Case Results
A sample of the dismissals, diversions, reductions, and acquittals our team has secured for Phoenix clients, across DUI, drug, violent, sex, and domestic-violence charges. Every case is different; here is how we fight.
Recognized By
As Seen On
Recognized By
Real Case Results
A sample of outcomes our Phoenix criminal defense and DUI team has secured, dismissals, diversions, reductions, and acquittals across the full range of charges.
Every case is different and past results do not guarantee a future outcome, but these reflect how we fight. Explore our criminal defense and DUI defense practice, or call 623-321-4699 for a free, confidential review.
State of Arizona vs. D.O.
The State relied on rapid, stressful eyewitness observations and limited video angles. Defense counsel challenged identification reliability, pressed for complete discovery, and attacked the aggravated/weapon-related allegations. Negotiations focused on provability and mitigation to reduce exposure.
State of Arizona vs. N.K.
Count 1: Possession of Narcotic Drugs (A.R.S. § 13-3408)
Count 2: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (A.R.S. § 13-3415)
The case began with a traffic stop where the search and “possession” assumptions were disputed. Counsel scrutinized the stop/search sequence, demanded lab/chain-of-custody records, and negotiated an outcome structured around dismissal upon successful completion of conditions.
State of Arizona vs. J.H.
Count 1: Burglary in the Second Degree (A.R.S. § 13-1507)
Count 2: Criminal Damage (A.R.S. § 13-1602)
Count 3: Theft (A.R.S. § 13-1802)
The State alleged intent at entry and tied additional allegations to a messy scene and conflicting witness accounts. The defense attacked the “intent” element, highlighted missing context and proof gaps, and presented mitigation early. The final resolution avoided incarceration and limited collateral consequences.
State of Arizona vs. P.A.
Police responded to a dispute with multiple people speaking at once. Counsel compared the 911 call to later statements, reviewed body-cam footage, and highlighted inconsistencies on contact and intent. The case was routed to a resolution designed to end without a conviction.
State of Arizona vs. E.K.
Count 1: Misconduct Involving Weapons (A.R.S. § 13-3102)
Count 2: Disorderly Conduct (A.R.S. § 13-2904)
The allegation centered on a weapon-related claim during a tense encounter. Defense counsel challenged the State’s assumptions about possession and circumstances, pressed discovery for all recordings, and negotiated down the case posture to reduce exposure.
State of Arizona vs. L.H.
Count 1: Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices (A.R.S. § 13-2310)
Count 2: Forgery (A.R.S. § 13-2002)
Count 3: Taking the Identity of Another Person (A.R.S. § 13-2008)
Count 4: Theft (A.R.S. § 13-1802)
The State’s theory relied on broad inferences from documents and transaction summaries. Counsel organized records, challenged intent and attribution, and pushed for proof of each element. The resolution reduced the felony exposure and focused on closure and compliance.
State of Arizona vs. R.M.
The State alleged “force” was used, but the timeline and witness descriptions shifted over time. Defense counsel attacked identification, pressed for complete video, and highlighted contradictions across statements. Negotiations resulted in a reduction aligned with evidentiary weaknesses.
State of Arizona vs. S.Q.
Count 1: Shoplifting (A.R.S. § 13-1805)
Count 2: Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree (A.R.S. § 13-1502)
The case came from a retail incident with disputed intent and incomplete context at checkout. Counsel reviewed store video, receipts, and employee notes, then negotiated a dismissal-track program focused on compliance.
State of Arizona vs. T.J.
Count 1: Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation (A.R.S. § 13-1803)
Count 2: Theft (A.R.S. § 13-1802)
Police alleged unlawful vehicle use, but the story included shared access and mixed communications. Counsel documented permission issues, challenged “knowledge” assumptions, and negotiated a reduction to limit long-term impact.
State of Arizona vs. V.D.
