Success Stories

Listed below is a small sample of the firm’s cases. These summaries are provided for informational purposes only and not as any promise as to the outcome of your case. The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters listed here. The results of all cases handled by the firm are not provided and these cases are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by the firm or of the experience of all clients or others with the firm. Every case is different, and each client’s case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits. By viewing this page, you acknowledge that you have read and understand the above disclaimer and that you would like to view the information set forth below.

4/10/22 – Domestic Battery

Client charged with Domestic Battery against the mother of his child. The facts involve client having a discussion with his teenage daughter in front of maternal grandmother’s house because of the child’s failing grades. The child’s mother arrived at the home in disagreement with client having a fatherly discussion with the child about failing grades. Mother made an accusation that he struck her when she tried to intervene in his discussion with his daughter.

Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law permits non-deadly force to be used by a person against another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. Client claimed legal immunity pursuant to the “Stand your Ground” law and requesting a hearing regarding this matter. The evidence and testimony at this hearing demonstrated that it was the Mother that was the aggressor and tried to push client out of the way when he was talking to his daughter.

Case No.: M-20-21550 Result: Counts I- DISMISSED

1/26/22 – Driving Under the Influence with Property Damage

Client charged with offense of Driving Under the Influence with Property Damage. Client was involved in a single vehicle car crash, which was observed by 2 witnesses that happened to be in the area at the time of the accident. Police arrived at the scene, and a DUI investigation was conducted which resulted in client being arrested for DUI because of alleged indicators of impairment. On the morning of trial, a plea deal is negotiated in which the client avoids having a DUI on his record, and avoids any formal conviction.

Case No.: 19-021228MU10A Result: Reduction in charge to Reckless Driving, client has DUI reduced, and receives an Adjudication Withheld, which means no formal conviction on the lesser offense of Reckless Driving.

12/3/21 – Trafficking in Contraband Legend Drugs, Medicaid Fraud, Organized Fraud, Money Laundering

Client charged with felony offenses involving the sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Litigation in this case lasted over 4 years. Client facing a maximum of 30 years in prison on the most serious felony offense. The case against client largely based on the testimony of co-conspirator which accused client of being a vendor of counterfeit pharmaceuticals to him directly. After numerous depositions taken in the case, including that of co-conspirator, Office of the Attorney General voluntarily dismisses case 3 days before scheduled jury trial.

Case No.: 17-003418CF10A Result: Count’s I-IV- DISMISSED

4/8/21 – Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

 Client charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) for an arrest arising out of an allegation that he was weaving outside his lane and almost hit other vehicles. The involved police officers testified that client failed to stop his vehicle for almost two (2) miles after lights were activated from their patrol car, and that he was observed committing multiple traffic infractions while driving. A jury trial took place in this case.

The police officers testified that the client exhibited symptoms common with being under the influence. However, one (1) officer stated that he did not smell an odor of alcohol from the client’s breath, despite the fact that his partner said he did smell an odor of alcohol. It was especially troubling that this police department doesn’t provide their police officers with body worn camera, and none of their patrol cars have video equipment for recording purposes.

The constitution requires the State of Florida to prove its accusation against every criminal defendant. It is not necessary for the Defendant to prove their innocence, and any Defendant may exercise their right to remain silent and not be a witness in their case. The jury is then instructed during their deliberations that they are not to consider or be considered with the fact that the Defendant did not take the witness stand to give testimony in their case.

In this case, Lopez’s client took the witness stand to explain that he wasn’t impaired when he was driving, and that the alleged indications of impairment had to do with medical conditions that he suffered with respect to allergies that gave him bloodshot eyes, and a skin condition which caused him to appear to have a flushed face.

Case No.: 19-023702MU10A Result: Count I – NOT GUILTY at jury trial.

2/24/20 – Aggravated Battery on a Pregnant Victim

Client charged with one (1) count of Aggravated Battery on a Pregnant Victim for an alleged physical altercation with the mother of his children. In the State of Florida, it is automatically a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in Florida State Prison to commit a battery on a female whom is pregnant, if the accused knew of the pregnancy or should have known of the pregnancy.

The situation was particularly complicated by the fact that client was on probation for another unrelated charge and was in-custody up and through the trial date, and facing prison time. Lopez takes deposition of alleged victim and is able to elicit inconsistencies between the statement that she gave to the police on the date of the arrest, and the statement she gave at her scheduled deposition.

