Criminal Defense Case Results

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

Y has held a green card for more than ten years and works as a supervisor at a warehouse. In summer 2025 he worked night shifts for several months and could not sleep during the day. A coworker gave him a few pills of a controlled sleep aid. He took two, and tossed the rest in his car and forgot about them. One night in August he was stopped by police, the pills were seen, and he had no prescription. He was charged with possession of a controlled substance. At the first hearing, the prosecutor offered a plea to a misdemeanor with one year of probation. The public defender thought that was a reasonable offer for a first offense, and Y wanted to end the matter quickly. He nearly signed, and then asked the judge for more time. He did not know that for a non-citizen, even a misdemeanor drug conviction can lead to removal, and that it is hard to fix after the fact. His family called us to ask whether accepting the plea would affect his green card.

He had the pills, and we did not dispute that. On the scene he had already told the officers, "A coworker gave them to me, and I took two." Our task was to take him down the path the law provides for a first offense. We declined the plea terms and applied to the court for diversion: no plea, complete the course, and the case is dismissed at the end of the term. He had no prior record and no violent history, so he qualified. Before enrolling, we reviewed the diversion documents page by page and removed the language requiring him to admit drug use in writing, leaving only the commitments to attend classes and report on time, so the paper would not become a plea. Over the twelve months, Y completed the drug education course on schedule and reported on time at every check-in.

Date	Milestone
August 2025	Charged with possession after a night traffic stop; at the first hearing the prosecutor proposed plea terms and the case was continued
September 2025	Retained Lingtu Law; declined the plea terms and applied for pretrial diversion
Early October 2025	Court approved pretrial diversion for twelve months
Early October 2026	Diversion completed; case dismissed

The court dismissed the case when the diversion term ended. The arrest is treated as though it never happened under the law, and his green card was not affected. We reminded him to disclose the arrest on any future naturalization application, attach the dismissal order, and have an immigration attorney review the application before filing.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

Z runs an e-commerce warehouse business in Orange County. He rents a warehouse and subleases space to two small sellers. One evening in early March 2025, after collecting the monthly rent, he was driving home when police stopped him because of a crack in the windshield. A pill bottle was in the cup holder. When the officer asked what it was, he gave several different answers out of nerves. The officers found prescription pain pills in the car, labeled with a friend's name, and several thousand dollars in cash in the armrest. The prosecutor charged him with the most serious offense: possession for sale of a controlled substance, a felony. The case rested on two points: the cash in the car, and inconsistencies in his statements. A conviction could mean jail time and a drug trafficking record.

The origin of the pills was simple. A friend had a half-bottle left over after surgery and left it in his car. He has back problems, took a few himself, and never threw the rest away. At our first meeting he said, "I put the pills there, and I know I should not have kept them." We did not dispute possession. We answered one question: did he sell any pills? That day was the start of the month, and the cash came from rent that two subtenants had just paid. The sublease agreements, the tenants' payment records and his regular rent deposits matched. There were no scales or packaging materials in the car or at home. There was one bottle, and police searched his phone and found no sale or purchase messages. We also obtained the body-worn camera footage from the officers. Mr. Z's English is limited, and he sometimes did not understand a question and answered incorrectly. On the scene he had already said the pills belonged to a friend and that he had taken a few himself.

Date	Milestone
March 2025	Stopped at night; pills and cash found in the car; arrested; prosecutor filed a felony charge of possession for sale
April 2025	Retained Lingtu Law; waived the preliminary hearing deadline and requested the body-worn camera footage
June 2025	Submitted rental income records and an analysis showing no sales activity
August 2025	Prosecutor amended the charge to simple possession of a controlled substance
September 2025	Court approved pretrial diversion for twelve months
September 2026	Diversion completed; court dismissed the case

After reviewing the materials, the prosecutor reduced the charge to simple possession. He has no prior record, and the court allowed diversion without a plea. Over the year he completed the drug education course on schedule, reported on time at every check-in, and the case was dismissed when the term ended.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

