Drug law

Maryland Court Upholds Conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine

November 5, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

If a person is convicted of a crime after a bench trial (by a judge) or a jury trial, he or she is typically entitled to appeal the conviction and to assert any number of pertinent arguments. One of the more common arguments on appeal concerns a lack of sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Appellants also may argue that the law or statute did not apply to their facts and circumstances. The appellate court is required to apply the appropriate standard of review to determine whether an appellant’s arguments have merit and warrant a reversal of the conviction. To be sure that your rights are adequately protected during a criminal case, from the point of arrest through any appeal, you are encouraged to contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

In a recent Maryland case, the court conducted a bench trial to determine whether the defendant was guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, in addition to several other drug-related charges. Here, police officers assigned to a regional Narcotics Task Force executed a search and seizure warrant for the defendant’s residence. During the search of the premises, a Maryland State Trooper spoke with the defendant and asked him whether there was methamphetamine cooking on the premises. The defendant indicated that there was a bottle in the kitchen that should not be tightened, since it could blow up and cause a fire. According to the State Trooper, the defendant described how he learned to cook the drug and the actual process.

The search revealed assorted drug cooking paraphernalia. The State presented further evidence, including a forensic examiner and chemist with the Maryland State Police, as well as an expert in the identification of methamphetamine and its production and manufacture. The court found the defendant guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, as well as other drug-related offenses. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him of manufacturing the drug because the evidence only proved that he was cooking the substance for his own personal use, which he alleged is not a crime under the statute.

Highest Court in Maryland Denies Suppression of Cell Phone Data

August 10, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The quality of the evidence and the manner in which it is obtained are the two critical components of any criminal case. For instance, every citizen is entitled to the Fourth Amendment protections from an illegal search and seizure. A person who is arrested or charged with a crime must look closely and carefully at how the evidence was collected. If there is a question as to the legality of the search and seizure, one may move to “suppress” the evidence. Since each case is unique and entirely fact-specific, it is critical that you contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney to thoroughly review your case, in order to determine whether the authorities complied with the laws intended to protect your constitutional rights.

In a recent case, Demby v. State of Maryland, petitioner Quioly Shikell Demby was arrested and ultimately convicted of possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute. Demby sought to suppress evidence that was obtained from a search of his cell phone during the arrest. The arresting Officer was the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing. According to the Officer’s testimony, on May 24, 2012, a confidential informant provided him with information about a potential drug transaction on Red Bridges Road and identified two people (one of whom was the petitioner in this case). Later that day, the County dispatch center told the Officer about an anonymous caller who witnessed suspicious activity regarding a person riding in a golf cart up and down Red Bridges Road.

When the Officer arrived at the scene, he saw the golf cart parked alongside a car. The petitioner was in the passenger seat of the car. The Officer questioned the occupants, notifying them that he was responding to complaints about potential drug activity. He asked the two men if they possessed anything illegal. The petitioner admitted to having pills and presented an unlabeled bottle containing 11 pills. The Officer identified the pills as an assortment of oxycodone and oxycodone acetaminophen, and he arrested the petitioner and searched the vehicle thereafter. During the search, the Officer saw a cell phone that was emitting notification “tones.” The petitioner acknowledged that it was his phone.

Maryland Court Rules Evidence Sufficient to Support “Possession” of Contraband Drug Convictions

July 8, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The outcome of a criminal case often depends in large part on the sufficiency of the evidence in light of established Maryland law. There are many defenses that may be asserted with respect to allegedly incriminating evidence. When a person is charged with criminal possession of contraband, courts have held that such possession may be constructive (rather than actual) or joint (rather than exclusive). These distinctions are important and can dramatically affect the result of a criminal case. A person charged with criminal possession of any controlled dangerous substance must take the matter very seriously and contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible in order to prepare a strong defense.

In a recent case, Cerrato-Molina v. State, a jury convicted the appellant of possession of marijuana, crack cocaine, and cocaine hydrochloride. The appellant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to submit the case to the jury. Here, a Maryland Detective was in a marked police vehicle when he noticed two men drinking beer in a white Jeep that was parked with the engine running. As the Detective turned his vehicle around and came up behind the Jeep, it took off suddenly, traveling at a “high rate of speed” through a residential area. As the Detective followed the Jeep, he noticed objects flying out of the front passenger window. A short while later, the Jeep ran up onto a curb and came to a halt. The Detective arrested the driver and passenger, the appellant in this case.