Client maintained that the alleged victim, her sister, and the alleged victim’s cousin attacked him, and then concocted a story of domestic battery to deflect attention away from the fact that the alleged victim and her “crew” where the aggressors.

In the end, justice prevailed and the Defendant was released from custody free to move on with his life as the Aggravated Battery and Violation of Probation accusations were dismissed on the morning of client’s scheduled jury trial.

Case No.: 19-004270CF10A Result: Count I – Dismissed by the Office of the State Attorney on the morning of scheduled Jury Trial.

8/27/19 – Burglary Dwelling/Grand Theft

Client charged with one (1) count of Burglary Dwelling and one (1) count of Grand Theft arising out of an incident at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino. Client accused of entering alleged victim’s hotel room without his permission and opening his safe and removing his money from safe without his permission. Client and her friend/acquaintance were charged as co-defendants in this matter.

Lopez travels to the State of Nebraska where the victim resides to take his sworn deposition. Lopez questions the victim and draws out his level of intoxication, as well as what appears to be discrepancies in the amount of money he alleges was taken from him. The alleged victim says that a total of $20,000.00 was taken from his safe on the night in question.

After two (2) years of litigation, Lopez is able to negotiate reduction in the criminal charges to two (2) misdemeanors with the special condition of repayment of restitution. A deal is negotiated where the client will not be convicted of these misdemeanors if her probation is completely successfully and her restitution paid in full. Initially, the client was facing a minimum of twenty-one (21) months in the Florida State prison if she was convicted of the criminal offenses of Burglary of a Dwelling and Grand Theft.

Case No.: 17-007219CF10A Result: Count I – Reduction to a change of charge of Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief under $1,000.00, Count II – Reduction to a change of charge of Misdemeanor Petit Theft. Adjudication Withheld (no conviction on record) and 2 years total probation. Restitution amount negotiated down to a total of $10,000.00.

7/18/19 – Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Client charged with Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon for going onto a school bus with a baseball bat to defend her son from getting beat up by another student. Upon seeing the other student beating up her son, she runs to her front yard, gets a baseball bat, and gets on the bus with the baseball bat to try and move her son’s attacker. Once all parties get off the bus, her son’s attacker then unleashes his fury against client by threatening to jump over her front yard. At this point, the client swings the baseball bat in an effort to fend the attacker away from her front yard.

Client is charged with a felony criminal offense for actions with the baseball bat on the date in question. Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law gives immunity from criminal prosecution against a criminal defendant if that defendant was legally justified in using or threatening to use force if that person believes it is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. In Florida, there is no duty to walk away or retreat before using this kind of force.

After taking sworn depositions, Lopez files a Motion to Dismiss based on “Stand your Ground” immunity ground. Prior to the “Stand your Ground” hearing, the Office of the State Attorney voluntarily dismisses client’s case.

Case No.: 16-012433CF10A. Result: CASE DISMISSED

6/17/19 – Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Domestic Battery

Client charged with two (2) counts of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Domestic Battery. Client’s wife calls police to allege that client threatened his Wife and Wife’s teenage daughter from a previous relationship with a metal object, and that he was going to kill them. Wife then alleges that the client grabbed her during this domestic dispute while in the kitchen of the couple’s home.

The Wife and daughter had relocated to the State of New York, and Lopez travels to New York to take the sworn depositions of both witnesses. During this sworn deposition, Lopez inquires as to various reasons why the Wife would make up a false allegation of assault and battery. Specifically, at the time of client’s arrest, the Wife and client were in the middle of an acrimonious divorce whereby the client was seeking to obtain sole possession of the marital home which would effectively have kicked the Wife out of the home. Additionally, the client had filed a Petition to Disestablish Paternity after Wife had confessed that their 8-year old son, was not his actual biological son.

Lopez is able to draw out all of Wife’s various motives to make up a domestic violence incident to gain leverage in family law proceedings.

Case No.: 18-005210CF10A Result: DISMISSED by the Office of the State Attorney prior to Jury Trial.

