Cecelia M. Klingele (University of Wisconsin Law School) has posted Rethinking the Use of Community Supervision on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Community supervision, whether in the form of probation or post-release supervision, is ordinarily framed as an alternative to...
Klingele on Community Supervision
↧
↧
Lawmakers Pressure VA on Tackling of Disability Backlog
Although the Department of Veterans Affairs has said it remains dedicated to clearing the huge backlog of disability claims in the next two years, it appears the problems is actually worsening. ![peacekeepingsoldier.jpg]()
Los Angeles Disability Benefits Attorney Vincent Howard of HOWARD LAW understands that lawmakers are growing more and more frustrated with the agency's inability to cut through its own red tape.
As the Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FLA), chairman of the House's Veterans Affairs Committee, put it, he is losing patience with the agency's constant list of the "same excuses." Primarily, the agency has complained that not only are there more claims overall, but more often, the claims have a higher level of complexity. However, Miller says that the problem has more to do with the VA's refusal or inability to anticipate its own needs. Those who pay the price for the agency's ineptitude, he said, are veterans and their families.
The VA has pledged that the number of backlogged cases will be at zero by the time we reach 2015. However, it's unclear how the agency intends to get there, considering that the backlog now has 30,000 more cases than it did this time last year.
A backlogged claim is defined as any claim that has been pending more than 125 days. As of this month, we are looking at about 630,000 backlogged claims in the VA.
What that means for veterans is that the average wait time for claim processing is somewhere in the neighborhood of 275 days. If the veteran is making a first-time claim, having been recently discharged from the military, it's going to take even longer - about one year.
The VA said the reason backlog appears to be going in the wrong direction has to do with a decision to allow a new category of disability claims to be approved for Vietnam-era veterans. Specifically, those who suffered a presumed exposure to Agent Orange, by virtue of when and where they were assigned, are now eligible for benefits. The agency said this, along with scores of new Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, has caused them to get buried again.
The department said it also recently implemented several new technology updates within its operating system, so it's still in the midst of training and adapting to that.
However, many congressional leaders are unhappy with the fact that the despite the fact that the VA was given a budget boost to increase personnel to help process the influx of new claims, the number of cases per employee is on the decline. In 1997, the rate of claims was 136 per employee. Now, it's at 73 per employee.
The VA contends that while the numbers are declining, it's only because they are taking more care in reviewing each case, contending that in 1997, they were operating at a 60 percent quality rate. That statement alone raises some real questions about the validity of claims that were denied years ago.
As it stands, the VA contend that 86 percent of claims are processed without error. But that means nearly 15 percent face an improper denial of benefits.
That's why you need a skilled attorney to help guide you through the process.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Los Angeles Disability Benefits Attorney Vincent Howard of HOWARD LAW understands that lawmakers are growing more and more frustrated with the agency's inability to cut through its own red tape.
As the Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FLA), chairman of the House's Veterans Affairs Committee, put it, he is losing patience with the agency's constant list of the "same excuses." Primarily, the agency has complained that not only are there more claims overall, but more often, the claims have a higher level of complexity. However, Miller says that the problem has more to do with the VA's refusal or inability to anticipate its own needs. Those who pay the price for the agency's ineptitude, he said, are veterans and their families.
The VA has pledged that the number of backlogged cases will be at zero by the time we reach 2015. However, it's unclear how the agency intends to get there, considering that the backlog now has 30,000 more cases than it did this time last year.
A backlogged claim is defined as any claim that has been pending more than 125 days. As of this month, we are looking at about 630,000 backlogged claims in the VA.
What that means for veterans is that the average wait time for claim processing is somewhere in the neighborhood of 275 days. If the veteran is making a first-time claim, having been recently discharged from the military, it's going to take even longer - about one year.
The VA said the reason backlog appears to be going in the wrong direction has to do with a decision to allow a new category of disability claims to be approved for Vietnam-era veterans. Specifically, those who suffered a presumed exposure to Agent Orange, by virtue of when and where they were assigned, are now eligible for benefits. The agency said this, along with scores of new Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, has caused them to get buried again.
The department said it also recently implemented several new technology updates within its operating system, so it's still in the midst of training and adapting to that.
