Violent Crime Defenses

• Home
• Violent Crimes
• Violent Crime Defenses

Charged with a Violent Crime in California?

Every Violent Crime Charge in California — From Simple Battery to First-Degree Murder — Has Specific, Identifiable, and Frequently Successful Defenses That Must Be Developed from the First Day of Representation.

California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended every category of violent crime charge in California — assault, battery, robbery, carjacking, domestic violence, aggravated assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder — through self-defense, defense of others, false accusation, lack of intent, mutual combat, alibi, constitutional violations, suppression of evidence, and the full range of charge-specific defenses — in criminal courts across every county in California. A violent crime charge is not a conviction. The prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Every element of every violent crime charge is independently and frequently successfully challenged. The charge filed against you is the prosecution's opening position — not the final outcome. Build your defense now.

IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT CRIME:

• Do not make any statements to law enforcement, prosecutors, investigators, or anyone connected to the case without experienced defense counsel present — violent crime cases are built primarily on statements; what you say about what happened, why it happened, what you intended, and what role you played is the prosecution's most important evidence and is most damaging when made before counsel is involved
• Do not contact any alleged victim, witness, or co-defendant — contact produces new charges for witness tampering, obstruction, or protective order violations and is treated as evidence of consciousness of guilt in violent crime prosecutions
• Document everything you remember immediately — the complete sequence of events, what each person did and said, what you believed was happening, any injuries you sustained, and every witness; this account is most accurate immediately after the arrest
• Preserve all available evidence — text messages, emails, social media, video and photo evidence, evidence of your own injuries, and any prior conduct by the alleged victim relevant to the defense

Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7.
📞 (800) 755-5174

THE VIOLENT CRIME CHARGE SPECTRUM

Many of these convictions are serious or violent felonies that trigger California's Three Strikes law.

Call (800) 755-5174 for immediate analysis of the specific charge and available defenses.

UNIVERSAL DEFENSES AVAILABLE IN EVERY VIOLENT CRIME CASE

Self-Defense and Defense of Others
A complete defense. The defendant must have reasonably believed they or another person faced imminent danger of death, serious injury, or unlawful touching; reasonably believed force was necessary; and used no more force than reasonably necessary. Imperfect self-defense can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.

False Accusation
Especially common in domestic, relationship, financial, and personal conflict cases. Communications around the time of the allegation frequently reveal the specific motive and contradict the accusation.

Lack of Intent / Required Mental State
Every violent crime requires a specific mental state. Accidental contact is not battery. Intent to injure is not intent to kill. Claim of right can defeat robbery. The specific mental state is frequently the most challengeable element.

Alibi
The defendant was not present. Built through witnesses, cell phone location data, GPS, credit card records, and surveillance footage.

Constitutional Violations — Suppression
Unlawful searches, Miranda violations, and post-charge interrogation without counsel suppress the prosecution's most important evidence.

Identification Challenge
Eyewitness identification is highly fallible. Procedures, lighting, stress, distance, and cross-racial factors are all examined.

INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE EXPLANATIONS — HOW EACH WORKS

Self-Defense and Defense of Others — The Complete Defense

Self-defense is the most powerful and most frequently applicable defense in violent crime cases — and it is a complete defense that defeats the charge entirely. California law provides that a person who uses force to defend themselves or another person from imminent unlawful force is not guilty of any crime — regardless of how serious the injury inflicted in defense.

The elements of valid self-defense: the defendant reasonably believed they were in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched; the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary to defend against that danger; and the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary. All three elements must be present — but where they are, the defendant is acquitted regardless of the severity of the resulting injury.

Imperfect self-defense — the most important murder reduction: Where the defendant genuinely but unreasonably believed they needed to use deadly force — where the belief was real but not objectively reasonable — imperfect self-defense does not fully acquit but reduces a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. This distinction is the most important and most frequently litigated question in California murder cases where self-defense is raised. The difference between complete self-defense (acquittal) and imperfect self-defense (voluntary manslaughter) is the reasonableness of the defendant's belief — and the evidence supporting that reasonableness is built from the complete circumstances of the confrontation, the prior history of the alleged victim's violence, any threats made before the incident, and the specific physical dynamics of the encounter.

Defense of others: The same framework applies where the defendant used force to protect another person. The defendant's reasonable belief that the third person was in imminent danger and that force was necessary to protect them is the foundation of the defense — and it is established through the same evidence as self-defense: the circumstances of the confrontation, the alleged victim's conduct, and the specific threat that made the defendant's response necessary.