4/3/19 – Driving Under the Influence

Client charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) after being stopped by police officer for Speeding. At the scene, the client was forthright with the officer about consuming a total of 5 alcoholic beverages that evening, but that he was not impaired. At jury trial, Lopez argues that it is not against the law to drink and drive, but it is ONLY against the law to drink and then drive if you are impaired beyond your normal faculties. From the Jury Selection process through closing arguments, Lopez educates the jurors on this important distinction under the law.

The Client did not appear to be impaired when he was video recorded on the night of his arrest, despite the police officer testifying that the client performed the field sobriety exercises incorrectly, and despite the fact that the Client refused to take a breath test on the evening of his arrest.

Case No.: 18-002534MU10A. Result: NOT GUILTY

3/25/19 – Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon

Client charged with Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon after getting into a physical altercation with the owner of an auto body shop, and allegedly hitting him with the “Club” (steering wheel immobilization device). Lopez’s client was a 65 year old auto parts delivery man, and the alleged victim was a man in his 30’s who was upset that client brought him the wrong auto part. The victim/business owner offered to go into a private room with this 65 year old man and settle their differences.

After the fight inside the premises, Lopez’s client allegedly goes back to his vehicle and gets the “Club” and then strikes the business owner with this device. Lopez files a Motion to Dismiss based on Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law arguing that his elderly client went back to his car to get a weapon because he thought that the alleged victim was going to exit the business and come after him to finish off the fight.

Client was charged with a second degree felony which was punishable by up to fifteen (15) years of prison. On the date of the scheduled “Stand your Ground” hearing Lopez negotiates a plea agreement whereby the client has his felony charged reduced to a misdemeanor, with no conviction on his record, and no jail time.

Case No.: 18-005361CF10A. Result: Change of Charge to Misdemeanor Battery, client receives an Adjudication Withheld (no conviction on record), and twelve (12) months of probation, with no jail time.

3/11/19Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor, Felony Battery

Client stood accused of having sexual intercourse with a 17-year old female whom misrepresented her age. The facts appear to show that the female told the Client that she was 18 years old. Unfortunately, Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor is a “strict liability” crime, which in criminal law means that the actual intent to harm or commit a crime does not matter. The accused can be found guilty of such conduct regardless of his actual intent. To make matters more complicated, the client stood at risk of being declared a registered sex offender because of the nature of the criminal charge.

Lopez investigates the case and takes sworn statements of the witnesses in the case. The underage “victim” appeared to be transient and she could not be located to deliver a subpoena for her deposition (sworn statement). Lopez files a Motion asking the Court to remove her from the State’s witness list due to his inability to locate her and speak to her which was contrary to his client’s due process rights to confront his accuser. The case is scheduled for Jury Trial with a court order that the underage “victim” be made available for Lopez’s sworn statement prior to the commencement of the Jury Trial.

Case No.: 18-000767CF10A. Result: CASE DISMISSED on the morning of Jury Trial.

10/30/18 – Driving Under the Influence

Client is found by police sleeping in his car in the driveway of a residence that does not belong to him. The engine of the car is running, his head is slumped on the steering wheel, and the gear stick still in drive. Client is awaken and is asked to get out of the vehicle. At that point, the client falls out of the vehicle and lands face first on the pavement.

The State argues that the client was intoxicated and didn’t know where he was going or coming from. Lopez argues that his client was not DUI, but DWD, Driving while drowsy. In the State of Florida, it is not a crime to drive while tired if it is unrelated to alcohol. This was exactly the case as the client had worked a long 18 hour shift in construction, and fell asleep while driving home. What was being portrayed as behavior indicative of an intoxicated person was just someone whom was plain tired to an unbearable level, where he had to pull over in a stranger’s driveway and fall asleep.

Case# 17-027089MU10A – Result: Client is found NOT GUILTY.

4/4/18 – Aggravated Assault w/ Deadly Weapon, Felony Battery (Domestic Strangulation), Battery

Client charged with one (1) count of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, one (1) count of Felony Battery (Domestic Strangulation), and one (1) count of Battery. The accusation involves grabbing a machete and threatening client’s wife with it, an accusation of strangulation, plus a physical altercation in the bedroom of the marital home. The client faced a total of eleven (11) years prison.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that a noncitizen who is convicted of a “crime of domestic violence” is deportable. A conviction for immigration purposes is when the accused enters a plea of guilty or no contest, regardless of whether the accused is adjudicated guilty or receives an adjudication withheld (avoidance of formal finding of guilt by the Court). Lopez’s client is a noncitizen resident alien, so this case had grave immigration consequences outside of the criminal courts which included possible deportation.

