FACTS: Client was at Boca Town Mall and accused of retail theft. The allegation was that her and another girl went inside a store and stole sunglasses. The officers never found anything on her and the store clerk’s vision was obstructed by other merchandise. At trial, the other girl testified that my client did not know what was going on and not a willing participant. The jury found my client NOT GUILTY.


FACTS: Client was accused of stealing products at Home Depot. The video had her at the checkout line with the products but they accused her of switching the price tags on the products. The store never had a video on the aisle and there were no witnesses to the alleged switching of the tags. Therefore, there was no direct evidence that she switched the tags. The jury found her NOT GUILTY.


FACTS: Client was accused of using his position with his former employer to steal automotive parts from an automotive dealer. The state ridiculously filed 60 counts of theft against my client. At the depositions I was able to successfully bring out how my client was in fact buying the parts for the employer in contradiction to what the employer was saying. At trial, evidence came out that my client was returning parts which is consistent with someone who is buying parts for his employer. The jury came back and found my client NOT GUILTY on all counts. To this day it stands as the most acquittals from one case.




FACTS: Client was accused on breaking down his ex-girlfriend’s door and assaulting her. His charges were burglary and assault. The state had a 911 call made from the alleged victim right after the incident and photos of the broken down door. At her deposition and trial I was able to bring out inconsistencies and facts regarding her jealousy towards my client. In particular, she lied about having feelings for him which I used in conjunction with other facts. The jury found him NOT GUILTY.


FACTS: Client was charged with burglary. The allegation was that he allegedly broke into his neighbor’s apartment and stole her credit card. Based on the burglary statute, a breaking into the residence is required. However, there was no evidence that my client broke into the apartment. The jury found him NOT GUILTY.


FACTS: My client was accused of burglary and grand theft. The state had a witness who picked my client out of a photo lineup. However, the proper procedures for conducting photo lineups was not adhered to. PBSO must use an audio tape when available and have someone other then the officer who is handling the investigation conduct the photo lineup. However, the officers never followed the right procedure and the state’s main witness stated he could not identify my client in his written statement which contradicted other testimony he provided. The jury found him NOT GUILTY.

2011CF011646: Burglary reduced to trespassing

FACTS: Client was charged with a burglary. I set a preliminary adversarial hearing but the alleged victim never showed. As such, the court was required to release my client from custody. Additionally, the state knew their case was weak so they offered my client trespass which he happily accepted.

2013CF000658: Client scored 3 years but only received 2 months and 1 year probation

FACTS: Client was charged with sale of cocaine in Okeechobee County. The state had a video of the incident but I carefully viewed the video and noticed that the tattoo on the guy in the video did not exactly match the tattoo on my client’s arm. However, the state had a confidential informant listed and available to testify which made the case a bit more difficult. I set it for trial and on the day of trial the state reduced their offer to only 2 months and probation.



FACTS: Client was accused of selling cocaine. The state had the testimony of two detectives who allegedly witnessed my client making the sale. There was no video and all the state had was the testimony of these two detectives. The amount of cocaine stated in the police report was different from what was submitted in evidence. Additionally, the officers’ deposition testimonies contradicted each other and the money allegedly found on my client was oddly not in evidence. The jury did not believe the officers and found my client NOT GUILTY.

2014CF007056, 2014CF007058, 2014CF007059

Client was arrested on three cases for selling a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a church. Each case is a 1st degree felony punishable by 30 years in jail. Due to the client having three cases he was facing becoming a convicted felon and serving a maximum of 90 years in jail. Attorney, Ray Ledezma’s goal was to ensure that the client did not become a convicted felon while at the same time not serve any jail. A plan was formulated by utilizing the Florida Youthful Offender statute. As the client was only 18 when the offenses occurred in conjunction with having no prior record there was a good chance that the Judge would grant it. Additionally, the client took the initiative and performed community service hours and returned to school. When the open plea to the court occurred, a great presentation was put forth in front of the Judge and he gave the client a great resolution. The client was given a withhold of adjudication (not a felony conviction), 3 years probation and only 30 days jail. Moreover, the client was able to get house arrest which meant he only served 2 days in jail. Client was ecstatic knowing that he was facing a combined 90 years in jail for all three cases but only served 2 days!!



FACTS: Client was charged with sexual battery and molestation on a child in Broward County. The 12 year old alleged victim tested positive for gonorrhea and accused the client. The attorneys at the Ledezma Law Firm acted quickly to find out why this young girl was making these allegations. The client was tested for sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and the results came back negative. Through research it was determined that sexually transmitted diseases is a reportable disease and by law all clinics must report a person who tests positive for an STD to the Florida Dept. of Health. By the use of investigative tools and records requests the attorneys were able to find out that the Florida Dept. of Health did not have any records reflecting that the client was ever reported for an STD. In depositions, the nurse who examined the alleged victim informed us that gonorrhea does not go away on its own and it can only be treated with antibiotics which are not over the counter. As the state attorney had no way to rebut the solid defense put forth by the Ledezma Law Firm, they were forced to DISMISS all charges against the client.


Client was arrested for sexual battery, false imprisonment and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Client immediately retained the services of the Ledezma Law Firm during this difficult time. Client knew he was being falsely accused by his jealous ex-girlfriend. Attorney, Ray Ledezma quickly sent out his investigator to question witnesses and the alleged victim’s neighbors to find discrepancies. Additionally, audio, video and police reports were gathered from the police. After carefully reviewing the evidence and comparing witnesses’ accounts to those of the alleged victim, Ray Ledezma knew the State could not prove the case. Once the holes were brought to the attention of the prosecutor ALL THREE COUNTS WERE DISMISSED.



Client received a cervical fusion surgery and lumbar fusion surgery.


Client received right knee surgery to repair a torn ligament & a right shoulder surgery to repair a torn tendon.




Client received arthroscopic shoulder surgery and a recommendation for a cervical fusion surgery.
Our firm fearlessly and aggressively advocates for our clients’ rights.

I only know how to practice law one way…and that is to treat every client as if they were my own family. The advice I give and the service I provide is the same advice and service I would provide my parents, brothers, and the rest of my family. More importantly, I treat every client as if they are my only client. I believe that each client deserves an attorney who takes a personal interest in their case and devotes all the time and attention necessary to assist each client in making the best possible decisions based on the unique facts of their case.