David A Torres Law Offices

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/09/15) */
I have had an opportunity to read and review the consumer complaint submitted by [redacted] regarding the representation of her fiancée, Mr. [redacted]. It is true that I represented Mr. [redacted] through the preliminary hearing. At the...

preliminary hearing, Ms. [redacted] was represented by Mr. H.A. Sala. After preliminary hearing, the judge found there was sufficient evidence to find that Ms. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] were involved in the sales of narcotic; methamphetamine.
In this particular case, on or about Friday, August 21, 2015, the Bakersfield Police Department responded to the home of [redacted] based upon 911 calls that had been made, however, were ultimately hung up. One of the calls however, led the dispatcher to believe that there was an older woman present at the home who was complaining that she was not being taken care of properly. The police officers responded to that home to conduct a welfare check of Ms. [redacted]'s mother. When the police officers arrived Ms. [redacted] responded to the door. When Ms. [redacted] opened the door the officer stated that they could see a woman in the background and at such time asked for permission to enter the home to ensure that Ms. [redacted]'s mother was doing well and did not need medical assistance. Upon entering the home the officers believe that Ms. [redacted] was under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant and in doing so they asked for permission to conduct a search of the home. Ms. [redacted] provided consent to the officers who then began a room to room inspection. When the officers came upon the master bedroom, they noticed a white powdery substance which was located on top of a bureau on a plate. In addition, they noticed additional paraphernalia associated with the use of methamphetamine. Upon further inspection, the officers located a firearm and, in addition, seized a quantity of narcotics which they determined to be usable amount but packaged in such a manner that they believed that methamphetamine was being sold.
When the officers conducted a search of the bathroom, they saw Mr. [redacted] hiding behind a shower curtain. Mr. [redacted] was asked to extricate himself from the bathtub at which time the officers conducted a search of this person for safety purposes. While searching his body, the officers located a firearm in the belt portion of his trousers. At such time, Mr. [redacted] stated, "Oops, I forgot about that." Both Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] were arrested and charged with sales of narcotics and possession of a firearm. In addition, Mr. [redacted] had several felony convictions from the state of Oregon which were serious and violent, to with, robbery. Based upon his prior robbery convictions, if Mr. [redacted] were convicted of all charges during a jury trial, he would be sentenced to spend the remainder of his life in state prison.
I was ultimately contacted by Ms. [redacted] and retained to represent Mr. [redacted] through trial. It is true that there was a substantial delay in taking this case to trial. The reason for the delay, however, was because myself and co-counsel, Mr. Joe King, realized that Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] were not of sound of mind. As a result, Ms. [redacted] was subsequently found to be incompetent to stand trial as the psychiatrist found she was delusional. Mr. [redacted], however, was found competent to stand trial, however, I did not personally believe he was competent to stand trial and he was incapable of assisting me in the defense. Mr. [redacted] insisted that the search was in fact illegal. Moreover, he stated that the weapons that were found were placed on his person by the police officers and that they did not belong to him. Moreover, Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] visited my office often to discuss the case. When they did come in to discuss the case with me, both Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] indicated that their cell phones and vehicles were bugged by the government. Moreover, they believed that there was a conspiracy against them promulgated by Ms. [redacted]'s family in order to get access to a $52 million dollar diamond that she was in possession of, which was given to her by the queen of Syria. Moreover, she believed this entire criminal action was caused as a result of her identifying three Muslim individuals which she observed in a car port while she was leaving work at the University of Arizona where she was employed as a software engineer.
As you can see by the description of above, Ms. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] were not of sound mind. I truly believed that the initial assessment by the psychologist, that is, that Mr. [redacted] was competent to stand trial, was incorrect. I then conveyed my concern to Deputy District Attorney [redacted] who was prosecuting the case. The court was then sent to trial and trial began before the Honorable [redacted]. I asked for an in-chambers conference to discuss pre-trial matters. At the time, I did inform the judge that I did not believe my client was competent to stand trial and further explained that I believed the assessment by the psychologists was incorrect. Moreover, I informed him that the defense my client wished to proffer was absolutely incredible and had absolutely no relevance to the ease at all (the $52 million dollar diamond conspiracy). I further
explained to the court that my concern for my client was that he was so mentally incompetent that he could not comprehend the fact that this was a clear cut case against him and that if convicted he would possibly be sentenced the remainder of his life in state prison. In order to appease Mr. [redacted], the court agreed to hear a motion to suppress the evidence. The suppression motion was heard by Judge [redacted] and was sub sequentially denied. After the motion was denied, I then gave the court consent to speak to my client to determine to explain if he understood the consequences of a conviction. After Mr. [redacted] spoke to the judge, it was undeniable that he was obviously mentally impaired and delusional. The judge then at that time, suspended criminal proceedings pursuant to Penal Code Section 1368 and re-referred Mr. [redacted] for a psychological examination. By this time, Mr. [redacted] believed now that I, the Deputy District Attorney, and the judge were working in collusion against him and we were now a part of this "grand conspiracy" against he and Ms. [redacted] in order to acquire possession of the $52 million dollar diamond.
Initially, it was difficult to get Mr. [redacted] to see a physician. The court finally indicated that if he did not make his appointment with a psychiatrist that he would be taken into custody where the court could assure that he would see the psychiatrist. Upon his meeting with the psychiatrist, the report indicated that Mr. [redacted] was in fact incompetent to stand trial and that it would be necessary to order that he be sent to Patton State Hospital For psychiatric attention as well as to educate him with respect to the law and to teach him the law and to assist counsel as well. This is a standard practice whenever a person is found incompetent to stand trial.
When we went to court earlier this year. the Honorable Judge Humphrey reviewed the report and subsequently ordered Mr. [redacted] to Patton State Hospital in conformance with the order of the physician. Based upon the foregoing, 1 did go to trial and begin the trial in this case, however, it did not proceed simply because of Mr. [redacted]'s mental capacity or lack thereof. Towards the end, no alternative but to file a motion to be relieved as counsel of record simply because Mr. [redacted] had believed that I had become a part of a conspiracy and would no longer work with me. The fee that was charged in this case was "through trial." We did in fact go to trial.
The motion to be relieved as a counsel of record was in fact mutually agreed by Mr. [redacted] again, because he believed I was a part of a conspiracy. As such, the complaint against me by Ms. [redacted] is wholly species and should not go any further than this. I respectfully ask that I not be vindicated from this allegation.