Payment PlansPC § 273.5 Is the Statute Prosecutors Reach for the Moment Any Injury Appears in a Domestic Incident
A Bruise, a Scratch, or Documented Pain Without a Visible Mark Can Support a Felony Wobbler Charge — But Causation and Who the Actual Aggressor Was Remain Open Questions in Most Cases
California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended PC § 273.5 corporal injury charges — through false accusation defenses, self-defense and mutual combat analysis, causation and injury challenges, suppression of statements, recantation strategies, and non-domestic-violence plea negotiations — in criminal courts across every county in California. PC § 273.5 is a wobbler: misdemeanor or felony. A felony conviction creates a serious felony strike, enhanced sentencing, and the same permanent firearms ban, immigration deportability, and custody presumptions as other domestic violence offenses. The prosecution must prove willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition. That injury element and causation are frequently contestable. Build your defense now.
Reviewed by David S. Chesley, Esq., Managing Attorney — Law Offices of David S. Chesley, Inc.
CHARGED UNDER PC § 273.5? HERE'S YOUR IMMEDIATE CHECKLIST
- Do not make statements to law enforcement or prosecutors without counsel — descriptions of the incident can establish the willful injury element; statements about what contact occurred, how the alleged victim's injury was sustained, and the context of the confrontation are used to establish both the willful infliction and causation elements that are most frequently successfully challenged
- Do not contact the alleged victim if a protective order exists — any contact creates new criminal charges for protective order violations and produces additional evidence against the defendant; all contact, including through intermediaries, is prohibited and monitored
- Do not assume the charge is unbeatable because there is a visible injury — the existence of an injury does not prove the defendant caused it, does not prove the defendant acted without legal justification, and does not prove the injury meets the statutory definition of traumatic condition; all three are independently challengeable
- Preserve evidence immediately — communications showing motive or contradiction; photographs of your own injuries; witness contacts; any surveillance footage from the incident location; and any evidence of the alleged victim's pre-existing conditions
Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7.
📞 (800) 755-5174
THIS WOBBLER CAN FOLLOW YOU FOR LIFE IF HANDLED WRONG
A PC § 273.5 conviction carries:
- Misdemeanor:Up to 1 year county jail plus probation plus 52-week batterer's intervention program
- Felony: Up to 4 years state prison plus a serious felony strike under PC § 1192.7(c)
- Mandatory minimum jail: 15 days for a first conviction; 60 days for a second conviction within 7 years — even on probation
- Permanent federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) — the Lautenberg Amendment; no expungement removes it
- Family Code § 3044 custody presumption against the convicted parent — affects custody for years
- Deportability for non-U.S. citizens as a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i)
- Licensing and employment barriers — law enforcement, healthcare, education, security, and any position of trust
Quick Comparison: PC § 243(e)(1) vs. PC § 273.5:
| Charge | Classification | Injury/Traumatic Condition Required | Key Extra Risks |
|---|---|---|---|
| PC § 243(e)(1) | Misdemeanor | No — any unwanted contact | Firearms ban, deportability |
| PC § 273.5 | Wobbler | Yes — traumatic condition | Same + felony/strike potential; mandatory minimum jail |
Call (800) 755-5174 for case-specific analysis.
THE LEGAL ELEMENTS BEHIND A PC § 273.5 CHARGE
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
- Willful infliction of corporal injury — intentional use of physical force
- Resulting traumatic condition — visible injury, pain, or impairment meeting the statutory definition
- Qualifying domestic relationship — spouse, cohabitant, dating partner, or other specified relationship
- Causation — the defendant's conduct actually caused the specific injury
No traumatic condition = no PC § 273.5 conviction. This element, plus causation, self-defense, and mutual combat, creates strong and frequently successful challenges.
