Posted on December 01, 2009 in Maryland State Crimes

Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon Convicted of Fraudulent Misappropriation. Maryland Criminal Attorney discusses whether this count is a Misdemeanor or a Felony and whether or not the Mayor is subject to a mandatory minimum jail term of one year.

As many have now heard Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon was convicted by a jury today of count four of the indictment that she was facing. This count was Embezzlement – Fraudulent Misappropriation by Fiduciary is a Misdemeanor although one that carries a maximum prison term of Five years in prison. The jury apparently acquitted her of all other counts including count one – Felony Theft which is a felony that carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years in prison. So what conduct constitutes Embezzlement – Fraudulent Misappropriation by Fiduciary?

Pursuant to Maryland Criminal Laws Annotated, Criminal Law Section 7-113 – A fiduciary may not:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 01, 2009 in Security Clearance

I have recently received a number of inquiries from persons who have either been denied a security clearance or have had their clearances revoked by government officials on installations across the United States. The tenor of the conversations is almost always one of defeat. Persons who lose their clearances almost always believe that they have no power to fight back. Read on to learn about your rights when the government tries to take your clearance away.

Few things can be more intimidating than the prospect of fighting the United States Government regarding your security clearance. Contractors and federal employees who work for Government agencies depend on their security clearances for their livelihood. Loss of a clearance – or refusal to grant one in the first instance – can be a devastating and life-altering event. For most people, the prospect of taking on a federal agency about the revocation of a security clearance is a daunting one. Many believe that because an agency has revoked or denied a clearance, there is nothing they can do to fight back. After all, the agency knows best . . . right? WRONG!

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 27, 2009 in Recent Court Decisions

The Daily Record reports that the Maryland Court of Special Appeals has decided to vacate the Baltimore County Circuit Court’s decision to allow Larissa S. to visit with her ex-partner Melissa B.’s eight year old son. The couple dated for seven years, before deciding to have a child in 2001, through the help of a friend. After the couple broke up in 2002, Melissa gave birth to a second child. Larissa never adopted either child, but visited with both boys from 2002-2005 until she was denied access, which triggered her to file for visitation rights.

The Baltimore County Circuit Court, namely Judge Daniels, after much back and forth with Maryland’s higher court, found that the third party exceptional circumstances standard was met in this case, and therefore, ordered that there should be visitation between Larissa and the eldest child. For more information regarding third party custody and the exceptional circumstances standard see the August 11, 2009 blog. The Court of Special Appeals found that the lower court erred in finding exceptional circumstances because the Judge improperly refused to hear evidence from Melissa about the potential effects that this visitation with Larissa could have on her eldest son. Such new evidence could include the time that Larissa has been absent from the child’s life, due to this ongoing litigation. The case will return to Baltimore County Circuit Court where a judge will have to listen to all evidence to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist to order visitation between Larissa and the child.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 25, 2009 in Violation of Probation

As a Baltimore Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney, I regularly see defendants who are improperly represented in Maryland District Courts by attorneys who do not specialize in the representation of people charged with criminal and serious traffic offenses. I blog about this issue fairly often because it troubles me greatly when I see attorneys who do not specialize in criminal and serious traffic offenses, make mistakes (also known as malpractice) that no specialist would ever make. Sometimes these mistakes go without consequence. Sometimes they cost their client’s dearly. I was recently retained in a case where the latter scenario played out. (To research a Maryland attorney’s qualifications in a particular area of the law and/or jurisdiction go to the Maryland Judiciary Case Search Web Site at http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp)

The client was charged with a DWI/DUI about a year ago. This charge represented his first Maryland DWI/DUI offense. Prior to this situation, he had been represented by an attorney in a divorce case. He had never had the need for an attorney prior to his divorce, so this attorney was the only one that he knew. So when he was again in need of an attorney he did what most people in his situation would have. He called his divorce attorney. This attorney, of course, told him that in addition to being a divorce attorney, he was also a criminal/serious traffic attorney and was “more than qualified” to handle this case. While this statement was not an outright falsehood, ( according to Maryland Judiciary Case Search, this attorney handles roughly 20-25 criminal/ serious traffic cases per year) he is hardly a specialist.

From the client’s perspective, and probably from the attorney’s perspective, his representation of the client appeared to have gone quite well. The case was scheduled in the District Court for Baltimore City in Patapsco. The case proceeded by way of a guilty plea because the attorney had correctly determined (in my estimation) that there was not a viable defense to the charge. As a sentence, the client received probation before judgement with 18 months of supervised probation. He was minimally fined and would not get any points on his license as a result of this case. GREAT JOB by the attorney, right? Not so fast.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 25, 2009 in Child Custody

Clients often ask if their soon to be ex-spouse, ex-spouse or co-parent of their child(ren) will be able to change a custody order after it is entered at their free will whenever they want to? The answer is that the other parent may file with the Court to modify the existing order at anytime. Meeting the two-prong test required to change and/or modify custody is however not an easy task. First, the moving party must show a material change in circumstances. That begs the question, what is a material change in circumstance? There are a number of cases which assist us in defining it, but generally speaking it is one or a combination of the following: a significant change that occurred since the entry of the initial order; something material that was unknown at the time the initial order was passed has since come to light; and/or something since the entry of the Order is adversely impacting or could adversely impact the welfare of the child(ren).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 20, 2009 in Proof