Self-defense development: The self-defense narrative is built from the complete account of what happened — including the alleged victim's initiation of the confrontation, their prior threats, any documented history of violence, and the specific circumstances that made the defendant's response reasonable. The defendant's own injuries — bruises, scratches, defensive wounds on the hands and arms — are the most important physical evidence of self-defense and must be photographed immediately before they heal.

False Accusation — Three Motive Categories

False accusations in violent crime cases are more common than in most other criminal contexts — because violent crime charges frequently arise from personal relationships where specific and identifiable motives for fabrication exist. Three specific motive categories arise most frequently:

Domestic and custody motive: Accusations arising during relationship breakdown — divorce proceedings, custody modification hearings, and property division disputes — where the accusation provides a specific tactical advantage in family court. The timing of the accusation relative to any pending family court proceeding is the first and most important factor examined in every false accusation violent crime case. A defendant served with custody modification papers one week and facing a violent crime accusation the next week presents the clearest and most provable false accusation pattern.

Financial motive: Accusations arising during financial disputes, debt conflicts, business disagreements, or insurance claims where the accusation provides a specific financial benefit to the accuser — including the ability to seek civil remedies, to obtain possession of shared property, or to gain leverage in a financial negotiation.

Personal vendetta and self-protection: Accusations made by a person who was the actual aggressor and who filed the complaint to preempt a complaint by the defendant — or accusations motivated by personal animosity, jealousy, romantic rivalry, or workplace conflict where the accusation is the mechanism of revenge.

The false accusation defense is built through all communications between the defendant and the accuser — text messages, emails, voicemails, and social media — particularly those sent around the time of the alleged offense. These communications frequently reveal the specific motive, contradict the specific allegation, or establish conduct entirely inconsistent with a genuine victim of a violent crime. All communications are obtained and preserved immediately upon retention — because they are the most time-sensitive evidence in false accusation cases.

Lack of Intent — The Specific Mental State Challenge

Every violent crime charge requires proof of a specific mental state — and the prosecution must prove that specific mental state beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged offense did not satisfy the required element, the charge fails regardless of what happened physically.

Assault: Requires a willful attempt to commit a violent injury — an accidental action, a reflexive movement, or an unintended contact is not assault.

Robbery: Requires intent to permanently deprive — a taking motivated by a genuine belief of ownership or right, or a taking without intent to permanently deprive, is not robbery. The claim of right defense directly targets this element.

Attempted murder: Requires specific intent to kill — not intent to injure, not reckless conduct that happens to cause serious injury, and not even conduct causing near-death in some circumstances. The specific intent to kill must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt — and this is frequently the most important and most successfully challenged element in attempted murder cases.

Murder vs. manslaughter: The difference between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of malice aforethought — the mental state of deliberately intending to kill or acting with conscious disregard for human life. Where the killing occurred in the heat of passion following sufficient provocation, or in imperfect self-defense, the malice element fails and the charge is manslaughter rather than murder.

Attempted Murder — The Specific Intent to Kill Analysis

Attempted murder requires specific intent to kill — the prosecution must prove the defendant acted with the conscious purpose of causing the death of the alleged victim, not merely injuring them. This element is the most important and most frequently successfully challenged element in attempted murder cases — because many acts of serious violence are committed with intent to injure, not intent to kill, and the distinction between those mental states is the difference between attempted murder (life with possibility of parole) and assault with a deadly weapon (up to 4 years).

The specific intent to kill challenge is developed through: the specific circumstances of the alleged attack — including the nature of the weapon used, the specific location of any wound, the number of strikes or shots, the defendant's conduct after the alleged attack, and any statements made during or after the incident; any evidence of what the defendant said or communicated about their intent; and expert testimony on whether the specific conduct is consistent with intent to kill or intent to injure. A defendant who struck once and stopped, who aimed at a non-vital area, or who fled after the incident without ensuring the alleged victim's death presents specific factual evidence inconsistent with intent to kill.

Self-defense is a complete defense to attempted murder — where the defendant's use of potentially lethal force was a reasonable response to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, the attempted murder charge fails entirely.