A plea deal is worked out where the client enters a plea of no contest to three (3) non-domestic violence misdemeanors and receives an adjudication withheld on all counts. Thus, the client avoids potential deportation as his criminal offenses are not domestic violence related, and avoids a formal finding of guilt. Client will later be able to seal his record if he successfully completes probation.

Case No.: 17-009485CF10A. Result: COUNT I – change of charge to IMPROPER EXHIBITION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON, COUNT II – change of charge to SIMPLE BATTERY (not domestic violence), COUNT III – change of charge to SIMPLE BATTERY (not domestic violence). Client avoids any jail time and receives an Adjudication Withheld and probation for three (3) misdemeanor offenses.

11/9/17 – Aggravated Assault w/ Deadly Weapon, Battery

Client charged with one (1) count of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and one (1) count of Battery. The accusation was that the client tried to chop his roommate’s fingers off with a meat cleaver, and bit his nose. Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a third degree felony punishable by up to five (5) years in state prison, and Battery is a first degree misdemeanor punishable by up to one (1) year in the county jail. The case proceeded to jury trial.

At trial, Lopez argues on behalf of his client that the entire episode by the alleged victim/roommate was a concoction. The roommate had been accused by client of stealing his collectable foreign currency out of his bedroom. The roommate was a convicted felon, and didn’t want to go back to prison. When the Client told him he was calling the police and he had a video showing the theft, the roommate made up a story of assault and battery to deflect attention away from his thievery.

It is explained to the jury that despite having allegedly being bit on the nose very hard to the point that a “chunk” was being tried to be removed for almost ten (10) seconds (according to alleged victim), there were no bite marks, bruises, or any physical evidence on both the nose or neck. The victim also complained of having been choked on the neck by the client. Lopez points out that the lack of physical marks prove that a Battery never occurred.

There was also no evidence to prove an alleged meat cleaver attack as the victim was a convicted felon with a motive to make up a story because he didn’t want to go back to jail. The alleged victim’s mother and father were present during the alleged attack in the home, but all three (3) witnesses testifying against Lopez’s client gave inconsistent statements about what they saw and heard on that day. The jury concluded they could not be believed beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Lopez’s client of the Felony Aggravated Assault charge, and the Battery charge.


6/7/17 – Driving Under the Influence with Property Damage

Client charged with one (1) count of Driving Under the Influence with Property Damage for backing into a police car and then running into a pole.

The facts surrounding the case are that the Client left a party/gathering and then proceeded to back into a police car that was stopped in the middle of the street, and then the startled client put the car in drive and runs into a light pole. Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputies testify at jury trial that they saw the same standard observations that almost every police officer mentions in a DUI trial: Bloodshot eyes, Slurred Speech, Odor of Alcohol.

Lopez argues that client was involved in a traffic accident, but that the accident had nothing to do with alcohol. In fact, Deputies never bothered to ask the client whether or not he had actually consumed any alcohol prior to the accident. The client was observed to walk normally at the scene, and even appeared to have his balance and walk normally while being asked to do field sobriety exercises at the jail after his arrest.

At the end of jury trial, the Office of the State Attorney had proven that a car accident had occurred, but there was no evidence that the client had consumed alcohol, or was impaired beyond his normal faculties as must be proven by the Office of the State Attorney when a breath sample is not submitted by a criminal defendant in a DUI case. A person’s normal faculties per the Standard Florida Jury Instructions means having the ability to walk, talk, see, hear, drive an automobile, act in emergencies, make judgments, and perform the mental and physical tasks of our daily lives.

Case No.: 16-004021MU10A. Result: NOT GUILTY.

4/3/17 – Armed Sexual Battery/Robbery with a Firearm

Client charged with one (1) count of Armed Sexual Battery and three (3) counts of Robbery with a Firearm. Case goes to a bench trial (trial by judge) along with four (4) other co-defendants.

The alleged victims accused the five (5) co-defendants of robbing them at gunpoint, forcing them out of the vehicle to search through their vehicle, and forcing one (1) of the alleged victims to perform oral sex while at gunpoint. The two (2) alleged victims whom testified at trial were full of inconsistent statements. Specifically, the alleged sexual assault victim either could not remember, or was being untruthful about the number of people whom forced her to perform oral sex.

