Ritkes Daniel

Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys, Child Custody Attorneys

Be the first to review!

CLOSED NOW

Today: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Tomorrow: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

(310) 453-3351Call Visit WebsiteVisit Website Map & DirectionsDirections2530 Wilshire BlvdSanta Monica, CA 90403 Write a ReviewWrite Review

Is this your business?

Customize this page.

Claim This Business

Hours

Regular Hours

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

Places Near Santa Monica with Attorneys

Venice (5 miles)
Marina Del Rey (7 miles)
Culver City (8 miles)
Beverly Hills (8 miles)
West Hollywood (12 miles)
Sherman Oaks (13 miles)
Encino (14 miles)
Inglewood (14 miles)
El Segundo (14 miles)
Studio City (15 miles)

More Info

Neighborhoods

West Los Angeles, Northeast Santa Monica

AKA

Daniel Ritkes Attorney

Daniel Ritkes Law Offices

Other Link

http://www.danielritkeslaw.com

Categories

Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys, Child Custody Attorneys, Criminal Law Attorneys, Divorce Attorneys, Domestic Violence Attorneys, Family Law Attorneys, Labor & Employment Law Attorneys, Personal Injury Law Attorneys, Real Estate Attorneys

Gallery

Be the first to add a photo!

Reviews

Hi there!
Be the first to review!

Click to Rate

Details

Phone: (310) 453-3351

Address: 2530 Wilshire Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90403

Website: http://www.danielritkeslaw.com

People Also Viewed

View similar Attorneys

Suggest an Edit

Ritkes Daniel

Divorce
Child Custody and Visitation
Adoption

Criminal Defense
(1) Criminal Law § 622 -- Appellate Review -- Scope -- Sufficiency of Evidence -- Substantial Evidence Rule -- Presumption of Facts. -- When the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is challenged, a reviewing court must review the whole record in a light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact which the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
Sex Crimes
As defined when the Legislature enacted the present version of section 6389 in 1995, a court could issue protective orders only where it was shown the restrained party had engaged in conduct calculated "intentionally or recklessly to cause or attempt to cause bodily injury; or sexual assault; or to place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another." n37 In 1998, however, as mentioned earlier in this opinion n38 the Legislature amended the statutory scheme to expand the definition of "domestic violence" and "abuse" to embrace nonviolent but harassing conduct. As a result, a trial court now can impose a protective order not only because of prior or threatened bodily injury, but also where the restrained party has only been "stalking,... harassing, telephoning, including, [*1298] but not limited to, annoying telephone calls as described in [ Penal Code] Section 653m, [n39] [**404] destroying personal property, contacting, either directly or indirectly by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party...." n40
Robbery
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of aiding and abetting an attempted robbery and that a sentence of 25 years to life was cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the underlying convictions and remand for sentencing reconsideration.
Misdemeanors
N39 Penal Code section 653m reads: "Telephone calls or contact by electronic communication device with intent to annoy [P] (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith. [P] (b) Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith. [P] (c) Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith. This subdivision applies only if one or both of the following circumstances exist: [P] (1) There is a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or any other court order, or any combination of these court orders, in effect prohibiting the behavior described in this section. [P] (2) The person makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work, totaling more than 10 times in a 24-hour period, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, and the repeated telephone calls or electronic contacts are made to the workplace of an adult or fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the person has a child or has had a dating or engagement relationship or is having a dating or engagement relationship. [P] (d) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to have been committed where the telephone call or calls were made or received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed to have been committed when the electronic communication or communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient. [P] (e) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is violated when the person acting with intent to annoy makes a telephone call requesting a return call and performs the acts prohibite
Embezzlement
In Case No. LA 032579 (1999), Mr. Ritkes’ client, a labor union official, was charged with embezzlement of union funds. In a five-day preliminary hearing in which Mr. Ritkes presented affirmative defenses, he subpoenaed the president, vice-president, treasurer, accountant and business agent of the union to testify, all of whom were extremely hostile to his client. The outcome of the preliminary hearing was that some of the charges were dismissed, and the remainder of the case was dismissed on a subsequent motion.
Assault
Murder
(In sentencing a defendant for a first degree felony murder, a court must consider the nature of the offense, the offender, and the relative sentences imposed on the other defendants and assign a relative degree of culpability in a multiple defendant case, and the court must sentence accordingly)
Homicide
Long Beach police arrived about one minute later. Officer Thornfield testified that, based on shotgun remnants found at the scene, Lise had been struck by two shotgun shells. A homicide investigator concluded [***8] that she had been killed by a shotgun-inflicted injury; the den wall was covered with blood, hair and tissue. Later, after an autopsy, a deputy coroner testified that the massive damage to Lise's head had been caused by two shots; he concluded that a double-barreled shotgun had been used.
Restraining Order
(A court has no authority to renew a restraining order solely on the protected party's subjective desire that the protective order be extended. The court must consider evidence as to whether or not the protected party's expressed fears were genuine and reasonable. An objective test must be employed)
Manslaughter
The evidence also supported the possibility of a voluntary manslaughter alternative, about which the jury was also instructed. But given Owen's conduct and Jacobs's obvious awareness of it when he tried to prevent Mrs. [*1655] Singrin from interfering, voluntary manslaughter seems a remote possibility in this case.

Severance Agreement

Real Estate Litigation
Real Estate Transactions

Personal Injury
Civil litigation in areas of Contract and Real Estate law, Personal Injury, Civil and Criminal appeals, arbitrations, Criminal law, and Family law. Other areas of practice are California State Bar Defense, Disciplinary Defense and License Issues for Physicians, Attorneys and Real Estate Professionals, Restraining Orders, Legal Malpractice, Probate Litigation and Clergy Abuse.

Trusts and Estates

Probate

View All Services

Provided by