Mario Tafur

I have built a career and a reputation by advocating for the rights of the accused. At Bulldog Law, my team and I have defended thousands of clients throughout the United States in various criminal cases across both state and federal courts, encompassing trials and appeals. Additionally, we manage personal injury and cryptocurrency cases.

My lawyers and I have been described as "bulldogs" for our tenacious and successful representation in legal proceedings. We vigorously defend our clients, fully aware of the high stakes and our potential to significantly impact their lives.

• Free Consultation

California

State Bar of California

Attorney - Founder

Bulldog Law

Current

James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona

J.D. (1998)

1995 - 1998

Northern Arizona University

B.A. (1994) | Philosophy

1990 - 1994

California State Bar  # 329899

member

Current

Q. How to get police charged w/ 'Accessory after the fact' as they prevented the arrest/prosecution of attempted murderer?

April 11, 2025

A: To pursue charges against the officers for being accessories after the fact under California Penal Code Section 32, it must be demonstrated that they knowingly and intentionally aided, harbored, or concealed the suspect with the specific intent to prevent their arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment. As established in cases like People v. Partee (8 Cal. 5th 860), this requires evidence of affirmative acts to assist a known felon, coupled with intent to obstruct justice. The officers’ alleged actions—filing the incident as a traffic collision despite eyewitness statements supporting attempted murder and withholding the report until the six-year statute of limitations expired—could suggest an intent to hinder prosecution. However, proving this high threshold demands concrete evidence of their motives and actions, which would need thorough investigation.

Your additional concern about being arrested and prosecuted after filing a complaint may point to malicious prosecution. Under California law, as clarified in Williams v. Hartford Insurance Company (147 Cal. App. 3d 893), malicious prosecution occurs when a prosecution is initiated with malice and without probable cause. If your arrest was retaliatory and lacked legitimate grounds, you may have a basis for a civil claim. However, California Government Code Section 945.3 prohibits filing a civil damages action against police officers while criminal charges against you remain pending. Once those charges are resolved, you could explore remedies, including potential federal claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for civil rights violations, if evidence supports such violations.

Given the complexity of your situation, involving both criminal and civil rights issues, engaging skilled legal counsel is critical. An attorney can evaluate the police report, witness statements, and other evidence to assess the viability of pursuing complaints against the officers for obstruction or other misconduct. They can also guide you on addressing any ongoing prosecution and preparing for potential civil claims once permissible. ... Read More

Q. Deadline for pro se litigant to file motion to vacate judgment under CCP 663a(b).

April 10, 2025

A: Your reading of CCP Section 663a(b) is partially correct, but allow me to clarify the precise deadlines to ensure compliance. Under California law, a motion to vacate a judgment pursuant to CCP Section 663 must be preceded by a notice of intention to move to vacate, which must be filed within the earliest of the following timelines: (1) 15 days after the court clerk mails notice of entry of judgment, (2) 15 days after a party serves written notice of entry of judgment, or (3) 180 days after the entry of judgment. These time limits are jurisdictional, meaning strict adherence is required, as confirmed in cases such as Garibotti v. Hinkle (243 Cal. App. 4th 470) and Advanced Building Maintenance v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (49 Cal. App. 4th 1388).

Furthermore, CCP Section 663a(b) establishes that the trial court’s jurisdiction to rule on the motion expires 60 days after the earliest of either the service of notice of entry of judgment or the filing of the first notice of intention to move to vacate. If the court does not rule within this 60-day period, the motion is automatically denied by operation of law, as noted in Burch v. CertainTeed Corporation (34 Cal. App. 5th 341) and Eck v. City of Los Angeles (41 Cal. App. 5th 141). Courts enforce these deadlines rigorously, and failure to file within the applicable period will result in the loss of the court’s authority to consider your motion, as underscored in Simgel Co., Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (55 Cal. App. 5th 305) and American Contractors Indemnity Co. v. Hernandez (73 Cal. App. 5th 845).

Given that you are not the prevailing party and are considering a motion based on the shift in your case’s nature and potential changes in the law, it is critical to verify when notice of entry of judgment was mailed or served. If you have received such notice, the 15-day deadline likely governs, rather than the 180-day maximum. As a pro se litigant, ensuring timely filing is essential to preserve your ability to challenge the judgment. ... Read More

Q. Can my Public Defender continue my trial despite my objection and no evidence?

April 10, 2025

A: From what you’ve described, your public defender requested the continuance to allow an investigator to interview your sister, who may have overheard a conversation relevant to your case. This suggests an effort to uncover evidence that could impact your defense, which courts typically view as a valid reason for delay under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, and related statutes like Section 595.4. The absence of evidence from either side at this stage does not necessarily prevent a continuance; rather, it may underscore the need for further investigation to ensure a fair trial. The trial court has the discretion to approve such a request if it deems it necessary and finds no significant prejudice to you or the prosecution, as noted in cases like Smith v. Superior Court (54 Cal. 4th 592) and People v. Riggs (44 Cal. 4th 248).

That said, your objection matters, and the court must weigh the circumstances—such as the reason for the delay, its length, and any potential impact on your rights. If you feel this continuance undermines your case or was unjustified, you have the right to voice your concerns to the judge or explore additional legal options. At Bulldog Law, we understand the frustration that can arise when decisions seem out of your control, and we are committed to empowering clients with clear, actionable advice tailored to their situations.

Every case presents unique challenges, making it essential to consult a qualified legal team promptly to assess your specific circumstances. ... Read More