Lopez argues that his client received consensual oral sex from an alleged victim whom wanted to engage in a sex for drugs consensual transaction, and only lied about being forced at gunpoint to perform oral sex to conceal the true reason why she was located at the crime scene. Lopez also argues that the robbery occurred in another location of the parking lot, and that his client was not involved in the robbery.

Case# 15-004474DLB – Result: Not Guilty of all charges. Client avoids incarceration and risk of being labeled a registered sex offender. All other co-defendants are also acquitted of all charges.

8/23/16 – Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon

Client charged with Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon for having allegedly stabbed another patron with a pocketknife after a physical dispute.

The allegations involved a verbal dispute between the client’s group of family members, and the alleged victim and his entourage during an evening out at the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel. At some point, a physical struggle ensues between both groups and the alleged victim is stabbed once during the melee.

A sole witness implicated the client by virtue of her statement that the client had handed her a knife to dispose of. Through investigation and taking statements of the witnesses whom were present, a theory of defense was developed whereby the victim and his entourage where the aggressors in the physical confrontation. Additionally, there were no witnesses whom identified the client as being the actual perpetrator of the stabbing.

The client had been facing a maximum of up to fifteen (15) years in prison with a minimum of twenty-one (21) months in prison if convicted of the Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon charge.

Case# 15-009198CF10A – Result: Lopez negotiates a reduction to the criminal offense of Misdemeanor Battery. Client avoids a criminal record and receives an Adjudication Withheld and twelve (12) months probation to a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

6/30/16 – Resisting Arrest With Violence

Client charged with the felony offense of Resisting Arrest With Violence. The accusations involved kicking a police officer while being detained for investigatory purposes.

Not every client desires to go to jury trial and sometimes a good result for the client involves a reduction in the charges from Felony to Misdemeanor to avoid a felony record and the risk of going to jury trial. In this case, Attorney Lopez focused on showing the Office of the State Attorney reasons why client deserved to have her charge reduced from a Felony to a Misdemeanor. Client was detained for investigatory purposes after a police officer spotted her being physically assaulted by her boyfriend in the street. Additionally, client had severe knee problems which required surgery, and caused her to suffer a pain reflex which kicked law enforcement personnel.

Lopez delivers package to the Office of the State Attorney including statements of the witnesses and medical records to support client’s position that she had medical ailments and had been a victim of domestic violence whom deserved that the charge be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Case# 15-005088CF10A – Result: Reduction of Charge to Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest without Violence. Twelve (12) months probation with no jail time.

5/18/16 – Criminal Mischief

Client charged with criminal mischief (property damage) after being accused of throwing rocks at his neighbor’s house. One of them which hit the neighbor’s garage door causing damage.

Client exercises his right to trial by jury. At trial, the homeowner testifies and identifies Lopez’s client as being his neighbor whom he saw with his own eyes throw rocks at his property. Lopez argues that there is a great distance between the parties and lots of obstructions such as a fence, bushes, and various large palm trees which make it unlikely that his client would have been able to throw rocks that hit the homeowner’s property next door.

Lopez client testifies and denies committing such acts. Lopez argues to the jury in closing arguments that the state’s burden of proof requires more evidence than the testimony of the homeowner before they can convict his client.

Case# 15-001037MM30A – Result: Not Guilty

4/19/16 – Sexual Battery – Great Force Not used (Victim 12 Yrs +)

Client charged with sexual battery against his Wife. The couple were separated, but still very much in constant contact. Client wanted to initiate divorce proceedings with his Wife. During a conversation at the home they own together they ended up having sexual relations. Afterwards, the Wife called police. The police investigate and end up charging client with Sexual Battery after Wife states that the sexual encounter was wanted.

From the beginning this case was fraught with issues of victim credibility. However, the client was facing a maximum of fifteen (15) years in prison and being labeled a registered sexual offender for having sex with his Wife.

Lopez takes the alleged victim’s deposition (client’s Wife) and she admits that no force was used. The sexual encounter occurred after a discussion about divorce. After sex, the client reiterated his intent to divorce her. She felt hurt and angry. She states during the deposition that she called the police to get a restraining order, and not in reference to any sexual assault. That she never told the police that there was any sexual assault, but she didn’t speak any english so there was a language barrier.