Murder — The Four Primary Defenses

Murder defense is the most complex and most consequential area of violent crime law. The specific defense strategy depends on the specific facts, the specific theory of murder alleged, and the specific evidence available. Four primary murder defenses are assessed in every case:

Complete self-defense — acquittal: A defendant who used lethal force in reasonable response to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is not guilty of murder — they are acquitted. The self-defense narrative for a murder case is built from the most complete and most detailed account of the confrontation available: the alleged victim's initiation of the confrontation, their prior threats and documented history of violence, the specific weapons or force they used or threatened, and the specific physical dynamics that made the defendant's lethal response necessary and reasonable. Witness testimony, physical evidence, the defendant's own injuries, and any prior reports of the alleged victim's violence are all developed and presented.

Imperfect self-defense — voluntary manslaughter: Where complete self-defense cannot be established because the defendant's belief was genuine but not objectively reasonable, imperfect self-defense reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter — eliminating the 15-to-life or 25-to-life murder exposure and replacing it with a maximum of 11 years. This is one of the most important and most frequently pursued partial defenses in California murder cases.

Heat of passion — voluntary manslaughter: Where the defendant acted in a sudden and intense emotional state caused by sufficient provocation — provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control — murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter. The provocation must have actually provoked the defendant's passion and must have been objectively sufficient. The specific circumstances of the provocation — what the alleged victim did or said immediately before the killing — are the foundation of the heat of passion defense.

Absence of malice — factual and legal challenges: Both first and second degree murder require malice aforethought — the deliberate intent to kill or conscious disregard for human life. Where the specific mental state was not present because the defendant acted in accident, in genuine misunderstanding, or under circumstances that negate malice, the malice element is challenged on its specific factual and legal basis.

CHARGE-SPECIFIC DEFENSE HIGHLIGHTS

• Assault and Battery — self-defense, mutual combat, lack of willfulness, weapon and force threshold challenges for aggravated forms
• Domestic Violence — false accusation with motive development, self-defense, mutual combat, traumatic condition challenges in PC § 273.5, non-DV plea alternatives
• Robbery and Carjacking — claim of right, lack of force or fear element, intent challenges, identification
• Kidnapping — consent, substantial distance element challenge, false accusation
• Criminal Threats — conditional language defeating the unconditional requirement, lack of sustained fear, First Amendment protection for hyperbole and emotional expression
• Sexual Assault — consent, false accusation with motive development, identification, specific element challenges
• Attempted Murder — specific intent to kill (not merely to injure) is the critical element; self-defense is a complete defense
• Murder — complete self-defense (acquittal), imperfect self-defense or heat of passion (reduction to manslaughter), absence of malice, false accusation, identification, and forensic challenges

ENHANCEMENTS AND HOW THEY ARE CHALLENGED

• Great Bodily Injury — PC § 12022.7 — adds 3 to 6 years; the severity of the injury is independently challenged through medical evidence
• Firearm use and discharge — PC §§ 12022.5 and 12022.53 — adds 10 years, 20 years, or 25 years to life; the personal use and discharge elements are independently challenged
• Gang enhancement — PC § 186.22 — adds significant additional time; the defendant's specific gang connection, whether the offense was gang-related versus personally motivated, and whether the alleged association constitutes a criminal street gang are all independently challenged
• Three Strikes priors — PC §§ 667 and 1192.7 — prior serious or violent felony convictions; challenged for legal validity, constitutional rights at the time of the prior conviction, and whether the specific prior qualifies as a strike

Each enhancement element is independently challenged — and defeating any enhancement dramatically reduces the sentence exposure even where the underlying charge cannot be entirely defeated.

VIOLENT CRIME CHARGES AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS

Violent crime charges carry the most serious immigration consequences of any criminal charge category. For non-U.S. citizens, the immigration analysis must be conducted from the very first consultation before any plea is entered.

Federal Immigration Consequences

• Most felony violent crime convictions constitute crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 — and a crime of violence with a sentence of one year or more is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), triggering mandatory deportation with essentially no discretionary relief
• Virtually every violent crime conviction also constitutes a crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) — triggering inadmissibility and deportability independently of the aggravated felony designation
• Dismissal without any plea is the only fully immigration-protective outcome — no conviction and no plea eliminates all immigration consequences from the charge

What Non-U.S. Citizens Must Do Before Any Plea:

