Content copyright 2014. Martínez Law. All rights reserved. Content on website is not legal advice. Contacting the firm does not automatically establish a solicitor-client relationship.
Below are just a few examples of successes obtained for clients. For more examples, or to learn what options are available in your case, please contact Shane Martinez for a free initial consultation.
Previous results do not guarantee successes in any particular future case. All cases are different and must be assessed on their own facts and merits.
R. v. A.F. - Client charged with attempt murder, assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats. The Crown sought a significant federal sentence and the matter proceeded to trial. Counsel successfully challenged the admissibility of the hearsay statements that were crucial to the prosecution of the case. Upon those statements being excluded the Crown re-assessed its position mid-trial and all charges were dismissed.
R. v. P.K. - Client charged with assault. Counsel collected information demonstrating that the client had, in fact, acted in defence of another by intervening to prevent a domestic assault. Client entered into a peace bond and all charges were ultimately withdrawn.
R. v. B.H. - Client charged with sexual assault stemming from altercations in the workplace. The Crown sought jail time and the matter proceeded to trial. Sensitive issues arose as a result of revealing photos of the accused which came into the possession of the Crown. Following the cross-examination of the complainant it was determined that it would be unnecessary for the accused to testify. The client was found not guilty of all charges.
R. v. B.A. - Client charged with possession of numerous vials of fentanyl. Through extensive resolution efforts counsel demonstrated to the Crown that the fentanyl was not possessed for a criminal purpose but that the client inadvertently came into possession of it as a result of his profession in the medical field. All charges were withdrawn.
R. v. T.L. - Client charged with robbery following an alleged gang attack at an amusement park. Multiple individuals were involved as both complainants and accused persons. Serious issues emerged regarding the identification of the accused as a major player. An agreement was reached for the accused to participate in diversion. Following the successful completion of diversion the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. A.S. - Client charged with multiple firearm-related charges are an unlicensed handgun and ammunition was found in her home. After significant resolution discussions with the Crown, as well as a Judicial Pre-Trial, counsel demonstrated that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were subsequently withdrawn by the Crown.
R. v. D.M. - Client charged with uttering threats in relation to an alleged plot to kill his partner. The client's purported involvement as a bodyguard in a foreign jurisdiction factored prominently in the allegations. A peace bond was ultimately secured and all charges were withdrawn.
R. v. N.W. - Client charged with assault with a weapon and carrying a concealed weapon after a violent altercation in a federal prison that included a serious stabbing. The Crown initially sought a further custodial sentence, however counsel obtained the security footage from the prison and was able to illustrate how the client was in fact acting in self-defence against a coordinated attack. After raising this with the Crown the charges were withdrawn.
R. v. D.C. - Client charged with participation in numerous burglaries in two jurisdictions, where hundreds of thousands of dollars in jewelry and other valuables were allegedly stolen. Counsel was able to demonstrate that the accused's connection to the alleged offences was tenuous, and that although he was in the vehicle observed leaving the scene of one of the burglaries, he couldn't be substantially connected to the actual break, enter, and theft from any of the homes. The Crown agreed and withdrew all charges.
R. v. T.M. - Client charged with assaulting a far-right demonstrator at a protest in Toronto. Counsel developed and proposed to the Crown a plan where the client would make a donation to a charitable organization in the community, but would make no apology or admission of liability. After making the donation the client signed a peace bond and the charge was withdrawn by the Crown.
R. v. J.S. - Client charged with auto theft, as well as breaking into another vehicles and stealing property. Although the client's fingerprints were found on the stolen car, at the Judicial Pre-Trial counsel presented positions from established case law which suggested that the fingerprint evidence would not be sufficient to secure a conviction. Counsel also requested a copy of the security footage from the parking garage where the second incident took place, and was able to show that the suspect on tape and the client were not the same person. The Crown then withdrew all charges.
R. v. R.M. -Client charged with an assault in the workplace. It was alleged that a violent altercation between the client and a co-worker included dozens of punches during a fight in a confined space. Counsel prepared a remedial plan for the client prior to a Crown Pre-Trial ever taking place, and guided the client through the process. The results were very positive, and the Crown agreed to a peace bond and withdrawal of the charge.