Case# 15-003225CF10A – Result: After having this charge hanging over his head for over one (1) year, the Office of the State Attorney dismisses the case after Wife’s deposition.

10/16/15 -Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer/Leaving Scene of Accident/Driving While License Suspended or Revoked

19 year old client charged for Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, Leaving Scene of Accident, and Driving While License Suspended or Revoked for incident arising on January 5th, 2015. Client involved in a traffic accident and followed up an off-duty federal air marshall whom witnessed the traffic accident. The off-duty air marshall follows client and conducts a traffic stop and approaches client’s vehicle while he is still inside his vehicle. The air marshall prevents him from exiting his truck. A confrontation occurs where client is accused of pushing the federal air marshall on the chest.

Lopez argues that there was no way that client could have known that the gentlemen who followed was an air marshall, and that the badge he displayed was not enough to inform him that he was a law enforcement officer. Especially, since the federal air marshall was in plain clothes and was driving an unmarked, off-duty civilian vehicle. Lopez files a Motion to Dismiss based on the Florida “Stand your Ground” law which states that a person is justified in the use of deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. In this case, client used the force necessary to defend himself from someone whom appeared to be a lunatic making a citizen’s arrest.

Case#’s15-000211CF10A, 15-001522MM10A – Result: Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer reduced to Misdemeanor Battery. Client enters favorable plea deal to Misdemeanor Battery, Leaving the Scene of Accident, and Driving While License Suspended or Revoked of an Adjudication Withheld and six (6) months probation. As a result, client avoids having a felony on his record, avoids any jail times, avoids having a conviction on either of the three (3) misdemeanor offenses, and retains the right to seal his criminal record once he finishes his probation.

9/22/15 – Grand Theft Auto

20 year old client accused of stealing a vehicle with his two (2) friends. Accusation is that he meets his friends at apartment complex and then follows them in his own vehicle to a secluded area to go “mudding” with the stolen vehicle. His friends occupying the stolen vehicle while the client follows them.

This is an example where hiring an attorney early in the process right after being arrested may help you avoid having to appear in court altogether. Client hires Lopez early in the process with enough time for him to get in contact with the Office of the State Attorney and point out that the client never entered the stolen vehicle, and in fact never even touched the stolen vehicle on the date in question.

Case# F-15-017504 – Result: CASE DISMISSED prior to client ever going to Court.

9/1/15 – Domestic Battery

Client charged with Domestic Battery after police called to residence and police are said to observe injuries on his wife consistent with her accusation of having her hair grabbed, dragged across the floor, and punched in the face. Client suffers extra inconvenience of being arrested as all of his prized knife weaponry and confiscated by law enforcement as a result of legal requirement that nobody charged with domestic battery possess any firearms or weapons.

Lopez strategically schedules a court hearing to remove no contact order between client and his wife to bring out the following important fact: The Wife does not speak any english (or very poor at best) and the responding officer whom spoke to Wife did not speak any spanish (wife being a spanish speaker). Wife appears in court and explains this to the judge.

Case#15-008208MM10A – Result: CASE DISMISSED and happy client gets all his knives back.

8/5/15 – Domestic Battery

Client charged with Domestic Battery after police called to home where Husband and Wife are attending party. Client is charged with having lunged at her husband whom was seated in a chair, and scratching his eye and forehead. Police take photographs of husband’s injuries at the scene.

Lopez is able to work quickly and get the Husband’s written statement explaining his desire not to have his Wife prosecuted and client’s lack of a criminal record.

Case# 15-007934MM19A – Result: CASE DISMISSED.

3/31/15Driving Under the Influence

Client charged with DUI for incident arising on July 24th, 2014. Client pulled over for speeding (49 in 35 MPH zone). Arresting officer states that he smells alcohol on client’s breath and orders him out of the vehicle. Client refuses to perform field sobriety exercises and refuses a breath test. He is arrested for DUI based on the alleged officer’s observations of an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, occasional slurring of his speech, and the supposed difficulty with which he had in finding and handing over his license, registration, and insurance card.