Key Defenses at a Glance:
- False Accusation — motive exposed via texts, history, and prior reports
- Self-Defense / Mutual Combat — reasonable response to attack; defendant's injuries and relationship history developed
- Causation / Injury Challenge — injury not caused by defendant's conduct, pre-existing condition, or does not meet traumatic condition threshold
- Accident / Lack of Willfulness — contact was unintentional
- Recantation and 911 Challenge — credible recantation combined with inconsistencies creates leverage for dismissal
- Suppression — Miranda-violated or coerced statements excluded
- Non-Domestic-Violence Plea — negotiate to PC § 242 or other non-DV offense to avoid strike, firearms ban, and immigration triggers
A PLEA OPTION THAT PROTECTS MORE THAN JUST YOUR SENTENCE
The specific conviction label matters more than the sentence.
A plea to PC § 242 simple battery — on the same facts and with the same sentence as a PC § 273.5 plea — avoids the domestic violence designation entirely. It does not trigger the federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). It does not constitute a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for immigration purposes. It does not create the Family Code § 3044 custody presumption. And it does not require the mandatory 52-week batterer's intervention program. Even with similar facts and a similar sentence, the specific offense of conviction determines whether all four of those permanent consequences apply.
This alternative is pursued aggressively in every case where full dismissal is not achievable — especially for non-U.S. citizens, firearms owners, law enforcement officers, military personnel, and professionals whose careers depend on the right to possess firearms or work with children or vulnerable persons.
HOW EACH DEFENSE THEORY IS BUILT
When the Account Itself Was Fabricated or Exaggerated
False accusations show up in PC § 273.5 cases more than in most other criminal charges, and the motives behind them in domestic relationships tend to be identifiable, provable, and often the strongest defense on the table. Three motive categories come up most often:
Custody and divorce. An accusation filed while custody proceedings are pending or expected triggers the Family Code § 3044 presumption against custody — an immediate tactical win in family court. Checking the timing of the accusation against any pending or anticipated custody proceeding is the first thing examined in every false-accusation case, and a pattern like custody papers arriving one week followed by a PC § 273.5 accusation the next is one that comes up with real frequency.
Money and housing. Accusations that surface during property division, support disputes, or fights over shared housing often trace to a financial motive — especially where the accusation gets the defendant removed from a shared home via a criminal protective order, handing the alleged victim exclusive possession without the cost of a civil eviction. The timing and financial circumstances at the time of the accusation get developed in every case where this motive is plausible.
Immigration leverage. When the alleged victim is a non-U.S. citizen, a domestic violence accusation can open the door to immigration benefits reserved for DV victims — benefits that don't exist without that evidence. Wherever that possibility exists, it gets developed as a specific, identifiable motive.
This defense gets built from every communication between the defendant and the alleged victim — texts, emails, voicemails, social media — especially anything from around the time of the alleged incident. These often contradict the accusation directly, expose the motive, or show behavior from the alleged victim that doesn't match a genuine domestic violence situation. Pulling and preserving all of it happens immediately upon retention, since it's the most time-sensitive evidence in these cases.
Challenging Whether the Injury Meets the Statutory Definition
The traumatic condition element is the defense most specific to PC § 273.5, and it's also the one most often overlooked — both by defendants and by attorneys who assume any visible mark automatically clears the bar. Under PC § 273.5(c), a traumatic condition means a wound or an external or internal injury produced by physical force, visible or not. The prosecution still has to prove that condition actually existed and that the defendant's conduct caused it.
Mounting this challenge means checking the actual documentation against the statutory language: what the responding officer observed at the scene, any injury photos taken by police, any medical records from treatment sought afterward, and the specific nature, severity, and duration of whatever was documented. Minor redness that resolved on its own, a pain complaint with no objective findings, a bruise barely visible in photos, or a condition the alleged victim described but the officer never confirmed — none of these are guaranteed to satisfy the threshold.
When this challenge succeeds — showing the documented condition falls short of the PC § 273.5(c) standard — the felony charge fails. The case then gets analyzed under PC § 243(e)(1) domestic battery, a misdemeanor with far less exposure and none of the felony record, prison time, or strike consequence.