• The immigration consequences of the specific violent crime charge — including whether the specific charge and plea would constitute a crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16, or an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) — must be analyzed before any plea is entered; there is no violent crime plea that is immigration-safe without specific analysis of the specific charge and sentence
• The sentence imposed on any plea must be specifically controlled — a crime of violence constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) when a sentence of one year or more is imposed regardless of misdemeanor or felony classification; in violent crime cases this threshold is more difficult to stay below but critically important to pursue wherever possible
• Every defense that produces acquittal or dismissal — self-defense, false accusation, constitutional violations, identification challenge — is simultaneously the most immigration-protective outcome; no conviction and no plea eliminates all immigration consequences
• No plea to any violent crime charge should be entered without full analysis of the immigration consequences of the specific charge, the specific plea, the specific facts admitted, and the specific sentence — and a clear assessment of whether any available defense is achievable on the specific facts

Immigration analysis for non-U.S. citizens is conducted from the very first consultation in every violent crime case.

HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS EVERY CATEGORY OF VIOLENT CRIME

David Chesley personally handles every category of violent crime defense from first consultation through trial — immediate documentation of the defendant's account, rapid preservation of injuries and surveillance footage, communications analysis, witness development, constitutional violation review, and immigration analysis when needed. 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.

Core strategies pursued immediately:

The defendant's account — the complete factual account documented from the defendant immediately after the arrest; most accurate right now.

Physical evidence preservation — defendant's own injuries photographed immediately; surveillance footage preservation demands issued before the 30 to 90 day overwrite window.

Communications analysis — all text messages, emails, voicemails, and social media between the defendant and the alleged victim obtained and analyzed for false accusation motive and conduct inconsistent with genuine victimhood.

Witness identification — every person who observed any aspect of the alleged offense identified and contacted before the prosecution locks in the only witness account being examined.

Constitutional violation analysis — every statement examined for Miranda violations; every search examined for Fourth Amendment compliance; every identification procedure examined for due process violations.

Immigration analysis — consequences of every available charge and plea 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.

Every violent crime charge is defensible. Common resolutions across the full spectrum:

• PC § 245(a)(1) assault with deadly weapon dismissed — self-defense through surveillance footage — surveillance footage from the location established the alleged victim advanced aggressively on the defendant and the defendant retreated before using any force; self-defense found; charge dismissed before trial
• PC § 273.5 corporal injury dismissed — false accusation through communications — text messages and emails obtained through immediate preservation revealed the alleged victim had a pending custody modification hearing and had communicated the accusation plan to a third party before contacting law enforcement; communications directly contradicted the specific allegation; charge dismissed before the preliminary hearing
• PC § 211 robbery reduced — claim of right — defendant had documented basis for believing the specific property represented payment owed to them; intent to steal not established on the documented facts; robbery charge reduced to lesser offense; strike consequence eliminated
• PC § 422 criminal threats acquitted — First Amendment and sustained fear challenge — alleged threat analyzed in context of an emotionally charged argument; conditional language identified in the specific communication; alleged victim's sustained fear not established; acquitted
• PC § 664/187 attempted murder reduced to PC § 245 assault — specific intent to kill challenged through the circumstances of the alleged attack — single strike, non-vital area, defendant stopped immediately after the alleged victim fell; prosecution unable to establish intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt; charge reduced from attempted murder to assault with a deadly weapon; life exposure eliminated
• PC § 192(a) voluntary manslaughter — murder charge reduced through heat of passion — sufficient provocation established through the complete circumstances of the confrontation immediately preceding the killing; malice aforethought not established beyond reasonable doubt on the heat of passion evidence; murder charge reduced to voluntary manslaughter; 25-to-life exposure eliminated
• PC § 187 murder acquitted — complete self-defense — prior documented history of the alleged victim's violence developed through multiple witnesses and prior incident reports; defendant's own injuries from the confrontation documented and presented alongside the physical evidence of the specific threat; complete self-defense established; acquitted
• Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen defendant; assault with great bodily injury charge; warrantless search of the defendant's residence produced the key physical evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged offense; PC § 1538.5 suppression motion filed; search found to lack a valid warrant and no recognized exception established; evidence suppressed; without the suppressed evidence prosecution could not establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt; charge dismissed without any plea; 18 U.S.C. § 16 crime of violence and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) aggravated felony consequences avoided; defendant able to remain in the United States

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY

Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7
David Chesley personally handles every category of violent crime 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 the surveillance footage, the defendant's own injuries, and the alleged victim's communications are all most available and most complete in the first hours after the arrest.

