(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.
Fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential initial consultation.
Click here for important legal disclaimer.
10.0 Superb Rating
AVVO Criminal Defense
AV-Highest Rated Preeminent Lawyers
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Criminal & DUI Defense
Top 1% Attorney
National Association of Distinguished Counsel
Top 100 Trial Lawyers
American Trial Lawyers Association
Top 10 DUI/DWI Law Firm
American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys
Client Satisfaction Award
American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys
Top 100 Lawyer
American Society of Legal Advocates
National College for DUI Defense
Top 10 Attorney
National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys
DUI Defense Lawyers Association
Best Attorneys of America
American Bar Foundation
Arizona Trial Lawyers Association
America's Top 100 Criminal Defense Attorneys
American Association for Justice
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Superior DUI Attorney
National Advocacy for DUI Defense
Member Since 1989
American Bar Association
Better Business Bureau
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™"