Click Here for Free Consultation

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 12321)

(40 COUNTS) FELONY COMPUTER TAMPERING, TAMPERING with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, ACQUISITION of a NARCOTIC DRUG, THEFT and FRAUD SCHEMES REDUCED to 3.75 YEARS in PRISON – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 12321) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2012-007417): Our office was retained after Mr.  M, a former Phoenix Police Detective, was arrested and extradited to Arizona. Initially, we were retained for just the Initial Appearance which involved a 40 count indictment for Computer Tampering per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2316, Tampering with Physical Evidence per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2809, Acquisition of Narcotic Drugs per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3408, Theft per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1802, and Fraudulent Schemes per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2310. Subsequent to this, the client retained us for the entire case.

At the not guilty Arraignment, a brief discussion was had with  the  assigned  prosecutor, who  advised  that  there  was  over  5000  pages  of discovery. He advised he would be filing a motion to designate the case “complex.” After this hearing, which was attended by my partner, Certified Criminal Law Specialist Christine Whalin, she and I met to discuss the motion to modify release conditions that had been filed and the anticipated voluminous discovery that was forthcoming.

In Court, co-counsel and I appeared to address the bond on the matter. We ascertained a $50,000 secured bond, which the client’s family subsequently posted. At the initial pretrial conference the, Commissioner granted the State’s motion to designate the case “complex” and reset the last day. An additional motion to modify release conditions had been filed at this time and a hearing was set to address that two weeks after the IPTC date. Subsequent to this court hearing co-counsel and I met with Mr. M to discuss his options in this case and the strategy that would be taken. During this meeting, we determined the best strategy would be for us to try to negotiate the best plea offer possible and  potentially  have  our  client  speak  with  the  Prosecutor  and/or  Detective.  Soon after this meeting, we received our first offer from the Prosecutor, which was five years in the Department of Corrections with a probation tail.  On Two weeks later, myself and co-counsel appeared to address our additional motion to modify release conditions – specifically requesting that Mr. M be able to reside in Pennsylvania while the case was ongoing. This motion was granted by the court.

After having received the voluminous discovery on this case, both co-counsel and I spent hours reviewing and summarizing the accusations being made by the State. We also spoke with our client about sending information to provide in a deviation letter to the Prosecutor.

A deviation letter was prepared and submitted to the Prosecutor for review. Although the deviation was denied, the Prosecutor indicated he was open to reconsideration with additional information. Subsequently, interviews began to commence. Soon after this, the Prosecutor approached us regarding a potential “free-talk” with our client. A free-talk occurred another free-talk occurred shortly thereafter. After the second free-talk, a modified offer was extended to either five years in the Department of Corrections or a range of three to seven years. After conveying this new offer to Mr. M, he requested we counter with a request for intensive probation for a stipulated term of seven years with counseling, community service and a fine of $10,000. This counter-offer was requested and staffed by the Prosecutor and ultimately we were successful in getting a meeting scheduled with the elected Maricopa County Attorney and the Prosecutor. We met at the County Attorney’s Office in an effort to have a probation offer extended. Unfortunately, there was no agreement on that, however, the State advised that we could pick a judge for change of plea and sentencing and they would not oppose whoever we chose.

Eventually a settlement conference occurred before a settlement Judge. At this time, Mr. M entered the plea agreement that allowed for a range in the Department of Corrections of anywhere between three to seven years. The plea was not accepted at the time that it was entered, in order to allow Mr. M to remain out of custody pending sentencing. I appeared for the sentencing and argued mitigating factors. Mr. M was sentenced to the low end of the range at 3.75 years in the Department of Corrections, and given credit for 53 days of presentence incarceration. He was placed on probation for 3 years following that term in the Department of Corrections.

Request a Free Consultation

Fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential initial consultation.

Click here for important legal disclaimer.

CURRENT/PAST ASSOCIATIONS & AWARDS


10.0 Superb Rating AVVO Criminal Defense

10.0 Superb Rating
AVVO Criminal Defense

AV-Highest Rated Preeminent Lawyers Martindale-Hubbell

AV-Highest Rated Preeminent Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell


Life Member
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Super Lawyer Criminal & DUI Defense

Super Lawyer
Criminal & DUI Defense

Nation's Top 1% Attorney National Association of Distinguished Counsel

Top 1% Attorney
National Association of Distinguished Counsel

Top 100 Trial Lawyers (Criminal Defense) American Trial Lawyers Association

Top 100 Trial Lawyers
(Criminal Defense)

American Trial Lawyers Association

Top 10 DUI/DWI Law Firm American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys

Top 10 DUI/DWI Law Firm
American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys

Client Satisfaction Award American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys

Client Satisfaction Award
American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys

Top 100 Lawyer American Society of Legal Advocates

Top 100 Lawyer
American Society of Legal Advocates

Member National College for DUI Defense

Member
National College for DUI Defense

Top 10 Attorney National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys

Top 10 Attorney
National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys

Charter Member Trial Masters

Charter Member
Trial Masters

Member DUI Defense Lawyers Association

Member
DUI Defense Lawyers Association

Lifetime Charter Member Best Attorneys of America

Lifetime Member
Best Attorneys of America

Member American Bar Foundation

Member
American Bar Foundation

Sustaining Member Arizona Trial Lawyers Association

Sustaining Member
Arizona Trial Lawyers Association

America's Top 100 Criminal Defense Attorneys

Member
America's Top 100 Criminal Defense Attorneys

Member American Association for Justice

Member
American Association for Justice

Life Member Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Life Member
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Superior DUI Attorney National Advocacy for DUI Defense

Superior DUI Attorney
National Advocacy for DUI Defense

Member Since 1989 American Bar Association

Member Since 1989
American Bar Association

Better Business Bureau A+ Rating

A+ Rating
Better Business Bureau

DM Cantor

Call 24/7 602-307-0808

40 N Central Ave, Ste 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Click here for Directions

For Family Law questions please go to Cantor Law Group.

"We Outwork the Other Side™"
"We Outwork the Other Guys™"

Call Now Button