Was the Defendant Actually the Cause of This Injury?
Even where a traumatic condition clearly existed, the prosecution still has to prove the defendant's conduct specifically caused it. This challenge comes up in three recurring situations:
A pre-existing condition explains it. If the alleged victim has a bleeding disorder, a condition causing easy bruising, or any other issue that produces a mark from contact that wouldn't leave one on an ordinary person, this gets challenged through their actual medical history. Someone whose conduct wouldn't normally leave a visible mark, but whose partner's medical condition produced a bruise from ordinary contact, hasn't inflicted the kind of injury the statute requires. Medical records, treating physicians' notes, and any history of bruising inconsistent with its reported cause all get reviewed wherever this explanation is plausible.
The injury doesn't match the alleged conduct. When the location, severity, pattern, or nature of the injury doesn't line up with what the defendant is accused of doing, that mismatch itself becomes the challenge. A bruise in a spot inconsistent with the alleged strike, a pattern that doesn't match the alleged force, or an injury that would've required more force than what's actually alleged all raise real causation questions.
Something else happened in between. If some intervening event — the alleged victim's own actions afterward, a fall, a medical procedure — actually accounts for the injury, the causal chain gets challenged by laying out the exact sequence of events between the alleged contact and when the injury was documented.
Self-Defense: A Justified Response, Not an Unlawful Injury
Self-defense fully defeats a PC § 273.5 charge. Someone who caused a corporal injury in reasonable response to unlawful force from the alleged victim wasn't committing an unlawful injury — they were defending against one. Building this requires the full relationship history: who started the confrontation, who made contact first, what threats were made, and especially any prior violence in the relationship that was never reported to police.
Often the most powerful evidence in these self-defense cases never made it into a police report — prior incidents where the alleged victim was violent, threatening, or aggressive, unreported because the defendant was afraid, embarrassed, or hoping things would get better. That unreported history is usually the key to understanding why the defendant's response was reasonable given ongoing abuse, and it gets built from the defendant's own account, from witnesses who saw the relationship firsthand, from any communications reflecting the earlier abuse, and from the defendant's own injuries in the specific incident.
The defendant's own injuries — bruises, scratches, defensive wounds on the hands and arms — are usually the most important physical evidence supporting a self-defense claim, which is exactly why photographing them right away, before they heal, matters so much. Those photos are objective proof the defendant was on the receiving end of force too, directly undercutting a narrative that paints them as the sole aggressor.
Mutual Combat: Both Sides Were Involved
When both people made physical contact during the confrontation, and the defendant is charged simply because they got labeled the primary aggressor after the fact, the mutual combat defense challenges that labeling directly along with the unlawfulness element. The defendant's own injuries matter most here, which is why documenting them immediately is critical. Witness testimony, surveillance footage, and anything in the 911 call where the alleged victim acknowledges using force themselves all help establish that both people were involved.
Accident: The Contact Wasn't Willful to Begin With
PC § 273.5 requires a willful infliction of injury — the contact has to be intentional. Contact that was accidental, whether from a reflexive movement, a stumble, or an unintended touch during an emotional confrontation, doesn't satisfy that element. This gets built from the actual mechanics: what the defendant was doing, what they meant to accomplish, and whether the resulting injury came from an accidental sequence rather than a deliberate act.
When the Alleged Victim Recants — and What the Call Actually Proves
When the alleged victim recants, that recantation needs to be paired strategically with the traumatic condition challenge, since in PC § 273.5 cases, the prosecution's ability to move forward without the victim's testimony depends heavily on how strong the physical injury documentation is. Where that documentation is thin or ambiguous and the recantation is credible and consistent, the prosecution often can't establish either the traumatic condition or causation element without the alleged victim, and dismissal becomes realistic. Challenging the 911 call itself means looking at whether the actual words used describe a willfully inflicted traumatic condition, whether the caller's distress reflects genuine injury versus an emotional reaction to a fight, and any inconsistencies with what the alleged victim said later.