Straight talk, always
Violent crime cases range from situations where self-defense is clearly established and the charge should be dismissed — to situations where false accusation documentation produces dismissal before the preliminary hearing — to situations where the specific element challenge reduces the charge from its most serious form — to situations where the most important work is protecting the defendant's collateral interests including immigration status and preventing strike consequences. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are in. No false promises. No sugarcoating.

Every defense in every case — simultaneously
The self-defense analysis. The false accusation investigation. The constitutional violation examination. The identification challenge. The specific intent element challenge. The immigration consequences. The Three Strikes analysis. Every defense is analyzed in every violent crime case from the first consultation — not the ones that seem most obvious, but every one.

Flexible payment plans
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone charged with a violent crime goes without experienced legal representation.

Representative Results:

• PC § 245(a)(1) assault with deadly weapon dismissed — surveillance footage established the alleged victim's aggressive advance and the defendant's retreat before any force was used; complete self-defense established from the objective video evidence; charge dismissed before trial
• PC § 273.5 corporal injury dismissed — false accusation; immediate communications preservation obtained text messages and emails establishing that the alleged victim had a pending custody modification hearing, had communicated the accusation plan to a friend before contacting law enforcement, and whose communications directly contradicted the specific injury allegation; charge dismissed before the preliminary hearing
• PC § 211 robbery reduced — claim of right defense; documented communications and records established the defendant's genuine belief that the property represented payment owed to them; specific intent to steal not established on the evidence; robbery charge reduced to lesser theft offense; strike consequence eliminated
• PC § 422 criminal threats acquitted — conditional language identified in the specific communication that was alleged as the threat; sustained fear element challenged through specific evidence that the alleged victim did not actually experience sustained fear; First Amendment protection for hyperbolic emotional expression analyzed; acquitted
• PC § 664/187 attempted murder reduced to PC § 245(a)(1) assault with a deadly weapon — specific intent to kill challenged through the specific circumstances of the alleged attack: a single strike, aimed at a non-vital area, with the defendant stopping immediately after the alleged victim fell; prosecution unable to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to kill rather than injure; charge reduced from attempted murder to assault with a deadly weapon; life with possibility of parole exposure eliminated; maximum exposure reduced from life to 4 years
• PC § 192(a) voluntary manslaughter — murder reduced through heat of passion; sufficient provocation established through the complete circumstances of the confrontation immediately preceding the killing — the alleged victim's specific threatening conduct and the defendant's immediate passionate response; malice aforethought not established on the heat of passion evidence; murder charge reduced to voluntary manslaughter; 25-to-life exposure replaced with maximum 11 years
• PC § 187 murder acquitted — complete self-defense; prior documented history of the alleged victim's violence developed through three witnesses who had observed prior incidents; defendant's own injuries from the confrontation — bruises and defensive wounds — photographed and presented alongside forensic evidence of the specific threat; defendant's account of the specific threat immediately preceding the use of force corroborated by physical evidence; complete self-defense established; acquitted
• Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen defendant; PC § 245(a)(1) assault with great bodily injury charge with PC § 12022.7 enhancement; warrantless search of the defendant's residence without consent and without a recognized exception produced the key physical evidence; PC § 1538.5 suppression motion granted; without the suppressed evidence the prosecution could not establish the charge; dismissed without any plea; 18 U.S.C. § 16 crime of violence designation avoided; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) aggravated felony consequence avoided; 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) moral turpitude consequence avoided; defendant able to remain in the United States

Client Feedback:
"She attacked me first and I defended myself. David built the entire picture — the surveillance footage showed her advancing on me, my retreat, everything. The assault charge was dismissed. Self-defense is a complete defense and the video proved it. I didn't know the footage existed until David went and found it." — Anonymous former client

"My ex accused me of domestic violence right before our custody hearing. David found her texts showing she planned the accusation to get leverage in family court — she had messaged a friend about it before she even called the police. Her own messages destroyed the case against me. Charge dismissed." — Anonymous former client

"They charged me with attempted murder. David showed there was no evidence I intended to kill — one strike, not aimed at a vital area, and I stopped immediately. The attempted murder charge was reduced to assault. The difference between those charges is measured in decades of exposure. David understood the specific intent element and challenged it precisely." — Anonymous former client

"As a non-citizen, a violent crime conviction would have meant mandatory deportation. David found the search of my home was unlawful, suppressed the key evidence, and the charge was dismissed without any plea. Both the crime of violence and aggravated felony immigration consequences were avoided. My status is protected." — Anonymous former client

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Is self-defense available even if the other person was seriously injured or killed?
Yes. The severity of the injury does not determine whether self-defense is available. A defendant who used force that was reasonably necessary to protect themselves or another person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is not guilty of any crime — regardless of the resulting injury. Where the defendant used deadly force in reasonable response to an imminent deadly threat, self-defense is a complete defense to even a murder charge.

