Comprehensive Arizona DUI Information

Bergman Law Firm

A FEW of our case results

The results below are from actual cases litigated by our firm. They are provided as examples only. Every case is facutally and legally unique, and the results from one case do not guarantee the same or similar results in another case. Mr. Bergman could list literally hundreds of cases where extreme DUI charges have been dismissed, or where regular DUI charges have been dismissed or reduced to reckless driving or traffic infractions. We see these results too regularly to list every one on this website. Below is a sampling of some of our results. We are serious about litigating Arizona DUI cases and enjoy remarkable results because of our skill and dedication, and because Mr. Bergman keeps his caseload small and concentrates on getting the best result possible in every case we handle.

State v.RS
Scottsdale
Dui case, blood of .095 – reckless drive offered day before trial
The client in this case lived in California and he knew if he was convicted of a dui he would not be able to obtain employment as his job requires him to drive and he would not be insurable. The case was prepared for trial, witnesses were interviewed and I was going over the case with the blood alcohol expert (Erik Brown) who was set to testify in the trial the next day. The prosecutor called me and offered me a reckless drive on the case. The client was all too eager to take the plea as he knew it would not adversely affect his future employment. This type of result or offer will not be made unless the prosecutor feels you are serious about going to trial and the offer is often conveyed at the last possible moment up until trial.

State v. KQ
Superior Court Downtown Phoenix
2 counts of vehicular aggravated assault – case dismissed on motion to suppress evidence
The client was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident and was charged with two counts of aggravated assault. The presumptive sentence for this offense is 7.5 years, the ranges are 5 to 15 years. The client’s blood was taken as a result of the accident and it was the centerpiece of the State’s case against her. Mr. Bergman filed a motion to suppress her blood results on the basis that it was an illegal search. After numerous court appearances and evidentiary hearings the judge agreed with the defense’s argument that the blood was obtained illegally and the results were suppressed. The case was dismissed by the State and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling and the case is now a published Court of Appeals decision. The client turned down an offer for one year in jail and probation which was a gutsy decision given that if she lost the motion she likely would have received 7.5 years in prison.

State v. CG
DUI in Yavapai County
Case dismissed
The client in this case, an elderly gentleman on disability and a retired Army veteran, hired the firm to take care of a dui he committed back in 2001. He was unable to obtain a driver’s license in his home state of Texas because of the dui here. He was very worried and just wanted to plead to it and move on. After investigating the case,(the witnesses were still available), we found numerous holes in the case. The original offer was a mandatory minimum offer and a conviction. After the investigation, the results were presented to the prosecutor and he agreed to dismiss the case outright given the proof problems that were evident in the case.

State v. BR
Maricopa County
2 Counts Felony Aggravated DUI
DUI Misdemeanor Plea entered

This client had 5 prior felonies from 10 years prior and was professionally employed and living crime free except for this incident. The State’s original offer on this case was 8 to 10 years in prison based on his prior record. The client was instrumental in demonstrating that the mailing from mvd went to an old address and he was not aware he was suspended. He fully confessed to the dui but was adamant that he did not know he was suspended. After proof was presented to the prosecutor of this fact and after interviewing the State’s MVD expert who agreed with our position, the State finally relented and offered him 10 days in jail and a misdemeanor dui.

State v. CB
Scottsdale
Extreme Dui Case with a prior
Motion to Supress Stop Granted – Case Dismissed
This client retained me late in the process, his trial was coming up in less than a month and motions are generally due within 20 days prior to trial. I reviewed the police reports and it appeared the client was contacted illegally by the police officer involved but at this late stage in the case I could not complete an interview of the officer involved. I filed a motion to suppress on the stop of the client and the motion was heard by the court. After an evidentiary hearing was held by the Court it was found the client was stopped illegally and his case was dismissed. He avoided the mandatory minimum which at that time was 60 days in jail (now it would be 120 days.)

State v. JT
Domestic Violence offence – diversion agreement entered
My cient was charged with domestic violence, assault and disorderly conduct. A diversion agreement offered and entered. Surprise Muni Court 7-30-07. The client was charged with domestic violence offenses and his main concern was employment-related as he teaches disabled children and needed a fingerprint clearance card for his employment. The Surprise prosecutor’s office insisted all along that he plead guilty to one of the charges and be sentenced to three days in jail. We did all the investigative work necessary for trial and showed up for trial ready to proceed. The prosecutor, on the day of trial, offered a diversion agreement which is what my client wanted all along. Although I felt he had a good chance of an outright acquittal; the client nonetheless was all too happy to take the diversion agreement and thus not have a conviction.

State v. TN
North Mesa Justice Court
Post Conviction relief granted, guilty plea overturned and client later took a diversion agreement on minor in consumption.

The client came to me because he worked as an automotive apprentice and was offered a position to train with BMW but he was told that the plea he made without an attorney would prohibit him from entering the program. The client felt he had no idea what he was doing when he pled to a minor in consumption offense and also believed the Judge was coercive in obtaining his plea. We filed a motion to undo the plea and filed it with the Judge involved, which he promptly denied. Later an appeal of that decision was filed in Superior Court and the appeal was granted and his conviction was overturned because it could not be shown that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered into. When the case was sent back to the trial judge, a motion for a change of Judge was filed and granted. The case was re-assigned and he was offered a diversion agreement which ensured his employment status would not be jeopardized.