L, an F-1 student pursuing a graduate degree in Southern California, was under heavy pressure from her thesis and internship early this year. At a department store she put several cosmetics and clothing items into a bag and walked out without paying. Loss prevention staff stopped her. She wrote an apology on the spot, admitted taking the items, and was served a court summons for misdemeanor theft. The prosecutor offered a plea of guilty with one year of probation. That sounded minor, but a theft plea stays on the record, and she would need to explain it for future visa extensions, status changes and any green card application. No one had explained that to her. The store also sent a demand letter for several hundred dollars and she was unsure whether to pay.

Her first words to us were, "I know I did something wrong." We did not ask her to retract the apology. We used it: a first offense, admitted on the spot, followed by real remorse. In a case like this, a judge can allow diversion, with no plea, and dismiss the case once the term is completed. Before filing, she paid for a theft prevention course on her own and wrote an apology letter to the store. We attached her school enrollment certificate and transcript. The store's claim is separate from the criminal case. The amount was small and the fault was hers, so we advised her to pay it in full. The judge approved six months of diversion. During that period she completed her community service on schedule and had no further incidents.

Date	Milestone
February 2026	Stopped at the store; received a court summons
March 2026	First court appearance; Lingtu Law's team appeared on her behalf, entered a not-guilty plea as procedure requires, and filed a diversion application
Early April 2026	Judge approved six-month diversion, conditioned on community service and no new offenses
Early October 2026	Diversion completed; court dismissed the case

Diversion was completed in early October. The court dismissed the case, she has no conviction on record, and her student status was not affected. We reminded her to disclose the summons on future visa forms and attach the court's dismissal order.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

X came to the U.S. as a teenager with her parents and has held a green card for many years. Ten years ago, in her early twenties, she took a jacket from a store without paying and was charged with misdemeanor theft. Her attorney at the time urged her to plead, and she did. She paid the store, completed probation, and believed the matter was long over. This year, as she prepared to apply for naturalization, her immigration attorney pulled the record while assembling her documents. Theft is treated as a crime of moral turpitude for immigration purposes. The interview would likely raise questions, which could mean requests for more documents, a long delay, and an uncertain result. She did not want to file the application with this on the record. The state case had closed long ago, her former attorney had retired, the file was incomplete, and she recalled only one thing from back then: "Accepting the plea meant it was over."

X does not deny that she took the item years ago. We asked the court to vacate the conviction on the ground that she did not understand the immigration consequences of her plea when she entered it. Showing that her attorney had not explained them clearly was not enough. We also had to show that if she had known, she would not have pleaded as she did. We obtained the court file and the plea form from that time. The immigration warning on the form was a single line of boilerplate, with no explanation of how it applied to her status. We then laid out her circumstances at the time: her whole family was in the U.S., her parents were elderly, and she had stable local work. Had she understood the consequences, she would have sought a different resolution. Her immigration attorney also submitted a written opinion explaining the risks that the original conviction created. Because the prosecutor could refile once the conviction was vacated, we reached an agreement with the prosecutor in advance: if the court vacated the conviction, she would plead to a separate, non-theft misdemeanor of trespass and take responsibility for the original conduct.

Date	Milestone
April 2026	Found the ten-year-old theft conviction while preparing the naturalization application; held off on filing
May 2026	Retained Lingtu Law; obtained the court file and the original plea form
June 2026	Filed a motion to vacate the old conviction and discussed the post-vacatur disposition with the prosecutor
Mid-September 2026	Hearing; court granted the motion; X pleaded in court to trespass and the case closed the same day

At the mid-September hearing, the judge granted the motion to vacate the original conviction. X pleaded in court to trespass, a misdemeanor, and the case closed that day. The new charge is not a crime of moral turpitude. Her immigration attorney will prepare and file the naturalization application.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

H held a green card for fifteen years and ran a small nail salon in the San Gabriel Valley. In 2014 she was holding a small bag of methamphetamine for a friend, was searched, and was arrested for possession. She has never denied what she did. The public defender at the time told her it was "only a misdemeanor, and accepting the plea means it's over." She pleaded guilty in court and completed probation and drug treatment on schedule. Years later she applied to have the conviction expunged, believing the record had been fully cleared. Last fall she filed for naturalization and disclosed the arrest truthfully. At her interview in March this year, the immigration officer asked about the case and requested court documents. The problem was that the type of expungement she had obtained is not recognized by immigration authorities. The drug conviction still counted. Not only could naturalization be denied, she could also face removal.

