Payment Plans
Charged with Shooting at an Inhabited Dwelling in California? No One Has to Be Hurt — or Even Home — for You to Face Years in State Prison.
California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended PC § 246 shooting at an inhabited dwelling charges statewide in every county — from Los Angeles to San Francisco, San Diego to Sacramento, and all regions in between. This straight felony carries 3–7 years prison minimum — and when gang enhancements, firearm allegations, and attempted murder are stacked, exposure reaches decades or life. Build your defense now.
THE STAKES ARE REAL
We know how terrifying and unfair a PC § 246 charge feels — especially when no shots hit anyone, no one was home, and no injury occurred. Yet California Penal Code § 246 treats maliciously discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, occupied vehicle, aircraft, or housecar as a serious felony with mandatory prison time.
Prosecutors rarely let it stand alone — they stack attempted murder (PC §§ 664/187), drive-by shooting (PC § 26100), gang enhancements (PC § 186.22), and firearm enhancements under California's 10-20-Life law (PC § 12022.53) on top of the base charge — turning one incident into a life-exposure case.
And by the time charges are filed, law enforcement is already far ahead. The scene has been processed for ballistic evidence. Trajectories and entry points have been analyzed. Surveillance footage has been reviewed. Witnesses have been canvassed. Gang intelligence units have pulled records. Social media has been preserved. You are starting behind — and every day without experienced legal representation is a day the prosecution extends that lead.
A conviction can mean:
- Base PC § 246: 3, 5, or 7 years state prison + fine up to $10,000 — straight felony, no misdemeanor option
- From a vehicle: Adds PC § 26100 drive-by shooting exposure — up to 7 additional years
- Attempted murder (second degree): 5, 7, or 9 years state prison
- Attempted murder (first degree/premeditated): Life in state prison with possibility of parole
- Firearm enhancements (PC § 12022.53) — mandatory and consecutive:
- +10 years for personal use of a firearm
- +20 years for personal and intentional discharge
- +25 years to life for discharge causing great bodily injury or death
- Gang enhancements (PC § 186.22):
- +2 to 10 years for felonies depending on classification
- 15 years to life minimum term on qualifying serious/violent felonies
- Strikes under California's Three Strikes Law — PC § 246 is a serious felony
- Permanent loss of all firearm rights for any felony conviction
- Permanent felony record impacting employment, housing, professional licenses, and security clearances
- Immigration consequences: aggravated felony and crime of moral turpitude — mandatory deportation and removal
- Civil liability and asset forfeiture when the offense is connected to gang activity or drug trafficking
Exposure: decades or life when charges and enhancements are stacked.
Prosecutors pursue these cases with extraordinary resources and intensity. Act now.
Call 24/7 for a free consultation. 📞 (800) 755-5174
WHAT IS SHOOTING AT AN INHABITED DWELLING UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW?
PC § 246 is a straight felony — malicious and willful discharge of a firearm at any of the following:
- An inhabited dwelling house
- An occupied building
- An occupied motor vehicle
- An occupied aircraft
- An inhabited housecar or camper
"Inhabited" means currently used as a residence — even if temporarily empty at the moment of the shooting. No hit, no injury, and no awareness by the occupants is required.
The prosecution must prove all four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- Willful discharge of a firearm
- Malicious conduct — intent to harm or wanton disregard for human life or property
- Directed at a covered structure or vehicle
- The structure or vehicle was inhabited or occupied at the time
Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt — and each is a target for the defense.
PC § 246 vs. PC § 246.3 Malicious discharge at an inhabited structure — PC § 246 — is a straight felony carrying 3 to 7 years in state prison with no misdemeanor option. Grossly negligent discharge — PC § 246.3 — is a wobbler that can be charged as a misdemeanor. The distinction between malicious and negligent conduct is the most important legal battleground in many of these cases, and successfully arguing negligence rather than malice can dramatically change both the charge and the consequences.
Common charges stacked alongside PC § 246: Attempted murder (PC §§ 664/187) when intent to kill is alleged, drive-by shooting (PC § 26100) when the shooting was from a vehicle, gang enhancement (PC § 186.22), firearm enhancement (PC § 12022.53), and conspiracy (PC § 182).
HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS SHOOTING AT AN INHABITED DWELLING CASES
PC § 246 cases are among the most complex and highest-stakes criminal defense matters in California — involving multiple overlapping charges, gang enhancement allegations, contested ballistic and forensic evidence, eyewitness identifications made under extreme stress, and cooperating witnesses with powerful personal incentives to implicate others. Defending them effectively requires an attorney with specific experience in weapons charges, violent crime prosecution, and gang-related cases across California courts.