The Non-DV Plea: Four Specific Consequences It Avoids
When full dismissal isn't realistic given the facts, negotiating a non-domestic-violence plea becomes the most important protective move for defendants whose firearms rights, immigration status, custody, or career are the top concern. A PC § 242 simple battery plea on the same underlying facts avoids four specific things:
- The federal firearms ban: no Lautenberg Amendment prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which keeps firearms rights intact and protects careers in law enforcement, the military, and security
- Immigration deportability: no crime-of-domestic-violence designation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), the exact deportability ground that both misdemeanor and felony PC § 273.5 convictions trigger
- The Family Code § 3044 custody presumption: no rebuttable presumption against custody, keeping the defendant on equal footing in any custody dispute
- The 52-week batterer's intervention program: no mandatory requirement, removing what's usually the heaviest probation condition tied specifically to a DV conviction
This alternative gets assessed and pursued hard starting at the first consultation, in every PC § 273.5 case where full dismissal isn't realistic.
IF YOU'RE NOT A U.S. CITIZEN, READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY
Both misdemeanor and felony PC § 273.5 convictions carry some of the heaviest immigration consequences of any domestic violence charge in California — which is why this analysis needs to start at the first consultation, before any plea is discussed.
What Federal Law Does With a Conviction Like This
A conviction here can rise to:
- A crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), triggering deportability for non-U.S. citizens — and this applies whether the conviction is a misdemeanor or a felony
- A crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), triggering inadmissibility on its own
- In felony cases involving serious bodily injury, potentially an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), triggering mandatory deportation with almost no discretionary relief
Why the Sentence Length Deserves As Much Attention as the Charge
A crime of violence becomes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) the moment a sentence of one year or more is imposed, regardless of whether the conviction is technically a felony or misdemeanor. That means even a misdemeanor PC § 273.5 conviction can trigger that designation if the sentence reaches that mark, while a shorter sentence often won't. Controlling the sentence is just as important as pursuing the non-domestic-violence plea in every case involving a non-U.S. citizen.
There's no version of a domestic violence conviction that's genuinely safe for a non-citizen. The only outcomes that fully avoid the consequence are acquittal, dismissal, or a plea to a non-domestic-violence offense.
What Belongs in Every Non-Citizen Defendant's Case Before Any Plea:
- Check whether the specific plea would count as a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), a crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), or an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) — before agreeing to anything
- Control the exact sentence on any plea — a year or more on a crime of violence triggers the aggravated felony designation no matter the technical classification, while a shorter sentence often won't, and that single distinction can decide whether deportation follows
- Explore a plea to a non-domestic-violence offense — typically PC § 242 simple battery, or anything else that avoids the 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) designation — as a real alternative to any PC § 273.5 plea, since it's the offense of conviction that determines deportability
- Don't let any PC § 273.5 plea go forward without a full immigration analysis and an honest assessment of whether dismissal, acquittal, or a non-domestic-violence plea is realistic given the facts
This analysis starts at the first consultation in every PC § 273.5 case involving a non-U.S. citizen.
HOW THIS OFFICE APPROACHES A PC § 273.5 DEFENSE
Every PC § 273.5 case gets David Chesley's direct, personal attention — immediate evidence preservation, a close look at the traumatic condition and causation elements, false-accusation investigation, self-defense development, non-domestic-violence plea negotiation, and coordination with any family court matters. All of it runs in parallel from day one, across every county in California, available around the clock. No case gets handed to a junior associate.
What starts happening right away:
Traumatic condition review — the responding officer's documentation, injury photographs, and medical records get pulled and measured against the PC § 273.5(c) legal standard right away.
False-accusation investigation — whatever motive is in play — custody, financial, immigration — gets identified and developed from every available communication.
