Thursday, December 13, 2018

TASC Diversion Program

If you are charged with a first or second felony drug possession crime in Maricopa County, you are probably eligible for the Treatment Assessment Screening Center (TASC) diversion program.  TASC diversion gives you an opportunity to avoid having a felony conviction for drug possession. Below is more information taken directly from their website at www.tascsolutions.org:ty “With an average success rate of 75 percent, a long-term study by Arizona State University indicates that participants successfully completing the TASC adult diversion program have a significantly lower rate of recidivism than non-participants. To date, more than 34,000 successful cases have been treated through TASC Diversion, saving county resources and allowing participants to avoid a felony conviction. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) offers TASC Diversion to individuals who:

  1. Face felony drug possession charge(s)
  2. Do NOT contest their guilt
  3. Would likely benefit from a community treatment program
Through close communication with the MCAO, TASC’s deferred prosecution program provides programming to meet each individual’s needs. Those who voluntarily participate and successfully complete TASC Diversion will either have the case dropped with no charges filed or have the charges dismissed with prejudice.” The website then discusses their possession of marijuana and possession of a narcotic or dangerous drug programs: “POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA PROGRAM Those dealing with marijuana charges will take part in the Possession of Marijuana program for up to six months. This includes drug screening, education and counseling.

3-Hour Drug Education Seminar

Clients are required to attend the drug education seminar one time.

Substance Abuse Counseling

If a client shows a new usage for marijuana or tests positive for any other illegal substance (including prescription drugs that are not verified with a valid prescription), the client will be referred for substance abuse counseling assessment and services (group or individual sessions). POSSESSION OF NARCOTIC OR DANGEROUS DRUGS PROGRAM Individuals enrolled in the Possession of Narcotic or Dangerous Drugs program participate for at least one year and have monthly contact with case managers. This program includes screening, education, counseling and self-help meetings.

3-Hour Drug Education Seminar

Clients are required to attend the drug education seminar one time.

Substance Abuse Counseling

Individuals will be referred for substance abuse counseling assessment and services (group or individual sessions) while in the program. All clients must successfully complete substance abuse counseling.

Self-Help/Support Group Meetings

Clients must attend 12-step meetings with AA, NA, CMA or a similar organization. Meetings are held seven days a week and are free to attend. Clients are not restricted to a certain meeting (e.g., if they have a cocaine charge, the client doesn’t have to attend NA) and are encouraged to try different options until they feel comfortable with one. TASC recommends clients obtain a sponsor for additional support when needed.

Monthly Contact

Each person who enters the program is assigned a case manager. Throughout the duration of the program, clients are required to maintain monthly contact with case managers to discuss meeting program requirements. Depending on the client’s progress and his or her proximity to the assigned case manager, phone or email contact may be acceptable options. Besides monitoring and tracking client involvement, the case manager is also a source of support and provides community referrals as needed.” Should you agree to TASC diversion?  Only an experienced attorney can help you answer that question.  Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience. Please call him today for a free consultation.

TASC Diversion Program Read more on: LawOfficesGaryRohlwing

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/law-offices-gary-rohlwing/tasc-diversion-program/

Friday, December 7, 2018

Planet Defendant: Diplomacy

Diplomacy is a lost art both in science fiction and the real world. The Star Trek and Star Wars movies deal with the results of failed diplomacy: armed conflicts and wars. In the real world, we see more and more failures of diplomacy in our country. One example is our fractured political process where Democrats and Republicans want to bully each other instead of engaging in diplomacy to solve pressing problems. If you try to represent yourself after being charged with a crime, you will have to be a diplomat on Planet Defendant. You will have to diplomatically interact with a prosecutor, a judge, and court personnel. If you go to trial, you will have to diplomatically interact with witnesses and a jury. “Diplomatically interact” means that you must advocate on your own behalf without angering, confusing or alienating anyone. Before trial, the most important person is the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides what to charge and whether or not to offer a plea agreement. The prosecutor is a human being with feelings like everyone else. Bullying or blowing your top in person or via email is not diplomatic. You run a huge risk that the prosecutor will take offense and refuse to change a plea or offer a plea at all. The prosecutor’s offense probably would spill over and infect your trial resulting in a guilty verdict with a stiff sentence. Another important area of pretrial diplomacy concerns the judge. The judge may issue pretrial orders such as requiring your appearance at court dates or requiring you to be fingerprinted. You may find these orders silly, inconvenient, and/or confusing. That’s no excuse to ignore them. You must diplomatically obey the judge’s pretrial orders. It may be tempting to vent your feelings on court personnel.  Don’t do it! Court personnel are there to process defendants and paperwork through the criminal justice system.  They are not therapists or friends. You must deal with them diplomatically. Interviewing witnesses before trial requires an intense level of diplomacy. It’s intense because every witness is unique and has his or her own attitude towards you and testifying. Some witnesses want to help you and don’t mind testifying. Others don’t want to be interviewed and don’t want to testify. You will need all the diplomacy you can muster to deal with these witnesses. At trial, the judge will expect you to perform as if you really are a defense attorney. Your diplomacy before the judge will be on display to the jury and the prosecutor. The prosecutor will probably do something in his or her presentation of the case that will irritate, anger, and/or confuse you which will require more diplomacy on your part. The jury ultimately is the most important because they will decide your guilt or innocence. As with witnesses, every juror is unique and has his or her own attitude towards jury duty and your case.  You must diplomatically balance your dual roles of defendant and defense attorney before the jury. Diplomacy when representing yourself can be frustrating, stressful and exhausting.  You need an experienced defense attorney who will be your diplomat throughout the process.  Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience being a diplomat in the Arizona criminal justice system.  Please call him today for a free consultation.

The blog post Planet Defendant: Diplomacy See more on: Blog

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/uncategorized/planet-defendant-diplomacy/

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

New 2018 Arizona Criminal Laws

The Arizona Legislature adjourned on May 3, 2018. Most of the new laws they passed take effect on August 3, 2018.  The legislature created a new civil traffic violation and two new vehicular crimes. They also amended a key definition and fixed a problem for prisoners. A.R.S. §28-694 was added to make it a civil traffic violation to drive the wrong way on a controlled access highway. A person found responsible is subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars and must attend and successfully complete approved traffic survival school educational sessions that are designed to improve the safety and habits of drivers. The legislature also amended the aggravated driving under the influence statute, A.R.S. §28-1383, to make driving the wrong way on a highway while driving under the influence a felony.   A.R.S. §28-675 was amended to make it a Class 3 felony for a person who caused a death by use of a vehicle if his or her privilege to drive was suspended due to driving under the influence or  failure to provide proof of financial responsibility. The sentence shall be consecutive to any other sentence imposed and restitution may be ordered. The term of imprisonment for this new felony is 2 to 8.75 years.   A.R.S. §13-1401 definition of “sexual contact” was amended by adding that it “does not include direct or indirect touching or manipulating during caretaking responsibilities, or interactions with a minor or vulnerable adult that an objective, reasonable person would recognize as normal and reasonable under the circumstances.”   A.R.S. §13-717 was added to fix the problem of illusory parole. The law reads: “A.  Notwithstanding any other law, a person who was convicted of first degree murder and who was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum number of calendar years pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a stipulation to parole eligibility is eligible for parole after serving the minimum number of calendar years that is specified in the sentence.  If granted parole, the person shall remain on parole for the remainder of the person’s life except that the person’s parole may be revoked pursuant to section 31-415. B. This section applies to a defendant who entered into a plea agreement that stipulated to parole eligibility and who was sentenced at any time from and after January 1, 1994 and on or before the effective date of this section.” If you are charged with one of the new crimes, you need an experienced defense attorney to fight for you.  Attorney Gary Rohlwing has been representing people for over 30 years. Please call him today for a free consultation.

