Success Stories

Contact Us Anytime at (916) 447-7842


Our client was facing charges for allegedly committing a shooting (causing serious injury) during a robbery. From day one, the client stated that he was totally innocent of the charges. The attorney believed his client, and along with a criminal investigator, began an investigation into the case. They soon learned that someone else was actually responsible for the shooting. The attorney brought this information to the attention of the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Department. This information prompted law enforcement to re-investigate the matter to which they finally concluded the client was in fact innocent. The case was dismissed against the client on May 15th, 2013.

It was announced today that the Sacramento County Superior Court entered a dismissal in his client’s felony case after the prosecution failed to show good case for a continuance.

"The Law Office announced today that the Sacramento County Superior Court entered a dismissal in Felony case for a defendant after the prosecution failed to show good case for a continuance. According to the police reports and court documents filed, the client was arrested on Felony DVD pirating charges on March 4, 2011. The client pled not guilty to all charges and the case was set for a preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing some of the initial charges were dismissed by the court for lack of evidence. The client then exercised his constitutional right to a speedy trial within sixty days from being held to answer at a preliminary hearing. According to the online Sacramento Superior Court index, shortly before the last day of the speedy jury trial right period, the Sacramento District Attorney’s office dismissed the charges and re-filed the case under a new case number. A new preliminary hearing was held. This time the prosecution procured the testimony of an expert witness. After the second preliminary hearing, the client again exercised his right to a speedy trial. According to documents filed in open court throughout these proceedings, the client’s attorney, David W. Bonilla, made several informal and formal discovery requests for a recording from a police car camera showing the initial vehicle stop and interview of the client. According to those same documents, even though Mr. Bonilla was told that the recording did not exist, he insisted on obtaining it, believing that law enforcement did in fact have the recording. Per the court transcript, when the case again approached the end of the allowable speedy trial period, Mr. Bonilla requested that a judge order the Sacramento District Attorney’s office to turn over the recording. Shortly before that hearing, the District Attorney’s office claimed it discovered the existence of the recording. In court, the assigned deputy District Attorney requested two weeks to obtain the recording, a period which extended beyond the client’s statutory speedy trial right period of sixty days. An attorney represented the clients in that hearing for a Motion to Compel discovery on July 29, 2011 in Department 63 of the Sacramento Superior Court. The court granted the District Attorney’s motion to continue over the defense’s strenuous objection. According to the records of the Court of Third District Court of Appeal, on August 15, 2011 The Law Offices of David W. Bonilla. filed a Writ of Mandate requesting that the case be dismissed. The Appeals court initially granted a stay. Prior to even obtaining the notice from the court of appeals, the court file and minute order indicate that the honorable court in Department 31 ordered case dismissed based on Mr. Bonilla’s motion to dismiss for violation of the client’s speedy trial rights. On the record, the judge indicated that the prosecution failed to state any good cause when it requested a continuance on July 29, 2011. The client was ordered released immediately. "

Client was accused of annoying and harassing phone calls to an ex-girlfriend. Client explained to police that they misinterpreted his actions and that the police should look at the context and talk to all the witnesses. The police did not want to investigate Client’s claims and forwarded case to District Attorney to press charges. Client hired our attorney. Mr. Bonilla immediately assigned private investigators to the case. They interviewed people that knew the Client and alleged victim. Armed with new information, Mr. Bonilla discussed the case with the District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney’s Office decided not to prosecute the case.

Client was charged with 3 counts of armed robbery along with other co-defendants. Client maintained he was innocent and was unfortunately at the wrong place at the wrong time. Attorney David W. Bonilla believed his client and immediately began to point out to the District Attorney’s Office that there was no evidence showing Client committed any crime. The District Attorney’s Office refused to dismiss against Mr. Bonilla’s client so the attorney immediately set the case for a hearing. Just before the hearing the District Attorney’s office dismissed the case against Client citing insufficient evidence to go forward. Client was released for jail the same day.

Sacramento County charged Client with committing death threats, battery on a spouse, vandalism, and resisting arrest. Client maintained he was innocent and stated he was the victim of excessive force by the police. Client’s attorney David W. Bonilla believed in Client’s case and set his case for trial. After litigating legal motions and being confronted with procedural difficulties in getting Client to trial, the District Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges against Client.

Client was charged with 1st degree burglary and felony vandalism. Client had a prior strike offense in his background. He maintained his innocence regarding the new burglary charges against him. Mr. David W. Bonilla investigated client’s claims and sent an experienced private investigator to speak to witnesses that may have knowledge of the events in question. Mr. Bonilla alerted the District Attorney what his investigation was revealing. On the day of the Client’s felony preliminary hearing the District Attorney put forth a new resolution offer which entailed dismissing all burglary charges against Client. The client admitted to one misdemeanor vandalism charge and was immediately released.

Client was accused of committing a series of crimes encompassing (4) felonies and (2) misdemeanors in Placer County. One of the felonies was a strike offense. Client was accused of committing the crimes in relation to a domestic violence dispute. Client denied all felony charges. It was imperative to Client that he did not sustain any felony convictions due to his immigration status. Client hired David W. Bonilla. Mr. Bonilla quickly and aggressively investigated the alleged charges and discovered an eyewitness and that gave a different rendition of the facts than what the government asserted was true. Mr. Bonilla also provided the Placer County District Attorney’s Office with information about the victim that was exculpatory for the Client. After a few weeks of negotiating the case the parties reached an agreement where all felony charges were dismissed and the Client was only required to plea to one misdemeanor vandalism charge for 10 days work project with anger management classes. Client and his immigration attorney were happy with the result.

