Wraymond K. Plummer
Attorney Wraymond Plummer is a Juvenile Deliquency Defense and Parole Violation Defense in Sacramento and Surrounding Areas of Law Office of Wraymond K. Plummer, a law firm in Sacramento, CA. As a lawyer in Sacramento, California, attorney Plummer serves Sacramento County, as well as clients throughout California.
Areas of Practice
- Criminal Defense
- Parole and Probation
|Law School||:||Not Available|
Wraymond K. Plummer received a double major at the University of California at Santa Barbara in Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies. He graduated with distinction from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Wraymond graduated in the top ten percent of his class, was selected to be the Chief Comment Editor on the McGeorge Law Review, and was appointed to the Order of the Coif, Traynor Society, and was on the Dean's Honor Roll each year in law school. Mr. Plummer was a staff writer on the McGeorge Law Review and received the McGeorge Scholarship Award, R.T. Stratton Memorial Scholarship, McGeorge Law Review Scholarship, the Annabel McGeorge Academic Achievement Scholarship, and had a full academic scholarship.
Mr. Plummer has practiced law in the areas of administrative law hearings, environmental law, civil litigation, criminal, and juvenile law. He has conducted well over fifty trials. He has represented over fifteen hundred juvenile delinquency clients in the complex juvenile law arena.Areas of Practice
- Juvenile Delinquency (Juvenile Criminal Defense)
- Criminal Defense
- DUI/DWI and Underage Drinking
- Drug Charges
- Theft and Property Crimes
- Violent Crimes
- Sex Crimes
- Traffic Violations
- California, 2001
- McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California, 2001
J.D., with distinction
Honors: Order of the Coif, Traynor Society
Law Review: McGeorge Law Review, Chief Comment Editor, 2000 - 2001
- University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, 1996
Major: Biological Sciences
Major: Environmental Studies
Law Office of Wraymond K. Plummer
770 L Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Law Office of Wraymond K. Plummer was founded in 2005. Law Office of Wraymond K. Plummer is located in Sacramento County California.
Juvenile Deliquency Defense, Parole Violation Defense
Parole Charges Dismissed. All parole charges were dismissed at probable casue hearing after our objections and legal argument that the special conditions of parole to not use any computer was overbroad. Further, the alleged conduct was not sufficient to sustain such an allegation.
Parole Charges Dismissed. Parolee client was charged with Penal Code 288(a) L & L with a child under 14. All charges were dismissed at the Morrissey Hearing due to evidence and legal deficiencies in the case.
Case Dismissed. Charges of assault with a deadly weapon and criminal threats were dismissed after our investigation showed our cilent was acting in lawful self defense when he used the weapon to defend himself.
Case Dismissed. Parole charges of domestic battery were dismissed based on our sustained objections to hearsay evidence being relied on by the state to prove their case.
Case Dismissed. Both charges of commercial burglary and vandalism felony charges were dismissed for insufficient evidence after our investigation and negotiation with the District Attorney.
Case Dismissed. Agreement was reached where the charges against our client were dismissed once he completed counseling and community service hours.
Case Dismissed. Unlawful use of teargas charges were dismissed after our investigation showed that use was in self defense.
Case Dismissed. Parole violation dismissed by Board of Prison Hearings at Morrissey Hearing ("Revocation Hearing") after Comito Objection was sustained. Allegations of domestic violence were dismissed due to our inability to cross-examine alleged victim when she failed to attend the hearing. Case Dismissed. Parole violation dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
Case Dismissed. Charges of breaking into a school and stealing and vandalizing property were dismissed after our investigation showed the identification of our client was not reliable for the prosecution to continue. Case dismissed for insufficient evidence. Case Dismissed. Parole violation dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
Case Dismissed. Client was involved in several residential burglaries with older, more sophisticated defendants known to law enforcement. Client agreed to testify against co-defendant and had his case dismissed. Law enforcement was very eager to do whatever was necessary to convict the co-defendant. Victim restitution, estimated at over $20,000.00 was not ordered to client due to this agreement. (Note: we do not generally advise clients testify against other participants for favorable treatment from the District Attorney. However, this is a decision that can only be made by the client).
Case Dismissed. Parole violation was dismissed at probable cause hearing for lack of sufficient evidence to hold client in custody.
Case Dismissed. When our client had both a juvenile case and adult matter pending, we were able to get the District Attorney and Court to agree to dismiss the juvenile matter as part of an adult plea agreement.
Case Dismissed. Successfully argued that the parole violation allegations were not supported by the evidence. Commissioner agreed and dismissed the case.
Case Dismissed. Client's charges of attempted burglary were dismissed after the client provided proof of completing counseling.
Case Dismissed. Juvenile matter dismissed when client was convicted of unrelated adult case.
Case Dismissed. Parole violation dismissed. No supporting evidence was provided to support allegations. Hold dropped.
Case Dismissed. On day of pretrial, District Attorney dismissed case. District attorney stated they had insufficient evidence to proceed after our negotiations and reviewing our investigation.
Case Dismissed. Felony Robbery ("strike") allegation dismissed after our investigation raised reasonable doubts as to our client's involvement.
Case Dismissed. Allegations of being in possession of a stolen vehicle was dismissed after discussing the case with the District Attorney. There was insufficient evidence to prove that our client knew the vehicle was in fact stolen when he was in the vehicle.
Case Dismissed. Robbery allegation dismissed after our private investigator raised significant doubts as to our client's involvement.
Case Dismissed. Our objections at the Parole Board Hearing led to the charges being dismissed and our client's parole hold being lifted.
Case Dismissed. Robbery charges dismissed after showing that our client did not match the description given by the witnesses. DA agreed to dismiss rather than run a lineup motion as we requested.
Case Dismissed. District Attorney and Court