The article New 2018 Arizona Criminal Laws is republished from GaryRohlwingLawOffices

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/law-offices-gary-rohlwing/new-2018-arizona-criminal-laws/

Monday, November 19, 2018

FOUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments.  Prisoners on death row argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment.  The United States Supreme Court has held that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute prisoners who have intellectual disabilities or who committed their crimes when they were juveniles.  Prisoners also often argue that various prison punishments or conditions violate the Eighth Amendment.  Solitary confinement is a prison punishment that may one day be found to violate the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment does not give examples of cruel and unusual punishment nor does it discuss how to determine if a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.  In his concurring opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan discussed four guiding principles used to determine whether a punishment violates the 8th Amendment in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/case.html: “The primary principle is that a punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human beings. Pain, certainly, may be a factor in the judgment. . . “  408 U.S. 238, 271. . . . More than the presence of pain, however, is comprehended in the judgment that the extreme severity of a punishment makes it degrading to the dignity of human beings. The barbaric punishments condemned by history, 'punishments which inflict torture, such as the rack, the thumb-screw, the iron boot, the stretching of limbs, and the like,' are, of course, 'attended with acute pain and suffering.' O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 339, 12 S.Ct. 693, 699, 36 L.Ed. 450 (1892) (Field, J., dissenting). When we consider why they have been condemned, however, we realize that the pain involved is not the only reason. The true significance of these punishments is that they treat members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. They are thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being possessed of common human dignity.  408 U.S. 238, 272-273. . . . In determining whether a punishment comports with human dignity, we are aided also by a second principle inherent in the Clause—that the State must not arbitrarily inflict a severe punishment. This principle derives from the notion that the State does not respect human dignity when, without reason, it inflicts upon some people a severe punishment that it does not inflict upon others. Indeed, the very words 'cruel and unusual punishments' imply condemnation of the arbitrary infliction of severe punishments. . . 408 U.S. 238, 274. . . .   A third principle inherent in the Clause is that a severe punishment must not be unacceptable to contemporary society. Rejection by society, of course, is a strong indication that a severe punishment does not comport with human dignity. In applying this principle, however, we must make certain that the judicial determination is as objective as possible.  408 U.S. 238, 277. . . . The final principle inherent in the Clause is that a severe punishment must not be excessive. A punishment is excessive under this principle if it is unnecessary: The infliction of a severe punishment by the State cannot comport with human dignity when it is nothing more than the pointless infliction of suffering. If there is a significantly less severe punishment adequate to achieve the purposes for which the punishment is inflicted, cf. Robinson v. California, supra, at 666, 82 S.Ct., at 1420; id., at 677, 82 S.Ct., at 1426 (Douglas, J., concurring); Trop v. Dulles, supra, 356 U.S., at 114, 78 S.Ct., at 605 (Brennan, J., concurring), the punishment inflicted is unnecessary and therefore excessive. . . 408 U.S. 238, 279. The State sometimes is so zealous in prosecuting people that it seems like they have violated the Eighth Amendment.  While it’s doubtful that the State has actually violated the Eighth Amendment, you need an experienced defense attorney to fight for you.  Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience.  Call him today for a free consultation.

FOUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT Read more on: http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/law-offices-gary-rohlwing/four-guiding-principles-of-the-eighth-amendment/

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Hidalgo v. Arizona: Challenging Arizona’s Death Penalty Schem

The Arizona Revised Statutes state that first degree murder and any murder committed during the commission of 22 different felonies are eligible for the death penalty.  A.R.S. § 13-751 sets out fourteen aggravating circumstances for a jury to consider. If a jury finds at least one of the aggravating circumstances and then determines that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, it shall impose the death penalty.  The Arizona Legislature established the aggravating circumstances in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988). Abel Hidalgo killed two people in Maricopa County.  He pled guilty but a jury decided whether he should receive the death penalty.  The jury found four aggravating factors and sentenced him to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence.  These facts and the arguments below are from his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court filed on August 14, 2017 which is found at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/17-251-petition.pdf Hidalgo argued that A.R.S. § 13-751 violated the Eighth Amendment because it didn’t narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty, arbitrarily enabled racial disparities, and relied on county resources (or lack thereof) instead of characteristics of the offense: “. . . Petitioner in this case set out evidence demonstrating that the aggravating circumstances serve no narrowing function at all because “virtually every first degree murder case [in Arizona] presents facts that could support at least one [of the legislature’s] aggravating circumstance[s].”  Pet. App. 11a. The Arizona Supreme Court did not dispute the accuracy of this claim; it approved the trial court’s decision to “deny[] an evidentiary hearing and instead [to] assume [] the truth of Hidalgo’s factual assertions.” Id. at 4a-7a.  But it held that Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme is nonetheless consistent with the Eighth Amendment.  That holding is plainly incompatible with this Court’s insistence that a statutory scheme must limit the class of death-eligible defendants.  See, e.g., Zant, 462 U.S. at 878.  (p.p. 12-13). “First, the arbitrariness of Arizona’s scheme enables troubling racial disparities.  Arizona follows the national trend in that “individuals accused of murdering white victims, as opposed to black or other minority victims, are more likely to receive the death penalty.”  Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2760 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting).  One study published in 1997 demonstrated that “white-victim homicides in Arizona are much more likely to result in death sentences than minority-victim homicides.”  Ernie Thomson, Discrimination and the Death Penalty in Arizona, 22 Crim. Just. Rev. 65, 73 (1997).  “Minorities accused of killing whites are more than three times as likely to be sentenced to death as minorities accused of killing other minorities. (6.7% vs. 2.0%).”  Id.  And a Hispanic man accused of killing a white man is 4.6 times as likely to be sentenced to death as a whit man accused of killing a Hispanic victim.  See Id. These problems have persisted since that study was published.  In Maricopa County—where Hidalgo was tried and convicted—18% of the defendants sentenced to death were black, even though black people comprise just 6% of the population.  Fair Punishment Project, Too Broken to Fix: Part I: An In-Depth Look at America’s Outlier Death Penalty Counties 12 (2016) (hereinafter “FPP Report”).  In all, 57% of the defendants sentenced to death between 2010 and 2015 were people of color.  Id. at 11. In short, the failure of Arizona to narrow the class of offenders eligible for the death penalty has allowed for bias in its imposition. Second Arizona’s death penalty turns on accidents of geography and county resources, rather than the characteristics of the offense.  Hidalgo adduced evidence that, because of financial limitations, several counties were unable to pursue the death penalty even in cases with facts far more heinous than in his own.  Pet. App. 14a-15a, 34a. Maricopa County (where Hidalgo was tried) is on the other end of the spectrum: it imposed the death penalty at a rate 2.3 times higher than the rest of Arizona between 2010 and 2015.  FPP Report at 8. That was driven in part by a particularly zealous County Attorney, who was disbarred in 2012 because he had “outrageously exploited power, flagrantly fostered fear, and disgracefully misused the law.”  In re Thomas, No. PDJ-2011-9002 at 8.  The happenstance of geography is no way to “rationally distinguish between those individuals for whom death is an appropriate sanction and those for whom it is not.”  Spaziano, 468 U.S. at 460.”  (p.p. 19-21). Hidalgo’s Petition is currently pending in the United States Supreme Court. A.R.S. § 13-751 isn’t the only statute that lists aggravating circumstances.  A.R.S. § 13-701(D) lists 26 aggravating circumstances that can be used to impose a higher sentence on a person convicted of a felony.  The aggravating circumstances are similar to those found in A.R.S. § 13-751. If the Supreme Court decides to hear Hidalgo, it could potentially decide that all or part of these statutes are unconstitutional. If you are charged with a felony, the prosecutor will probably argue that one or more of the aggravating circumstances found in A.R.S. § 13-701(D) apply.  You need an experienced defense attorney to fight for you. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades experience. Call him today for a free initial consultation.

The following blog post Hidalgo v. Arizona: Challenging Arizona’s Death Penalty Schem is courtesy of http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/hidalgo-v-arizona-challenging-arizonas-death-penalty-schem/

Monday, November 5, 2018

Arizona Town Hall: Why Do People Return to Prison?

Arizona has turned its attention to re-entry and recidivism of former prisoners.  One organization that is studying the issue is Arizona Town Hall. The following is taken from “Re-Entry and Recidivism” by Kevin Wright, PhD, Criminal Justice in Arizona 2018, Arizona Town Hall http://www.aztownhall.org/resources/Documents/111%20Criminal%20Justice%20in%20Arizona%20Background%20Report%20web.pdf Why do people return to prison?  Traditional explanations such as “crime as a choice” and “crime is all they know” don’t really get us that far.  In the summer of 2017, researchers from Arizona State University worked with incarcerated men to develop and implement a study that would ask them why they were in prison.  They completed 409 interviews in two months at the medium-security East Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex at Florence. The report was shared with the Governor’s Office. Early in the interview, the incarcerated men were asked:  Why do you think most people come back to prison. Several themes emerged:

  • 44% said a lack of resources or programming contributed to recidivism.  One respondent stated, “Because they are not adequately prepared for reentry into society, because they have not made successful and dedicated transformation from their old lifestyle to one that would keep them out of prison.”
  • 27% said drug and alcohol use.  As a respondent remarked, “A lot of felons have serious drug addiction problems. . . When addicts get out, there aren’t any affordable treatment options.”
  • The third most common theme was an inability to change thinking and behavior or resorting to comfort.  This was best captured by the respondent who said: “Lack of education, skills, and a desire to succeed. They stay in here for a long time, get complacent and [there isn’t] any real type of job training to teach them how to be successful. So, they revert back to crime (what they know) because they’re unprepared for society. … Prison isn’t much of a deterrent anymore when someone isn’t taught how to live.”
  • Other themes that emerged included lack of a support system/mentor (16 percent), lack of education (15 percent), money issues (14 percent), stigma (14 percent), and peers, neighborhood or family environment (12 percent).
62% of the 409 men interviewed were recidivists.  Compared to first time prisoners, they were more likely to believe they had a substance abuse problem (52% to 35%) and more likely to not know where they would live upon release (31% to 17%).  They were statistically significantly more likely to report needing assistance with obtaining identification, transportation, housing, childcare, family and friend support, meals, employment, mentorship, substance abuse, healthcare and religious services. If you are a former prisoner and facing new charges, you need an experienced defense attorney to represent you.  Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience representing former prisoners facing new charges. Please call him today for a free consultation.

The following post Arizona Town Hall: Why Do People Return to Prison? is republished from www.criminal-duiattorney.com/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/law-offices-gary-rohlwing/arizona-town-hall-why-do-people-return-to-prison/

Saturday, November 3, 2018

Arizona Town Hall: Sentencing

Arizona is a law and order state with some of the harshest sentencing laws in the country.  Several criminal justice groups from the left and the right have taken notice. One of these groups is Arizona Town Hall.  The following is taken from “Sentencing and Incarceration” by Cassia Spohn, PhD, Criminal Justice in Arizona 2018, Arizona Town Hall http://www.aztownhall.org/resources/Documents/111%20Criminal%20Justice%20in%20Arizona%20Background%20Report%20web.pdf   In Arizona, judges use the Arizona sentencing guidelines which are based on two factors: whether the offense is a dangerous or non-dangerous felony and whether the defendant is a first time offender or a repeat offender. Dangerous felony charges are serious, violent or aggravated offenses such as murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, dangerous crimes against children, and armed robbery.  There are separate sentencing tables for first time offenders, offenders with one or two historical priors and offenders with prior convictions for one or more dangerous offenses. Each sentencing table has a minimum, presumptive, and maximum sentence. For repeat dangerous offenders, the sentencing table has a minimum, maximum, and increased maximum sentence. For example, a first time offender convicted of a class 2 felony dangerous offense could face a minimum sentence of seven years, a presumptive sentence of 10.5 years, or a maximum sentence of 21 years.  However, an offender convicted of a class 2 felony dangerous offense who had previously been convicted of two or more class 2 dangerous offenses would be facing a minimum sentence of 21 years, a presumptive sentence of 28 years, or a maximum sentence of 35 years. Offenders convicted of non-dangerous felonies are somewhat different. Although these offenses are also categorized by the class of offense and by the offender’s criminal history, the sentencing tables provide a mitigated and aggravated sentence in addition to the minimum, presumptive and maximum sentences. As an example, a first time offender convicted of a non-dangerous class 2 felony would be facing a minimum sentence of four years, a presumptive sentence of five years, or a maximum sentence of 10 years.  If the judge finds at least two mitigating factors, like the defendant’s youth or the defendant played a minor role in the crime, the judge can reduce the sentence below the minimum sentence. Similarly, if there are at least two aggravating factors, such as the defendant had an accomplice or the crime was committed in a heinous, cruel or depraved manner, the judge can increase the sentence above the recommended maximum sentence. Moreover, all first-time, non-dangerous felony offenders are eligible for probation. The author wrote: “Arizona has a “truth-in-sentencing” statute. Passed in 1993, the statute requires that offenders serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed by the judge before being eligible for discretionary release. According to The Sentencing Project, Arizona’s incarceration rate is the forth-highest in the United States. In 2016 it was 585 per 100,000 population, compared to a rate of 450 per 100,000 for the United States as a whole. There were 40,952 persons imprisoned in Arizona in 2015, including 1,685 (3.9 percent of the prison population) who were serving life sentences and 504 (1.2 percent of the prison population) who were serving life sentences with no possibility of parole.” Arizona’s harsh sentencing laws mean that it’s very important for a person charged with a felony or felonies hire an experienced defense attorney to represent them.  Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over thirty years of experience representing people charged with felonies. Please call him today for a free initial consultation.

Arizona Town Hall: Sentencing is available on Our Blog

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/law-offices-gary-rohlwing/arizona-town-hall-sentencing/

Thursday, October 25, 2018

MCAO Crime Strategies Group

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has started a new group called the Crime Strategies Group.  The following information is from “Intelligence Focused Prosecution at the MCAO”, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Justice for All September 2018 newsletter https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/CivicSend/ViewMessage/Message?id=66664 The Crime Strategies Group has detectives, paralegals, prosecutors, and analysts who use technology and information sharing to identify crime trends and patterns.  Analysts work directly with law enforcement and the community to achieve successful results. After analyzing and categorizing material related to offenses and offenders, it is communicated to prosecutors so criminals and criminal activity can be stopped as soon as possible.  This system is called Intelligence Focused Prosecution (IFP). The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is one of the few prosecutor offices in the nation to use it. The Crime Strategies Group has thirteen members including crime and intel analysts, a drug intel analyst, a paralegal, and an information systems analyst.  They use a robust group of tools and information to help them identify problems, analyze data, respond, and then assess and process the results. The IFP system is based on teams and group sharing of data and information with local law enforcement agencies.  Geographically assigned prosecutors familiarize themselves with the community drivers in their assigned area and work with police and the assigned crime analysts to best address the problems and offenders. The article describes how the IFP system works: “Analysts conduct research using criminal histories, social media, open sources and plain old gumshoe detective work which often means picking up the phone and calling a detective or analyst in the city next door. The information gleaned from these sources is confirmed and vetted, and when compiled into reports, helps provide prosecutors with the rest of the story. These partnerships often result in success stories between MCAO crime analysts, prosecutors and law enforcement, much like a recent case in the West Valley that you can read more about in the following article. Looking forward, IFP will continue to create assessments based on crime data and law enforcement information to identify areas of emphasis. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery knows the IFP model will allow the Office to reduce crime, enhance public safety and ensure protection to victims, “We will continue to evolve as a strategic focused organization. This IFP approach allows us to get the most effective and meaningful response for public safety. Our crime analysts are the best of the best and their expertise gives our prosecutors focused information to help make the most important decisions.” If you are charged with one or more felonies based on work done by the MCAO Crime Strategies Group, you need an experienced defense attorney.  Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over thirty years of experience. Call him today for a free consultation.

