Free Case Evaluation


or, Text David Directly At:


Recent News


3415 South Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90034
(310) 772-8404
(310) 772-8400
(424) 888-3631
(800) 805-6167
Texas Number:
(713) 962-2749
Cell Phones:
(310) 766-3491
(310) 766-1810
(713) 471-5196

Case Results

  • P. v. N.C.: The defendant faced one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder after a shooting took place at a party. The prosecution engaged in a multitude of dirty tricks in an effort to obtain his conviction. The jury found him not guilty of all three counts.
  • U.S. v. R.E.:  The defendant, a commercial trucker, was arrested after Arizona state troopers found four kilos of cocaine, two kilos of heroin, and $1.6 million in cash in the trailer of his truck.  Attorney Dudley negotiated a plea agreement that called for a five-year mandatory minimum of five years, not the standard statutory ten-year mandatory minimum.  Ultimately, as the defendant was safety-valve eligible, Attorney Dudley persuaded the sentencing court to effect a substantial downward variance, resulting in an ultimate sentence of 37 months.
  • U,S. v. $20,000:  Illinois state troopers seized $20,000 in cash from the claimant, an undocumented immigrant, who was traveling from California to Illinois.  Attorney Dudley was able to secure the return of all $20,000 to his client.
  • U.S. v. $214, 225:  Local police officers seized $214,225 from the claimant as he was driving through Hawthorne, California.  Although the claimant was unable to provide any documentation whatsoever for the source of those funds, Attorney Dudley was able to negotiate the return of 50% of the seized funds.
  • U.S. v. $308,310:  Executing a search warrant on the claimant’s home, police officers seized $308,310 from his garage.  Asserting that the warrant was not supported by probable cause, Attorney Dudley was able to secure the return of all monies to his client.
  • P. v. M.R.: The trial court attempted to inhibit the defendant’s right to appeal from a motion to set aside his guilty plea due to the violation of his state statutory and federal constitutional rights by refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause. The court of appeals summarily affirmed the trial court’s refusal.  Attorney Dudley was able to convince the California Supreme Court unanimously to order the lower courts to issue the requisite certificate and allow the appeal to move forward—a rare procedural achievement in appellate practice.
  • U.S. v. D.A.:  The defendant pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to distribute large quantities of various prescription medications to Washington and Alaska.  Her advisory sentencing guideline range was almost ten years.  Attorney Dudley, however, convinced the district court to impose a probationary sentence with no jail time, only house arrest with electronic monitoring, by demonstrating that his client had grown up in a severely abusive family situation and was subsequently manipulated by her co-defendant boyfriend who orchestrated the conspiracy.
  • U.S. v. $214,225:  The claimant was intercepted by DEA agents at the San Francisco International Airport in possession of over $200,000 in cash.  There was evidence that the seizure was unlawful but the claimant had no credible explanation for how she came to be in possession of that currency.  Attorney Dudley was able to assist in the negotiated settlement of that case—a settlement that required the government to return almost 50% of the cash to his client.
  • U.S. v. M.B.:  The defendant was on supervised release for a major drug trafficking offense.  While on such release, he failed to report several large financial transactions to the United States Probation Office (“USPO”).  Upon learning of that failure, the USPO recommended that the court revoke the defendant’s release status and sentence him to a term of 10 to 16 months in federal custody.  After lengthy negotiations with the United States Attorney’s Office, Attorney Dudley was able to work out a settlement of the matter under which the defendant admitted the violation but was subjected to no jail time, only community service.
  • P. v. L.C.: The defendant was caught in possession of several dozen bottles of promethazine cough syrup; records seized from her residence implicated her in the trafficking of hundreds of more such bottles. Although Attorney Dudley’s client had no criminal history, the district attorney would not accept any deal that entailed the defendant serving less than one year of incarceration.  On an open guilty plea to the court, Attorney Dudley, over the prosecutor’s strong objection, convinced the judge to sentence his client to straight probation with no jail time.