Case goes to Jury trial. Lopez elicits in deposition and at trial that client pulled over the car immediately, exited the vehicle without any problems, walked to the back of the vehicle without any problems, and overall spoke to the officer in a clear manner that could be understood. At the close of the state’s case Lopez argues that the Office of the State Attorney proved that his client was driving, and maybe impaired, but never proved that his normal faculties were affected (ability to walk, talk, see, hear, drive an automobile, act in emergencies, make judgments, and perform normal everyday functions) as required per Florida Statute 316.193.



Client charged with Battery for incident arising on August 29th, 2009. Florida Statute 775.15 dictates that a prosecution for a misdemeanor of the first degree (as in Battery) must be commenced within two (2) years after it was committed. The Defendant was never arrested for this incident and only found out about the pending arrest warrant in 2014. This despite having lived in the State of Florida the entire time and always having his Florida Driver’s License updated with his current address.

Lopez files a Motion to Dismiss State’s Information Due to Expiration of Statute of Limitations. Specifically, the argument is made that the prosecution did not commence until 2014, over four (4) years after the arrest warrant was entered and the State of Florida did not make a diligent effort to locate and arrest the client without unreasonable delay.

Only an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney can spot these types of issues when defending someone accused of a crime.

Case#10-002306MM10A – Result: CASE DISMISSED.

8/22/14 – Home Invasion Robbery

Client charged with Home Invasion Robbery. Client accused of entering into the premises of an apartment with a co-defendant at gunpoint with the intent to commit robbery. Police are called and the homeowner picks client out of a photo line-up. The police take the word and trust the identification of the homeowner and client charged with this life felony. Upon further investigation, the Office of the State Attorney is provided with a witness list of co-workers at Wendy’s whom saw the client working during the same date and time period as the robbery.

This information is provided to the Office of the State Attorney and the case travels through the court system for almost three (3) years as Lopez tries to gain his client’s exoneration prior to trial due to his alibi witnesses.

Case#11-007231CF10AResult: CASE DISMISSED. Justice is achieved as the Office of the State Attorney does the correct and honorable thing by dismissing the case against client based on his alibi witnesses.

3/7/14 – Aggravated Assault w/ Firearm (6 counts)

Client charged with various counts of Aggravated Assault with a Firearm. Client accused in the early morning hours of pointing a shotgun during two (2) different incidents. One incident occurred at a bar/lounge and the other incident having occurred in the middle of a residential street. Prosecutors allege that client who was driving a Ford Explorer was seen pointing a shotgun at four (4) bouncers, and then at a tow-truck driver and his passenger that same early morning.

The facts were daunting as potentially six (6) eyewitnesses were prepared to identify the client as being the gunman. During trial, Lopez cross-examines one of the eyewitnesses who testifies that the gunman had a tattoo on his neck. Other witnesses are not able to identify the gunman because it was dark out, and because of the stress of having a shotgun pointed at them. In total, two (2) eyewitnesses identify the client in trial as the person whom pointed a shotgun at them.

Lopez argues at trial that this is a case of mistaken identity as one of the witnesses testifies the gunman had tattoo on his neck, and CLIENT DOES NOT HAVE A TATTOO ON HIS NECK. Client faced a minimum mandatory of three (3) years state prison if convicted based on this being a firearm offense.


11/19/13 – Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

Client charged with DUI. Client pulled over for driving without his headlights on at nighttime. Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputy conducts field sobriety exercises despite the Defendant telling him he had physical limitations brought about a car accident where he suffered a back injury. Defendant performs the exercises and on the basis of his performance and a perceived odor of alcohol he is charged with DUI.

At trial, a video is played which shows that the Defendant after being distraught and angry over his arrest yelled obscenities at the Deputy. The Office of the State Attorney explains this combined with his performance on the field sobriety exercises combined with his refusal to take the breath test demonstrates his guilt.

Lopez explains that the client performed the exercises well for someone whom suffered from back problems. Further, Lopez explains that his client was not slurring his speech (as acknowledged by the Deputy), and yelled obscenities after the arrest out of frustration, and not because he was intoxicated.

Case#12-007673MM10A – Result: NOT GUILTY

7/2/13 – Aggravated Battery with Deadly Weapon

Client charged with Aggravated Battery with Deadly Weapon for hitting alleged victim in the head with a tire iron during a dispute at a gas station. Client and alleged victim engaged in argument over whether client’s behavior was appropriate over urinating in public. An altercation ensued whereby the alleged victim gets pummeled in the head with a tire iron.

