Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 82A Possession/Paraphernalia Dismissals

State v. Mr. C (DMC 15410) – Animal Abuse – Reduced to 5 Days in Jail – Phoenix City Court (Case No. 5306674):  Mr. C was seen by people pulling his SUV over on the side of the road, retrieving a cat from the passenger side door, and throwing it over a fence.  The cat the scrambled off and hid underneath a car and was almost struck by Mr. C as he left the scene.  The witnesses then took the cat to the Humane Society and had it nursed back to health at a cost of almost $900.  Mr. C was ultimately tracked down and charged with Animal Cruelty.  We were able to present evidence that the cat dug his claws into Mr. C’s arms while he was attempting to remove it from the car, and that it then ran away after he flailed his arms due to the pain.  He had not abandoned the cat, nor had he tried to harm the cat.  Because of the strength of the witness’s testimony, the State was seeking a significant amount of jail time.  Although he was facing up to six months in jail, we were able to reduce the ultimately sentence to only five days.

State v. Mr. H (DMC 15877) – Felony Tampering with Evidence – Dismissed (with Classes) – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-138288):  Mr. H had been arrested for misdemeanor DUI and had been taken to the police station.  After the police had drawn two vials of his blood and packaged them both in a single box, they informed Mr. H that he could get an Independent Test of his blood if he wished to challenge the State’s results.  He was also told that the second vial would be available for him to get tested.  Mr. H became confused, and thought that the box with both vials of blood contained his own sample to take with him.  He put the box in his pocket and left with it when he was released from the police station.

Ultimately, the police contacted him and informed him that he had taken their samples of blood.  They claim that he had denied that he had taken the blood samples, and then they produced videotape evidence showing that he had.  He was ultimately arrested and charged with felony Tampering with Evidence.  We were then hired by Mr. H to represent him on the felony, and not on the underlying misdemeanor DUI (in which he already had an attorney).  Ultimately, we were able to have the Prosecutor agree that this was a mistake and that they could lose at trial.  They then allowed the case to be Dismissed upon successful completion of classes for alcohol consumption by Mr. H.

State v. Ms. E (DMC 15445) – Felony Arson and Felony Criminal Damage – Dismissed – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-151423):  Ms. E had suffered from PTSD and was on various medications.  She had taken two of those medications together and went to sleep, when she awoke was panicked because she thought her dog was locked inside of the car.  She smashed the car in order to get into it, and realized her dog was not there.  She then called her husband, who informed her that he had the dog.

During this ordeal, she had somehow set the car on fire.  We were able to show the prosecutor that she was having a medical episode, and that her husband (the co-owner of the car) did not wish for charges to be pressed.  Ultimately, the State agreed to Dismiss charges against Ms. E.  Originally, she was facing a large amount of prison time.

State v. Mr. F. (DMC 15474) – Felony Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – Teaching License Reinstated at Board Hearing – Arizona Department of Education (Case No. C-2017-697R):  Mr. F had been charged two years prior with Felony Possession of Marijuana and Felony Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  We were able to negotiate a resolution that involved classes, which, upon successful completion, would result in a Dismissal of all charges.  As Mr. F was a school teacher, he was informed that pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 15-534.02, that he would lose his license for a period of five years.  We requested a hearing in front of the Arizona State Board of Education, which was ultimately granted.

During the hearing, we provided numerous witnesses that showed Mr. F was doing a good job as a substitute teacher.  We also showed that he was not an immoral person, and the reason that he had used marijuana was due to back pain.  His lack of a medical marijuana card was merely an oversite.  He had since obtained a medical marijuana card, which allowed him to legally use the drug.  We also showed that Mr. F worked with special education children, some who had Downs Syndrome who were non-verbal.  Because of his knowledge of sign language, and his specialized training, he was a very valuable teacher.  Ultimately, the Committee agreed to Reinstate Mr. F’s Teaching License.

Mr. K was driving on the I-40 when a Mohave County Sheriff’s Deputy stated that he was following a truck too closely. He also claimed he was traveling 80 in a 70 miles per hour zone. After Mr. K was pulled over, the Deputy had a dog circle his vehicle. The Deputy claimed the dog alerted to drugs. Eventually, Mr. K stated he had money in the car. As the Deputy began searching the car, he was about to cut off the locks to a toolbox when Mr. K said “you can’t do that.“ A search warrant was never obtained because they couldn’t get one at that time.

Once the locks were cut off the toolbox, $20,000 in cash was found inside. Mr. K told Officers that it was investors’ money for dirt bikes that were in San Diego. After the locks were cut, Mr. K asked multiple times “is this legal.” Because the money was all twenty-dollar bills wrapped in Ziploc baggies, Mr. K was arrested for Money Laundering and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. When Officers began questioning him, he stated “do I need a lawyer because I don’t want to incriminate myself.” He also said “I believe I should talk to a lawyer.” However, Officers continued to question him relentlessly.

We ultimately filed a Motion to Dismiss for both Illegal Search and Seizure, and Violation of Right to Counsel. These Motions were filed on September 21, 2017.  By October 10, 2017, the Prosecutor filed a Motion to Dismiss all charges.

POSSESSION of DRUG PARAPHERNALIA DISMISSED / DUI DRUGS (MARIJUANA) REDUCED to REGULAR DUI (ALCOHOL) – State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 9016) (Round Valley Justice Court CR09-0142): Mr. B was coming back from a ski trip when he was stopped on State Route 260 at milepost 375 near Round Valley, Arizona. The Officer smelled the odor of Marijuana and had Mr. B exit his vehicle. He subsequently conducted a Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) and arrested Mr. B based on a DUI Drugs charged. After he was arrested, 3 small baggies of Marijuana were found. Due to the questionable nature of the stop at subsequent search, we were able to convince the Prosecutor to dismiss the Felony Possession of Marijuana/ Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charge. In addition, he converted the DUI Drugs charge to a DUI Alcohol charge.  If Mr. B were convicted of DUI Drugs, he would have had his license suspended for 1 full year. Because he was only being convicted of DUI Alcohol, he was able to get his license back after 30 days.

TRANSPORTATION of MARIJUANA for SALE (20 Pounds), TRANSPORTATION of MUSHROOMS for SALE, MISCONDUCT INVOLVING WEAPONS and POSSESSION of DRUG PARAPHERNALIA DISMISSED (with PREJUDICE) DUE to SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS VIOLATION- State v. Ms. M (DMC No. 9785) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2004-014824): Ms. M and her ex husband were both indicted by secret Grand Jury for Possession of Marijuana for sale, Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Mushrooms) for sale, Misconduct in Involving Weapons and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. They were indicted in 2003, and her husband was arrested and went through multiple court proceedings and was tried. Ms. M was with her husband at trial, had been attending trial, had applied for clearances to work for the Government, and had multiple background checks conducted on her which never revealed an arrest Warrant issued by the Grand Jury. 6 years later, she was arrested and charged for these crimes. We filled Motions on her behalf showing that there was no exception to the “10 day rule” that requires an Arraignment within 10 days of an Indictment being issued, absence specific special circumstances. The judge agreed with us and Dismissed the case With Prejudice for violation of Ms. M’s Speedy Trial Rights.

DISMISSED | POSSESSION of DRUG PARAPHERNALIA – State v. Mr. M. (DMC No. 7389) (Youngtown Magistrate Court CR2007-127): Mr. M. was parked on a 112th Avenue in Youngtown, Arizona when police pulled up behind him.  They saw that he was sitting in the vehicle with a friend and had a “bong” on the front seat.  They asked him if he had any marijuana and he was honest with them.  Because he was honest, they only cited him with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  We became involved in the case and explained to the Prosecutor that a conviction on Mr. M.’s record would have serious repercussions with his current job.  They agreed to dismiss all charges in exchange for Mr. M. attending some educational classes.

DISMISSED | POSSESSION of MARIJUANA/POSSESSION of DRUG PARAPHERNALIA DISMISSED – State v. Ms. S. (DMC No. 10730) (Payson Justice Court 12-0200151): Ms. S. was travelling in a car with her boyfriend and his friend on State Route 87 at Mile Post 239 in Payson, Arizona when they were pulled over for allegedly speeding.  The officer claimed he could smell marijuana, and when he asked, Ms. S.’s boyfriend produced some marijuana.  He ended up arresting all three and charging all three with Possession of Marijuana (along with a DUI for the driver).  Ms. S. asked to call our office, and we told her not to answer any questions or submit to any tests.  The officer then obtained a search warrant in order to get Ms. S.’s urine.  Due to the fact that Ms. S. was not the driver, the search warrant should not have been issued by the judge.  The Prosecutor agreed, and dismissed all charges against Ms. S. only.

CONVICTIONS SET ASIDE | 3 COUNTS POSSESSION DRUG PARAPHERNALIA, 2 COUNTS AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT and 1 COUNT FRADULENT USE of a CREDIT CARD CONVICTIONS SET ASIDE – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 8726) (Coconino County Superior Court CR00-99; CR00-281; CR00-581; CR01-419; CR01-420): Mr. R. was a drug addict at the time he received all of these criminal charges in a 1 year time span.  After satisfying his prison term in all conditions of his probation, he had remained drug free and employed for 5 full years.  We were able to convince the court to set aside the convictions of all 6 criminal charges.  Mr. R. was able to successfully move on with his life.

Call Now Button