However, many congressional leaders are unhappy with the fact that the despite the fact that the VA was given a budget boost to increase personnel to help process the influx of new claims, the number of cases per employee is on the decline. In 1997, the rate of claims was 136 per employee. Now, it's at 73 per employee.
The VA contends that while the numbers are declining, it's only because they are taking more care in reviewing each case, contending that in 1997, they were operating at a 60 percent quality rate. That statement alone raises some real questions about the validity of claims that were denied years ago.
As it stands, the VA contend that 86 percent of claims are processed without error. But that means nearly 15 percent face an improper denial of benefits.
That's why you need a skilled attorney to help guide you through the process.
↧
Discovery, drug policy, drones and more: Packed agenda for House Criminal Jurisprudence
The Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee has a packed but interesting agenda on Tuesday, March 26. Not only is Rep. Hughes' bill on cell phone location tracking on the agenda (its companion, SB 786 by Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa is on deck in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee on the same day), an array of other big items dot the day's landscape.Discover this: House and Senate to debate Brady, discoveryIn both the House and the Senate, "reciprocal" discovery bills are up on Tuesday. In the House, bills by Moody and McLendon are on the agenda, while in Senate Criminal Justice, Rodney Ellis' SB 1611 comes up to bat. All are likely to have new "committee substitute" language, but the defense bar seems pretty dug in. After Tuesday, I suppose we'll discover whether these bills will move forward regardless without their consent. Should be quite a show.Reducing less than a gram penalty range, defining trace casesRep. Senfronia Thompson has a pair of bills up, HB 1417 and HB 2914, the first of which would reduce possession of less than a gram of a controlled substance from a state jail felony to a class A misdemeanor, and the second of which would eliminate "trace" cases from the felony docket by requiring there be .02 grams or more of substance to qualify for a state jail felony offense. Readers may recall that one-term Harris County DA Pat Lykos stopped charging "trace" cases as a felony, contributing to reduced jail crowding, but her opponent in the GOP primary, the current DA Mike Anderson, ran on a platform of charging those cases as felonies again. Thompson, who is from Houston, is finds her interests on this momentarily aligned with Republican District Judge Michael McSpadden, who has made it a biennial ritual to round up fellow district judges from Houston to sign on to a letter calling for reducing less-than-a-gram cases to Class A status. His main goal is to relieve the district courts of petty cases he doesn't believe warrant felony status. Not the first time this has been proposed, but it's a moment when Houston in particular needs the law adjusted if the DA's Office intends to go back to the bad old days of overcharging petty drug cases.Honing in on dronesThe committee will consider HB 912 by Gooden, which in its original form would have criminalized drone photography generally with a handful of specific exceptions. I understand the committee substitute may look quite different, but whatever it says, it's up on Tuesday. see related, recent Grits coverage.Time to talk: Regulating pretrial defense-victim communicationThere's a bill up by Rep. Charles Perry that would allow victims to decline contact with a "victim outreach specialist" if that person is employed by defense attorneys for the accused, but by doing so make the DA's "victim service provider" that person's sole point of contact, whose decisions will be relayed to the defense through the DA's office. Seems like they're trying to streamline the cabining of prosecution witnesses into a formal process. With the defense bar there for the discovery debate, I suppose somebody in the room may have something to say about that. By contrast, HB 167 by McLendon would expand victim-offender contact through voluntary, pretrial mediation.Meet Texas' Spring winner of 'Most Likely to Be a New Crime'And the answer is, "Voyeurism", a proposed new Class B misdemeanor! See the filed bill text for details, just don't look too close! Committee member Mike Leach filed HB 2371 and four committee members are joint authors, making it perhaps the most likely bill on the agenda to make it out of committee.Regulation can be liberating, if you're a prosecutorHB 1849 by Sterfani Carter, who's vice chair of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, would clarify language in the DAs' asset forfeiture statute that set limits on what the money can be spent on but in a way that gives prosecutors maximal discretion as well as legal certainty for all the ways they're currently spending the money. The question arises, is it wise to endorse this whole "eat what you kill" environment? Does it create perverse incentives to allow prosecutors to generate these sometimes sizable slush funds? I think this bill would be fine except, if I were made philosopher-king, the money would go to the county treasury and they should be the ones who decide which "law enforcement purpose" to spend the money on.
↧
BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER’S AIDE IS AMOUNG DEFENDANTS FACING FEDERAL AND STATE GUN AND DRUG TRAFFICKING CHARGES
Well, you don’t expect to see a Boston Public School teacher’s aide to be amongst a bunch of criminal defendants. Particularly when the case involves allegations of drug trafficking and gun possession.
But then again…you learn to expect the unexpected in the criminal justice system these days.
Sure enough, 38-year-old Winford McRae of Revere (hereinafter, “Scholastic Defendant”) was among nine men who appeared Thursday in the United States District Court in Boston. He faces the threat of up to 40 years in prison if convicted of distributing and possessing cocaine. These nine defendants were part of a larger fifteen gentlemen who were arrested on drug and firearm charges as part of a more than yearlong undercover sting targeting North Shore gangs, authorities said.
According to law enforcement, these defendants were affiliated with Latin Kings and Bloods street gangs who are said to be operating primarily in Lynn and Revere. They were rounded up in early morning raids conducted by FBI agents, state troopers and local detectives, said state police spokesman Dave Procopio.
“The arrests are the result of a long-term investigation by city, state and federal investigators targeting the nexus of illegal firearms and narcotics in Boston and the North Shore,” said Jake Wark, spokesman for the Suffolk District Attorney’s Office, which is prosecuting five of the defendants.
Wark said a Suffolk prosecutor yesterday asked for $150,000 bail for two other Revere defendants who are charged with multiple counts of distributing crack cocaine. One was released on his own recognizance and the other $250 bail.
Meanwhile, the Scholastic Defendant and his alleged co-conspirators were brought into federal court. His attorney pleaded for his client’s release, arguing that the father of three is a “gainfully employed” teacher’s aide for Boston Public Schools and a graduate of Endicott College in Beverly.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
A Lawyer’s Christmas Card
H/T Sam Glover
↧
↧
March Madness Day 3 Open Thread
Day 3. The investments: Louisville -11 over Colorado State (3 units), Butler +1½ over Marquette, Michigan State -6 over Memphis (3 units), St Louis -3½ over Oregon (5 units), Wichita State +6½ over...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Life sentence enhancement based on juvenile prior does not violate the cruel and unusual clause of the Constitution
The defendant in U.S. v. Hoffman was sentenced to life for his conviction of conspiracy to distribute of 50 or more grams of methamphetamines in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamines. Prior to trial on these federal crimes the government filed a notice pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §851 that it intended to seek enhance punishment base on a prior Florida state drug convictions for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and possession of cocaine. His priors were committed at 17, and at the time, he was sentenced as a youthful offender. The prior Florida felony drug convictions increased the minimum from 10 years to life imprisonment and at sentencing the district court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenged the life sentence under the Eighth Amendment arguing the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment because the basis for the punishment were the two conviction for offenses committed while the defendant was a juvenile.
Defendant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons where the court held that the 8th and 14th amendments forbid imposing the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. The 11th Circuit found Roper did not apply and distinguished it on these grounds:
1. Roper involved a death sentence and not a life imprisonment.
2. Roper did not involve a juvenile prior uses as a sentencing enhancement for an adult offender.
In an earlier case, the 11th Circuit had rejected a challenge to the use of youthful offender convictions under the career offender sentencing guidelines and the Armed Career Criminal Act because it found Roper does apply to sentencing enhancement cases. "Roper does not mandate that we wipe clean the records of every criminal on his or her eighteenth birthday." In two prior cases the 11th Circuit had held that mandatory life enhancement provision of §851, for defendants having two or more prior felony drug offenses, does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
The 11th Circuit also rejected the defendant's argument that Miller v. Alabama made the sentence illegal. In Miller the Supreme Court prohibited a mandatory life-without-parole-sentence for defendants who were under the age of 18 when they committed the crime. Miller was distinguished by the court because it involve a juvenile offender facing punishment for a crime committed as a juvenile and focused on the reasons why it would be cruel and unusual for a juvenile to face a mandatory life sentence. The 11th Circuit found nothing in Miller that said an adult offender who committed the crimes while a juvenile should not receive a mandatory life sentence as an adult after committing the crime as an adult. Miller did not deal with enhancements and the court found a difference between enhancing a juvenile offender to a life sentence and considering youthful offenses when sentencing an offender to life who continues criminal activity into adulthood.
