Kevin A. Hogle, Esq.

Our firm understands that the truth is rarely pure and never simple, particularly when criminal charges are levied against a person by the government. The accused, whether guilty or innocent of the alleged offense, stands upon unequal ground to answer those charges when faced against police, prosecutors, sophisticated crime labs, and experts. With liberty, work, reputation, and livelihood at stake, the accused needs to find the right attorney to zealously represent them.

If you are charged with a crime in Southern California, then you need a criminal defense attorney that can level the playing field against the government. How is this accomplished? The answer is simple, but not as often utilized:

1. Communication:

Your attorney must be available to discuss your case with you in detail. This doesn't mean that you meet once in the office to pay the bill and sign the retainer, but then never hear from them again. This means that there has to be a constant open line of communication between the two of you. The circumstances of criminal cases change frequently, and informed decisions are made only through effective discussion and aforethought.

2. Knowledge:

Your attorney must have a firm grasp of the facts. Using those facts, your attorney must know the applicable laws, possible defenses, and possible consequences of your case. Using this knowledge, your attorney can then advise you about your case in a meaningful and thoughtful manner.

3. Goal setting:

Once the facts and legal aspects of the case are determined, it becomes time to set goals. Goals change often throughout the course of a criminal proceeding, but usually involve either resolving the case or taking it to trial. Once these goals are defined, your attorney and you decide how to proceed in the most appropriate fashion.

4. Preparation:

Using communication, knowledge, and goal setting, your attorney then needs to prepare your case in a manner that helps achieve your goals. This requires creative thinking, hard work, and thorough preparation. Only once this is accomplished can your goals be achieved.

5. Resolution:

If a suitable solution that achieves your goals has been negotiated by your attorney, then your case is ready to resolve. You will know you have made an informed decision because your attorney has completed all of the above steps, and you will be comfortable that this resolution is your best option. Thus, your goal is accomplished.

If the goal is to take the case to trial, then the case proceeds to trial. You need an attorney that is willing to not only try the case, but also to implement all of the above steps. Then, and only then, will you be comfortable resting your liberty and fate in the hands of your attorney. Outcomes can never be guaranteed by any attorney, but success can never be accomplished without an attorney willing to go through these steps to fight for you.

Kevin Hogle is an attorney that will take all steps necessary to vigorously defend you in your time of need. As a former Public Defender, and now in private practice, he has literally handled thousands of criminal cases. This experience has taught Mr. Hogle that every criminal case is unique, requiring thorough investigation, knowledge, and preparation. Grey hair or old age doesn't make an attorney great - hard work does. Mr. Hogle is a trial attorney that is willing to work hard on your case, to fight for you, and to help you achieve your goals.

Contact Mr. Hogle to find out if he is the right attorney for you.

Our office works in all of Southern California:

Los Angeles, San Fernando, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, Orange County.

Reported Cases:

People v. Juan C., Misdemeanor:

Client charged with vandalism. Client allegedly throws a large flower pot through his ex-wife's Hummer windshield as she frantically tries to drive away from his home after dropping off their young daughters. According to the police report, one daughter witnessed the entire violent affair and corroborated the ex's story. During trial, the ex-wife was completely discredited during cross-examination. Client found not guilty. After trial, several members of the jury informed Mr. Hogle that they believed his assertion that it was actually the ex-wife who threw the pot and missed Juan. No charges pending against ex-wife.

People v. Adolfo M., Misdemeanor:

Client charged with domestic violence for purportedly choking and kicking his ex-girlfriend. Police arrive only to find Adolfo pinning the "victim" between the door and a wall. The case was dismissed after Mr. Hogle presented evidence of the "victim's" history of filing false police reports against Adolfo, as well as evidence that she was actually trying to break into his apartment at the time he pinned her.

People v. Brent F., Misdemeanor:

Client charged with domestic violence. Client and ex-girlfriend get into argument as client is picking up his belongings at ex's house. Client allegedly hit ex-girlfriend across the face, as witnessed by her brother and a neighbor. Found not guilty after trial.

People v. Jorge P., Misdemeanor:

Client charged with domestic violence causing corporal injury. Client hits his internet-met lover over the head with a wooden duck, causing significant bleeding. Prosecutor dismissed the case after Mr. Hogle presents evidence that client was actually acting in self-defense during an attack by the alleged victim.

People v. Tuji L., Misdemeanor:

Client charged with domestic violence causing corporal injury on girlfriend, and simple battery on her small child. Client, recently released from prison, accused of scratching and bruising his new girlfriend, and battering her ten-year-old son during the altercation while the boy was calling the police. Client found not guilty of domestic violence, guilty of the lesser battery charge against the boy.

People v. Jose Q., Misdemeanor:

Client, with an extensive criminal history, charged with four counts of assault and battery, one count resisting arrest. Client gets into verbal argument that got physical with ex-wife's in-laws after he entered their property. Client chokes one male "victim," causing significant scratches and redness on his neck; the other female "victim" was allegedly slapped, as witnessed by the several police officers as they arrived on the scene. After trial, client found not guilty of the assault and battery charges against the male, and a mistrial was declared for the charges against the female (the charges were later dismissed by the Judge). Client only convicted of resisting arrest. Sentence imposed was community service, after initially being offered by the District Attorney 120 days in county jail to plead guilty.

People v. Theodore S., Misdemeanor:

Client, with drug history and on formal probation, charged with possession of a meth pipe. Probation searches client's home only to find him sitting at a desk with a meth pipe in the drawer, wrapped in a napkin. Client allegedly admits to ownership of the pipe not only to the Probation Officers searching his home, but also to the police that arrested him. The jury voted 7-to-5 for not guilty. Mistrial declared after trial. Case was later dismissed by the prosecutor.

People v. Mark V., Misdemeanor:

Client charged with domestic violence causing corporal injury. Fire Department responds to a woman having an asthma attack. Police get involved after "victim" reports the extensive scratches and bruises on her body and face were caused by her husband. Case dismissed before trial after thorough investigation reveals that injuries were actually caused by "victim's" lover, not client.

People v. John S., Felony:

Client charged with Robbery. During trial, witness who identified John as the culprit was completely discredited during Mr. Hogle's cross-examination. The Judge dismissed the case and released John from custody immediately.

People v. Samuel B., Felony:

Client charged with three counts of felony criminal threats. Client sent an email threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend and start a school shooting the last week of school. Client acquitted on all counts. In the wake of Virginia Tech, Columbine, and various others, this was a big win for Mr. Hogle.

People v. Erin B., Felony:

Client charged with feloniously providing false documents to a court. Presented evidence during trial showing client did not have knowledge the documents were false. Client acquitted.

People v. Louis F., Felony:

Client and his friends go on a large crime spree, stealing a car, breaking into many others, and stealing merchandise valued in the thousands. Client charged with committing these crimes in association with and for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Investigation revealed that the gang charges were tenuous, and the District Attorney agreed to dismiss all gang charges and enhancements in exchange for an admission to the other crimes where the evidence was significant.