What is the difference between murder and manslaughter — and why does it matter?
The primary difference is the mental state — the presence or absence of malice aforethought. Murder requires malice aforethought — the deliberate intent to kill or conscious disregard for human life. Voluntary manslaughter occurs where killing happens in heat of passion following sufficient provocation, or in imperfect self-defense where the belief was genuine but not objectively reasonable. The difference in sentence exposure is enormous: first-degree murder carries 25 years to life; voluntary manslaughter carries up to 11 years. Reducing a murder charge to manslaughter is one of the most important and most frequently achievable goals in homicide defense.

What is the specific intent to kill — and why is it so important in attempted murder cases?
Attempted murder requires specific intent to kill — the conscious purpose of causing the death of the alleged victim. This is higher than intent to injure, higher than reckless conduct causing serious injury, and higher than general intent to do harm. Many acts of serious violence are committed with intent to injure rather than intent to kill — and where the specific evidence is inconsistent with intent to kill, the attempted murder charge fails and the case is analyzed under the assault with a deadly weapon framework, which carries dramatically less sentence exposure.

What are the Three Strikes consequences for violent crime convictions?
Many violent crime convictions constitute serious or violent felonies under PC §§ 1192.7(c) and 667.5(c) — triggering Three Strikes. A second strike doubles the sentence for any subsequent felony. A third strike produces 25 years to life regardless of the triggering offense. Every prior strike conviction is analyzed for legal validity and constitutional compliance.

What are the immigration consequences of violent crime charges for non-U.S. citizens?
Violent crime charges carry the most serious immigration consequences available. Most felony violent crime convictions constitute crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 — and a sentence of one year or more on a crime of violence constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), triggering mandatory deportation. Most violent crime convictions also constitute crimes of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). There is no violent crime plea that is immigration-safe without specific analysis before any plea is entered.

Are payment plans available?
Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone charged with a violent crime 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

Violent crime cases require the most immediate action of any criminal charge — because the evidence that defeats the charge is also the evidence that disappears fastest. Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the surveillance footage from the location of the alleged offense — the objective record of who was the aggressor, who retreated, whether the defendant's account of the circumstances is corroborated by the physical evidence, and what the specific sequence of events actually shows — moves closer to being permanently overwritten on the 30 to 90 day law enforcement and private system retention schedule before a defense attorney has issued the preservation demand that locks it in as the evidence of self-defense or false accusation that defeats the charge. Every day the defendant's own injuries from the confrontation — the bruises, the scratches, and the defensive wounds that are the most important physical evidence of self-defense and that directly contradict the prosecution's narrative that the defendant was the sole aggressor — heal without documentation, when photographs taken today would preserve the objective physical proof that the defendant was receiving force during the confrontation. Every day the text messages, emails, and social media communications from the alleged victim that reveal the specific motive for the false accusation — the custody dispute timing, the financial conflict, the prior threats — risk being permanently deleted, when those same communications preserved today through an immediate demand could be the entire case. Every day a non-U.S. citizen defendant faces a violent crime charge without immigration-specific analysis of whether the specific charge constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16, 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) is a day the mandatory deportation that most violent crime convictions automatically produce moves closer to becoming permanent without the suppression challenge, self-defense development, or false accusation investigation that could prevent it.

Don't assume a violent crime charge is a conviction. Don't make statements before counsel is retained. Don't let surveillance footage be overwritten or injuries heal undocumented. And don't wait. If you have been charged with any violent crime in California — from misdemeanor battery to murder — 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. Just clear, honest answers about the specific charge you face, every defense available, and the best achievable outcome on your specific facts.

Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone charged with a violent crime goes without the experienced defense this charge demands.

David Chesley handles violent crime 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

"A violent crime charge is the prosecution's opening position — not the final outcome. Self-defense can defeat the charge entirely. False accusation development through communications analysis can establish fabrication. Constitutional violations can suppress the prosecution's key evidence. And the specific element challenge — intent, force, causation, identification — can defeat the charge at its foundation. My commitment is developing every available defense simultaneously from the first day, because in violent crime cases the evidence that wins is the evidence that is preserved and presented before it is lost."
— David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney