Ask jman220 a question about criminal prosecution

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In september I was busted for minor in possessin of alcohol and possession of fake ID.

My arraignment was set for nov. 30.

I hired a lawyer and shortly after hiring him he called and said that he had called the courthouse and they had no record of my case but that they might find it at some point down the road.

Should I be pretty confident that Im off the hook at this point? Ive gotten no word from the lawyer or the courthouse. is there some sort of statute of limitations on this kind of thing? this is CA btw.

also, would it be inappropriate to ask the lawyer for some sort of partial refund considering he did literally about 5 minutes of work and was paid $1250.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a strange story. Did you go to your arraignment? When the lawyer told you they had no record of your case, was this before your arraignment date? I'm not sure exactly how its done in CA, but I guess its possible the cop never filed the paperwork, or something like that.

As far as asking for a refund. what was your agreement with the lawyer? (He should have given you something in writing). Was it a flat fee? Even if it was, it is unethical for a lawyer to charge a fee that is far in excess of the work being provided. So yeah, if all he did for you was call the clerk of court to find out that your case had been lost, ask for a partial refund. He probably won't agree, and if it really bothers you, you could contact the State Bar.

Edit: As far as the time period thing: Generally speedy trial rules don't start tolling until you are arraigned (in the two states i worked in). However, there almost certainly is a SOL on those two misdemeanors, and its most likely shorter rather than longer. Considering the fact that you paid the guy $1,250, I'd give your lawyer a call and ask him what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt go to arrainment. He called a few days before and said they had no record of the case. I should have added an important note. A few weeks prior to the arraingment date, i got someting in the mail from the courthouse, saying that there was a mistake on the ticket and i was supposed to appear at misdemeanor court instead of traffic court. So im guessing it got lost somewehre between the two. I believe the cop filed it at traffic court due to the MIP but then they saw it was also for fake ID and had to move it.

The lawyer was flat fee upfront. So basically i dont feel like he didnt honor the contract and dont feel like i got a bad deal cuz i got off, but i just feel like he didnt really do anything to deserve so much money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did your lawyer know about this letter, and are you sure he called the correct court?

Edit: Also, did this letter give you a new arraignment date?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he called both.

and no, same date.

also, say the lawyer did somehow screw up, or just for the sake of conversation say he straight up lied to me and the court just thinks i skipped out on my arraignment. would they send me something or just put a warrent for my arrest or what would happen? If this was the case is it safe to assume i would have legal recourse against the lawyer?

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]


Yes, he called both.

and no, same date.

also, say the lawyer did somehow screw up, or just for the sake of conversation say he straight up lied to me and the court just thinks i skipped out on my arraignment. would they send me something or just put a warrent for my arrest or what would happen? If this was the case is it safe to assume i would have legal recourse against the lawyer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to again start this with the caveat that I'm unfamiliar with California criminal procedure, and it really does vary wildly from state to state, but based on my experience: If the lawyer did screw up, and you didn't show up for your arraignment, then yeah, it is unfortunately possible that they could have issued a warrant, or a capeas, or whatever they call it in California, and they might not have sent you any additional notification of this.

If this was the case, the fact that you relied on the advice of your lawyer would most likely be a defense/ mitigating circumstances against any new charges based on your failure to appear. And yes, you would have recourse against your lawyer, if you suffered actual damages as a result of this you could sue him for malpractice, and either way you could report him to the State Bar.

Edit: If you're really concerned, you could call the clerk of court yourself to check. Although I guess if you're concerned you might tip them off to their mistake...

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whats the penalty for cocaine possession in Ontario, Canada? How much weight constitutes distribution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I know absolutely nothing about Canadian Law, but here goes (Based on a little research):
From the "Controlled Drugs And Substances Act"

Cocaine is defined as a Schedule I Substance in Canada.

Mere "Possession" of a Schedule I substance appears to get you a maximum punishment not to exceed seven years.

"Trafficking" in a Schedule I substance appears to carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

I could not find any statutory language as to whether or not Canada has laws similar to the US with regards to a certain drug weight constituting evidence of "intent to distribute." My feeling is that they don't have a hard and fast rule on this, but, like I said, I have zero experience with Canadian Law, and I don't really have time to research this issue any further, so take this for what it is, an educated guess.

Edit: If I have some more time later this week I'll look into this more in-depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cops will assume for the purpose (of trafficking) if you have cash on you, and/or if the drugs are divided up (i.e. not all in one bag).

Landmark constitutionality case R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 1986 SCC 7

-establishes Oakes test for reasonable violation of constitutional rights i.e. presumption of innocence with respect to possession for the purpose.

[raze]

[ QUOTE ]
In september I was busted for minor in possessin of alcohol and possession of fake ID.

My arraignment was set for nov. 30.

[/ QUOTE ]

What !!

If this happened in Ottawa, the cop would pour out your liquor, take your ID, and leave.

[goofyballer]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that I think about it though, I'm wondering what state statute/ common law rule people are actually referring to, and whether or not it is a misunderstanding of the "involuntary intoxication negates intent rule" found in some states, as it seems weird to me that a state would adopt a rule that "voluntary intoxication" can negate intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, what a misunderstanding. My entire life I thought that voluntary intoxication negated consent. Are all states that have intoxication negation statutes involuntary? I suspect that a lot of people share that misunderstanding as well. That also explains...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The deck being stacked against guys has always pissed me off (not that it affects me, it's just a matter of principle).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets be realistic. Guys and girls are not equal in this regards. It is much more realistic to imagine situations in which a guy can rape a girl, than one in which a girl can rape a guy, simply for biological reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought that a girl could get drunk at a party, [censored] a guy, and then accuse him of rape the next day; what I meant by guys having the deck stacked against them is that somehow, that situation happening is the guy's fault, when the girl getting herself wasted is just as much to blame. Voluntary intoxication not negating consent clears a lot of things up though, and of course I agree that involuntary intoxication is obviously rape. Thanks!

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In september I was busted for minor in possessin of alcohol and possession of fake ID.

My arraignment was set for nov. 30.

[/ QUOTE ]

What !!

If this happened in Ottawa, the cop would pour out your liquor, take your ID, and leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the jurisdictions I worked in Cops generally would not doing anything on a mere underage possession of alcohol, (other than confiscating it) unless there are other circumstances (such as the person being uncooperative, etc.). However, possession of fake id is more serious, its a forged state document.

[crackhead]

here's the scenario. I'm the owner of the largest independent gasoline retailer in the state. Approximately 150 stations up & down the state. Through years of negligance by my company and by previous station owners, my gas storage tanks have leeched fuel into the dirt where the tanks are buried. My company has started to make attempts to clean up the contaminated soil to meet local codes, but it is a slow going process. Local D.A.'s office has decided that the environmental contamination created at my stations is a "deliberate" act, rather than negligence and have me arrested.

Where would the D.A. office draw the line between negligence and "willful and deliberate environmental contamination"?

[Annorax]

[ QUOTE ]
here's the scenario. I'm the owner of the largest independent gasoline retailer in the state. Approximately 150 stations up & down the state. Through years of negligance by my company and by previous station owners, my gas storage tanks have leeched fuel into the dirt where the tanks are buried. My company has started to make attempts to clean up the contaminated soil to meet local codes, but it is a slow going process. Local D.A.'s office has decided that the environmental contamination created at my stations is a "deliberate" act, rather than negligence and have me arrested.

Where would the D.A. office draw the line between negligence and "willful and deliberate environmental contamination"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the fact that you're fixing these things as you're finding out about them, and you weren't aware of the negligence when you bought the stations, wouldn't a reasonable DA prosecute the guys who buried the tanks instead of bucking for a promotion by prosecuting you?

[crackhead]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the fact that you're fixing these things as you're finding out about them, and you weren't aware of the negligence when you bought the stations, wouldn't a reasonable DA prosecute the guys who buried the tanks instead of bucking for a promotion by prosecuting you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd like to think so, right? But if no current soil testing can determine when the contamination started, who's the easiest target to go after? Current owner? Owner from 10 yrs. ago? Owner from 25 yrs. ago? etc etc....

[nincomepoop]

I currently don't have my drivers license (state of CA) I lost it about a week ago. Went to the DMV, paid for a duplicate copy, paid the $20 fee, and was sent on my way. When I got home I pulled out what I thought was a temperary permit, only to find a reciept (WTF)

I've been driving for the past 3 days w/o a drivers license. However, I have my old Minnesota issued one from one year ago, and this reciept. Does this get me anywhere, I think not.

What's the penalty I'm facing if I'm pulled over and can't show my California DL?


Tony