  • P. v. R.C.: In this case, the defendant was a participant in scheme to defraud AFLAC health insurance company out of several hundred thousand dollars. As a special needs educator, the defendant’s career was itself was threatened by the prospect of a felony conviction on these fraud charges.  Through early negotiations with the prosecution, Attorney Dudley was able to limit his client’s financial culpability to roughly $16,000, to secure a probationary sentence with no custody component, and to provide for his client’s conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor after full payment of restitution and successful completion of probation.
  • P. v. K.C.: In this felony fraud prosecution, the defendant was accused of bilking an elderly woman for over $100,000 in a boiler-room type scam. Because the defendant was a foreign citizen with only permanent residence status in the United States, he faced automatic deportation upon a felony conviction.  Attorney Dudley, however, negotiated a disposition with the district attorney’s office pursuant to which sentencing was postponed for over a year so that the defendant could pay full restitution before the judgment against him was entered.  After making that full payment, the defendant was sentenced to probation with no jail time and the understanding that his conviction would be reduced to misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation.
  • P. v. A.D.: When local police raided the top floor of a garage structure, they arrested the defendant standing next to a vehicle containing hundreds of unlawful marijuana plants. Taking immediate action to influence the decision of whether the case should be referred to the district attorney for felony prosecution, Attorney Dudley helped persuade the police to refrain from such a referral.  His client was never charged with any crime relating to his marijuana trafficking arrest.
  • U.S. v. S.G.:  DEA agents interdicted the defendant on an eastbound Amtrak train in Albuquerque, New Mexico, finding four kilos of heroin strapped to her body.  Attorney Dudley challenged the legality of that stop and seizure.  Knowing that the defense had a legitimate chance to prevail on its motion to suppress evidence, the government offered the defendant a plea agreement under which she would serve no more than 37 months in prison as opposed to the charged mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.  At sentencing, Attorney Dudley presented substantial mitigating evidence primarily concerning his client’s mental health issues—evidence which convinced the district court to impose a term of just one year and a day.
  • U.S. v. J.H.:  Arrested in Anchorage, Alaska, the defendant was charged with participating in an interstate conspiracy to distribute multiple kilos of cocaine and heroin.  Though the defendant faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for the alleged conspiracy, Attorney Dudley was able to secure a safety-valve reduction for his client.  After presenting significant mitigating circumstances to the court at sentencing, Attorney Dudley persuaded the district judge to impose a prison term of only 30 months.
  • U.S. v. J.H.:  The defendant was on supervised release for a federal drug offense in Nebraska when he was charged with two new federal cocaine trafficking cases, one in California and the other in Pennsylvania.  Both of the new cases carried potential twenty-year mandatory minimum sentences.  Attorney Dudley was able to work out a disposition by which all three cases would proceed to sentencing before the same judge in Pittsburgh, who had a reputation for being the most lenient of all the judges presiding over the three cases.  At sentencing, Attorney Dudley persuaded the court to impose an aggregate, concurrent prison term of 132 months.
  • P. v. A.J.: In this matter, the defendant was facing a life sentence for premeditated attempted murder involving the shooting of an unarmed owner of a marijuana distributorship. Although multiple surveillance cameras recorded his client’s participation in the robbery which led to the shooting, Attorney Dudley was able to secure his client a deal for seven years.
  • U.S. v. F.M.:  After being sentenced to time served in Phoenix, Arizona for his involvement in an illegal immigrant smuggling offense, the defendant never reported to his federal probation officer.  Years later, law-enforcement officers arrested him in Southern California.  Strikingly, Attorney Dudley was able to persuade a magistrate to release his client on a secured bond.  Then Attorney Dudley spent months presenting substantial mitigating evidence to the Assistant United States Attorney in Arizona.  Ultimately, the underlying case against the defendant was dismissed without him having to serve any time for his probation violation.
  • D.S. v. M.R.:  In this civil action, the plaintiff was shot with an air rifle on a marijuana cultivation farm purportedly owned by Attorney Dudley’s client, the principal defendant.  The plaintiff’s medical bills alone were over $300,000.  Attorney Dudley was able to settle the case, however, for $3,500.