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney/lawyer I represent many individuals who are charged with DUI or DWI while they are on probation for another crime. That person may be on probation for a prior Maryland DUI or DWI case or they may be on probation for a criminal case. The latter situation was what I was confronted with in Baltimore County Circuit Court last week. In this case my client was on probation for domestic violence and was facing up to six years in prision if he were to violate his probation. There is no easier way to violate one’s probation than to receive a subsequent conviction, even for a serious traffic matter (generally speaking court’s will not violate probation for non-jailable traffic offenses such as speeding). In this case the stakes were even higher than normal because the client was very much on the domestic violence team’s radar and they were chomping at the bit to request a violation of probation if he were to be convicted of the DUI and had let me know that they intended to seek the entire 6 year sentence on the violation. Needless to say, a plea bargain was not an option in this case.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 30, 2009 in Child Abuse

As a full time Baltimore Maryland Criminal Lawyer/Attorney I handle dozens of Child Abuse cases each year without ever achieving a result as bad as the one that I will discuss in detail in this blog. In this case I was hired only after the client had gone through most of the process with another attorney and was obviously dissatisfied with the result. In these situations I usually tactfully ask the client what if any research they did on their attorney to determine whether he was a criminal law specialist and therefore sufficiently experienced to handle the case. I usually get little more than a blank stare in response as I did in this case. I have blogged about this issue in the past and am continually amazed at the lack of effort some criminal defendants put into the search for a qualified criminal defense attorney. It seems that most people just go to whomever they are referred to or the first name in the phone book and never even bother to ask the attorney about his qualifications much less do any independent research into them.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 23, 2009 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

As A Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney/Lawyer I represent many people charged with either handgun offenses or violations of the State’s narcotics aka controlled dangerous substance laws. More often than not, so long as the defendant does not have an extensive criminal history, these matters can be resolved without the defendant having to serve much or any time in prison, even assuming that the State can prove the case. However, when a person gets charged with possession of firearms and felony narcotics offenses at the same time, things get a lot trickier.

This is because under Maryland Law and Federal Law there are minimum mandatory sentences that must be served without the possibility of parole associated with trafficking narcotics with a firearm – even for first offenders. Perhaps more surprisingly, these laws apply to the possession of any firearm and not simply handguns or regulated firearms such as assault weapons. So while a convicted felon may be in possession of a shotgun without violating Maryland Law (shotgun possession by a convicted felon is a violation of Federal Law) a person with no record who is caught trafficking narcotics with a shotgun would be in violation of these laws and face the mandatory penalties just the same as if he were caught with a handgun or an assault weapon; and the penalty is a stiff one indeed. Any person in Maryland who is convicted of trafficking narcotics with a firearm faces a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison but the real meat in the statute is that the convicted defendant faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison without the possibility of parole. I currently represent a person who finds himself in this exact predicament. I will explain the facts and then get into what exactly the State must prove to convict my client or any other similarly situated defendant of this charge.

My client came under surveillance by the police as a result of a tip provided by a confidential informant. The police watched him engage in what they believed to be behavior indicative of street level distribution of narcotics over a period of several days. During this time they also watched him go in at night and out in the morning a certain address in West Baltimore. Importantly, the police never witnessed any suspicious activity on or around this address. In spite of this fact, the detectives applied for and received a search and seizure warrant for that address.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 23, 2009 in Child Custody

Many clients incorrectly assume that mothers are favored over fathers in a custody case. The truth is that the “tender years doctrine,” has been abolished in all fifty states as it violates constitutional law. This doctrine, which is what many clients are relying on when assuming that a mother may be favored over a father, stated that young children should be placed with their mother unless she was unfit. Since the abolishment of this doctrine in Maryland, neither parent is given preference for custody based on exclusively their gender.

In Maryland, the standard that is used when determining custody of a child is the “best interest standard.” This is a standard in which Judges consider a number of factors such as the parents fitness, relationship of child and parents, children’s current environment, ability to maintain natural family relationships, who has been the primary care giver, wishes of child in some circumstances, any agreement the parents have made, prior abandonment of a child by a parent, the age and health of the child, and many, many other factors to determine what custody arrangement would be in the best interest of the child.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 22, 2009 in Protective Orders

If the respondent (alleged abuser) in a protective order proceeding has a protective order entered against them, what are the petitioner’s (alleged victim of abuse) options if the respondent violates the order? A violation of the protective order is any action the respondent takes that violates the provisions the judge ordered at the time of the hearing (no contact, no abuse, no harassment, emergency family maintenance, drug/alcohol/anger counseling). This violation can occur in an interim, temporary or final protective order situation (see August 16, 2009 blog for more information on types of protective orders).

Although the protective order is civil in nature, the violations of certain safety provisions of the order are considered criminal violations. If the respondent violates the provisions of the protective order that order no contact, no harassment, no abuse, the petitioner has the option of calling the police, or filing charges on their own. If the police witness the violation or have enough evidence to believe the violation occurred, they have the authority to arrest the respondent. The petitioner also has the option of filing criminal charges with the commissioner. A conviction for a violation of a protective order can result in imprisonment and/or fining of the respondent. Specifically, for a first offense, a fine is not to exceed $1,000.00 and imprisonment is not to exceed 90 days, and for a second or subsequent offense, a fine is not to exceed $2,500.00 and imprisonment is not to exceed one year.

If the respondent violates the provisions of the protective that are more civil in nature such as provisions ordering emergency family maintenance, child custody or access issues, or to attend counseling then this violation is civil in nature, although the safety provisions can also be civil violations. Therefore, the petitioner may file a petition for contempt with the court. Maryland Code, Family Law § 4-508

Continue Reading ››