration consequences, but the prosecution must prove specific, contestable elements. My commitment is pursuing every defense — suppression, intent challenges, informant attacks, entrapment, and charge reduction — from day one to achieve the best possible outcome." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney
