Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

Baltimore Attorney Announces Criminal Charges Against Maryland Bishop

January 22, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Many people have heard of the legal terms “misdemeanor” and “felony.” These are the two categories of criminal conduct under Maryland law. Misdemeanors are considered to be less serious than felonies, and they likewise typically carry a less severe penalty if a conviction results. Some of the more common misdemeanors include drunk driving, petty theft, vandalism, reckless driving, and minor drug possession. Despite differences between misdemeanors and felonies, if you are charged with either type of crime, you are encouraged to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your counsel will review the charges and prepare a proper defense under the circumstances.

Although drunk driving is typically considered a misdemeanor, the charges could be elevated to a felony if the impaired driver’s actions cause a person’s death. News stories concerning the recent tragic death of a cyclist in Maryland have been reported throughout the nation. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, a Bishop from the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland was allegedly driving while intoxicated and sending text messages when she struck and killed a cyclist. The attorney for Baltimore City charged the Bishop with criminal negligent manslaughter, driving while impaired and texting, and leaving the scene of an accident. News reports have also suggested that the Bishop had pleaded guilty back in 2010 to driving under the influence. These are very serious criminal charges that must be addressed accordingly. Continue reading

Maryland’s Highest Court Reviews Constitutionality of Criminal Counterfeiting Statute

January 7, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A criminal arrest or charge is a serious matter that must be addressed accordingly. A defendant has much to lose in a criminal case, including his or her freedom, reputation, and future. There are many ways that one may respond to a criminal arrest, from raising a strong and solid defense that negates the crime to setting forth arguments that could serve to reduce the severity of the charges. In some cases, the defendant’s attorney may even argue that the law under which the person was charged is unconstitutional for one reason or another. While these arguments are not very common, they do occur, and, in some cases, the defendant is successful. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is imperative that you contact a local Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. An experienced lawyer can help to protect your rights and prepare a defense strategy that suits the circumstances.

In a recent case, the highest court in Maryland reviewed a criminal defendant’s challenge to the state’s trademark counterfeiting statute. According to the facts revealed at trial, during a traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle, the police found 206 DVDs in the car. An investigator on the case testified – as an expert in the field of counterfeit DVDs – that all of the DVDs found in the vehicle contained “numerous counterfeit marks” and were considered “counterfeit reproductions” of movies on DVD. Defendant testified that he was a licensed vendor and authorized by the state to sell the items. Continue reading

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

Maryland Court Upholds Criminal Conviction for Second-Degree Assault

December 9, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Under Maryland law, a person can be charged with the following three types of second-degree assault: intent to frighten, attempted battery, and battery. Case law sets forth explicit criteria to determine whether a criminal defendant has committed any of these crimes. In order to convict a defendant, the State must offer supporting evidence to satisfy each of the elements. In many criminal cases, the person charged may be able to assert various defenses in order to either negate or reduce the severity of the charges. A criminal arrest is a serious matter and should be handled accordingly. An experienced criminal defense attorney would carefully review your case and prepare the best defense under the circumstances.

In a recent Maryland court of appeals case, the defendant was charged with certain criminal offenses, including second-degree assault of the “intent-to-frighten” type against the victim, Christine Johnson (“Johnson” or “victim”). The facts revealed at trial indicate that the defendant walked up to an apartment and knocked on the door. There was some yelling between the defendant and the person who answered the door. After the door was shut, there were three gunshots. The defendant then returned to the car. Other testimony suggested that he was looking for certain people in the apartment. The police found bullet holes in and above the front door, as well as in the apartment.

Maryland Court Upholds Criminal Conviction for Theft and Embezzlement from Joint Bank Account

November 20, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A criminal charge is a serious matter, whether it is classified as a misdemeanor or felony offense, and the person charged must respond accordingly. While a misdemeanor is less serious than a felony, both can affect a person’s life in drastic ways, from jail time to having a criminal record. A person who is charged with a crime may raise any number of defenses to negate the charge or to reduce the severity of the offense. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, the most important step to take is to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney from Maryland. Every state’s criminal laws differ to some extent. A local criminal lawyer would know how to provide the best defense for your case under the circumstances.