Count 1: Trafficking in Stolen Property (A.R.S. § 13-2307)
Count 2: Theft (A.R.S. § 13-1802)
Count 3: Forgery (A.R.S. § 13-2002)
The State alleged “knowledge” and intent based on summaries rather than direct proof. Counsel challenged the chain of evidence, pressed for foundational records, and highlighted gaps on attribution. The case resolved with reduced exposure consistent with the proof issues.
State of Arizona vs. K.P.
Count 1: Harassment (A.R.S. § 13-2921)
Count 2: Threatening or Intimidating (A.R.S. § 13-1202)
The allegation involved communications during a breakup where context mattered. Counsel provided fuller message threads, challenged intent, and negotiated a resolution emphasizing no-contact compliance and dismissal upon completion.
State of Arizona vs. B.Z.
The State alleged a “course of conduct,” but the timeline relied on selective screenshots. Counsel demanded full records, highlighted mutual contact, and challenged the pattern theory. The matter resolved with a reduction aligned with what the evidence supported.
State of Arizona vs. H.S.
Count 1: Burglary in the Third Degree (A.R.S. § 13-1506)
Count 2: Possession of Burglary Tools (A.R.S. § 13-1505)
The State relied on circumstantial inferences about intent and labeled ordinary tools as criminal. Counsel challenged the leap from possession to intent and pressed for corroboration and complete video. The case resolved with reduced exposure.
State of Arizona vs. Q.L.
Count 1: Criminal Trespass in the First Degree (A.R.S. § 13-1504)
Count 2: Interference with Judicial Proceedings (A.R.S. § 13-2810)
The case grew out of a relationship conflict with allegations tied to entry and compliance issues. Counsel reconstructed the timeline from messages and records, highlighted ambiguity, and negotiated a dismissal-track program centered on compliance.
State of Arizona vs. Z.E.
Count 1: Aggravated Assault (A.R.S. § 13-1204)
Count 2: Disorderly Conduct (A.R.S. § 13-2904)
Count 3: Threatening or Intimidating (A.R.S. § 13-1202)
Police responded to a dispute and the State filed multiple counts based on conflicting accounts. Counsel compared the 911 call, body-cam, and witness statements, highlighting timeline gaps and credibility issues. Negotiations resulted in reduced exposure consistent with provability.
State of Arizona vs. G.V.
Count 1: Kidnapping (A.R.S. § 13-1304)
Count 2: Unlawful Imprisonment (A.R.S. § 13-1303)
Count 3: Assault (A.R.S. § 13-1203)
The State alleged restraint during an argument, but “substantial interference” and intent were disputed. Counsel pressed discovery, challenged exaggeration in later statements, and presented mitigation and context. The outcome reduced the case posture and avoided the most severe exposure.
State of Arizona vs. W.N.
The allegations involved significant disputes regarding consent, timeline, and communications. Counsel demanded complete digital evidence, challenged inconsistencies across statements, and pressed for corroboration. After extensive litigation and negotiation, the case resolved without proceeding on the original theory.
State of Arizona vs. P.J.
The State’s case relied heavily on a single narrative with limited corroboration. Counsel challenged reliability, pressed for complete discovery, and presented mitigation and context. The resolution reduced exposure and closed the matter on negotiated terms.
State of Arizona vs. N.D.
Count 1: Luring a Minor for Sexual Exploitation (A.R.S. § 13-3554)
Count 2: Attempt (A.R.S. § 13-1001)
Count 3: Furnishing Harmful Items to Minors (A.R.S. § 13-3506)
The case centered on online communications and interpretation of messages. Counsel challenged attribution, demanded complete digital forensic records, and attacked assumptions about intent and identity. The case posture changed through litigation and negotiation focused on provability.
State of Arizona vs. S.M.
Count 1: Child or Vulnerable Adult Abuse (A.R.S. § 13-3623)
Count 2: Endangerment (A.R.S. § 13-1201)
The State alleged neglect based on a report made during a stressful situation. Counsel gathered records, communications, and third-party documentation showing context and corrective action. The case moved into deferred prosecution focused on compliance and closure.
State of Arizona vs. J.R.