Lopez takes the deposition of the alleged victim and establishes that this individual was so enraged that he walked towards client’s vehicle. Lopez files a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Florida Stand Your Ground Law (Florida Statute 776.012) which states “….a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: 1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself….”.

The facts as developed demonstrated that the alleged victim walked towards client in an angry manner, and the client obtained a tire iron from the trunk of his car and hit alleged victim in response. Negotiations ensue and the client’s charge is reduced from Aggravated Battery to a Misdemeanor Battery.

Case#12-009533CF10A – Result: Amended to Misdemeanor Battery. Client avoids entering a plea to Aggravated Battery and any jail time.

6/12/13 – Aggravated Assault with a Firearm (2 counts)

Client charged with 2 counts of Aggravated Assault with a Firearm after having been accused of pointing a gun at two (2) maintenance workers and asking for their wallet and cell phone. Aggravated Assault with a Firearm carries a minimum mandatory prison sentence of 3 years in the State of Florida. The prosecutor wants to give Lopez’s client 5 years.

Subsequent investigation reveals that the alleged victims were undocumented mexican immigrants whom after the incident hired immigration lawyers to try and gain permanent residency as victims of crime and racial discrimination. Lopez takes depositions of alleged victims and argues at jury trial that their inconsistent statements of what happened reveals that there was an argument but that the pointing of a gun at them was a concoction designed to set-up their application for permanent residency. Specifically, the alleged victims never told the police shortly after the incident that client had called them racial slurs and asked them for their wallets. This was in stark contrast to their trial testimony.

Case#11-008183CF10A – Result: NOT GUILTY as charged on both counts. Client released from jail and avoids potential 5 year prison sentence.

3/6/13 – Aggravated Battery With a Deadly Weapon

Client charged with Aggravated Battery after having been accused of getting into a fight at a party and hitting the victim in the face with a beer bottle. Aggravated Battery is a second-degree felony in the state of Florida which carries a maximum of fifteen (15) years in prison. This case was an example of how some cases are about winning, and other cases are about getting a plea deal which minimizes the consequences to the client. In this case, the victim suffered extensive injuries which turned into extensive hospital bills.

Lopez enters into plea negotiations to pay a lump sum of the total amount of restitution upfront in exchange for reducing the Aggravated Battery to a Misdemeanor Battery.

Case# 12-000992CF10A – Result: Amended to Misdemeanor Battery. Client avoids entering a plea to Aggravated Battery.

12/20/12 – Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

Client accused of DUI after said to be swerving from lane to lane on the roadway. Client arrested and subsequently blows over twice the legal limit in the State of Florida. Lopez takes the deposition of the arresting officer and it becomes apparent that the officer initiated a traffic stop after the defendant had only swerved a total of two times.

In order for anybody to be pulled over in their vehicle the police officer must have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is being committed or about to be committed. This applies to something as minor as a traffic infraction (i.e., speeding) or a criminal traffic violation such as Driving Under the Influence. Lopez files Motion to Suppress Evidence based on the argument that there was a lack of reasonable suspicion for the arresting officer to have pulled over his client in the first place.

An evidentiary hearing is had on the above matter. The judge agrees that swerving two times under these circumstances was not enough for the client to have been pulled over and detained.

Case# 12-007073MM10A – Result: Case Dismissed.

9/20/12 – Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

Client accused of DUI after being found on the highway sleeping in his vehicle. In order to prove the crime of DUI, it must be shown that the accused was either driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle. “Actual physical control” is defined by the Courts in jury instructions as meaning that “…the defendant must be physically in or on the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle , regardless of whether [he] [she] is actually operating the vehicle at the time.” Thus, factual questions such as whether the key was in the ignition of the vehicle, whether the accused was in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, or whether the motor was running become key questions.

In this case, it was apparent that the accused was in the driver’s seat but unclear whether or not the accused had the keys in his possession or within ready reach that he could operate the vehicle. Lopez files Motion to Suppress Evidence for Lack of Probable Cause to arrest for DUI arguing in his written motion that there were not sufficient facts for the police officer to determine that his client was in actual physical control of the vehicle pursuant to the DUI laws. Thus, the client should have never been arrested for DUI.

Case# 11-019839MM10A – Result: Plea deal reached where charge reduced to Reckless Driving. Client avoids any jail time and DUI on his record.