R. v. D.N. -Client charged with sexual assault. The charge was particularly serious given the immigration consequences posed by the client's lack of Canadian citizenship. A rehabilitation plan was prepared for the client to treat underlying addiction and mental health issues. After the client demonstrated his ability to comply with the treatment plan, a peace bond was secured and the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. T.P. - Client charged with robbery after an alleged car-jacking. Counsel obtained information revealing that the description of the suspect did not sufficiently match that of the client. After numerous Crown Pre-Trials the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. S.W. - Client charged with threatening death. The Crown was seeking at least one month in jail. Counsel engaged in a thorough fact-finding mission to establish that the complainant had motive to fabricate the allegations in retaliation for a falling out with the client. At the end of the two day trial the client was found not guilty.
R. v. R.B. - Client charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference. At the preliminary inquiry defence counsel succeeded in having half of the charges withdrawn. When the remaining counts proceeded to Superior Court, a Charter application was brought alleging that the police had violated the client's rights by failing to preserve crucial evidence. It was also demonstrated that the police may have inappropriately influenced the complainant and purported witness, by potentially telling them what to say on the stand. Following a week long trial the client was ultimately found not guilty on all counts.
R. v. J.A. - Client charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats. The Crown initially sought a penitentiary sentence for the client, however after lengthy pre-trial discussions which revealed the difficulties of the Crown's case, an arrangement was developed for the client to complete counseling. The Crown agreed to the client signing a peace bond and all charges were dropped.
R v. C.S. - Client charged with theft under $5,000 in connection with a missing deposit at a bank totaling thousands of dollars. At the Judicial Pre-Trial it was demonstrated that the video evidence did not prove that the client had committed any wrongdoing. An arrangement was made for the client to make a modest charitable donation and in turn the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. E.M. - Client charged with theft over $5,000 and breaking and entering. The Crown claimed it had DNA evidence linking the accused to the scene. However, following numerous appearances defence counsel persuaded the Crown to drop the charges due to there being no reasonable prospect of conviction.
R. v. T.M. - Client charged with assault with a weapon and uttering threats. The Crown initially sought a custodial sentence for the accused, however following numerous Crown Pre-Trials all charges were withdrawn after the client completed community service hours.
R. v. E.S. - Client charged with importation of cocaine and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence after he was arrested at the Pearson International Airport attempting to visit Canada. The Crown alleged that the client was the overseer of a cocaine importation ring. Although the client's co-accused were deported from Canada, the Crown had indicated that it would attempt to use their statements against the client. Shortly after counsel advanced a Charter application alleging violations of the client's right to counsel and security of person, the prosecution was halted when all charges were stayed by the Crown.
R. v. T.B. - Client charged with assaulting a court officer who had come to bring him from jail to the courthouse. Counsel obtained both security footage from the jail, as well as the Use of Force Policy governing the conduct of all Toronto Police officers (including court officers). The footage depicted the court officer punching and kneeing the client. An application for a stay of proceedings was brought, alleging violations of the client's Charter rights. After the Crown received the application the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. R.C. - Client charged with assault. Client was in a particularly vulnerable position due to having no immigration status in Canada. Counsel secured client's release from custody, and then negotiated with the Crown to have the charge withdrawn after the client signed a peace bond.
R. v. C.J. - Client charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and obstruct police (for providing a false name). Following a week-long trial at Superior Court, the presiding judge found that the investigating officer had engaged in trickery and that the client's rights under s. 10(a) of the Charter had been breached. It was also found that there was no knowledge or control of the drugs. The client was found not guilty on all charges.
R. v. A.D. - Client charged with assault with a weapon after allegedly threatening a bouncer with a machete. The Crown wanted a guilty plea with three weeks in jail. Counsel prepared for trial, but in the meantime took steps to continue resolution discussions. After substantial groundwork the Crown agreed to a peace bond and all charges against the client were withdrawn.
R. v. C.J. - Client charged with assaulting a correctional officer. The Crown initially refused to withdraw the charges. Counsel then sought and obtained the security footage from the jail, which demonstrated that no assault ever took place. A week before trial the Crown reconsidered its position and withdrew the charge.