In a recent criminal case, a woman appealed her conviction for theft and embezzlement. The charges stemmed from allegations that the defendant took money from a joint bank account on which she was named a joint owner with her father. A trial was held over two days, and the court found the defendant guilty of theft and fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary. She was sentenced to eight years, with all but 18 months suspended, for theft and five years unsupervised probation. The defendant appealed the ruling, asking how a person who was added to a bank account as a joint owner with the intention of having an ownership interest can be guilty of theft from the joint account.

The court of appeals reviewed the facts as presented at trial. The “victim” was 84 years old and asked one of his three daughters (the defendant) to assist him with his banking needs. The victim added the defendant to his bank account as a joint owner. He testified at trial that the money was his and not the defendant’s, and that he only placed her on the account to take money out for him if he was unable to get it himself. From 2006-2009, $181,670.09 was withdrawn from the victim’s IRA, and $251,645.83 was taken from his account. The defendant denied taking money from the IRA without her father’s authorization. She also denied taking any money from the account for her own benefit.

Maryland Court Interprets “Enhanced Sentencing” Statute in Robbery Case

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

Every phase of a criminal case is significant. And each part of the proceeding — from arrest to sentencing — must comply with applicable state law. These laws are in place to ensure that people who are accused of a crime are afforded basic constitutional rights, among other things. Under Maryland’s enhanced sentencing statute, if a person is sentenced as a repeat violent offender, he or she could be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Like most criminal statutes, the language may be subject to interpretation depending on the circumstances of a case. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is important to understand your rights as early as possible in the proceedings. An experienced criminal defense attorney would be able to help defend your case with full knowledge of the laws applicable to Maryland cases.

In a recent criminal case, the defendant was arrested for robbing a bank. He was previously convicted for armed robbery in 1991 and 1995 and for robbery in 2001. The State brought the case against the defendant as a “repeat violent offender.” The defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery and sentenced to serve two concurrent terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The defendant appealed, arguing (among other things) that the trial court erred in sentencing him to two life without parole sentences under the Maryland enhanced sentencing statute. He claimed that his previous robbery and armed robbery convictions are not enumerated crimes of violence under § 14-401, and thus he should not have been sentenced as a fourth-time offender.

The State argued that the defendant’s interpretation ignored the clear legislative intent behind the law. The court conducted a thorough review of the enhanced penalty statute, concluding that robbery and armed robbery have always been included in the list of violent crimes that would form the basis for imposing a more severe penalty against repeat offenders. But the defendant argued that two of his previous convictions arose under “common law” and not the statutory provisions cited by § 14-401. The court proceeded to interpret the statutory language and consulted other sources in order to discern the intent of the legislature.

Maryland Court Upholds Officer’s “Pat Down” Search of Defendant

October 23, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under established case law, an officer who “pats down” or “stops and frisks” a person must be able to justify the intrusion by pointing to “specific and articulable facts” that, when considered together “with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Essentially, the officer must be able to articulate what it was that aroused his or her suspicions in order to justify the search. In such cases, courts will evaluate the reasonableness of the search or seizure in light of the unique circumstances of the case.

Clearly, whether the officer is entitled to conduct a pat down depends in large part on the specific facts. Where appropriate, an individual arrested or charged with a crime may argue that the officer violated his or her constitutional rights and was not justified in conducting the search. In such cases, the defendant may be able to suppress any evidence gathered as a result of that search. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is extremely important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who is fully aware of proper legal criminal procedure in Maryland.

In a recent case, the defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine, wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in a vehicle (and on his person), concealing a dangerous weapon, and speeding. According to the suppression hearing record, the arresting officer stopped the defendant for driving 58 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone. According to the officer, during the stop, the defendant was sitting “statue-like,” staring straight ahead with his hands in his lap. The officer also noticed that the defendant’s two front jacket pockets were “bulging” as if they had something in them. Because of the bulges in the defendant’s pockets and because he failed to make eye contact, the officer decided to obtain information regarding the defendant’s criminal history. He found out that the defendant was on probation for a possession of a handgun in a vehicle charge.

Maryland Court Upholds Conviction of Robbery and Other Related Charges

October 8, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Depending on the circumstances, a defendant charged in a criminal action may be able to assert several different defenses, some of which could result in a reduction of the severity of the charges or an acquittal. In a recent case, the defendant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and multiple related charges. While he raised two defenses, one related to prejudicial hearsay during the trial and another concerning an impermissibly suggestive identification, the court of appeals upheld the convictions. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is extremely important that you contact a Maryland criminal attorney who can review your case to properly respond to the allegations and raise any applicable defenses to protect your rights.

In the case described above, a man and his son arranged to meet the defendant to purchase two cell phones that were advertised on Craigslist. They brought two additional children with them to make the purchase. According to the facts of the case, instead of selling the phones, the defendant told them they were being robbed and pulled a gun out. Defendant allegedly shot one of the would-be purchasers. As the crime was being investigated, the victims identified the defendant as the assailant through photographic identifications. The defendant moved to suppress the identifications in a pre-trial hearing, arguing that the police used “impermissibly suggestive” procedures in securing the identifications. The motions court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and he was later convicted at trial of the assorted charges mentioned above.

The defendant appealed his convictions, alleging that the trial court admitted prejudicial hearsay improperly and that the motions court erred in denying his motion to suppress the photographic identifications. The court of appeals rejected both arguments. During the trial, a detective’s testimony improperly referenced certain out-of-court information that connected the appellant to the robbery. The court agreed that it was inadmissible hearsay, but appellant did not move to strike the testimony, nor did he ask for a mistrial. Furthermore, the court gave instructions to the jury that stricken testimony was not to be considered as evidence. The court of appeals concluded that appellant received all the relief that he sought with respect to the inadmissible testimony, and therefore there was no error. Continue reading

Maryland Court Denied Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence

September 26, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

There is no question that criminal arrests vary from case to case. But every defendant is entitled to certain protections under the law. And in many cases, the defendant (the person arrested or charged with a crime) may be entitled to raise any number of applicable defenses. Such defenses may address the manner in which the investigation was conducted, while others may actually negate an element of the crime. The facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest are often a crucial part of a case against someone. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected from the very beginning.

When a defendant believes that evidence was discovered illegally or without a proper search warrant, he or she may make a motion in court to suppress the evidence discovered during that search. A suppression hearing will be held to determine whether or not the police conducted a lawful search. In a recent case, the court of special appeals denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, concluding that the officers were justified in conducting a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle. In this case, the police obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s house for evidence related to drugs and other paraphernalia. The officers had been watching the defendant’s home and later followed the defendant as he and another person got into a car and drove to a grocery store. The defendant was in the passenger seat.

The officer testified that he knew there was an “open arrest” warrant for the defendant for second-degree assault. As the defendant exited the grocery store and attempted to get in to the passenger side of the vehicle, the officers stopped and handcuffed him. They searched him and found some money and a baggie containing crack cocaine. They drove to the police station, where the officers conducted a search of the vehicle and found a black revolver. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrantless search of the car was unlawful under applicable case law, since he was arrested for assault, not for a drug offense. Continue reading

Maryland Court Reverses Conviction for Failure to Ask Defense-Witness Question

September 8, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Jury selection is a critically important aspect of a criminal trial. This phase is also referred to as “voir dire” – the point at which counsel for both the State and the defendant have an opportunity to ask the potential jurors questions in order to determine whether an individual exhibits a possible bias against either side. The law seeks to protect against such an unfair situation by affording both sides certain rights. In fact, a criminal defendant is entitled to a variety of protections under the law throughout the proceedings. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is important to understand your rights and the potential defenses available under the circumstances. You are encouraged to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

If jury selection is not handled in accordance with Maryland law, any resulting criminal conviction could be overturned. In a recent case, Smith v. State, the defendant’s counsel asked the circuit court to include this mandatory Defense-Witness question to the jury: “Is there any member of the panel who would be less likely to believe a witness simply because they were called by the defense?” The purpose of this question is to identify jurors who might have a bias against defense witnesses. Under Maryland law, if a question for a jury panel refers to a specific cause for disqualification, that question must be asked. The failure to ask is considered an abuse of discretion on behalf of the court.

As it turned out, the trial court failed to ask the question during voir dire. Defendant’s counsel expressly challenged the omission of the Defense-Witness question. Under Maryland Rule 4-323(c), the objector need only make its objections known to the court in order to preserve the objection. However, the trial court agreed with the State’s mistaken assumption that the Defense-Witness question was covered by a question already asked by the defendant’s counsel. At that point, defendant’s counsel did not correct the judge’s statement. A trial was held, and the defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. The defendant appealed, arguing that the failure to ask the mandatory Defense-Witness question required a reversal of his convictions. Continue reading