David Chesley personally handles shooting at an inhabited dwelling defense in every county and every major criminal court across California — Southern California, Northern California, and Central California — and is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No hand-offs. No junior associates managing your file. The attorney you hire is the attorney fighting for you in court.
Every defense begins with the right questions:
Was the discharge actually malicious — or was it negligent or accidental?
This is the most important legal distinction in most PC § 246 cases. The statute requires willful and malicious discharge — not merely careless, reckless, or negligent conduct. Demonstrating that the discharge was accidental or the result of gross negligence rather than malice can reduce the charge from a PC § 246 straight felony to a PC § 246.3 wobbler — opening the possibility of misdemeanor treatment and dramatically changing every consequence that follows. This is one of the most powerful and frequently successful defense strategies in these cases.
Was the structure actually "inhabited" at the time?
PC § 246 requires that the dwelling be currently used as a residence. Vacant structures, abandoned buildings, and properties not being used as residences at the time of the alleged shooting do not qualify. Where the inhabited status of the structure is genuinely in question — seasonal properties, recently vacated units, properties in transition — this element is challenged aggressively.
Was the defendant actually the shooter — or is this a misidentification case?
Misidentification is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions in violent crime cases — and PC § 246 prosecutions are particularly vulnerable to it. Identifications made at night, under stress, from partial views, by witnesses with their own motivations or gang affiliations, or under law enforcement pressure to name someone are notoriously unreliable. David Chesley challenges every identification through expert testimony on eyewitness memory, cross-examination of identification procedures, and challenges to admissibility.
Does the gang enhancement actually apply?
The prosecution must prove three distinct elements beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant was an active participant in a criminal street gang, that the offense was committed for the benefit of or in association with that gang, and that the defendant had specific intent to promote criminal conduct by gang members. Gang expert testimony is frequently overstated, built on incomplete records, and vulnerable on the expert's qualifications, methodology, and factual basis. Successfully striking the gang enhancement — even when the underlying charge stands — can be the difference between a finite prison term and 15 years to life.
Is the ballistic and forensic evidence actually conclusive?
Ballistic evidence in PC § 246 cases — shell casings, bullet trajectories, entry points, firearm match analysis — is technical, contested, and frequently overstated by prosecution experts. David Chesley retains qualified independent experts in every case where ballistic or forensic evidence is central to the prosecution's theory, and cross-examines prosecution experts on methodology, error rates, and the limitations of their analysis.
Were constitutional rights violated during the investigation?
PC § 246 investigations routinely involve warrantless searches of vehicles and residences, pretextual traffic stops, coerced statements made without proper Miranda warnings, and electronic surveillance without appropriate judicial authorization. Each violation creates a suppression opportunity — and in cases built on physical evidence gathered at the scene, suppression can be case-ending.
Can the attempted murder charge be defeated separately?
Attempted murder requires proof of specific intent to kill a specific person. Shooting at a structure without targeting a specific individual, firing without knowing or intending to kill any particular person, or conduct demonstrating recklessness rather than specific homicidal intent are all arguments against the attempted murder charge. Defeating or reducing that count — even when the underlying PC § 246 charge cannot be fully contested — produces dramatically better outcomes.
Can the firearm enhancements be stricken?
Recent changes to California law have given courts discretion to strike PC § 12022.53 firearm enhancements in the interest of justice. Building the factual and legal record to support that argument at sentencing — the defendant's background, the specific circumstances, mitigating factors — is something David Chesley begins from the very first day of representation.
Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com
YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.
The prosecution must prove every element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt — including the malicious mental state, the inhabited status of the structure, the identification of the shooter, and in enhancement cases, every element of the gang nexus and firearm use allegation. These are demanding legal standards that David Chesley holds prosecutors to at every stage, in every court across California.
Many PC § 246 cases resolve with outcomes significantly better than defendants initially face:
- Charge reduced from PC § 246 to PC § 246.3 — from a straight felony to a wobbler, opening the possibility of misdemeanor treatment and dramatically reduced consequences
- Gang enhancement stricken — reducing sentencing exposure from 15 years to life to a finite, determinate prison term
- Firearm enhancement stricken — arguing the interest of justice under recent California law, dramatically reducing mandatory minimum exposure
- Attempted murder reduced or dismissed — demonstrating insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill, reducing the most dangerous count to assault or lesser offense
- Identification challenged and suppressed — unreliable eyewitness identification excluded after demonstrating improper law enforcement procedures
- Physical and ballistic evidence suppressed — through Fourth Amendment challenges to unlawful searches, seizures, and forensic evidence collection
- Dismissals — through successful suppression motions, demonstration that the structure was not inhabited, or exposure of misidentification
- Favorable plea agreements — avoiding life sentences, multiple strikes, and the most devastating collateral consequences
- Acquittals at trial — when the prosecution cannot prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt
Striking a single enhancement in a PC § 246 case can mean the difference between life in prison and a finite sentence with a release date.
WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY
Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7
David Chesley personally handles shooting at an inhabited dwelling cases in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because in violent crime cases, the decisions made in the first hours after arrest can define the entire case. You get the attorney, not support staff.
Straight talk, always
PC § 246 cases carry some of the highest sentencing exposure in California criminal law. You deserve honest, direct counsel about what you're actually facing — the stacked enhancements, the realistic range of outcomes, and what the prosecution's evidence actually shows. No false promises. No sugarcoating.
Aggressive, strategic representation
Challenges to the malice element, ballistic evidence cross-examination, gang expert challenges, suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence, firearm and gang enhancement challenges, attempted murder count defense, and full trial preparation — every stage handled with a strategy built around the specific facts of your case and the court where it is pending.
California-wide expertise in violent crime and weapons defense
Deep knowledge of PC § 246, PC § 26100, PC § 186.22 gang enhancements, and California's 10-20-Life firearm enhancement statutes — combined with direct experience handling the full range of shooting at an inhabited dwelling prosecutions across every region of California, Southern, Northern, and Central.
Flexible payment plans
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a serious PC § 246 charge goes without experienced legal representation.
Representative Results:
- Successfully reduced PC § 246 to PC § 246.3 wobbler after demonstrating discharge was negligent rather than malicious — client avoided straight felony conviction and firearm enhancement exposure
- Gang enhancement stricken in PC § 246 prosecution — client avoided 15-years-to-life minimum, sentenced to finite determinate term
- Attempted murder count dismissed after establishing insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill any person inside the dwelling — charge reduced to PC § 246, dramatically reducing sentencing exposure
- Suppressed ballistic and forensic evidence obtained through unlawful warrantless search — prosecution unable to establish connection between defendant and firearm, charge dismissed
- Successfully challenged eyewitness identification — excluded after demonstrating improper lineup procedures, case dismissed before trial
- Firearm enhancement stricken at sentencing — court found interest of justice supported striking mandatory consecutive term
- Obtained favorable plea in multi-count PC § 246 and attempted murder prosecution — client avoided life sentence through negotiated resolution
Client Feedback:
"Facing life with attempted murder and gang enhancement stacked on top of PC 246. David got the attempted murder dismissed and the enhancement stricken. I have a release date now." — Anonymous former client
"The ballistics were the whole case. David brought in his own expert, challenged the prosecution's analysis, and the evidence got suppressed. Dismissed." — Anonymous former client
"Available at midnight when I called. Calm, clear, and fought for me every step of the way." — Anonymous former client
"I didn't fire the gun. David proved the identification was wrong. Charges dropped." — Anonymous former client
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Does someone have to be home for a PC § 246 charge to apply?
No — and this is the most commonly misunderstood element of this charge. Under California law, a dwelling is "inhabited" if it is currently being used as a residence — even if the occupants were temporarily away at the moment of the shooting. A family that stepped out for the evening, a tenant who was at work, or residents who had gone to run errands all live in an "inhabited" dwelling under PC § 246 — and a shot fired at their home while they were gone fully satisfies the element. The prosecution does not need to prove anyone was present, endangered, or aware the shooting occurred. Challenging the inhabited status is a genuine defense only in cases involving truly vacant, abandoned, or properties no longer used as residences.
What is the difference between PC § 246 and PC § 246.3?
PC § 246 requires malicious and willful discharge at an inhabited or occupied structure — a straight felony with no misdemeanor option, carrying 3 to 7 years in state prison. PC § 246.3 covers grossly negligent discharge in a manner that could result in injury or death — a wobbler that can be charged as a misdemeanor. The distinction between malicious discharge and grossly negligent discharge is the most important legal battleground in many of these cases, and successfully arguing that the conduct was negligent rather than malicious can dramatically reduce both the charge and the consequences.
Can I be charged with attempted murder even if I didn't know anyone was inside?