  • U.S. v. C.R.:  The defendant, a tax preparer and state corrections officer, was charged with orchestrating a scheme to obtain fraudulent tax refunds by submitting false claims for monetary education credits on behalf of many clients.  The alleged tax loss was over $50,000.  After she entered into a plea agreement with the government, the United States Probation Office calculated her advisory guideline sentencing range as 12 to 18 months.  Presenting substantial mitigating factors to the district court at sentencing, particularly those concerning several medical conditions, Attorney Dudley was able to persuade the judge to impose a probationary sentence with no term of incarceration.
  • In re A.S:  A medical doctor in Northern California was accused of participating in a scheme to buy and sell counterfeit sports cards.  To help his client avoid both a major civil lawsuit and a potential criminal investigation, Attorney Dudley was hired by the doctor to negotiate a quick settlement of the matter.  After several weeks of negotiations, Attorney Dudley was able to reach a disposition of the matter pursuant to which the sports-card company dropped its pursuit of the matter in exchange for a relatively small financial payment and the doctor’s agreement to cease and desist from further involvement in card transactions.
  • U.S. v. E.W.:  In this prosecution, the government accused the defendant, a federal employee, with defrauding two federal agencies in relation to a residential property transaction.  The loss to those governmental entities was over $50,000.  Attorney Dudley was able to negotiate a disposition that resulted in the defendant serving no custody time and preserving his job.
  • P. v. J.W.: The juvenile defendant in this case, who suffers from a severe disability, was accused of making felonious terrorist threats against his school over social media. By presenting evidence of that disability, and other mitigating circumstances to the prosecution, Attorney Dudley was able to assist in securing a dismissal of all charges.
  • U.S. v. J.B.: The defendant in this case was an escaped federal prisoner.  Apprehended in Arkansas, he faced federal escape charges in California.  Attorney Dudley was able to obtain a dismissal of those charges from the prosecution.
  • P.v. M.B.: Attorney Dudley’s client was accused of embezzling several thousand dollars from the Starbucks at which she worked—an accusation that appeared to be supported by significant evidence. By intervening quickly and decisively with the police detective responsible for investigating and filing potential felony charges, the defense was able to persuade that detective not to refer the case to the district attorney in exchange for the defendant’s payment of full restitution.  Consequently, that client suffered no felony or misdemeanor conviction as a result of the embezzlement.
  • U.S. v. L.J.:  The defendant was indicted in the Northern District of Texas for transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of prostitution.  He was subsequently arrested by the U.S. Marshals in the Middle District of Tennessee when he appeared in court for an alleged probation on a state felony conviction.  Attorney Dudley flew into Nashville at the last minute for the detention hearing.  In support of its request that the defendant be held in custody pending trial in Amarillo, the government provided the defense with over 40 pages of damaging discovery moments before the hearing was set to begin.  Upon reading portions of that discovery, the defendant’s initial court-appointed lawyer, who apparently knew quite well the magistrate judge presiding over that proceeding, stated his opinion that the court would almost certainly grant the government’s detention motion based upon the newly disclosed evidence.  Disagreeing with that opinion, Attorney Dudley presented a strong defense case for pre-trial release during a lengthy hearing and the magistrate ultimately ordered the defendant released on an appearance bond with no collateral.
  • PEOPLE V. M.R.: The defendant in this case had entered a plea of guilty but received a much higher sentence than expected before a judge different than the one who accepted his guilty plea. He then moved to set aside that plea.  The motion was denied and the defendant filed a notice of appeal, hiring Attorney Dudley to handle that appeal. The trial court refused to issue a certificate of probable cause for the appeal, finding that the defendant had zero chance of winning his appeal. Normally, such a refusal signals a total loss in the appellate courts. But not for Attorney Dudley.  He took that refusal all the way up to the California Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed the decisions of both the superior court and the district court of appeals, ordering the trial judge to issue the
    certificate of probable cause.  Subsequent to that reversal, the appellate court set aside the defendant’s conviction, leading to his immediate and permanent release from a lengthy prison sentence.