Count 1: Unlawful Flight from Law Enforcement Vehicle (A.R.S. § 28-622.01)
Count 2: Criminal Damage (A.R.S. § 13-1602)
The State alleged a failure to stop and added property damage based on the scene reconstruction. Counsel reviewed dash-cam, dispatch logs, and activation cues, and challenged contested details in the reports. Negotiations reduced exposure and avoided custody.
State of Arizona vs. U.P.
The State alleged impairment and a high BAC. Counsel scrutinized testing timelines, calibration, and foundational requirements, and presented mitigation early. The resolution reduced the impact and avoided custody.
State of Arizona vs. L.S.
Count 1: Aggravated DUI (A.R.S. § 28-1383)
Count 2: Driving on a Suspended License (A.R.S. § 28-3473)
The State filed felony DUI allegations tied to aggravating factors and added a license count. Counsel audited the State’s proof of aggravators and pressed foundational issues in the investigation. The final outcome avoided the harshest sentencing posture.
State of Arizona vs. C.K.
Count 1: Reckless Driving (A.R.S. § 28-693)
Count 2: Racing on Highways (A.R.S. § 28-708)
The allegations centered on speed and driving behavior, but conditions, distance, and identification were disputed. Counsel reviewed roadway context and available footage and challenged the basis for the conclusions. The State dismissed after proof issues were raised.
State of Arizona vs. V.K.
Count 1: Leaving the Scene of an Accident (A.R.S. § 28-661)
Count 2: Criminal Damage (A.R.S. § 13-1602)
The case involved a minor collision and disputed notice/intent. Counsel analyzed timelines, statements, and evidence of awareness, and presented a restitution plan. The resolution avoided jail and focused on closure.
State of Arizona vs. H.C.
The State alleged resistance during a chaotic scene with overlapping commands. Counsel reviewed body-worn footage and argued confusion and panic rather than criminal intent. The resolution avoided custody and closed the matter on probationary terms.
State of Arizona vs. R.H.
Count 1: Interference with Judicial Proceedings (A.R.S. § 13-2810)
Count 2: Threatening or Intimidating (A.R.S. § 13-1202)
The State alleged court-related compliance issues alongside communications that were disputed in context. Counsel obtained records, highlighted ambiguity, and pushed for a dismissal-track program centered on compliance. The matter resolved through diversion.
State of Arizona vs. T.W.
The incident involved a tragic outcome and disputed accounts of causation and mental state. Counsel reviewed forensic materials, challenged assumptions in the State’s theory, and negotiated based on provability. The outcome avoided the State’s highest exposure posture.
State of Arizona vs. F.N.
Count 1: Second Degree Murder (A.R.S. § 13-1104)
Count 2: Misconduct Involving Weapons (A.R.S. § 13-3102)
The State’s first posture reflected a worst-case reading of disputed evidence. Counsel reconstructed the timeline, challenged key assumptions, and pressed expert-focused review. The ultimate resolution reduced exposure and avoided the most extreme sentencing risk.
State of Arizona vs. M.Z.
Count 1: Money Laundering (A.R.S. § 13-2317)
Count 2: Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices (A.R.S. § 13-2310)
The State alleged improper financial movement and intent based on summaries rather than direct proof. Counsel mapped transactions, challenged knowledge/intent assumptions, and documented lawful explanations. Negotiations reduced the posture and narrowed exposure.
State of Arizona vs. P.K.
Count 1: Racketeering (A.R.S. § 13-2312)
Count 2: Money Laundering (A.R.S. § 13-2317)
Count 3: Forgery (A.R.S. § 13-2002)
The State alleged a broad enterprise theory. Counsel challenged predicate proof, demanded particularized evidence, and pressed for record-based narrowing. The final resolution reduced scope and limited collateral consequences.
State of Arizona vs. Z.J.
Count 1: Transportation of Dangerous Drugs for Sale (A.R.S. § 13-3407)
Count 2: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (A.R.S. § 13-3415)
The State alleged “for sale” indicators, but the defense challenged the reliability of the stop and the conclusions drawn from packaging/quantity. Counsel pressed lab foundations and suppressible issues. The case posture was reduced through negotiation.