R. v. J.D. - Client charged with theft under $5,000 and breach of trust in connection to thousands of dollars which were allegedly taken from his workplace. Discussions with the client revealed the presence of mental health issues. A detailed rehabilitation plan was developed for the client, and mental health diversion was obtained. All of the charges were ultimately withdrawn.
R. v. R.R. - Client charged with threatening death against his former partner. He was re-arrested on two occasions for allegedly failing to comply with recognizance (breaching bail), however his release was secured on both occasions. On the day of the trial negotiations with the Crown resulted in all three charges being withdrawn after a peace bond was signed.
R. v. N.D. - Client charged with assault and assault with a weapon after a fight in which the complainant suffered injuries from a bottle allegedly being used against him. The Crown initially sought jail time, but agreed to resolution by way of a peace bond after lengthy discussions with counsel. All charges were withdrawn.
R. v. T.L. - Client charged with assault. Due to immigration issues, a strategy was developed to assist the client resolve the matter with no impact on his plans to acquire status in Canada. Following the successful completion of an anger management program the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. D.S. - Client charged with assault and unlawfully being in a dwelling as a result of a domestic dispute. The sensitive nature of the client's work meant that any finding of guilt could jeopardize his employment. Following the successful completion of the Partner Assault Response Services course the client signed a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn by the Crown.
R. v. M.D. - Client charged with robbery following a street fight. A large group of young people were involved in the altercation, and there were multiple witnesses and co-accused who implicated the client. Nonetheless, after extensive discussions with the Crown the charge was reduced to mischief and the client was granted an absolute discharge.
R. v. J.L. - Client charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, weapons dangerous, forcible confinement, threatening death, and robbery in relation to a serious home invasion. Due to the gravity of the offence, and the criminal record of the accused, the Crown indicated that it would seek a sentence in the range of approximately 4 years if there was a guilty plea. However, following lengthy negotiations with the Crown, and after outlining the weaknesses of the case at the Judicial Pre-Trial, all charges were withdrawn.
R v. E.N. - Client charged with theft over $5,000 in connection with an alleged bank fraud operation that had stolen tens of thousands of dollars. The Crown initially refused to drop the charge and was intent on proceeding to trial. After counsel demonstrated that the bank had no video evidence of the client committing any offence, and that it was possible that the client's identity had been misappropriated by someone else, the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. A.D. - Client charged with unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm obtained by the commission of an offence, unauthorized presence of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and multiple other firearms offences. The charges related to a firearm that had recently been reclassified as a prohibited weapon. Counsel secured the withdrawal of all charges prior to the preliminary hearing.
R. v. C.J. - Client charged with two counts of assault in relation to a domestic incident. Under cross-examination at trial one of the complainants admitted that it was possible that the physical contact was quite likely accidental. The Crown re-assessed its position mid-trial and all charges were dismissed.
R. v. A.W. - Client charged with threatening death against his former spouse. At trial the cross-examination of the complainant and her son revealed that the comments uttered could have been made with no ill intent. The client was found not guilty.
R. v. B.B. - Client charged with threatening death against a shopkeeper while allegedly claiming he had a firearm. At a Judicial Pre-Trial information was provided to demonstrate that the shopkeeper's claim was false, and that his call to the police may have been motivated by racial prejudice. The charge was subsequently withdrawn after a peace bond was signed.
R. v. K.C. and K.B. - Clients charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. Both were migrant farmworkers in southern Ontario who were visiting Toronto for the day. While visiting a friend they were caught up in a police raid. Bail was immediately obtained for both, and after negotiations with the Crown all charges were withdrawn.
R. v. A.D. - Client charged with threatening death against a federal government minister using a social media service. During a series of Crown Pre-Trials it was shown that the matter required a mental health response instead of criminal charges. A treatment plan was established and the charge was withdrawn by the Crown.
R. v. C.J. - Client charged with threatening death against a jail guard. After seeking information from witnesses and investigators, there were grounds to believe that the allegations were fabricated. The weaknesses and inconsistencies in the case were explained to the Crown and the charge was subsequently withdrawn.
Previous results do not guarantee successes in any particular future case. All cases are different and must be assessed on their own facts and merits.