Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

Maryland Court Finds That Reduced Penalties in Effect at Time of Trial, Rather Than Time of Offense, Should Be Applied to Criminal Defendant’s Case

April 10, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Maryland Court of Appeal recently considered a case, Waker v. State, which should be important to all criminal defendants. Prior to a 2009 amendment, a Maryland theft statute provided that theft of something worth not more than $500 was a misdemeanor not to be punished by more than 18 months in prison. If the stolen item was worth more than $500 it would be regarded as a felony with a higher prison sentence.

In 2009, the Maryland General Assembly amended the statute so that the theft of property valuing less than $1,000 was a misdemeanor, meaning that it could be punished by imprisonment of no more than 18 months. The theft statute was also amended to provide that theft of property worth more than $1000 but less than $10,000 is a felony. This law was signed by the Governor on May 19, 2009, and became effective October 1 of the same year.

In this case, Calvin Waker bought some items at Walmart using a fraudulent credit card in March 2009. He was caught and charged with stealing property valued at $615 and was set to go to trial in March 2009. After a postponement, his trial was held in December of 2009 instead. Waker waived his right to a jury trial and was tried on an “agreed not guilty statement of facts.” He was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. At the time of the theft, Waker was subject to the earlier statute which said that anybody convicted of property or services valued at $500 or more is guilty of a felony, and he was sentenced accordingly. Continue reading

Maryland Court Rules No Double Jeopardy Attaches At Protective Order Hearing

April 3, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently ruled in Tubaya v. State of Maryland, an appeal based on the prohibition against double jeopardy in our Constitution. The case arose on June 27, 2011, when Valencia Tubaya pushed into the home of her older parents. She held a “sharp metal object” against her mother’s neck and threatened that she would cut the woman’s dialysis tubes out. When the father demanded that his daughter stop, she pushed him back into the chair where he’d been seated. She spoke to her parents for a few minutes then left.

Later that day, the mother and her other daughter spoke to police officers. They also filed an application for a statement of charges and a petition for a protective order against Valencia. The State of Maryland was not a party to the protective order proceedings. In July 2011, the District Court issued a number of temporary protective orders. Later in August, however, they denied a final protective order on the grounds that there was a lack of clear and convincing evidence that the assault happened.

Meanwhile, the state moved forward with prosecuting Valencia’s criminal case. Valencia moved to dismiss the criminal charges against her, arguing that the District Court’s August 2011 denial of a final protective order created collateral estoppel such that the state could no longer prosecute the question of whether the assault had actually occurred.

Maryland Senate Approves a Sweeping Gun Control Bill

March 21, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Maryland Senate approved a gun-control bill in February that would make it the strictest gun control state in the nation. Governor Martin O’Malley proposed the bill. The key piece of the legislation (and the most controversial) is that it tightens restrictions on gun purchases by residents committed for mental health treatment.

Although O’Malley targeted just those residents committed involuntarily for mental health treatment, the Senate also banned future gun sales for those Maryland residents who undergo voluntary admissions. Specifically, patients who are admitted to a hospital to undergo an emergency psychiatric evaluation on a doctor’s recommendation, and agree to be admitted to a psychiatric facility, would be banned from buying guns. This part of the bill was added against the recommendation of mental health professionals because of its potential to increase stigma.

Maryland law currently prohibits purchases of guns by those who are found not competent to stand trial because of a mental illness, as well as those who have been committed for thirty consecutive days to an inpatient mental health facility. Maryland already limits gun purchases to one a month, conducts universal background checks, and prohibits assault pistols. Continue reading

Case Summary: DUI Accident, No Jail – PBJ given

March 19, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Recently, our office represented a criminal defendant who had been charged with 8 traffic citations: driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), driving under the influence of alcohol per se (DUI per se), driving while intoxicated by alcohol (DWI), failure to reduce speed on a curve, negligent driving of a vehicle in a careless and imprudent manner endangering property, life, and person, failure to obey designated lane directions, unsafe lane change, and failure to control vehicle speed on highway to avoid a collision in Montgomery County, MD.

Our client had caused a very serious accident on the capital beltway when his vehicle crossed the center line, striking another vehicle with such a high rate of speed that the other vehicle flipped over and came to rest on its driver’s side. Both occupants in that vehicle were injured as a result of the collision. When police arrived at the scene, a breathalyzer test was conducted and our client blew a .16 – two times the legal limit. He was facing up to one year in jail for each of the DUI citations, 60 days in jail for the DWI citation, and a total of $3,300.00 in possible fines.

When he came to our office, he was panicked, stressed, and worried not only about the severity of the citations, but also the potential immigration consequences a conviction would have. He was 38 years old, originally from Peru, and had just recently become a legal permanent resident (green card holder). He was scared to death that this one mistake would jeopardize everything he had worked so hard for.

Maryland Criminal Case About DNA Will Be Ruled On By Supreme Court

March 18, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In April 2009, Alonzo J. King, Jr. pointed a shotgun at some people. One of them told the police and King admitted his guilt. He was arrested in Wicomico County. Police then swabbed skin cells from inside his cheek. They tested the DNA, even though he admitted his guilt in the case for which he was arrested. They entered the DNA into the Maryland DNS database and the FBI national database CODIS. His DNA was compared to evidence in unsolved crimes and matched a sexual assault case.

Charged with felony assault, he ultimately pled guilty to a misdemeanor for pointing the shotgun at the group. However, because of the DNA testing that occurred when he was only an arrestee, King was later convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the unsolved sexual assault. Later, CNN reported that the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed that suspects have a higher expectation of privacy than a convicted felon. The government took King’s case to Supreme Court and it was heard last month.

Courts do permit the DNA of convicted felons to be collected. Conviction means forfeiting some rights. However, Maryland and more than half of the states allow the police to collect DNA from people who have only been arrested and not convicted. This fishing expedition allows the police to look for evidence of past crimes and keep the DNA on file in case of future crimes. 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

Maryland Judges May Condition Probation On No Contact With Domestic Violence Victims Even Against Victims’ Wishes

March 14, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Court of Special Appeals in Maryland recently considered an interesting question of criminal law: whether a trial judge may condition probation on no direct contact between a defendant and his victim, even when the two are married and want to be together.

Lambert v. State arose in 2009, when James Lambert and his wife were arguing over a lockbox. Lambert pushed his wife and she fell down stairs hurting her head and abdomen. According to Lambert, he was just pushing her away from the lockbox and didn’t intend for his wife to fall. However, he pled guilty to second-degree assault and at his sentencing hearing admitted several prior assaults on his wife.

The wife didn’t show up at the hearing, but did write a letter saying she wasn’t afraid of Mr. Lambert and wanted to go to counseling and reconcile with him. The trial judge sentenced Mr. Lambert to three years of confinement. This confinement was suspended while he remained on three years of supervised probation. Noting a pattern of assault between the two that he had seen in a case in his own career as an attorney, the trial judge conditioned probation on the defendant having “no contact” with his wife during probation. Continue reading