Communications review — texts, emails, voicemails, and social media all get examined for anything that contradicts the accusation or reveals a motive to fabricate.
Injury documentation — any injuries the defendant sustained get photographed immediately as physical evidence for mutual combat or self-defense.
Non-DV plea assessment — whether a PC § 242 or similar resolution is realistic gets evaluated immediately, pursued as the top firearms and immigration priority wherever full dismissal isn't in reach.
Immigration and sentence analysis — every available charge and plea gets checked for immigration consequences before any plea, including the sentence-length aggravated felony calculation, with a non-DV plea and sub-one-year sentence pursued together where relevant.
Family court coordination — the criminal defense strategy gets built alongside any pending custody or family court matters.
Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation.
📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com
EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS FROM THE FIRST QUESTION
The prosecution must prove a traumatic condition caused by the defendant's conduct beyond a reasonable doubt — and both elements are frequently challenged and defeated. Common resolutions:
- Dismissal — false accusation — texts revealed custody modification hearing as the specific motive; communications contradicted the accusation; charge dismissed before preliminary hearing
- Traumatic condition element defeated — injury found not to meet PC § 273.5(c) standard; charge reduced to PC § 243(e)(1) misdemeanor; felony, state prison, and strike consequences eliminated
- Causation challenge succeeded — alleged victim's documented bruising found consistent with pre-existing medical condition rather than defendant's conduct; causation not established; charge dismissed
- Self-defense acquittal — full relationship history of alleged victim's prior unreported violence developed; defendant's injuries documented; self-defense established; charge dismissed
- Mutual combat — primary aggressor determination challenged — defendant's injuries documented alongside alleged victim's; both parties' force established; charge not sustained
- Felony reduced to misdemeanor under PC § 17(b) — minor traumatic condition and circumstances insufficient for felony; wobbler reduced; felony record, state prison exposure, and strike eliminated
- Recanting victim combined with traumatic condition challenge — credible recantation combined with thin injury documentation; prosecution's remaining evidence insufficient; dismissed
- Non-domestic-violence plea negotiated — PC § 273.5 charge resolved as PC § 242 simple battery; federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) avoided; crime of domestic violence deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) avoided; Family Code § 3044 custody presumption avoided; 52-week batterer's program avoided
WHAT CLIENTS SAY ABOUT WORKING WITH THIS OFFICE
Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7. David Chesley personally handles PC § 273.5 defense across every California county — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction. Available around the clock, because the communications evidence, the defendant's own injury documentation, and the medical evidence needed to challenge the traumatic condition element are all most complete right after the incident.
Straight talk, always. PC § 273.5 cases range from clear traumatic-condition failures that should reduce the charge, to obvious false-accusation cases that should be dismissed, to more complicated situations where the real work is securing a non-domestic-violence plea that protects firearms rights, immigration status, and custody. You deserve an honest read on which one you're actually facing — no false promises, no sugarcoating.
The traumatic condition challenge is the most overlooked defense here. Plenty of defendants accept a PC § 273.5 charge without anyone ever checking whether the documented injury actually meets the PC § 273.5(c) standard. A minor bruise, redness that resolved on its own, or a condition inconsistent with the alleged conduct may not clear that bar — which reduces the charge to a misdemeanor and eliminates the felony record, the strike, and the prison exposure entirely.
Flexible payment plans are available, because cost shouldn't decide whether someone charged with PC § 273.5 gets experienced representation.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What actually counts as a “traumatic condition” under PC § 273.5?
Under PC § 273.5(c), it means a wound or external or internal injury produced by physical force. It has to actually be present and actually caused by the defendant's conduct — not just described by the alleged victim, not just a pain complaint with no objective findings, and not a pre-existing condition unrelated to what happened. Minor redness that resolved on its own, a bruise too faint to photograph, or something consistent with a pre-existing condition may not clear the bar. Where this element fails, the charge gets analyzed under PC § 243(e)(1) instead — a misdemeanor.