The following post MCAO Crime Strategies Group was originally seen on GaryRohlwingLawOffices

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/law-offices-gary-rohlwing/mcao-crime-strategies-group/

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Arizona Town Hall Report Summary

The Arizona criminal justice system has received a lot of scrutiny recently from various groups. One of these groups is Arizona Town Hall. Arizona Town Hall recently completed a report on criminal justice in Arizona. The following is from Criminal Justice in Arizona, Summary of the Arizona Town Hall Report, March 2018 found at http://www.aztownhall.org/resources/Documents/111%20Criminal%20Justice%20In%20Arizona%20Key%20Facts%20web.pdf

The Arizona Town Hall summary brief gives some highlights from the full Arizona Town Hall report on criminal justice in Arizona.  

In Arizona, the number of crimes committed has declined for years even as the population has increased.  The crime rate has declined by over one-third since 2006. Unfortunately, incarceration rates have gone up during the same time period.  The vast majority of cases heard by the courts are minor traffic and civil cases. Total costs of the Arizona criminal justice system average approximately $525 for every man, woman, and child every year. There are approximately 15,000 sworn law enforcement officer in Arizona’s over 140 different police agencies.  Crime rates have decreased even though the number of officers per 1,000 residents in Phoenix has gone down since 2008.  The connection, if any, between these statistics is unclear. Poor people often cannot make bail while waiting for their trials.  Research shows that bail does little to ensure that defendants return for trial.  Reforms are being implemented to make the imposition of bail more equitable and to reduce people awaiting trial in jail. Prosecutors have wide discretion in deciding what charges to press against a defendant.  The decision not to charge may be the most powerful tool of the prosecutor. Although the initial charges filed may not be the ones that are eventually brought to trial, they influence key decisions on bail, plea bargains, and sentencing.  The development of charging guidelines could reduce seemingly arbitrary charges. “Determinate sentencing” such as Arizona’s rigid sentencing laws has resulted in a transfer of power from judges to prosecutors since the charges filed by the prosecutor now largely determine the sentence.  The increase in Arizona’s prison population is the result of changes in sentencing policy, not changes in crime. Arizona has the 4th highest incarceration rate in the country at 585 per 100,000 population. 18 percent of those released return to prison within six months.  Arizona’s three-year recidivism rate of 39 percent is lower than the national average of 50 percent.  Those returning to society after prison often lack the resources to establish themselves in the outside world.  Access to transportation, employment, and health care may help reduce recidivism. The Arizona criminal justice system raises the following questions:
  • Has the crime rate decreased due to the increase in imprisonments or is something more complex at work?
  • When does the use of force by police officers cross the line from legitimate authority to abuse of power?
  • Does imposing bail really ensure that defendants return for trial?
  • How much discretion should prosecutors exercise when filing chages?
  • Do mandatory sentencing rules reduce crime or are they unnecessarily inflexible?
Don’t face the Arizona criminal justice system alone.  Hire an experienced defense attorney. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over 30 years experience defending people in the Arizona criminal justice system.  Please call him today for a free consultation.

The blog post Arizona Town Hall Report Summary Read more on: www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/domestic-violence/arizona-town-hall-report-summary/

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Planet Defendant: Search and Seizure

Being charged with a crime can feel like being transported to another world called Planet Defendant. Like all worlds, Planet Defendant has its own customs and procedures that one should learn. A very important custom and procedure on Planet Defendant is called search and seizure. Search and seizure comes from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
  The Arizona State Constitution has a similar provision found in Article 2, Sec. 8:
“8. Right to privacy Section 8. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”
Many constitutional challenges under search and seizure involve warrantless searches. Whether or not a warrantless search and seizure violates the Fourth Amendment and/or Article 2, Sec. 8 depends on the particular facts of a case. Some of the particular facts are:
  • A person’s status such as arrestee, probationer, homeowner, guest, driver, vehicle owner, or passenger;
  • A person’s initial actions that attracted law enforcement attention;
  • A person’s actions during the search and seizure such as consenting or seeming to consent to the search;
  • Law enforcement’s actions during the search and seizure;
  • Nature of what is being searched such as a home, hotel room, business, vehicle, backpack, luggage, or purse; and
  • Whether there is valid probable cause for the search.
  If a court determines that the particular facts of a case violate either the Fourth Amendment or Article 2, Sec. 8, it then decides whether the prosecution’s argument(s) that an exception applies so that the warrantless search and seizure is constitutional after all. Some exceptions are search incident to arrest, plain view doctrine, and good faith doctrine. In the 18th century, the Founding Fathers did not have computers, smartphones, gps, and the internet. The United States Supreme Court is continuously redefining what constitutes search and seizure when it comes to modern technology. Law enforcement must have a search warrant in order to search a person’s smartphone according to Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014). Law enforcement must also have a warrant to collect location data about cellphone company customers pursuant to Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. __ (2018). Finally, law enforcement must obtain a warrant to put a GPS tracking device on a vehicle to monitor the vehicle’s movements according to United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012). Search and seizure is a complex constitutional doctrine. If your case has a warrantless search and seizure, you need an experienced defense attorney to determine whether it was constitutional. Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing Criminal Lawyer has over thirty years experience. Call him today for a free consultation.  

The article Planet Defendant: Search and Seizure is republished from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/planet-defendant-search-and-seizure/

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Planet Defendant: Due Process

Being charged with a crime can feel like being transported to another world called Planet Defendant. Like all worlds, Planet Defendant has its own customs and procedures that one should learn. A very important custom and procedure on Planet Defendant is called due process of law. Due process of law comes from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Fifth Amendment applies to Arizona criminal court proceedings because the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Moreover, the Arizona State Constitution has a due process clause found in Article 2, Sec. 4. Therefore, due process of law is a federal and state right. Due process of law basically means that a person accused of a crime is treated fairly throughout the criminal proceedings against him. It includes procedural due process such as procedures concerning notice, presenting evidence on his own behalf, and challenging evidence against him. It also includes substantive due process such as fundamental fairness and a meaningful hearing. “Fundamental fairness” and “meaningful hearing” are incapable of precise definition; they are intended to be fuzzy and flexible since it is impossible to accurately define and know the myriad ways that a prosecutor or court could appear to give a person accused of a crime procedural due process yet act in such a way that is fundamentally unfair and renders the hearing or trial meaningless. A court not allowing a person accused of a crime enough time to present his defense would violate the fundamental fairness substantive due process of law. Moreover, a court deliberately ignoring exculpatory evidence presented at trial would violate the meaningful hearing substantive due process of law. Due process of law is generally the right to notice and a meaningful hearing or trial before a fair and impartial judge wherein the accused may present evidence and witnesses in his defense, cross-examine witnesses and challenge evidence against him, and present arguments and law in his defense. The specific procedures used to notify the accused and conduct the hearing or trial are based on the type of hearing or trial. Some examples are:

  • Felony indictment or complaint in superior court gives rise to right to a jury trial;
  • Misdemeanor complaint in city or justice court gives rise to right to a jury or nonjury trial depending on the nature of the charge;
  • Motion for Release on Bail gives rise to a bail release hearing;
  • Petition to revoke probation gives rise to a right to a probation revocation hearing.
  • Designation of an offense as a Class 6 felony instead of a misdemeanor gives rise to the right to receive actual notice and an opportunity to be heard;
  • Motion for an Examination of a Defendant’s Competence to Stand Trial gives rise to a hearing.
Interestingly, due process of law does not apply to every type of criminal procedure. A person on probation who files a petition to terminate probation does not have a due process right to a hearing. Nor does a person seeking or wishing to modify pretrial release conditions. Due process of law is a complex constitutional doctrine. If you are charged with a crime, you need an experienced defense attorney to make sure that your right to due process of law is not violated. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over thirty years experience. Call him today for a free consultation.

The article Planet Defendant: Due Process Find more on: Our Blog

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/planet-defendant-due-process/

Friday, September 7, 2018

Planet Defendant: Right to an Attorney

Being charged with a crime can feel like being transported to another world called Planet Defendant. Like all worlds, Planet Defendant has its own customs and procedures that one should learn. A very important custom and procedure on Planet Defendant is called right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that the accused in all criminal prosecutions shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Article 2, Section 24 of the Arizona State Constitution provides that the accused shall have the right to appear and defend by counsel. Federal courts debated for decades whether the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney applied to state court proceedings via the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1963, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney applied to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/case.html The Court quoted Mr. Justice Sutherland in Powell v. Alabama on the importance of a lawyer representing an accused:

“The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.'287 U.S., at 68—69, 53 S.Ct., at 64, 77 L.Ed. 158.” Id. at 344-345.
One year later, Arizona beefed up its public defender offices to comply with Gideon v. Wainwright. Indigent defendants charged with felonies are appointed public defenders as are indigent defendants charged with misdemeanors facing jail time. All this is good as long as a person qualifies as “indigent” and the appointed public defender is not overworked or incompetent. The Arizona Court of Appeals found that a nonindigent defendant did not validly waive his right to counsel in State v. Jones, 146 Ariz. 278, 280 (App. 1985):
“All that the present record reflects is that the defendant's appointed attorney was discharged four weeks before trial, that the defendant attempted to raise money to hire an attorney, and that he was told that if he did not hire an attorney he would be required to represent himself. A valid waiver of counsel cannot be established by these facts. Defendant was not warned of the dangers of self-representation. He was not asked if he wished to represent himself. No inquiry was made as to why he had not been able to hire an attorney. No continuance was offered to permit that. Instead he was simply required to represent himself. This is constitutionally impermissible. See City of Bellevue v. Acrey, 103 Wash.2d 203691 P.2d 957 (1984). That these failures undoubtedly resulted from the change of judge so that the trial judge understandably assumed that a valid waiver had occurred at an earlier time cannot change the result.”
If you are not indigent or don’t like your public defender, don’t despair. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over thirty years experience defending clients charged with felonies and misdemeanors for reasonable rates. Call him today for a free consultation.  

Planet Defendant: Right to an Attorney is available on Gary Rohlwing www.criminal-duiattorney.com/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/planet-defendant-right-to-an-attorney/

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Planet Defendant – Being Charged With a Crime

You’ve never been charged with a crime before. Maybe you can’t afford to pay a civil traffic ticket so your license gets suspended and you get pulled over and cited for driving on a suspended license. Or maybe you have too much to drink and are stopped and cited for DUI. Suddenly, you have to rearrange your world to accommodate court dates and the Arizona criminal justice system. You have to learn a new vocabulary, deal with new people like court staff, prosecutors, and judges, and travel to new places like a city or justice court. You feel like you’ve arrived on a new planet. You have.  Welcome to Planet Defendant! Planet Defendant in the galaxy of the Arizona criminal justice system may seem deceptively simple. Unfortunately, neither driving on a suspended license nor driving under the influence is simple. Take driving on a suspended license. The prosecutor tells you the plea offer. He or she does not give you a copy of your driving records showing that your license was suspended. He or she does not inform you that your driver’s license will probably be suspended again if you plead guilty. Is the plea offered the best under the circumstances? How do you get a copy of your driving records? Who do you talk to at the Arizona Department of Transportation to find out if taking the plea will result in another suspension? Should you go to trial? These are questions only an experienced attorney can help you answer. Driving under the influence DUI Lawyer Driving under the influence is even more complicated. The prosecutor acts like all the evidence against you is damning. Did the police legally obtain your blood sample? Was your blood sample analyzed correctly? Did the officer have probable cause to stop you? Were you really impaired to the slightest degree in your ability to operate a motor vehicle? Will the Arizona Department of Transportation issue you a discretionary suspension in addition to the DUI suspension? Should you take the plea? Should you go to trial? Once again, an experienced attorney can help you answer these questions. Get in touch with the Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing for any DUI related case. You need an experienced guide to help you navigate Planet Defendant if you are charged with driving on a suspended license or driving under the influence. Attorney Gary Rohlwing is a criminal lawyer and DUI attorney with over three decades of experience. Please call him today for a free consultation.

The blog post Planet Defendant – Being Charged With a Crime Find more on: http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/planet-defendant-being-charged-with-a-crime/

Friday, August 3, 2018

What to Do When Charged with a Dangerous Offense

A dangerous offense may be applicable in cases where a specific dangerous instrument or tool is utilized as a weapon in inflicting bodily harm to another person. The dangerous tool may be a loaded gun, baseball bat, knife, or stick. The most common dangerous instruments used are guns and knives. In the state of Arizona, if you are charged with a dangerous offense, it means that you are faced with an accusation that is on top of the actual crime you are initially accused of. Thus, you need to have proper legal representation to make sure that your rights are protected at all times.  

An Extremely Serious Offense

If you are charged with a dangerous offense, you must not take it lightly because it is quite a serious crime. Among the most prevalent dangerous offenses is the charge of aggravated assault. This is considered a Class 3 felony. When a prosecutor files a dangerous offense allegation, it means that the felony was committed with the use of a dangerous instrument. There are several reasons that make a dangerous offense a serious charge. For one, a conviction for this felony comes with mandatory jail time. Thus, even if you do not have a criminal record of any type, you can expect to face some prison time once convicted. You need to have a competent and experienced criminal defense lawyer by your side to walk you through the entire process. The Law Offices of Gary L. Rohwling can help make sure that you get the best legal defense and results possible.   Types of Dangerous Offense Charges Two of the most prevalent types of dangerous offense charges are aggravated assault and disorderly conduct.
  • Aggravated Assault – This type of dangerous offense may be charged if you assault another person - even if you do not actually shoot or stab anyone. You can be charged with the felony by merely threatening someone with a gun or a knife. Being a Class 3 felony, you can go to jail for a presumptive or average term of 7 ½ years if it is your first offense.
Here is an example of what merits an aggravated assault dangerous offense. If you are actually holding a weapon or a certain type of dangerous instrument, and you threaten another person that you will inflict bodily harm, you will most likely be accused of an aggravated assault. The weapon doesn’t even have to be a gun or a knife. It may be a stick, a rock, or anything that you can use as a dangerous instrument.
  • Disorderly Conduct – A disorderly conduct charge involves the act of recklessly displaying a dangerous instrument or tool. You don’t even have to point a gun or knife, or fire a gun at another person to be charged and get convicted for a disorderly conduct dangerous offense. Mere possession and open display of the instrument is enough. The conviction for this can be charged as a Class 6 felony.
 

Final Word

A dangerous offense charge in Arizona is an extremely serious offense in Arizona, and should always be taken seriously. If you or any of your loved ones are charged with the felony, you must immediately get in touch with a competent and experienced lawyer like the Law Offices of Gary L. Rohwling immediately.

What to Do When Charged with a Dangerous Offense was originally seen on www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/what-to-do-when-charged-with-a-dangerous-offense/

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Restoring Gun Rights in Arizona

A person with a felony conviction cannot legally possess or use guns in Arizona. Restoration of gun rights is not automatic in Arizona. Whether or not a person can have gun rights restored after a felony conviction depends on the nature of the felony and how much time has passed since the date of conviction. A person who has been convicted of a dangerous crime can never have their gun rights restored according to A.R.S. §§ 13-905(C) https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00905.htm and 13-906(C).  https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00906. A.R.S. § 13-105(13) defines a “dangerous offense” as an offense involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury to another person. An individual with a misdemeanor conviction for an offense that is considered “domestic violence” faces serious obstacles in restoring gun rights. In 1997, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Offender Act found at 18 U.S.C. § 921(A)(33)(B)(ii) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921. This federal act prohibits a person convicted of a domestic violence offense from possessing a gun unless the conviction was expunged, set aside, or had civil rights restored in states where domestic violence misdemeanors cause a loss of civil rights. In Arizona, a misdemeanor conviction does not result in a loss of civil rights. This means that the only process available to possibly restore gun rights is to apply to set aside the conviction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-907 https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00907.htm Unfortunately, a judge could decide to set aside the conviction and not restore gun rights. A person who has been convicted of a felony offense that is not a serious offense as defined by A.R.S. § 13-706 must wait for two years from his or her discharge from probation or absolute discharge from prison before filing for restoration of gun rights. A person who has been convicted of a serious offense as defined by A.R.S. § 13-706 must wait for ten years from his or her discharge from probation or absolute discharge from prison before filing for restoration of gun rights. A.R.S. § 13-706(F)(1) defines “serious offense” as: (a) First degree murder. (b) Second degree murder. (c) Manslaughter. (d) Aggravated assault resulting in serious physical injury or involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. (e) Sexual assault. (f) Any dangerous crime against children. (g) Arson of an occupied structure. (h) Armed robbery. (i) Burglary in the first degree. (j) Kidnapping. (k) Sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age. (l) Child sex trafficking. Restoration of gun rights is discretionary with the judge or his/her successor who sentenced the individual. If you want to restore your gun rights, you need an experienced attorney who will fight for you. Get in touch with Attorney Gary Rohlwing to help with restoring your rights to carry a firearm. He has over three decades of experience. Please call him today for a free 30 minute consultation.  

The following blog post Restoring Gun Rights in Arizona was first published to http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/restoring-gun-rights-in-arizona/

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Why Defense Attorneys Should Not Judge Clients

Judging others is usually seen as acceptable. We expect judges, juries and prosecutors to judge defendants, people charged with crimes. We also expect that their judgments will be fair and based on the evidence presented in court. Forgotten in all this talk is the fact that defense attorneys sometimes prejudge their clients as guilty. Let’s imagine a scenario where the defendant is a middle-aged man named Tom who has no prior criminal record and has a good reputation in the community. The prosecutor charges him with inappropriately touching a young child, a felony known as child molestation. On paper, Tom seems guilty: the prosecutor has the statements of the young child who was interviewed by an experienced sex crimes detective. The reality is that the charge is completely false. Tom is frightened and confused by the whole thing. He wants to hire an attorney who will believe him and reveal the truth: he is innocent. Unfortunately, he hires a defense attorney who manages to conceal his belief that all middle-aged men charged with molesting young children are always guilty and should rot in prison. How does the attorney’s belief effect his representation of the client? The attorney talks to Tom as little as possible. After all, who wants to talk to a guilty child molester? The attorney does not investigate the case as thoroughly as he should. The prosecutor’s case appears strong. He does not want to determine whether or not the charge is actually true. The attorney does not analyze the case as thoroughly as he should. That would require spending time learning all the facts. Because he does not investigate and analyze the case thoroughly, relevant pretrial motions to dismiss the case and/or suppress evidence do not get prepared and filed. The attorney does not effectively negotiate if a plea is offered. The presumptive sentence of 17 years in prison as dictated by A.R.S. § 13-705(D) is fine with him. If Tom insists on a trial, the attorney puts in the least amount of effort possible. He does not want to help a guilty client escape punishment. Because of his attitude, important issues for appeal are not raised at the trial where they could actually make a difference in the trial outcome. Unsurprisingly, Tom is found guilty. The attorney once again puts forth little effort at Tom’s sentencing hearing so he does not receive the minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Tom is sentenced to 17 years in prison. Because of the attorney’s poor performance at trial, Tom’s appeal, if there is one, is unsuccessful because all the appeal issues should have been raised at the trial for the trial judge to handle. Don’t make the mistake of hiring a judgmental criminal defense attorney. Attorney Gary Rohlwing is an experienced attorney who will not judge you even if you are charged with a sex crime against a child. Please call him today for a free consultation.

The blog post Why Defense Attorneys Should Not Judge Clients was first published on http://criminal-duiattorney.com/blog

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/why-defense-attorneys-should-not-judge-clients/

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Planet Defendant: Learn the Lingo Part One

Being charged with a crime can feel like being transported to another world called Planet Defendant. Like all worlds, Planet Defendant has its own lingo that one should learn to better understand what’s happening. The following list is specific to Maricopa County Superior Court and defines some common words. Some of the definitions were taken from the Adult Criminal Trial Process page of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office website found at https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/189/Adult-Criminal-Trial-Process This blog post defines words in the first half of the alphabet; next month’s blog post will define words in the second half of the alphabet.

  • Arraignment: A court hearing that is held within ten days after the filing of an indictment or direct complaint. At the arraignment, the judge informs the defendant about the exact charges against him, that he should hire an attorney or see if he qualifies for a public defender, and asks him if he pleads guilty or not guilty to the charges. The judge then sets a date for a pretrial conference and trial date.
  • Charge: A formal accusation made by the prosecutor that a person has committed a crime that is found in a complaint. A charge is called a “count” if it is found in an indictment.
  • Complaint: A document prepared by the prosecutor which describes the felony offense(s) the defendant is alleged to have committed.
  • Court: A general term that refers to any judge or commissioner.
  • EDC: “EDC” stands for “Early Disposition Court”. EDC handles most first and second offense drug offenses. Eligible cases are identified at the Initial Appearance. The plea and sentencing are combined.
  • Indictment: A document prepared by the prosecutor based on the findings of a Grand Jury. It has formal accusation(s) called count(s) stating that a person has committed crime(s). Upon receiving an indictment, a judge may either issue a summons ordering the defendant to appear in court or prepare an arrest warrant.
  • Initial Appearance: This is the first court hearing that is held after a person is arrested at the scene or based on an arrest warrant. At the initial appearance, the judge informs the defendant about the felony allegations, his right to an attorney if he can afford one or a public defender if he cannot, and conditions of the defendant’s pretrial release. He then sets a date for a status conference and preliminary hearing.
  • Jail: The jails hold defendants who have not been sentenced and can’t make bail or are ineligible for bail as well as defendants sentenced to less than one year incarceration.
  • Law: A general term that refers to Arizona laws (the Arizona Revised Statutes) and decisions/opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court and Arizona Court of Appeals.
  Planet Defendant lingo can be confusing. Attorney Gary Rohlwing knows the lingo because he has over three decades of experience defending clients in Maricopa County Superior Court. Please call him today for a free consultation.