  • U.S. V. J.L.: The defendant was charged in the Western District of Missouri with distributing several pounds of methamphetamine. He was initially looking at an advisory guideline range of roughly 14 to 16 years.
    After pleading guilty, he was still facing a 10-year mandatory minimum prison term. At sentencing, the government opposed the application of the safety-valve exception to the statutory mandatory minimum.
    Attorney Dudley convinced the court to overrule the prosecution’s objection to the safety valve. The court then sentenced his client to 90 months of incarceration.
  • P. v. S.F.:  The defendant in this life-sentence first-degree murder case killed the victim by shooting him almost one dozen times at point-blank range in the parking lot of a Northern California motel. This execution-style homicide was captured on security video.  Attorney Dudley, however, was able to create several doubts about the prosecution’s identification of the defendant.  Due to those doubts, the district attorney agreed to reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter–and two dismiss an additional unrelated felony charge which carried with it many years of potential mandatory consecutive prison time–in exchange for the defendant’s acceptance of a 21-year sentence.  As a result of this disposition, the defendant should be home in 10 to 12 years, as opposed to spending the rest of his life behind bars.
  • U.S. v. A.F.:  In this case, the defendant was charged with managing a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana from Phoenix, Arizona to Cleveland, Ohio.  Under the original indictment, he was facing a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence.  Nevertheless, Attorney Dudley was able to persuade the government that his client was only responsible for organizing marijuana shipments and thereby negotiated a plea to a lesser charge.  Although the defendant failed to provide his attorney with any mitigation information or supportive letters, despite several requests that he do so, Attorney Dudley was still able to obtain for his client a sentence of 21 months, significantly less than the applicable advisory guideline range and many years less than the ten-year minimum he was initially facing.
  • U.S. v. L.J.:  In this matter, the defendant was accused of violating the Mann Act by driving a 17-year-old girl from Tennessee to Texas and other states in a cross-country pimping and prostitution spree.  Despite allegations that he had threatened the girl with a firearm and allowed some friends to assault her sexually,  Attorney Dudley was able to persuade a federal magistrate judge in Nashville, Tennessee to release his client on bail after demonstrating the unsubstantiated nature of those allegations.  When the indictment was filed in Amarillo, Texas, the defendant was looking at a ten-year mandatory minimum prison term.  After the government found certain photographs of the victim on the defendant’s cellphone, it threatened to supersede the indictment with a child-pornography production charge, which would have carried a fifteen-year statutory mandatory minimum.  In the face of this, Attorney Dudley prepared an extension mitigation package on behalf of his young client for review by the Assistant United States Attorney.  As a result of reading those mitigation materials, the prosecution agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge, pursuant to which the defendant was facing a ten-year maximum, as opposed to a ten- or fifteen-year minimum.  Eventually, Mr. Dudley’s client received a 120-month sentence, although his advisory guideline range started at 168 months and the sentencing judge made it clear that he would have preferred imposing a prison term much higher than that.
  • P. v. R.T.:  In this case, the defendant was accused of possessing numerous firearms, along with quantities of methamphetamine at his home in Riverside, California.  Largely due to an alleged prior conviction for felony money laundering in Pecos, Texas–and another conviction for assault with a deadly weapon when he was very young,  the defendant was facing a prison sentence of over 15 years. The district attorney would not back off an early settlement offer of over six years in prison.  Nevertheless, Attorney Dudley was able to obtain records from Texas casting serious doubt about whether the Pecos case represented a conviction at all.  He also provided the court with a substantial mitigation memorandum in support of striking the assault conviction.  Although the court denied the motion to invalidate the alleged Texas conviction, it did strike the assault case.  Then the court sentenced Mr. Dudley’s client to six months in county jail, stayed pending the appeal of the motion to invalidate the Texas conviction.  If that appeal is ultimately successful–which it very well may be–the defendant will not have to serve any jail time at all as his entire case will be dismissed.