State of Arizona vs. A.N.
Count 1: Transportation of Narcotic Drugs for Sale (A.R.S. § 13-3408)
Count 2: Possession of Narcotic Drugs (A.R.S. § 13-3408)
Count 3: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (A.R.S. § 13-3415)
The case hinged on intent and knowledge assumptions. Counsel challenged “for sale” indicators, pressed discovery on investigative methods, and attacked possession theories in a shared-access context. Negotiations reduced exposure.
State of Arizona vs. C.T.
The State’s filing relied on conflicting accounts and assumptions about who did what. Counsel collected photos and records, challenged credibility issues, and pushed for a resolution centered on closure. The State dismissed after proof weaknesses were presented.
State of Arizona vs. L.B.
This case involved serious allegations and heavily disputed facts. Defense counsel demanded complete forensic/digital discovery, challenged attribution and timeline assumptions, and litigated evidentiary issues. The matter resolved with a significantly reduced posture based on provability.
State of Arizona vs. H.V.
The allegations required close review of statements, timing, and corroboration. Counsel pressed for complete records, challenged inconsistencies, and litigated evidentiary issues. The case posture was reduced through negotiation based on proof risks.
State of Arizona vs. V.R.
Count 1: Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (A.R.S. § 13-3553)
Count 2: Attempt (A.R.S. § 13-1001)
Count 3: Furnishing Harmful Items to Minors (A.R.S. § 13-3506)
The State’s case depended on device attribution and digital evidence interpretation. Counsel demanded full forensic reports, challenged assumptions about access and identity, and litigated foundational issues. The outcome significantly reduced exposure based on provability.
State of Arizona vs. G.D.
The incident was reported with differing descriptions and limited corroboration. Counsel challenged reliability, pressed discovery for all recordings and statements, and presented mitigation. The case resolved through a dismissal-track alternative focused on compliance.
State of Arizona vs. P.Z.
Count 1: Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree (A.R.S. § 13-1503)
Count 2: Criminal Damage (A.R.S. § 13-1602)
The State alleged unlawful entry and property damage, but responsibility and intent were disputed. Counsel challenged the entry/notice evidence and highlighted inconsistencies in witness accounts. The resolution reduced the posture and limited long-term consequences.
State of Arizona vs. R.B.
Count 1: Aggravated Assault (A.R.S. § 13-1204)
Count 2: Misconduct Involving Weapons (A.R.S. § 13-3102)
Count 3: Endangerment (A.R.S. § 13-1201)
The State filed multiple counts from a single incident and sought severe consequences. Counsel challenged enhancement proof, pressed for complete video and dispatch records, and highlighted credibility problems. Negotiations reduced exposure and avoided the harshest posture.
State of Arizona vs. E.T.
Count 1: Possession of Dangerous Drugs (A.R.S. § 13-3407)
Count 2: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (A.R.S. § 13-3415)
Count 3: Resisting Arrest (A.R.S. § 13-2508)
The case followed a stop where the search and subsequent arrest were disputed. Counsel challenged the scope of the search, attacked possession assumptions, and negotiated a resolution centered on dismissal upon completion of program requirements.
State of Arizona vs. F.R.
Count 1: Forgery (A.R.S. § 13-2002)
Count 2: Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument (A.R.S. § 13-2005)
The State’s theory required proof of knowledge and intent. Counsel challenged attribution, demanded foundational records, and presented mitigation and restitution planning. The matter was resolved through deferred prosecution leading to dismissal upon completion.
State of Arizona vs. J.P.
Count 1: Taking the Identity of Another Person (A.R.S. § 13-2008)
Count 2: Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices (A.R.S. § 13-2310)
The State alleged identity misuse tied to transactions, but attribution and intent were contested. Counsel pressed for complete records, challenged assumptions about device access and identity, and negotiated a reduced outcome aligned with proof risks.
State of Arizona vs. S.D.