Planet Defendant: Learn the Lingo Part One Find more on: Glendale Arizona Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/planet-defendant-learn-the-lingo-part-one/

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Major Players Disagree on Arizona Criminal Justice Reform

Criminal justice reform has been a recurring theme in the Arizona Legislature the last few years. Unfortunately, reform is very slow in coming compared to other states. Reporters Paulina Pineda and Katie Campbell wrote an article for Arizona Capitol Times entitled “Arizona Resistant to Change in “tough-on-crime” Sentencing Laws” that was published on March 23, 2018 detailing why reform is slow. The article can be found at the following link: https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2018/03/23/arizona-doug-ducey-bill-montgomery-david-stringer-will-gaona-caroline-isaacs-kurt-altman-resistance-to-criminal-justice-reform/ Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery wants tougher sentencing laws while Will Gaona, policy director of the ACLU of Arizona, the American Friends Service Committee, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums want to change Arizona’s rigid sentencing laws and end mandatory minimum sentences, especially for drug offenses. Montgomery has like-minded allies in the Arizona legislature who seem to have a lingering “tough-on-crime” mentality. Montgomery believes that Arizona is already ahead of other states. According to the authors: “Montgomery called other ideas being pushed by the smart-on-crime crowd “pet projects” that are “based on myths and rhetoric.” “Most of the folks who call criminal justice reform ‘reform’ – all they’re really out to do is arbitrarily adjust sentencing statutes or adjust truth-in-sentencing with no data to support it,” he said.” . . . But Montgomery scoffed at their ideas of “so-called reform,” arguing that they’re trying to overlay other states’ solutions on Arizona. He said the reality is other states either face different problems or are simply implementing measures Arizona embraced years ago, such as diverting first-time drug offenders to treatment instead of prison. “And because we weren’t part of the so-called reform wave, we don’t get credit for what we did,” Montgomery said. He said the first step in the public policy conversation must be to define the problem and determine what resources are needed to solve it. “For so many, and this is what has been a frustration of mine, they don’t understand the problem,” he said. “We need to come to a common understanding of the criminal environment we actually have, the types of crimes we have to deal with, and then what makes for the most effective policy. … What do we want to define as success for the criminal justice system in Arizona?”   For Montgomery, success would mean reducing recidivism, a goal he shares with Gov. Doug Ducey.” Gaona stated that the recent finding in the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council’s updated Prisoners in Arizona report that 84% of state prisoners are repeat offenders “demonstrates the failure of our criminal justice system” and “Obviously, this is not an effective intervention, and we’re just going to try it again for longer period of time for something that has already been demonstrated not to work.” Governor Doug Ducey has been largely silent about reforming the sentencing laws. He wants to reduce recidivism as explained by his spokesman: “Ducey spokesman Daniel Scarpinato said the governor approaches the issue from a public safety perspective. The governor’s priority, he said, has been to provide people who have already served their time with opportunities to get back on their feet by helping them get jobs, government benefits, and treatment. Those efforts, Scarpinato said, will help reduce recidivism rates and the state’s prison population, while still “making sure we’re enforcing the rule of law and still being tough on crime.”” Since Arizona is still a “tough on crime” state, you need an experienced defense attorney if you are charged with a crime. Attorney Gary Rohlwing is an experienced criminal defense attorney and has over three decades of practicing law. Please contact him today for a free initial consultation.

Major Players Disagree on Arizona Criminal Justice Reform is republished from Law Office of Gary L. Rohlwing

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/major-players-disagree-on-arizona-criminal-justice-reform/

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Can a Domestic Violence Victim Drop Charges?

You are a battered wife. Once again, your husband is punching and physically harming you. Your friend, who lives next door, contacted the police who arrived just in time to stop the beating. They then charge your spouse with domestic violence. You find yourself in a chaotic situation. Surely, you don’t want your husband to abuse you, but neither do you want him to get entangled in legal imbroglio. A lot of women in your same situation, sadly, feel the responsibility to protect their abuser: their own husband. Suddenly, they want the charges against their husband dropped. The question is, can a victim of domestic violence drop the charges? NO, the victim cannot drop the charges.  

Why a Domestic Violence Victim Cannot Drop the Charges

Once a domestic violence charge has been issued by the office of the state prosecutor or the police, there is no way that the victim can drop the charges. This is because domestic violence is categorized as a crime. Many people misunderstand the process behind the filing of criminal charges. The state governs and issues criminal charges and not the victim. If you are a victim of domestic violence, you have no authority to drop the charges, which you did not issue, in the first place. It is up to the state, specifically the Prosecutor’s Office, to decide whether or not to proceed with the case. However, as the victim, you have a significant role in the proceedings.  

The Role of the Victim in a Domestic Violence Case

As the victim, the court may require you to testify against the accused, in case there is a trial. You may also be brought in to air your opinion. Some states allow the victim to refuse to testify in court, although the refusal may come with penalties. When coming up with a decision to release the accused, the judge may invite you, as the victim, to express your opinion on whether or not you agree with the decision to release, and why. The victim’s role is not limited to being passive, however. It is not confined to just testifying or giving your opinions in court. Although you cannot file a criminal case, you have the right to file a civil case. This way, you can claim compensation for the personal injuries you sustained, psychological injuries, lost wages, as well as cost of living. You likewise have protection options. You can request for a restraining order against the accused. A restraining order can help guaranty your safety. For one, there are restraining orders that will require the subject to surrender his guns while the restraining order is in effect. Depending on the state, you may be allowed to have an early release from your current lease. This option can prove to be helpful if you fear that your spouse may harm you again after being released. This will allow you to find a new place to live in, separate from your spouse.  

Recanting a Victim’s Statement

Although domestic violence victims can’t drop the criminal charges against their abusers, many victims opt to recant the statements they issued to investigators and police officers. Some battered wives do it in hopes of having the charges against their spouses dropped. However, recanting will not affect the state’s decision on whether to proceed or drop the case. The case can still be prosecuted using other evidences including police reports and photographs.   The court takes cases of domestic violence seriously. Thus, dropping a charge is not easy, most especially when children are involved. If you need more information about about getting a restraining order or domestic violence charges, contact the Law Offices of Gary L. Rohlwing.

Can a Domestic Violence Victim Drop Charges? was originally seen on Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing - criminal-duiattorney.com/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/domestic-violence/can-a-domestic-violence-victim-drop-charges/

Friday, April 27, 2018

Arizona’s Catch – All Aggravating Circumstance

A.R.S. § 13-701(D)(26) is a catch-all for the prosecutor to use at sentencing if other aggravating circumstances don’t apply:

