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 can I address unfeasible probation terms for an old misdemeanor charge in California?

April 9, 2025

A: To address unfeasible probation terms for your old misdemeanor charge in California, you can request a modification of the probation terms through the court. California law provides mechanisms for modifying probation conditions if they are unreasonable or cause undue hardship. The court has the authority to modify probation terms at any time during the probation period if it serves the interests of justice or addresses the defendant's changed circumstances

§ 1203.3. Revocation, modification or change of probation by court; Discharge of defendant; Revocation upon escape, § 1203.1. Order granting probation; Conditions; Imprisonment; Fine; Restitution; Work; Community service, § 1203.2. Revocation of probation upon rearrest; Modification of probation pursuant to noticed motion; Pronouncement of judgment; Setting aside order revoking probation.

The Lent test, established in California case law, provides a framework for evaluating the validity of probation conditions. A probation condition is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of conviction, (2) relates to conduct that is not itself criminal, and (3) is not reasonably related to preventing future criminality. All three prongs must be satisfied for a condition to be invalidated. If the weekly in-person drug testing in Willows does not meet these criteria, you may argue that it is unreasonable and seek its modification

People v. Cruz Cruz, 54 Cal. App. 5th 707, People v. Olguin, 45 Cal. 4th 375.

Additionally, § 1203.3. Revocation, modification or change of probation by court; Discharge of defendant; Revocation upon escape allows the court to modify the time, manner, or conditions of probation if it finds that the current terms are not in the best interests of justice. You can file a motion with the court, providing evidence of the financial and employment hardships caused by the current probation terms. The court may consider these factors and adjust the conditions accordingly

§ 1203.3. Revocation, modification or change of probation by court; Discharge of defendant; Revocation upon escape, § 1203.1. Order granting probation; Conditions; Imprisonment; Fine; Restitution; Work; Community service, § 1203.2. Revocation of probation upon rearrest; Modification of probation pursuant to noticed motion; Pronouncement of judgment; Setting aside order revoking probation.

If the court denies your request to transfer the case to Redding, you may still argue for alternative arrangements, such as allowing drug testing at a facility closer to your residence. The court has discretion to approve such modifications if they are reasonable and do not compromise the goals of probation

People v. Cruz Cruz, 54 Cal. App. 5th 707, People v. Enriquez, 160 Cal. App. 4th 230.

In summary, you should file a motion to modify the probation terms, citing the undue hardship caused by the current conditions and referencing the Lent test and

§ 1203.3. Revocation, modification or change of probation by court; Discharge of defendant; Revocation upon escape. If successful, the court may adjust the terms to better accommodate your circumstances while ensuring compliance with probation requirements. ... Read More

Q. How to recover my stolen French Bulldog sold without my consent?

April 9, 2025

A: Dear Victorville Resident,

The individual who took your dog and sold it may be liable under Penal Code Section 496, which addresses receiving or selling stolen property. The text message where she admits to having your dog is a key piece of evidence, supporting a claim that she knowingly disposed of your property—valued at $5,000—for a fee. This statute allows you to pursue a civil action for three times your actual damages, plus attorney fees, as affirmed in cases like Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (171 Cal. App. 4th 1). Additionally, Civil Code Section 1712 mandates that property acquired without consent must be returned to its owner, unless the new possessor has a superior claim, which seems unlikely here.

Regarding the new owner refusing to return your dog, Civil Code Section 338 permits you to file a lawsuit for the specific recovery of personal property within three years of locating it. You can also request a court order under Penal Code Section 1408, which allows a magistrate to direct the return of stolen property upon proof of ownership—such as your purchase receipt or other documentation. Furthermore, Food and Agricultural Code Section 24132 offers a powerful remedy, entitling you to four times the dog’s value, legal fees, and compensation for your efforts in pursuing its return, given the wrongful taking and sale.

Your police report strengthens your case, and gathering additional evidence—like the text admission, purchase records, or witness statements—will be crucial for both civil and criminal proceedings. You can press for criminal charges under Section 496 while simultaneously filing a civil suit against both the seller and the new owner. At Bulldog Law, we are dedicated to fighting for clients wronged by theft and deception, ensuring their rights are upheld. ... Read More

Q. What are the legal repercussions for leaving a minor accident scene in California?

April 8, 2025

A: In California, leaving the scene of an accident even a minor one like your low-speed collision at a stop sign can carry serious implications. Under Vehicle Code Section 20001, if an accident results in injury, drivers are required to stop, exchange information, and offer reasonable assistance. Failing to do so is a criminal offense, potentially a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the circumstances, with penalties including up to one year in county jail or longer in state prison, plus fines between $1,000 and $10,000. Even if the impact was under 5 mph and you didn’t notice injuries, the law holds you accountable if a reasonable person would suspect harm might have occurred, as noted in People v. Holford (63 Cal. 2d 74). Since the other driver claims injuries and contacted the police, this could elevate the matter to a Section 20001 violation.

If no injuries are substantiated, Vehicle Code Section 20002 applies, requiring drivers to stop and exchange information in property-damage-only accidents. Violation of this is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, per People v. Dimacali (32 Cal. App. 5th 822). Your departure due to fear does not excuse the legal duty, though it may contextualize your actions.

Financially, you could face civil liability for any damages or injuries from the collision itself, pursued through insurance or a lawsuit. In a criminal case, restitution might be limited to losses tied directly to your leaving—like worsened injuries from delayed aid—rather than the accident broadly, as seen in People v. Escobar (235 Cal. App. 3d 1504). To mitigate this, I recommend contacting an attorney immediately, reporting the incident to the police yourself, and notifying your insurance provider. Taking these steps proactively, as suggested in People v. Jordan (214 Cal. App. 2d 400), may show good faith and influence how authorities handle the situation. ... Read More