The court also rejected the defendant's challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence. Though the district court stated that it had considered the §3553(a) factors, the district court was statutorily required to impose a life sentence regardless of the factors.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
AALL: Book Review: More Essential Than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-first Century
American Association of Law Libraries: Book Review: More Essential Than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-first Century by Christine Hepler:
[...] Read more!
↧
SSRN: Redefining Fourth Amendment Reasonableness: A Crime-Severity Model for Terry Stops
SSRN: Redefining Fourth Amendment Reasonableness: A Crime-Severity Model for Terry Stops by David Keenan & Tina Mary Thomas. Abstract:
[...] Read more!
↧
↧
NYC ID Theft Ring Bust: Manhattan DA Charges Four in Fraudulent Debit Card Scheme - Over $200,00 & 100s of Debit Cards Recovered
The extent and amount of fraud that is perpetrated by Identity Theft is staggering. As a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office who spearheaded many multi-million dollar Identity Theft, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument investigations, arrests and indictments, I have certainly dealt with the underbelly of these financial crimes. As a New York criminal defense lawyer and IdentityTheft defense attorney, I have also represented numerous individuals accused of the same allegations that I prosecuted for years. While I have yet to be shocked by the means in which these crimes are committed or the extent of the alleged criminal networks involved, it seems clear to me that Identity Theft will be the central or greatest crime of our generation.
Along these lines, according to New York City newspapers, the NYPD has arrested four men in another alleged large scale Identity Theft ring. It is alleged that at least four Los Angeles and Las Vegas men (Garegin Spartalyan, Aram Martirosian, Hayk Dzhandzhapanyan and David Kudugulyan) and possible other accomplices, stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manhattan banks by utilizing bogus or fraudulent credit cards to withdraw money and cash. More specifically, its is claimed by the NYPD that the accused were caught after one or more of the men attempted to withdraw money from "flagged" bank accounts. Further, upon investigation and the execution of search warrants, $198,000 in money orders as well as $16,000 in cash with 200 fake credit cards were recovered from a hotel room. This was on top of the $5,000 and 92 debit cards and $16,000 and 82 debit cards allegedly recovered from two of the defendants.
Although there is no press release as of yet from Cyrus Vance's Manhattan District Attorney's Office, there is no doubt in my mind that the Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau is chomping at the bit to make a big splash with this case. In fact, if true, the felony complaint alleges well in excess of 350 felony offenses. Once prosecutors present these cases to the Grand Jury, which they very likely will, it would not be shocking if the number of crimes increases.
If prosecutors can aggregate the thefts and stolen property or tie each of the defendants' to possession of stolen funds in excess of $50,000, the defendants will face Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40) and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 165.52) charges. In doing so, prosecutors would need to tie the men to the $198,000 worth of money orders retrieved from a hotel room or aggregate other stolen funds. A "C" felony, each defendant would face up to fifteen years in prison.
Irrespective of the monies recovered in excess of $50,000, the defendants will face Second Degree Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument (New York Penal Law 170.25) charges for each fraudulent debit card. Similarly, any possession or theft of more than $3,000, but no more than $50,000, that is not aggregated will result in a charge of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35). Lastly, each defendant will face charges of Identity Theft in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 190.80) if and when prosecutors can proved that the defendants used the personal identifying information (the debit card and bank accounts, for example) to either obtains more than $2,000 of money or perpetrated this crime while also possessing the Forged Instruments. All of these crimes are "D" felonies punishable by up to seven years in prison.
As I noted above, I served as a Manhattan Assistant District Attorney. In fact, I served as one of the first members of the Identity Theft Unit Major Case Section that the current Cybrercime and Identity Theft Bureau is based. I am a criminal defense attorney in New York City and I am well versed in these crimes. With this experience I am comfortable asserting that the Manhattan DA's Office will come down firmly and with tremendous force against these men. DA Vance does not tolerate these crimes in NYC. In fact, a man who was involved in an Identity Theft scheme at numerous high end steakhouses was just sentenced to up to twelve years in prison. Waiting to identify their defense and set that defense into motion is something these men cannot afford to do.