The deadline to submit the documents was only one or two months away, and continuing forward would likely have led to a denial. At the interview, she followed the advice of the attorney accompanying her, withdrew the naturalization application, and dealt with the old case first. We took a different route: ask the court to vacate the conviction on the ground that she did not understand the real immigration consequences of her plea when she entered it. A conviction vacated on that basis is recognized by immigration authorities. The difficulty was that the case was more than ten years old, and the file had shrunk to a one-page summary and a plea form. We located her immigration documents from that time, her U.S.-born child's birth certificate, and records showing she was then sponsoring her parents' immigration, to show that her priority was her status. The original defense attorney signed a declaration acknowledging that the immigration consequences were never explained to her. The plea form included one line saying "may have immigration consequences." We explained to the judge that this boilerplate did not tell her that this offense would lead to removal and bar naturalization.

Date	Milestone
March 2026	Naturalization interview; the officer asked about the old case; on her attorney's advice, H withdrew the naturalization application
April 2026	Retained Lingtu Law; obtained the old case file
May 2026	Obtained a declaration from the original defense attorney
June 2026	Filed a motion to vacate the old conviction
September 2026	Hearing; the judge granted the motion and vacated the drug conviction; the prosecutor, given her completion of probation and drug treatment years earlier, agreed not to pursue the case further. H began preparing to refile for naturalization

At the September hearing the judge vacated the original drug conviction. The prosecutor agreed not to pursue the case further, given that she had long since completed probation and drug treatment. H is preparing to refile her naturalization application.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

In her early twenties M stored several boxes of electronics at her home for a friend. She sensed the goods were not legitimate but did not ask questions. She was later charged with receiving stolen property and convicted of a felony, and sentenced to probation and community service. She reported on schedule, completed the community service, finished probation without incident, and has since worked in administrative roles. This year she wants to get a real estate brokerage license. The application asks her to disclose convictions, and a felony from ten years ago stood in the way. She does not want to describe the past as a misunderstanding. She says she was too young then and did not know how to say no, and she has carried that lesson for ten years.

The offense could have been charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, and it was charged as a felony. Vacating the record alone was not enough, because the record would still show a prior felony. So we pursued two things together: first, ask the court to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor, then vacate the conviction. In reviewing the file, we found that she had been late to one check-in during her probation. We confirmed that it happened when a job change overlapped with the check-in time, and that she completed the check-in the same day, so it was not counted as a violation. We included this in the application so the prosecutor would not raise it as an issue. We also submitted an employer reference, records of her community volunteer work, and her own written statement, so the judge could see how she had lived over the past ten years. We explained to her that a vacated conviction does not erase the record. Licensing agencies generally cannot deny a license solely on the basis of a vacated conviction, but she should answer the application's questions truthfully under the agency's current requirements and attach the court order where needed.

Date	Milestone
April 2026	Retained Lingtu Law; evaluated eligibility for reduction and vacatur
May 2026	Obtained the court file and probation records
June 2026	Filed a motion with the court to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor and to vacate the conviction
Mid-September 2026	Hearing; both motions granted

At the mid-September hearing, the judge granted both motions. The record now shows a vacated misdemeanor, and she then submitted her license application.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

G drives his own vehicle for a delivery business and is on the road every day. One evening in early March this year, after dinner with a friend and two beers, he decided he was fine and drove home. A patrol officer stopped him. The officer said he was weaving within his lane, and his breath test came back at 0.09%, just above the 0.08% limit. It was his first incident. He was charged with DUI, his license was taken on the spot, and he received a temporary paper license. After an arrest, he had only ten days to request a DMV hearing. If he missed it, the license would be suspended automatically. He relied on driving for his income, and without a license his job was at risk.