Count 1: Burglary in the First Degree (A.R.S. § 13-1508)
Count 2: Aggravated Assault (A.R.S. § 13-1204)
The State alleged an elevated burglary theory and filed an additional violent count. Counsel challenged enhancement evidence, pressed targeted motions, and negotiated based on provability and mitigation. The final resolution reduced exposure and avoided the harshest posture.
State of Arizona vs. C.W.
The State alleged impairment along with a scene-related allegation. Counsel analyzed timelines, notice/intent issues, and the foundation for testing. The resolution reduced exposure and focused on compliance and closure.
State of Arizona vs. M.C.
Count 1: Extreme DUI (A.R.S. § 28-1382)
Count 2: Driving on a Suspended License (A.R.S. § 28-3473)
The State alleged a high BAC and a license-related issue. Counsel scrutinized testing foundations and records, challenged proof gaps, and presented mitigation early. The final outcome avoided custody and prioritized closure.
State of Arizona vs. L.N.
Count 1: Aggravated DUI (A.R.S. § 28-1383)
Count 2: Unlawful Flight from Law Enforcement Vehicle (A.R.S. § 28-622.01)
The case involved allegations of fleeing and felony DUI factors. Counsel reviewed dash-cam and dispatch logs, audited proof of aggravators, and litigated foundational issues. Negotiations reduced exposure and avoided the harshest sentencing posture.
State of Arizona vs. O.P.
The State relied on a narrative of reckless behavior and added damage allegations. Counsel challenged the characterization, reviewed roadway context and evidence, and emphasized proof problems. The State dismissed after evidentiary weaknesses were presented.
State of Arizona vs. A.B.
Count 1: Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree (A.R.S. § 13-1502)
Count 2: Disorderly Conduct (A.R.S. § 13-2904)
The incident involved a property dispute where notice and context were contested. Counsel focused on signage/permission issues and challenged inconsistencies in the reporting narrative. The resolution provided a dismissal pathway tied to compliance.
State of Arizona vs. Y.T.
Count 1: Possession of Narcotic Drugs (Fentanyl) (A.R.S. § 13-3408)
Count 2: Possession of Narcotic Drugs (Heroin) (A.R.S. § 13-3408)
Count 3: Possession of Narcotic Drugs (Oxycodone) (A.R.S. § 13-3408)
Count 4: Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Methamphetamine) (A.R.S. § 13-3407)
Count 5: Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Cocaine) (A.R.S. § 13-3407)
Count 6: Possession of Dangerous Drugs (MDMA) (A.R.S. § 13-3407)
Count 7: Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Xanax/Alprazolam) (A.R.S. § 13-3406)
Count 8: Possession of Marijuana (A.R.S. § 13-3405)
Count 9: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (A.R.S. § 13-3415)
Count 10: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (A.R.S. § 13-3415)
Count 11: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (A.R.S. § 13-3415)
Count 12: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (A.R.S. § 13-3415)
Count 13: False Reporting to Law Enforcement (A.R.S. § 13-2907.01)
Count 14: Resisting Arrest (A.R.S. § 13-2508)
Count 15: Criminal Damage (A.R.S. § 13-1602)
The incident began as a traffic stop and quickly expanded into a multi-count filing. Counsel scrutinized the stop/search sequence, challenged “possession” assumptions in a shared-space context, demanded full lab/chain-of-custody documentation, and negotiated an outcome designed to collapse the case exposure and prioritize dismissal pathways where eligible.
What Clients Say About Tamou Law
Real Google reviews from clients we have defended across Phoenix and Maricopa County. Every review is from a criminal defense client, never padded with non-legal work.
Two Arizona Offices, One Team
We serve all of Maricopa County and the surrounding area, with free, confidential consultations 24/7 by phone and in-person meetings at either office by appointment.
Case Results Disclaimer: The results described on this page are based on specific facts and circumstances and do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Every case is different. Past results do not guarantee future results. No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing this page or submitting a contact form until a written fee agreement has been signed. Tamou Law Group, PLLC is licensed to practice law in the State of Arizona. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.