To learn about the crimes listed above, legal decisions impacting the statutes and cases in the area news, review the links above or below. The Crotty Saland PC blogs and websites have extensive information on these subjects.
A New York criminal defense firm representing clients accused of Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, the founding New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC dedicate their practice to NYC area criminal defense.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Buell on Liability and Admissions of Wrongdoing
Samuel W. Buell (Duke University School of Law) has posted Liability and Admissions of Wrongdoing in Public Enforcement of Law (University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 81, 2013) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Some judges and scholars have questioned...
↧
Churches, Copper Thefts, and Hot Places in Hades
We have discussed before in this blog about the problems of vandalism and thefts from churches, along with the exploding copper theft epidemic. This past week, both problems intersected. As reported by various news agencies, someone stole part of the copper roof and gutters from the Palisades Community Church in Washington, D.C., (not pictured above).As a former federal prosecutor, (and currently, as an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense lawyer), here's hoping that D.C. police catch the crooks responsible for this theft. Here's also hoping that there is a "special" place in Hades for anyone who would steal from a church! What do you think?
↧
Case o' the Week: Trip Kings a Losing Hand - King, Probation Searches, and the Fourth Amendment
King I (panel): We think that the Ninth has gotten it wrong, and suspect that the suspicionless search of probationers conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in Samson. – Great!King II (en banc): We overrule Ninth precedent holding that there is no constitutional difference between probation and parole for purposes of the fourth amendment, and remand to the panel to tackle again. – Fantastic!King III (on remand to panel): The suspicionless search of this probationer was ok. – ?!?United States v. King, 2013 WL 886161 (9thCir. Mar. 8, 2013), decision available here.Players: Decision by Judge Graber, joined by Judge Tallman. Dissent by Judge Berzon. Hard-fought appeal by ND Cal AFPD Dan Blank and R&W Attorney Steven Koeninger.Facts: King was suspected of a homicide. Id. at *1. S.F. Police learned King was on felony probation. His probation agreement stated that he was “subject to a warrantless search condition, as to [his] . . . premises . . . with or without probable cause . . .” Id.(emphasis added). A search of King’s residence produced a shotgun. Id. The district court denied King’s suppression motion, finding reasonable suspicion supported the search. Id. This panel found reasonable suspicion did not exist, but held that under the Ninth’s Baker decision, a suspicionless search of a probationer did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. The en banc court reversed and remanded to the panel, in light of the Supreme’s decision in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006). See blog entry here. Issue(s): “The question that we must answer is whether the Fourth Amendment permits a suspicionless search of a probationer’s residence.” Id. at *1. Or “whether the probation condition so diminished, or completely eliminated, the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy, that a search by a law enforcement officer without any individualized suspicion [satisfies] the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at *2.Held: “We hold that such a search is permissible when, as here, the probationer has accepted a suspicionless-search condition as part of a probation agreement. We therefore affirm.” Id. “[W]e . . . conclude that Defendant’s expectation of privacy was small. We hold, therefore, that the search conducted here intruded on Defendant’s legitimate expectation of privacy only slightly.” Id. at *2.
Hon. Marsha S. BerzonOf Note: Dissenting Judge Berzon wonders what probation agreement the majority is reading. Id.at *5 (Berzon, J., dissenting). Writing for the majority, Judge Graber assures us that King has a probation search condition that permitted “suspicionless searches.” Id. at *3. Actually, as Judge Berzon correctly observes, King’s search condition only allowed searches “without probable cause.” Id. at *5. Judge Berzon persuasively explains that this specific condition indicates that somecause is required – just not the relatively high standard of probable cause. Id. at *6. The dissent appropriately assumes that the state sentencing judge acted deliberately, and meant the language that was actually used in the search condition. Id. at *5. Judge Berzon argues that this Kingiteration is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment “mode of analysis,” id. at *7, and seems directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s instruction in Samson that probationers have greater privacy interests than parolees. Id. at *8. A petition for rehearing is underway: knock wood that the en banc court takes up King again, and brings the Ninth back on track with the Supreme Court and Samson. How to Use: Preserve this issue: this latest Kingopinion will hopefully not be the last word on the issue. Meanwhile, keep reading the precise language in probation agreements. Judge Graber concedes that King does not hold that the Fourth Amendment permits suspicionless searches of probationers who have not accepted a suspicionless-search condition – maybe your language will be more clear than the (apparently clear) language in King. Id. at *4. For Further Reading: We could speculate on how cops exploit and dodge probation search conditions to shake down “dirtbags” – but why put words in their mouths, when they describe their techniques such enthusiasm? See online forum here. Image of Three Kings movie poster from http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTI0ODg0NTA4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDEwNTEzMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR4,0,214,317_.jpgImage of the Honorable Judge Marsha S. Berzon from http://www.flickr.com/photos/50533836@N06/8180088017/sizes/o/in/set-72157632053060402/Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender ND Cal FPD. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org.
↧
↧
Criminal Assault and Battery Charges Discussion From San Diego Criminal Lawyer
ASSAULT AND BATTERY: CA Penal Code Sections 240-243
Assault and Battery under the CA Penal Code (PC) can range from a misdemeanor simple assault to felony assault and battery. What is the difference between assault and battery? A physical attack on another person--even without contact or harm--is an assault. On the other hand, if the person is actually subjected to harmful or offensive touching then a battery occurs. Depending upon the circumstances and factors surrounding your case, the fines can range from $1,000 to $10,000 and the jail/prison time can vary from 6 months to 4 years. The following information pertains mainly to the charges of simple assault and battery.![875413_balance.jpg]()
Being charged with the crime of assault and battery can have very serious consequences. Therefore, if you are charged, please contact San Diego Criminal Lawyer George Gedulin and Mark Greany. Because we have years of experience handling assault and battery cases, we can advise you on and develop the best and strongest legal strategy for your case.
What is Simple Assault and What are the Penalties/Punishment?
Under CA Penal Codes 240-241, the least serious assault and battery charge is misdemeanor simple assault, which is defined as: an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. For example, if you swing at someone with the intent to punch him, but you miss, then you have committed assault.
Thus, even if you do not physically contact or cause injury to another person, you can be charged with simple assault, and if convicted face a fine of $1,000 and 6 months in jail.
What is Simple Battery?
Under PC 242, the definition of battery is: any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon another. What that means is that if you make any unwanted physical contact to another person, then you can be convicted of battery--even if the person is not injured or harmed. Any unwanted touching is considered battery.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Being charged with the crime of assault and battery can have very serious consequences. Therefore, if you are charged, please contact San Diego Criminal Lawyer George Gedulin and Mark Greany. Because we have years of experience handling assault and battery cases, we can advise you on and develop the best and strongest legal strategy for your case.
What is Simple Assault and What are the Penalties/Punishment?
Under CA Penal Codes 240-241, the least serious assault and battery charge is misdemeanor simple assault, which is defined as: an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. For example, if you swing at someone with the intent to punch him, but you miss, then you have committed assault.
Thus, even if you do not physically contact or cause injury to another person, you can be charged with simple assault, and if convicted face a fine of $1,000 and 6 months in jail.
What is Simple Battery?
Under PC 242, the definition of battery is: any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon another. What that means is that if you make any unwanted physical contact to another person, then you can be convicted of battery--even if the person is not injured or harmed. Any unwanted touching is considered battery.
↧
When is Abortion Legal in Las Vegas?
Abortion is legal in Nevada when performed by a licensed physician in a medical setting using industry-standard procedures. When the person performing the abortion is not medically licensed, the act is illegal and considered to be voluntary manslaughter. This crime is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine as high as
↧
New group opposing death penalty emerges at CPAC
US News and World Report has an this interesting report on a notable new group that emerged at last week's CPAC meetings. The piece is headlined "Small Government Conservative? Group Says You Should Oppose Death Penalty," and here are excerpts:...
↧
“I really thought you were the real deal…”
After reviewing your website, I really thought you were the real deal. I didn’t ask for your opinion earlier Mark. [Link to article about rich guy’s 1990s bankruptcy.] Maybe if my dad had managed his risk more intelligently, I wouldn’t have to steal. I can’t believe you refused to advise me. All I wanted to [...]
↧
↧
Legislative committee approves change to sex offender residency law
3-24-2013 Maine:
Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted to recommend passage of L.D. 498, preventing sex offenders from residing near Capitol Area Recreation Association ball...
[[This,an article summary.Please visit my website for complete article, and more.]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
MI - ACLU, other groups object to Michigan bill pushing annual sex offender fee
Original Article03/24/2013By Alanna Durkin
A bill to require the more than 40,000 people on Michigan's sex offender registry to pay an annual fee is igniting a debate over who should bear the costs for operating and maintaining the state's system used to track offenders.
Registered sex offenders already are required to pay a one-time $50 fee, but some lawmakers want to charge them $50 every year to cover the $600,000 a year cost to operate the database. The state says the move could bring in about $540,000 more in revenue each year.
Sex offenders "put themselves onto this registry by their actions," said Republican Sen. Rick Jones of Grand Ledge, who is sponsoring the legislation that is headed to the Senate floor, but not yet scheduled for a vote. "Therefore, they need to pay a fee to maintain it."- Using that mentality, why don't you also charge all prisoners daily fees for maintaining the prisons they are being housed in?
But opponents, which include the American Civil Liberties Union, say it's merely a feel-good measure that ignores experiences in other states where the promise of more revenue falls well short of expectations and is an overly burdensome cost for registered sex offenders who already struggle to find housing and jobs.
"They have paid their dues ... this is a burden that we just keep piling on," said Shelli Weisberg, legislative liaison for ACLU of Michigan. She argues that the state is not asking offenders to pay for something that benefits them, but something that is intended to protect citizens. Therefore, the state should pay for it.
Michigan State Police Trooper Amy Dehner, who also is a state police legislative liaison, said the one-time fee covers only about 10% of maintaining the database. As people move and change jobs frequently it can be difficult and labor intensive to track those on the registry.- Well, that is your problem! The politicians are passing unconstitutional laws which force ex-offenders into homelessness and joblessness, and force them to move all the time, so the state should be paying for it (i.e. The tax payers).
And if the offenders don't pay for the registry, those costs come out of the state police's operating budget, and ultimately hit the taxpayer, Dehner said.
"We can't expect taxpayers to offset or pay for tracking and oversight of these offenders," she said.- Sure you can! If it's the tax payer who wants the laws, then they should help pay for the costs to implement them.
Republican Gov. Rick Snyder supports the legislation because the current one-time fee doesn't adequately cover the costs, said Snyder spokesman Kurt Weiss in an email.
If offenders don't pay the fee, they would face misdemeanor charges under the bill. Offenders would have the chance to prove they are unable to pay and receive a 90-day waiver. Offenders would either have to prove in court that they are indigent, are receiving food assistance from the state or living under the federal poverty level, Dehner said.- This is pretty much extortion, which is a crime.
Other states are looking to increase their fees as well in an effort to deal with the mounting costs of their sex offender registries.In Idaho, a bill passed in the House this month would boost sex offenders' annual fee from $40 to $80.
But some states have come across a big hurdle: getting offenders to pay.
Illinois' law recently changed to allow towns and counties to charge a $100 annual fee, up from $20 in the hopes that it would generate hundreds of thousands of dollars for the state. But the Illinois Sherriffs' Association said last year that many local agencies found collecting the fines difficult to enforce and many weren't actually bringing in more revenue.
In Massachusetts, a 2011 audit of the state Sexual Offenders Registry Board showed that the agency failed to collect an annual $75 fee from more than 40% of offenders and granted fee waivers for another 40%.
Shannon Banner, spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police, said as of this month only about 950 offenders on the registry have not paid their registration fee, out of more than 40,000 offenders.
But the ACLU also points to a ruling in Wisconsin court case earlier this year that said imposing fees on registered sex offenders, when it was not a law at the time of their conviction, is unconstitutional.
The judge wrote that "to be sure, the State has a non-punitive purpose for wanting to collect money for such a purpose, but to single out only individuals who have prior convictions for sexual assaults as the sole source of funding can only be seen as punitive."
That case is now on appeal to the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the bill in Michigan goes into law, it won't be the first change to Michigan's sex offender registry this year. One of the first bills Snyder signed this session expanded the public sex offender registry to include more people who commit certain crimes against minors, like possessing child pornography.Video Link© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
Driver's License Appeals - Problems with the Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 3
In Part 1 of this series, we began out examination of the problems within a Substance Abuse Evaluation that will cause a License Appeal to fail. We looked at how even simple, little things like a name and address must...
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