Client was charged with shouting out death threats while pointing a gun. Client had a previous strike conviction, deemed by the court to be a violent offense. Client was facing approximately 17 years in prison if convicted. The District Attorney wanted the Client to plead guilty to the offense for an early resolution offer of 8-10 years in prison and admit to a second strike. Client refused and asked Sacramento County Defense Attorney David Bonilla to take his case to trial. Mr. Bonilla vigorously fought for his client during a lengthy jury trial that resulted in a hung jury. The prosecution chose to continue to try to prosecute the Client and the Client again called up Mr. Bonilla to try his case before a second jury. Just before the Jury trial was to begin Mr. Bonilla negotiated a new offer involving no new strikes that would require the client to serve three weeks of custody time. Client accepted the new plea bargain.

Client was ordered to do Sheriff’s Work Project for a 2nd DUI offense . Client left California to handle important family matters on the East Coast and did not finish work project. Client got arrested in Pennsylvania on a large federal drug case and could not come back to California and also could not bail due to the Sacramento County warrant for not finishing work project. Client hired Mr. Bonilla while sitting in an Ohio federal correctional facility after hearing of him. Within days of being hired Mr. Bonilla went to Sacramento County Superior Court for Client and got his Bench warrant recalled so the Client could bail out of the federal detention facility.

Multiple felony strike charges dismissed! Client was charged with Robbery, Burglary, and Assault with a deadly weapon on two named victims in a hotel room. Defense attorney David W. Bonilla always maintained that the client was innocent of the charges and did not do the acts the accusers were claiming. Client did have a criminal record so the police and District Attorney would not believe him. Client asked Mr. Bonilla to take his case to trial before a jury so he could be vindicated. Mr. Bonilla aggressively investigated the case and followed up on all of the client’s assertions of what happened the night in question. Mr. Bonilla’s private investigator discovered evidence that the claimed accusers had actually told many important untruths about the events on the night in question. Part of the defense investigation was turned over by Mr. Bonilla to the District Attorney as the trial grew near. Just before a jury was to be picked on the case, the District Attorney decided to dismiss all charges against the client after realizing it lacked solid evidence. Client released from custody the same day.

Client was accused of misdemeanor hit and run. A warrant was put out for his arrest. Client tried to exchange information with the other party but the other party was too angry. Client hired David W. Bonilla. Mr. Bonilla had the warrant immediately recalled and he investigated alleged acts. David W. Bonilla made contact with alleged victim through an experienced investigator and then negotiated with the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office. The hit and Run charges against defendant were dismissed after extensive negotiations.

] AUGUST 2011
Client was ordered to do three consecutive weekends in the Sacramento County Jail. When Client tried to turn himself in he was turned away by jail staff on two different occasions due to confusing housing policies they had put into place. Client decided to try to do his outstanding home detention time and deal with the jail time once that was complete. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department noticed Client did not finish his mandatory jail time and issued a warrant for his arrest and client was taken into custody and placed in jail for the balance of his home detention sentence. Client searched for a Sacramento defense attorney and hired David W. Bonilla to correct the situation. Mr. Bonilla immediately filed a motion with the Sacramento County Superior Court explaining why the warrant should never have been issued and the Client should quickly be released on home detention. The Court read Mr. Bonilla’s motion and agreed with it. The judge ordered the Client released from jail custody immediately, allowing him to serve the remainder of the sentence on home detention.

JULY 2011
Client was charged with a DUI after the police found him next to the car at the scene of an accident. Client failed sobriety tests and was taken into custody. Mr. Bonilla prepared this case for a jury trial covering every detail. At trial Mr. Bonilla was able to present testimony from the real driver who left the scene. After a weeklong trial client was found not guilty.

JULY 2011
Client was charged with three separate counts of robbery . If convicted she would have been eligible to receive a sentence of 25-life upon another felony conviction. From the moment Mr. Bonilla started working on the case he knew that the DA could not prove the charges it brought. Mr. Bonilla explained this initially to the DA they did not want to reduce the charges. Mr. Bonilla started working on the case and conducted defense investigation. Following his investigation and at the next court appearance the DA agreed with Mr. Bonilla’s assessment of the case. Client pled to one misdemeanor count of petty theft and is able to serve her minimum sentence at home on ankle bracelet.

MAY 2011
Client was charged with 4 strike offenses and was told by the District Attorney’s Office he would have to go to prison as part of any resolution to his case. Client decided to let David W. Bonilla fight out his case in a jury trial. After David W. Bonilla collaborated with a nationally renowned expert in the field of mental health defense and as jury selection was proceeding, the District Attorney extended Client a new offer to resolve his case. Client agreed to the new offer which allowed him to plead guilty to one felony count for county jail time, time served. Client was released from jail custody the same day.

Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid phone number.
Please enter a message.

Law Office of David W. Bonilla

901 H St., Suite 620

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 447-7842

Available 24/7 

Send us a message

Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid phone number.
Please enter a message.

Our Office Location