Mark Cantrell

Add to Favorites

Criminal Law Attorneys, Attorneys, DUI & DWI Attorneys

Be the first to review!

OPEN NOW

Today: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

44 Years

in Business

(951) 784-3200Visit WebsiteWrite a Review

Is this your business?

Customize this page.

Claim This Business

Hours

Regular Hours

Mon - Sun:	9:00 am - 5:00 pm

More Info

Extra Phones

Phone: (951) 715-4660

Payment method

visa, amex, cash, check, debit, discover, master card

AKA

Defense Attorney Criminal

Law Office Of Mark Cantrell

Cantrell Mark Law Offices Of

Other Link

http://www.markcantrellattorneyatlaw.com

Categories

Criminal Law Attorneys, Attorneys, DUI & DWI Attorneys, Family Law Attorneys, Personal Injury Law Attorneys, Traffic Law Attorneys

Gallery

Be the first to add a photo!

Reviews

Hi there!
Be the first to review!

Click to Rate

Details

Phone: (951) 784-3200

Website: http://www.markcantrellattorneyatlaw.com

Suggest an Edit

Mark Cantrell

Child Support

Criminal Defense
It may not take a rocket scientist to be a lawyer, but Mark Cantrell has been both. Before he started his career as a Riverside criminal defense trial lawyer in 1994, he was a scientist working on classified military missile programs at the former Norton Air Force Base. He is currently an adjunct professor of mathematics at Riverside City College. He is well known in the Riverside criminal defense community as being one of the best trial attorneys for high profile cases.
DUI/DWI
The DUI prosecutor will point to several factors as evidence that you were drunk driving: poor navigation of your vehicle, an odor of alcohol flowing from the breath, the appearance of being intoxicated, poor performance on the field sobriety test and, of course, the results of the blood or breath alcohol test. Yet each "piece of DUI evidence" is ambiguous, subject to multiple interpretations, unreliable, based on faulty assumptions and open to attack.
Traffic Violations
San Bernardino DUI Criminal Case Number TSB 901673. Attorney Mark Cantrell was able to convince the District Attorney that the "rising blood alcohol defense" was present. The DUI was dismissed and the case settled for a ticket for speeding and no turn signal.
Sex Crimes
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - Today the jury is continuing to deliberate in the case of Luis Munoz, a man accused of raping a woman in a southwest Bakersfield home, and attempting to rape another woman in central Bakersfield, within a two week span of each other in 2014.
Robbery
Exclusion of defendant's family members during a portion of trial violated defendant's right to a public trial. Defendant was charged with six robbery-related counts, each count pertaining to a different victim. During trial, the mother of one victim reportedly received threats over the telephone that the minor victim's testimony would "cause problems." The court granted the prosecution's request to exclude appellant's family members during portions of the trial, citing "mounting evidence" of witness intimidation. Defendant appealed. Held: Reversed in part. A criminal defendant's right to a public trial includes the right to have friends and relatives present during the proceedings. Under Waller v. Georgia (1984) 467 U.S. 39, four requirements are necessary to justify exclusion from the courtroom: (1) the existence of an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced absent the closure; (2) the closure is narrowly tailored; (3) no reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding are available; and (4) the trial court must "make findings adequate to support the closure." The protection of witnesses from threats, harassment, or physical harm is an overriding interest deserving of protection. However, here there was no substantial evidence connecting appellant's family to the reported threats. The prosecution initially stated the phone threats had not been connected to appellant or any person, and when the victim's mother disclosed that she knew who made the threats but was afraid to identify the person, the court did not inquire further. Although there was evidence of improper contact between appellant's father and a prospective juror, the nature of that contact was not intimidating or threatening. Given the court's failure to more thoroughly investigate the claim of witness fear and intimidation, and the lack of evidence connecting appellant's family to the purported threats, the first element of the Waller test was not met, and the exclusion of appellant's family members was unjustified.
Burglary
Burglary requires evidence of entry into a building, with building defined as having four walls and a roof. By jury trial, appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit second degree burglary, amongst other offenses. The evidence presented was that appellant, along with coconspirator Phillips, agreed to steal gasoline from a car in a wrecking yard; Phillips entered the fenced yard and stole gasoline from a junked car; appellant was near the fenced area and helped carry the gasoline away. There was no evidence that Phillips entered a building. Penal Code section 459 defines burglary as entry into a variety of specified buildings and "other building," with the intent to commit larceny or any other felony. California cases dating back to the 1800's require a building to have four walls and a roof; other states with a statute similar to California's do not define burglary otherwise; the plain meaning of a building is anything with walls and a roof. As a burglary does not include a wrecking yard, there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy and it was reversed, with the corresponding eight-month consecutive sentence stricken.
Theft
Misdemeanors
Certain felony convictions can be reduced to a misdemeanor and then expunged. Other methods to clean up a criminal record include obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon.
Drug Crimes
Prop. 215 explicitly covers marijuana possession and cultivation (H&SC 11357 and 11358) for personal medical use. Hashish and concentrated cannabis, including edibles, (HSC 11357a) are also included. Transportation (HSC 11360) has also been allowed by the courts. Within the context of a bona fide collective or caregiver relationship, SB 420 provides protection against charges for possession for sale (11359); transportation, sale, giving away, furnishing, etc. (11360); providing or leasing a place for distribution of a controlled substance (11366.5, 11570).
Murder
Not guilty verdict on the attempted murder, saving his client a life sentence in prison. The defendant was convicted of assault and was given probation with a term of house arrest.
Homicide
The suspects "clearly staked out, watched and laid in wait for this man's death," Sgt. Bill Hanley said at the conference at the police station. "It was a very callous homicide."
Kidnapping
Four men and a women had been charged, the accusations including attempted pimping, kidnapping for rape and human trafficking. They faced some serious prison time.
Manslaughter
Case Holding: A Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a) (great bodily injury) enhancement may not be imposed with respect to a victim who was the subject of defendant's manslaughter conviction.Appellant was convicted of three counts of vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)) as to victims Williams (count 1), Giambra, and Page. The jury found true three allegations attached to count 1 that appellant had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon Giambra, Page, and Valentine (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court struck punishment for the enhancements as to Giambra and Page, but imposed a three-year consecutive term for victim Valentine. Held: True findings as to Giambra and Page reversed. Section 12022.7, subdivision (g) states, "[t]his section shall not apply to murder or manslaughter.... Subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (d) shall not apply if infliction of great bodily injury is an element of the offense." The bar in subdivision (g) is limited to imposition of an enhancement with respect to a victim for whom the defendant had already been convicted of manslaughter. As Valentine was not the subject of a manslaughter conviction, the sentence for the enhancement was correct. Imposition of the other two enhancements was barred because Giambra and Page were the subjects of appellant's manslaughter convictions and, additionally, great bodily injury is an element of the offense (disagreeing with People v. Julian (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1524). Further, the court rejected the argument that subdivision (g) does not apply to stayed enhancements.
Prostitution
When the woman who claimed to have been kidnapped off a Compton street in order to be forced into prostitution in Moreno Valley suddenly recanted her story on Thursday, Sept. 5, we wondered how a case that seemingly fell apart so easily ever got to the point of a preliminary hearing.
Hit and Run
On top of all that she says, Munoz was in a hit and run crash on the same street around the same time that the second victim says she was attacked by a man matching his description, as well as his cars.

Personal Injury

View All Services

Provided by