Prosecutors file attempted murder charges in PC § 246 cases regularly — and whether those charges can be sustained depends on whether they can prove specific intent to kill a specific person. Shooting at a structure without knowing whether anyone is inside, without targeting any particular individual, or in circumstances demonstrating recklessness rather than specific homicidal intent are all arguments against the attempted murder charge. Defeating the attempted murder count — even when the underlying PC § 246 charge cannot be fully contested — produces dramatically better outcomes.
Does the gang enhancement always apply when gangs are allegedly involved?
No — and the gang enhancement is one of the most frequently and successfully challenged allegations in PC § 246 cases. The prosecution must prove three distinct elements beyond a reasonable doubt: active gang participation by the defendant, that the offense was committed for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang, and that the defendant had specific intent to promote criminal conduct by gang members. Gang expert testimony is frequently overstated, built on incomplete records, and vulnerable on qualifications, methodology, and factual basis. David Chesley challenges every element in every case where the enhancement is charged — because striking it is often the difference between a finite sentence and 15 years to life.
Can the mandatory firearm enhancements be challenged?
Yes. Recent changes to California law have given courts discretion to strike PC § 12022.53 firearm enhancements in the interest of justice. An experienced attorney builds the factual and legal record at every stage of the case to support the argument for striking these enhancements at sentencing — starting from day one of representation.
How is ballistic evidence challenged in PC § 246 cases?
Ballistic evidence typically includes shell casings, bullet entry points, trajectory analysis, and firearm identification linking a specific weapon to the defendant. Prosecution experts frequently overstate the certainty of their conclusions — particularly in firearm identification, where the scientific foundation has been challenged in courts nationwide. David Chesley retains independent ballistic experts in cases where this evidence is central to the prosecution's theory and cross-examines prosecution experts on methodology, error rates, and the limitations of their analysis.
Does a PC § 246 conviction count as a strike?
Yes — shooting at an inhabited dwelling under PC § 246 is classified as a serious felony and counts as a strike under California's Three Strikes Law. Related charges frequently filed in the same case — attempted murder, assault with a firearm, drive-by shooting — also count as strikes. Multiple strike convictions from a single incident dramatically increase sentencing exposure on any future felony conviction. Avoiding strike convictions through charge reduction, count dismissal, or acquittal is one of the most critical goals in every PC § 246 defense.
Will a PC § 246 conviction affect my immigration status?
Seriously and permanently. PC § 246 convictions qualify as aggravated felonies and crimes of moral turpitude under federal immigration law — triggering mandatory deportation, removal proceedings, and permanent bars to reentry and naturalization. For non-U.S. citizens, the immigration consequences are as catastrophic as the criminal penalties themselves and must be factored into every decision about the case from day one.
What if I was present but didn't fire the weapon?
Presence at the scene does not automatically create criminal liability — but prosecutors will attempt to charge every person present under theories of aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and co-perpetrator liability. Whether you can be held criminally responsible depends on what you knew before the shooting, whether you took any action that assisted or encouraged it, and whether you had any realistic opportunity to prevent it — distinctions that are legally significant, highly fact-specific, and worth fighting aggressively from the very beginning of the case.
Are payment plans available?
Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a serious PC § 246 charge goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.
More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174
FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7
The evidence gathered in the first 48 hours after a shooting at an inhabited dwelling often defines the entire prosecution. The scene is being processed for ballistic evidence right now. Trajectories and entry points are being analyzed. Surveillance footage is being reviewed. Witnesses are being canvassed. Gang intelligence units are pulling records. Social media is being preserved. The prosecution is building its case with the resources and intensity these cases always generate — and every hour without experienced legal representation is an hour they get further ahead.
Don't wait until charges are formally filed. Don't wait until business hours. If you or someone you love has been arrested for or is under investigation for shooting at an inhabited dwelling, call now. The earlier David Chesley gets involved, the more options exist to challenge the evidence, protect your rights, and shape the outcome.
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Just clear, honest answers about what you're actually facing and what can be done right now to protect your record, your freedom, your family, and your future.
Flexible payment plans available — because the cost of experienced defense should never be the reason you face a PC § 246 charge alone.
David Chesley handles shooting at an inhabited dwelling cases in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.
Se habla español.
📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com
"Shooting at an inhabited dwelling — no injury needed, no one has to be home — can mean life in state prison when enhancements and attempted murder are stacked on top. These charges demand a defense attorney who understands every element, every enhancement, and every piece of evidence — and fights all of it. My commitment is making sure you have that defense." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney
