Possession of a Forgery Device (A.R.S. §13-2003)
Arrested in Arizona? Call Today for Help!
Whether in the Phoenix area, or anywhere in Arizona, per A.R.S. §13-2003, “Possession of a Forgery Device” occurs when any person possesses a Forgery Device with the “knowledge and intent” to commit Fraud, or to aid or permit another person to use it to commit Forgery.
A Forgery Device can be any plate, dye, apparatus, equipment, software, access device, or any other device specifically designed or adapted for use in forging written instruments.
Contact DM Cantor, if you have been charged with Possession of a Forgery Device. Call 602-307-0808 for a Free Consultation.
Possible Punishment for Possession of a Forgery Device
If the defendant in possession of the device intends to use it to forge written instruments or to aid or permit another to use it for purposes of forgery, it is a class five (5) felony. A first offense class five (5) felony carries punishment of probation with zero (0) days in jail up to one (1) year in jail, or prison of six (6) months to two and one half (2.5) years of incarceration. If the person has one (1) allegeable historical prior conviction, then the “prison only” range is one (1) year to three and three quarters (3.75) years of incarceration. If the person has two (2) allegeable historical prior convictions, then the “prison only” range is three (3) years to seven and one half (7.5) years of incarceration.
If the defendant intends to use the device in order to perpetrate a fraud themselves, it is a class six (6) felony. A first offense class six (6) felony carries a range of punishment of probation with zero (0) days in jail up to one (1) year in jail, or prison of four (4) months to two (2) years of incarceration. If the person has one (1) allegeable historical prior conviction, then the “prison only” range is nine (9) months to two and three quarters (2.75) years of incarceration. If the person has two (2) allegeable historical prior convictions, then the “prison only” range is two and one quarter (2.25) years to five and three quarters (5.75) years of incarceration.
Possible Defenses for Possession of a Forgery Device
The most common defenses to Possession of a Forgery Device is Innocent Possession. This defense argues that the defendant may have possessed the forgery device, but he did not possess it with the required intent to commit a fraud or forgery with it, or to aid another person in committing such an act. Even if another person intended to use the device for forgery, it is irrelevant; the defendant cannot be convicted unless he had the requisite state of mind. Thus, the defendant lacks the required mind state and cannot be convicted under this statute. An example of this defense would be where the defendant has a legitimate purpose for the plates, dyes, or other Forgery Devices, and lacks the knowledge that the devices were being used by his roommates for Forgery purposes. It is important to interview all witnesses who know both parties involved in order to establish the defendant’s good character and the other person’s bad character. It may also be necessary to hire a private investigator to find hard evidence in the form of photographs or documentation that the defendant’s associates actually conducted a forgery business, not the defendant.
Additionally, because our law firm fights conviction from all angles, we would assert a wide range of defenses and challenges to constitutional violations that apply in all criminal cases. The possibilities are numerous and diverse. One of those we frequently assert is a “Miranda rights violation.” In Arizona, the standard of whether any incriminating statement (i.e., a statement which tends to admit guilt) is admissible into evidence is based upon a “voluntariness” standard. If we can demonstrate that the police coerced you (i.e., intimidated or tricked you) into making a confession or inculpatory statement, or that they did not properly read you your Miranda Rights, then we can suppress those statements and any evidence gathered as a direct result of those statements. In addition, the “denial of right to Counsel” is another common defense which is often raised. This occurs when a suspect is in custody and requests to speak to their attorney, but is denied and questioning continues. Other defenses may include challenging the validity of any search warrant, or whether there were any “forensic flaws” during the investigation of your case. Depending on what else you have been charged with, this could include exposing flawed procedures regarding blood, breath, and urine testing; fingerprints analysis; DNA testing; ballistics; gunshot residue testing; computer analysis/cloning hard drive procedures; forensic financial accounting reviews; etc.. Lastly, one of the most common defense tactics is exposing sloppy or misleading police reports which include everything from misstatements, false statements, flawed photo line-ups and inaccurate crime scene reconstruction. It is important to hire a skilled Possession of a Forgery lawyer to defend you who has knowledge of all the possible defenses to assert in your case.
It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also David Michael Cantor is an Arizona Forgery Attorney and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. For a Free Initial Consultation, call us at 602-307-0808.
Contact DM Cantor and speak to an Arizona Forgery Attorney. We will assist you with your Possession of a Forgery Device case.