What's the difference between PC § 273.5 and PC § 243(e)(1)?
PC § 273.5 requires an actual traumatic condition — a real wound or bodily injury. PC § 243(e)(1) only requires willful, unlawful contact, with no injury needed. PC § 273.5 is a wobbler with felony exposure and mandatory minimum jail time; PC § 243(e)(1) is misdemeanor-only. Both trigger the federal firearms ban, the deportability consequence, and the Family Code § 3044 presumption. The practical difference comes down to felony exposure, mandatory minimum jail, and the potential strike that only PC § 273.5 carries.
Can a conviction still happen if the alleged victim recants?
Yes — the prosecution can move forward with the 911 call, officer observations, injury photographs, and medical records. A recantation alone doesn't get a case dismissed. But paired with a traumatic condition challenge, especially where the injury documentation is thin, it becomes one of the strongest combinations available. When the prosecution can't establish the traumatic condition element without the alleged victim's testimony, that combination produces dismissal.
Is this always charged as a felony?
No — it's a wobbler, so it can go either way. Even when filed as a felony, a PC § 17(b) reduction to misdemeanor is available at sentencing or after probation, and a successful reduction eliminates the felony record, the state prison exposure, and the strike.
What are the immigration consequences here?
Both misdemeanor and felony PC § 273.5 convictions count as crimes of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), which triggers deportability. It may also qualify as a crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and in felony cases with a sentence of a year or more, it can approach aggravated felony status under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). There's no version of this conviction that's genuinely safe for a non-citizen — only dismissal, acquittal, or a plea to a non-domestic-violence offense fully avoids it.
What does the non-domestic-violence plea alternative actually avoid?
A PC § 242 simple battery plea sidesteps four specific consequences: the federal firearms ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9); the deportability ground under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i); the Family Code § 3044 custody presumption; and the mandatory 52-week batterer's program. It's the offense of conviction — not the sentence — that decides whether these consequences apply.
Are payment plans available?
Yes — the Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans, because cost shouldn't decide whether someone charged with PC § 273.5 gets experienced representation. These options get discussed during the free consultation.
Still have questions? We're available 24/7 for a free, no-obligation consultation. 📞 (800) 755-5174
REACH OUT NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION, DAY OR NIGHT
PC § 273.5 cases move fast, and the evidence that decides them has a short shelf life. The alleged victim's texts, emails, and social media posts — the ones revealing custody timing, a financial motive, or an immigration benefit behind the accusation — can be deleted or altered the longer they go unpreserved. The defendant's own injuries heal within days, taking with them the proof that both people used force. And the medical and photographic evidence needs a defense attorney's review against the exact PC § 273.5(c) standard; left unexamined, minor redness or a small bruise simply gets treated as a felony-level injury by default, when it might not actually qualify at all. For non-U.S. citizen defendants, the same urgency applies to the immigration analysis under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) and 1101(a)(43)(F) — even a misdemeanor conviction can lead toward deportation without a timely look at the non-domestic-violence plea alternative.
Don't plead before the traumatic condition element has been checked against the actual medical evidence. Don't accept a felony plea on a wobbler before exploring a misdemeanor resolution. Don't accept a domestic violence conviction before assessing the non-domestic-violence plea alternative. And don't wait to make the call. If you've been charged with corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant under PC § 273.5 in California, reach out 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 the injury evidence, every available defense, and every protective plea option — including the non-domestic-violence alternative.
Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone charged with PC § 273.5 goes without the experienced defense this charge demands.
David Chesley handles PC § 273.5 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
"PC § 273.5 requires proof of willful corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition. Causation, self-defense, mutual combat, and false accusations are powerful challenges — and the traumatic condition element itself is frequently the most important and most overlooked defense target. For many clients, negotiating a non-domestic-violence plea prevents the strike, the firearms ban, and the immigration consequences. My commitment is fighting every element while pursuing the safest and most complete resolution from day one."
— David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney
