Past Results & Case Victories – Family Law & Criminal Defense

– LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL HUTTO –

Fortunately, after the temporary orders hearing, the Court denied Mother’s requested relief, denied the Motion for Child Interview, awarded Father joint legal decision-making with unsupervised parenting time as requested, and ordered child support in an amount more than $300 lower than Mother had requested.

Fortunately, when the opposing party sought attorney fees as the successful party, the Court denied the request, expressly finding that the dismissal resulted from a lack of proof rather than an absence of merit, and that there was no legal basis to award fees against our client.

Following a joint order of protection hearing and an emergency temporary order hearing, the Court dismissed the order of protection and denied Parent A’s request to temporarily relocate with the minor child and have Parent B’s parenting time supervised. Parent B was represented by the Law Office of Daniel Hutto against two different attorney’s representing Parent A at the hearing.

Additionally, Parent A and Parent B had several million dollars in community property and assets. After the initial victories for Parent B, the parties set several days of mediation and were able to successfully resolve all issues. The minor child remained in Arizona and Parent A and Parent B shared joint legal decision-making authority with equal parenting time.

We moved quickly for temporary third-party visitation, and the Court granted our client weekly non-parent visitation, preserving the child’s connection to an important parental figure and her late mother’s side of the family.

Parent A and Parent B involved the Department of Child Safety, DCS, and the child’s therapist and counselors. Following several temporary orders hearings and the appointment of a comprehensive family evaluation, Parent B’s supervised parenting time was removed at the urging of the Law Office of Daniel Hutto.

After over a year and a half of litigation a final trial was held on modification of legal decision making, parenting time and child support. Parent A continued to urge the court to supervise Parent B’s parenting time and to have sole decision making. The Law Office of Daniel Hutto was able to secure equal parenting time for Parent B and Final Decision-Making Authority for Parent B after trial. Additionally, the Court found Parent A’s positions unreasonable and ordered Parent A to pay Parent B’s attorney’s fees.

After evidentiary hearing, the Court found that the children’s best interests were served by remaining with Father in Nevada, found that relocation improved the children’s safety, stability, and emotional well-being, and determined that Father had better insight into the children’s therapeutic and emotional needs.

Fortunately, the Court designated Father as the children’s primary residential parent, awarded joint legal decision-making with Father having final decision-making authority, and entered a long-distance parenting plan in Mother’s favor.

Father had been steadily employed in marketing for more than 20 years with a large contracting company and sought to remain in Arizona with the children while also buying Mother out of the family home. Fortunately, after trial, Father was awarded all requested relief, Mother’s relocation request was denied outright, and she was granted only up to one month of summer parenting time in the Midwest so the children could visit extended family.

Parent A was represented by counsel during the in-person order of protection hearing. Parent B was represented by the Law Office of Daniel Hutto and had dozens of exhibits and a detective with Mesa Police Department subpoenaed for testimony. Following Parent B’s presentation of evidence and witnesses and Parent B’s testimony, the Court dismissed Parent A’s order of protection in full. 

After trial, the Court found that Amazon’s intent in granting the RSUs was to provide an incentive for our client’s future performance, applied the Nelson formula, and determined that only 22.54 shares were community property while 66.46 shares were Husband’s sole and separate property. Fortunately, the Court awarded Husband a total of 77.73 shares as his sole and separate property, with only 11.27 shares awarded to Wife.

Fortunately, after considering the parties’ financial resources and the reasonableness of their positions, the Court found Mother had behaved unreasonably, awarded judgment in Father’s favor, and ordered Mother to pay $6,771.30 in attorney fees and costs.

A roommate of the house called 911 when he came home to find his bike missing. Police searched the area and saw someone riding a bike, but were unable to stop him. Later, two eyewitnesses would claim they saw someone that matched Mr. D.C.’s description riding a bike that had the same brand and coloring as the stolen bike.

The police went to Mr. D.C.’s last known address and found the bike sitting outside his apartment. Mr. D.C. claimed he was given permission to take the bike, but did not know the name of who gave him permission. Ultimately, after the story of the eyewitnesses and the bike owner and other roommates fell apart, a plea agreement to a class 6 undesignated felony was negotiated.

At sentencing, Mr. D.C. was given eighteen months of standard probation, no jail time, and given permission to immediately leave the state to return home to California. Additionally, although Mr. D.C. had over five prior misdemeanor convictions the court agreed to leave the possibility of Mr. D.C.’s felony for criminal trespass to be reduced to a misdemeanor following probation.

Ms. A.T. admitted to police that she was married to the owner of the particular towing company, but denied being an employee. The police were questioning Ms. A.T. because a tenant who had his car towed alleged he was not in violation and had the necessary parking sticker. When police arrived to gather information, he alleged the tow company agreed to reduce their storage fees but refused to issue a tow receipt. This fact led the officer to investigate further and link Ms. A.T. to the towing company.

The officer alleged he had prior contact with the towing company and Ms. A.T. had identified herself as an employee and the tow company and parking enforcement company shared the same business address. Following months of court, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss Ms. A.T.’s case in full after tax returns and other business documents were provided to show the legitimacy of both businesses and no collusion.

Ms. A.N. was facing a mandatory 180 days of jail as a result of her pending Aggravated DUI offense if convicted. However, Ms. A.N. pleads no contest to the court to all charges, including the most severe Super Extreme DUI. At sentencing, the court placed Ms. A.N. on summary probation without any direct monitoring of any kind and sentenced her to a minimum of fourteen (14) days in jail with work release privileges.

Ms. A.N. was facing 180 days in jail with no possibility of home detention had she been convicted of second offense Super Extreme DUI. Instead, Ms. A.N’s no-contest plea allowed her to receive 176 fewer days of jail and simultaneously set up her felony Aggravated DUI for a reduced sentence.

Ms. A.N. was arrested and booked into jail after her husband was called to pick up their son. A blood test revealed that Ms. A.N. had a blood alcohol concentration greater than .300 and she was charged with felony aggravated DUI.
Unfortunately, Ms. A.N. received a second DUI within a few months of her first offense and had her aggravated DUI pending along with the misdemeanor super extreme DUI. Ms. A.N. was facing 180 days in jail as a mandatory minimum sentence for the second offense super extreme DUI pursuant to A.R.S. 28-1382(A)(2). Following some tactical plea negotiations and mitigation, Ms. A.N. was extended a plea offer to an undesignated felony Aggravated DUI with only fourteen (14) days in jail with one (1) day credit and work furlough/release on the remaining days.

All remaining counts of felony aggravated DUI for driving with a passenger under 15 were dismissed. Finally, since Ms. A.N. had two cases for DUI pending she was able to get credit for her 56 hours of mandated substance abuse counseling and treatment on both cases and maintained her ability to have her felony reduced to a misdemeanor following her term of probation.

Prior counsel failed to adequately present critical mitigating evidence, including a $4,500,000 insurance payout to the victim, which should have been considered by the Court at sentencing. Fortunately, the Court found sufficient grounds to proceed and granted an evidentiary hearing on the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

As a common part of sex crime investigations, a confrontation call was made to Ms. S.M. by her friend. The confrontation call was a phone call made by the friend to Ms. M.S. for the sole purpose of getting her to confess in part or whole to the crime while investigators listened in and recorded the call. During the confrontation call, Ms. M.S. denied having oral sex with the son but said he did tell her they had oral sex and she didn’t completely deny the event. Ms. M.S. later claimed she was too drunk to have any recollection of what occurred. However, based on some of the statements and text messages from Ms. S.M. she was arrested.

Following a Psycho Sexual Risk Assessment, settlement conference, motion to remand, and deviation request, the State attorney finally agreed to reduce the charged offenses to two counts of Child Abuse, a class six undesignated felony with an agreement not to recommend lifetime sex offender registration. At sentencing, Ms. S.M. was placed on sex offender probation and the judge declined to make Ms. S.M. register as a sex offender, even after her friend showed up at sentencing to call Ms. S.M. a “monster” and “predator” demanding she register as a sex offender to warn others of her dangerousness.

Ultimately, Ms. S.M. is able to have her current offense reduced to a misdemeanor following probation and did not serve any jail time. Furthermore, Ms. S.M. voluntarily suspended her Arizona Board of Nursing License and will be applying for reinstatement three years following her consent agreement.

Daniel Hutto was able to secure a plea agreement to probation on several counts as a low-level felony that can become a misdemeanor. Our client’s acceptance of the undesignated felony offenses avoided sex offender registration and mandatory prison if convicted following a trial. After several hearings on mitigation, Defendant was sentenced to 6 months in jail with 2 for 1 credit after the state and victim requested one year of jail time.

Our client was released following 3 months of jail, did not have to register as a sex offender, and avoided forever felony offenses. Our client came to the Law Office of Daniel Hutto facing over 2 years in prison for fifteen (15) counts of sexual conduct with a minor.

Casa Grande police failed to write a supplemental report to document the mother’s statements on the scene which resulted in the Axon body camera being destroyed. Defendant‘s attorney at the Law Office of Daniel Hutto filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Arizona v. Youngblood. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but at trial after the victim appeared to testify the State reconsidered its opposition to dismissal and dismissed all charges against our client.

The Law Office of Daniel Hutto was confident they would have prevailed in defending the charges to the judge but were pleased the State dismissed all charges at trial.

Our client was extended a probation plea with a class 6 undesignated felony offense and given the opportunity to argue for immediate misdemeanor designation at sentencing. Following a lengthy sentencing, and mitigation hearing the Court agreed with Daniel Hutto and immediately designated the client’s offense a misdemeanor and placed him on simple supervised probation. Our client avoided a felony altogether, or any jail time, and was able to keep his employment and licensing certificates.

The Law Office of Daniel Hutto was able to secure a plea agreement to DUI, impaired to the slightest degree after issues related to the breath print ticket and three breath samples. Our client was given credit for 1 day in jail versus the 30 days jail he was facing and all remaining counts were dismissed, including the assault and disorderly conduct charge.

The Scottsdale Police officer that pulled over Mr. C.C. says he made a U-turn after Mr. C.C. passed and saw a moving radar speed of approximately 62. Mr. C.C. was honest with the officer and told him he was going around 60 miles per hour, which the officer said was similar to what he observed.

Mr. B.A. explained the mix-up and that he was just charging his phone and smoking a cigarette trying to find another place to stay or call his friend.

Regardless, the aggressive Scottsdale Police arrested Mr. B.A. after he voluntarily did field tests and he admitted to drinking heavily. Mr. B.A. was arrested under the theory that he was in actual physical control (APC) of the car even though there was no actual driving. He was also charged with disturbing the peace.

At trial, the State presented a case that because Mr. B.A. had a BAC of .204 and was seated in a running car’s driver’s seat that he was guilty of super extreme DUI. At trial, Mr. B.A. testified and subpoenaed his friend to testify, the same friend that called the cops. After two days of testimony, a strong cross-examination, and a body camera video that showed Mr. B.A. in the car, but also his phone charger and cigarette lighter, the jury found Mr. B.A. not guilty of all DUI charges. The judge later found B.A. guilty of disturbing the peace, but 180 days of jail was avoided on the second offense Super Extreme DUI acquittal.

Her test showed 4 of 6 clues and she was arrested. A blood examination alleged her alcohol concentration was .082.

At trial, a motion in limine was filed to preclude the jury from hearing about any crash or injuries that occurred because the motorcyclist and his rider did not appear at trial. The jury never heard a crash occurred and the blood alcohol test was attacked successfully because the officer administering the one-field sobriety test was not properly trained and testified that he observed two wrong clues leaving Ms. Y.S. with only 2 of 6 clues. The blood testing machine was also attacked as unreliable and providing errors and high calibrations in the past. The jury found Ms. Y.S. not guilty of all charges!