G did not argue. He said that once he had been drinking, he should not have driven. We requested a DMV hearing the day we took the case. The test result held up, and the suspension was not withdrawn. But we secured a restricted license for him: an ignition interlock device in the vehicle, enrollment in a DUI course, and proof of insurance. With those, he could drive to work and on his delivery routes, and his job was preserved. On the criminal side, we obtained the dashcam footage from the patrol car and the officer's body-worn camera. The footage showed his car drifting within its lane only once or twice, never crossing a line, at a normal speed, and he performed reasonably on the roadside tests. We did not use this to say the officer had made a mistake. Instead we told the prosecutor that the alcohol level was only slightly over the limit, that his driving did not match the report's description of "obvious weaving," and that a trial might not be a sure win for the prosecution. Before negotiations he had completed a DUI course and attended a victim impact presentation, and he had used a ride service for gatherings since then. We gave the prosecutor these records as well.

Date	Milestone
Early March 2026	Stopped at night; charged with DUI; DMV administrative hearing requested the same week
April 2026	First court appearance; Lingtu Law's team appeared on his behalf; requested the dashcam and body-worn camera footage
May 2026	DMV hearing; suspension upheld; after an ignition interlock was installed, a restricted license was issued and he returned to work
July 2026	Obtained the footage; submitted it with the course records to the prosecutor; negotiations began
Early September 2026	G pleaded to reckless driving after alcohol; summary probation and a DUI education course ordered
Mid-September 2026	DMV suspension period ended; full license restored

In early September the parties agreed. G pleaded to the lesser charge of reckless driving after alcohol, received probation, and completed the court-ordered course. The suspension ended in mid-September and his license was restored to full status. We also explained that this incident counts as a DUI record for ten years, and that a repeat would be treated as a second offense.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

C worked for six years as the accountant of a family-owned bakery chain, and also handled cash. During those years her mother was hospitalized, and medical bills kept coming. A few times she transferred money from the company account to herself for emergencies, intending to pay it back the following month, but she never fully did. After she left, the owner found the books did not reconcile and reported that she had taken more than $40,000. Police reviewed months of bank records and ledgers, and the prosecutor filed a felony charge for the full amount. Her personal account showed many transfers from the company, which looked bad on their face. A felony could mean jail time, and a conviction would make future financial work very difficult.

C admitted at the first meeting that she had taken some of the money. Our approach was simple: admit what she took, and account for the rest. For many of the transfers, she said the owner had verbally asked her to advance part-time wages and supplier payments, but there was no written approval. We matched the cash register records, supplier invoices, payroll records and each of her transfers. Many amounts and dates matched wages and supplier payments made that day. We also found several text messages from the owner asking her to "help pay this first." We gave the prosecutor a reconciliation report. More than $30,000 had a documented purpose, and less than $10,000 could not be explained. For the portion she admitted, she paid the full amount before sentencing and wrote an apology letter to the owner.

Date	Milestone
June 2025	Former owner reported to police; police began obtaining company bank records and ledgers
January 2026	Police finished the financial review; prosecutor filed felony charges; at her first appearance, C waived the ten-court-day deadline for a preliminary hearing
April 2026	Submitted an itemized reconciliation report and related messages to the prosecutor
Late July 2026	Prosecutor reduced the alleged amount to under $10,000; C pleaded guilty
Early September 2026	Sentencing; restitution paid in full; judge reduced the felony to a misdemeanor and granted summary probation

The prosecutor reduced the amount to under $10,000, and C pleaded guilty. She has no prior record, she repaid the money in full, and in September the judge reduced the felony to a misdemeanor and granted probation, with no jail time. After probation ends, she can apply to clear this record.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

W, a green card holder for five years, planned to apply for naturalization the following year. One night in January, he and his wife argued about their child's school. The argument escalated, he pushed her, and her arm struck a door frame and turned red. A neighbor heard the noise and called the police, and he was arrested on the spot. The prosecutor charged him with the most serious domestic violence offense. A conviction on that charge could be treated as a domestic violence conviction by immigration authorities, putting his green card at risk. His wife did not want to press charges, but the decision to prosecute a domestic violence case rests with the prosecutor. That day the court also issued a protective order barring him from the home and from contacting his wife, leaving her alone to care for their child in elementary school.

At our first meeting, W said that pushing someone was wrong and that he should have walked away that day. We first worked to make it possible for the family to function. After his wife's written statement and records showing the couple had begun marriage counseling were submitted, the court changed the protective order to permit peaceful contact, and he moved back home. Before negotiations began, he voluntarily enrolled in an anger management course and attended every week. We gave the prosecutor his class and counseling records, and laid out the evidence: the arm was red but he did not go to the hospital, and on a recording his wife said, "He pushed me and I hit the door frame." If the case went to trial on the most serious charge, the prosecutor would not have been fully confident. We asked the prosecutor to consider the effect of the charge on his immigration status, and proposed a plea to disturbing the peace.

Date	Milestone
January 2026	Arrested after the argument; court issued a full no-contact protective order
February 2026	W enrolled in an anger management course; the couple began marriage counseling
March 2026	Court modified the order to allow peaceful contact; W returned home
June 2026	Submitted class records, evidence analysis and an immigration consequences statement to the prosecutor; plea negotiations began
September 2026	W pleaded to disturbing the peace; received summary probation; the anger management course counted toward probation; the original domestic violence charge was dismissed

In September, W pleaded to disturbing the peace and received probation. The anger management course counted toward his probation terms, and the domestic violence charge was dismissed. The family resumed normal life. How the plea affects his immigration status depends on the specific facts and the plea terms, and we treated that as a central point in negotiations.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from similar matters handled by Lingtu Law and its peers. Names, places, dates and amounts have been changed, and the outcomes are presented as scenarios only. They do not reflect that similar cases will reach the same result.

T is an international student at a university in Southern California on an F-1 visa, and plans to apply for OPT next year. One day in the campus parking structure she backed up and scraped the door of a car next to hers. No one else was around. She was running late for class and panicked, drove away, and left no note. Surveillance footage captured the license plate, and several weeks later she received a court notice charging her with misdemeanor hit and run. The footage was clear and there was little to dispute. Proceeding normally would likely have meant a guilty plea, and that record would appear in every future visa and status review. The car owner was angry and would not contact her, and she was afraid that approaching the owner herself might be seen as harassing a witness.

When she came to us, she was clearly remorseful. She said she had been unable to sleep well for weeks, and had wanted to pay the owner back from the start, but did not know how. For a misdemeanor like this, a judge can dismiss the case before trial if the victim confirms in writing that they have received satisfactory compensation. So we focused on paying first and then applying for dismissal. She did not contact the owner herself. Our attorney reached out through the owner's insurance claims process, paid the full repair estimate and rental car costs, and included a handwritten apology letter from her, with no conditions attached. The owner signed a statement of satisfaction. Before the first formal court appearance, we submitted the repair invoice, payment records, her transcript and a certificate showing no prior record to the court.

Date	Milestone
May 2026	Scraped the car in the parking structure and drove away
June 2026	Received a court notice; retained Lingtu Law
July 2026	Completed compensation and submitted an apology letter; owner signed a statement of satisfaction
August 2026	Filed a civil settlement and request for dismissal
Early September 2026	Court approved dismissal

The prosecutor did not oppose the motion, and in early September the judge dismissed the case without a conviction. We then helped her apply to seal the record, and showed her how to disclose the matter accurately on future visa applications.