Upon searching the path of the vehicle for the objects that were thrown out of the window, the Detective found three baggies containing suspected drugs that were later submitted to a lab and determined to contain controlled dangerous substances. In challenging the convictions, the appellant argued that there was no direct evidence that he possessed the drugs found on the street. The court of appeals, however, pointed to established Maryland case law that possession need not be “sole possession” but may be joint possession and joint control in several persons. Accordingly, courts have identified the following list of criteria to determine if joint possession exists: 1) proximity between the defendant and the contraband; 2) whether the contraband was in view or otherwise within the knowledge of the defendant; 3) the ownership or possessory right in the automobile or premises in which the item is found; or 4) circumstances under which a reasonable inference could be made that the defendant was participating with others in the mutual enjoyment and use of the contraband.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Reinstates Criminal Conviction

December 22, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In most criminal cases, the defendant will have opportunities throughout the proceeding to raise a number of different defenses. These defenses can serve to reduce the severity of the criminal charges or set forth a complete defense. Additionally, if a person is convicted of the charged crimes, he or she may challenge the decision on various grounds and through specific legal mechanisms. In order to challenge a conviction, the defendant must be able to set forth supporting information and evidence to satisfy the legal requirements. The best way to determine if you are eligible to challenge a conviction is to consult with an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Depending on the case, a defendant may bring something known as a “writ of error coram nobis,” which is a civil action, independent and separate from the underlying action from which it emanated. According to Maryland case law, this proceeding enables a “convicted person who is not incarcerated and not on parole or probation, who is suddenly faced with a significant collateral consequence of his or her conviction, [to] … challenge the conviction on constitutional or fundamental grounds.” In a recent criminal case, the defendant pleaded guilty to using a minor to distribute heroin back in 1999. He was sentenced to six years in prison, and all but 18 months were suspended, followed by three years of probation. Continue reading

Enhanced Criminal Sentencing in Maryland

February 25, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In a recent case a defendant asked the Maryland Court of Appeals to review of a judge’s imposition of a 25 year mandatory, enhanced sentence. The defendant had been convicted of cocaine distribution and conspiracy. The State notified the defendant it would seek a mandatory 25-year sentence without possibility of parole.

The defendant was sentenced according to a subsequent offender statute for multiple drug convictions. Under section 5-608, a defendant can qualify for an enhanced sentence if he has served a prior term of confinement of at least 180 days and possesses two separate prior convictions that qualify.

At sentencing, the State submitted certified copies of docket entries regarding his two prior convictions. Various officers were asked to testify regarding the identity of the person who had been convicted and the fact that the fingerprint cards for each contained the same fingerprint. The defense attorney moved to strike one witness’s testimony because she wasn’t an expert. The sentencing judge, however, stated that it was not necessary to prove the prior offenses that way. Continue reading

Probable Cause to Search A Car for Drugs in Maryland

January 10, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Fourth Amendment protects people against unlawful searches and seizures. Usually, a warrant is required for a search. Often a criminal defense attorney is able to prevent evidence against his client from coming in, if he can show that the evidence was obtained through an unlawful search or seizure. However, there are exceptions, such as when a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed in a car, searches the car and finds evidence that a crime was committed.

In a recent case, a woman pled guilty to possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. The case arose when a law enforcement officer was dispatched to a grocery store. He had been called to that store on multiple occasions previously to deal with a white woman who loitered in front of the store. The store believed she was a prostitute.

The officer had learned from the woman that she was a prior heroin user that had been clean for about a year. He served her with a cease and desist order that prohibited her loitering in that location and others. Continue reading

Reasonable Suspicion for an Investigatory Stop in Maryland

November 5, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

When is a reasonable suspicion truly a reasonable suspicion and not just a hunch in Maryland? A law enforcement officer can conduct an investigatory stop only if the officer has a reasonable suspicion and not a mere hunch that the person being stopped is committing some kind of infraction or criminal activity.

In a recent case, a violent crime unit of the Baltimore Police Department was investigating a man (Blue) known for distributing raw heroin. They spied on a meeting between the Blue and another individual (Townsend) on a street corner, taping it with a surveillance camera. Two detectives were part of the surveillance, but did not observe the meeting live, only on tape.

Blue arrived in his car and looked around nervously after getting out of his car. He took an object out of his pocket, still looking around, and handed it to Townsend. Townsend put the object in his pocket and soon Blue went back to his car and drove away. Continue reading

Marijuana law is being reformed in Maryland

March 17, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Marijuana law reform is underway in Maryland. There are currently three medical marijuana proposals before the state legislature. Two of these will institute a state-run commission for research. The third bill—House Bill 302—requires the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to oversee the regulation of dispensaries. If it passes, patients will be allowed to grow up to six ounces and twelve plants. It also repeals the criminal provision that permits judges to fine people found to use or possess marijuana. According to the Huffington Post, the bill is now backed by Maryland’s Health Secretary Joshua Sharfstein who opposed a similar measure last year.

In addition to medical marijuana reform, ordinary marijuana possession laws have recently changed. Governor Martin O’Mally signed two new laws relating to marijuana in 2012. On October 1, 2012, the maximum penalty for simple marijuana possession of 10 grams or less was reduced to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. On January 2nd, 2013, a new law took effect that requires that people charged with certain nonviolent criminal offenses, like marijuana possession, face only a citation, rather than jail time.

On top of all these reforms, there’s a new bill on recreational marijuana use as well. House Bill 1453, if passed, would legalize up to 1 oz. of raw cannabis, 5 grams of hash, and 3 marijuana plants for adults. Continue reading