“ 26. Any other factor that the state alleges is relevant to the defendant's character or background or to the nature or circumstances of the crime.” You can find the original document at https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00701.htm
The Supreme Court of Arizona has held that an aggravated sentence based solely on the catch-all aggravator violates due process because that aggravator is “patently vague.” See State v. Schmidt, 220 Ariz. 563, 566 ¶¶ 9-10 (2009). The Arizona Court of Appeals has found that the following are appropriate aggravating circumstances under the catch-all:
  • Defendant’s misconduct that rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime. State v. Tinajero, 188 Ariz. 350, 357 (Ariz. App. 1997),
  • Defendant’s prior conduct that didn’t result in a conviction. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 583 (1984).
  • Society’s need for deterrence is a proper aggravating factor. See State v. LeMaster, 17 Ariz. 159, 166 (Ariz. App. 1983).
  • Defendant is a danger to society. See State v. Wideman, 165 Ariz. 364, 369 (Ariz. App. 1990).
  • Defendant’s single act created multiple victims. State v. Tschilar, 200 Ariz. 427 (Ariz. App. 2001).
  • Defendant’s attempt to cover up the crime and not seek help for the victim. See State v. Jenkins, 193 Ariz. 115 (Ariz. App. 1998).
  • Defendant’s lengthy criminal history. See State v. Fristoe, 135 Ariz. 25 (Ariz. App. 1982).
  • Defendant was previously on probation, violated probation, or was on probation at the time of the crime is an appropriate aggravator. See State v. Winans, 124 Ariz. 502 (Ariz. App. 1979); State v. Ritacca, 169 Ariz. 401 (Ariz. App. 1991).
  • Defendant was previously imprisoned. See State v. Soto-Perez, 192 Ariz. 566 (Ariz. App. 1998).
The Court of Appeals has also found that a defendant’s lack of remorse is not a proper aggravating circumstance. See State v. Tinajero, 188 Ariz. 350, 357 (App. 1997). Moreover, a defendant’s prior exemplary life is not a proper aggravating circumstance. See State v. Just, 138 Ariz. 534, 551 (Ariz. App. 1983). If you are charged with a felony, the prosecutor will most likely use the catch-all aggravator to aggravate your sentence. Don’t fight the prosecutor alone. You need an experienced defense attorney to fight for you and help you with your felony defense. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience. Call him today for a free consultation.

Arizona’s Catch – All Aggravating Circumstance was first published on Our Blog

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/arizonas-catch-all-aggravating-circumstance/

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Impact of a Domestic Violence Charge: Why Hire an Experienced Lawyer

A domestic violence (DV) charge should not be taken lightly. It is a serious charge with potential long-term repercussions on your rights and freedom. If you are charged with domestic violence, you should immediately consult with an experienced domestic violence lawyer. The Law Offices of Gary L. Rohlwing can help protect your rights. Following are the various negative effects of domestic violence on various aspects of your life, if convicted.  

Consequences on Your Employment

Getting a domestic violence conviction may cause you to lose your present job or make it difficult for you to find gainful employment. With today’s advanced technology, employers can easily verify the criminal records of potential and current employees. There are even websites that offer to provide criminal background checks within minutes at a very minimal cost. Before making a decision to hire an applicant, most employers run a background check. When an employee is flagged for a domestic violence charge, it is generally considered an indication that the person is dangerous and prone to violence, whether at home or in the work place. As a result, the employee will not be offered a job. Likewise, current employees who are convicted of a domestic violence crime may not be considered for promotion or stricken off the list of candidates – even if they have the necessary experience and skills for the job. In some cases, they may even be fired from their jobs - even if they have been with the company for a long time.  

Consequences on Your Military Career

Once you are convicted for a domestic violence crime, you can kiss your military career goodbye. Aside from getting disqualified from serving in the military, a conviction will bar you from carrying a firearm or any kind of weapon. You will be discharged involuntarily from service, and if you are planning on entering the service, you will not be permitted to enlist. It may also affect your retirement benefits. You will also be denied of a security clearance under Directive 5220.6 of the Defense Department. Your military pension will be stopped, if you are currently entitled to it. Thus, you must make sure to talk to your lawyer as soon as you are charged with domestic violence.  

Consequences on Your Marriage and Child Custody

In many cases, a criminal conviction for domestic violence may spell the end of your marriage. Most couples involved in domestic violence ended up in divorce or separation. If you have children, you will likely lose in a custody battle, in case one will ensue. In almost all cases, custody is awarded to the victim spouse. Because being a domestic violence victim becomes a big advantage not only in child custody cases, some scheming spouses use allegations of domestic violence against their partners to win custody of their children, gain a decided edge in divorce situations, as well as to hide adultery.  

Consequences on Your Professional Licenses and Permits

Renewing or getting a new professional license may become difficult if you have a criminal domestic violence conviction. The same is true when getting a financial bond. This can be a big problem for professionals like lawyers, doctors, nurses, bond traders, stock brokers, and real estate agents, among others. If your profession requires the use of explosives and weapons like guns and firearms, you can no longer effectively perform your duties because a conviction will disallow you from bearing arms. Under the law, a convicted domestic violence offender can’t possess, buy, acquire, or take possession of firearms, ammo, and other dangerous weapons. If you are found guilty of violating this federal law, you will be meted with a mandatory sentence of at least 5 years in jail, in effect causing you to lose gainful employment. These include, police officers, fire officers, and other jobs that involve the use of firearms, weapons, guns, explosives, and other dangerous substances.   Domestic violence is a criminal offense, and should never be taken lightly. Bear in mind that once you are convicted, the repercussions on your future may be devastating and permanent. If you need a domestic violence attorney, call the Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing as soon as you are charged with a DV crime. We have the experience in handling various types of domestic violence cases.

The article Impact of a Domestic Violence Charge: Why Hire an Experienced Lawyer was originally published to Gary L Rohlwing Lawyer

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/domestic-violence/impact-of-a-domestic-violence-charge-why-hire-an-experienced-lawyer/

Thursday, April 5, 2018

What to Do Following an Arizona Arrest

Innocent or guilty, you have the right to defend yourself after being arrested. Regardless of what charges you are facing, there are some steps you need to take both to defend your rights and to prevent your case from getting worse. You also need to understand your rights and responsibilities as a suspect, as your rights are only applicable if you actually use them! Here are the things you should do following an arrest in Glendale or Peoria, Arizona.  

What is an Arrest and What It Means For You

An arrest is defined the act of a police officer to take a person into custody. While an arrest may culminate with the person going to jail, this is not always the case. Also, an arrest goes beyond just sending a suspect to prison. Sometimes, a person can be arrested for further questioning. There are 3 scenarios a person can be arrested for: if the officer sees someone in the act of committing a crime, the officer has reason to believe that a person has committed a crime, or a judge has issued an arrest warrant for whatever reason supported by probable cause.
  1. Never resist using force - Innocent or guilty, the first instinct of some people facing arrest is to resist. That is one of the worst things you can do if you’re being arrested, regardless if the arrest is legal or not. With some rare exceptions, one does not have the right to resist arrest. A person that uses force to resist arrest may become liable to other charges. If you feel that you are wrongfully arrested, the best place to defend yourself is in court. Hiring Gary Rohlwing attorney will help you get the best defense.
  2. You have the right to remain silent - This is the first part of the immortal Miranda rights. When you are being arrested, you have the right to remain silent. Of course, some policemen will attempt to get you to start talking, hoping to get something that can be used against you. The best way to go about this is to just stay quiet. Mention your name and some of your basic information to the police, but don’t give away everything else. While arrested, do not talk to the police, your family or friends, or other inmates about your case. This is where you want to only speak to your attorney and adhere to their guidance.
  3. Get legal assistance - The next step after an arrest is to talk to a lawyer. Anyone who is arrested has the right to hire an attorney for legal assistance. If you cannot afford to get a lawyer, a public defender will be assigned to you to handle your case. A lot of these public defenders are competent lawyers in their own right, but sometimes are relatively new to the legal system. However, should you have enough finances to hire your own private lawyer, it is best to hire an experienced lawyer like Gary to handle your defense. If you need the help of an experienced lawyer, call Gary Rohlwing Law Offices.
  4. Never waive your rights - No matter what, you should never waive your rights while you are under arrest. You will always have your opportunity to defend yourself on court.
  The Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing can help if you get arrested in Phoenix. We have the expertise to help you understand your rights and provide you the best defense we can to help you obtain the best possible outcome.

What to Do Following an Arizona Arrest was originally published to http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/what-to-do-following-an-arizona-arrest/

Sunday, March 25, 2018

Driving under the Influence of Medical Marijuana

Have You Been Convicted of a DWI With Medical Marijuana and Need an Aggressive Defense?

Medical marijuana became legal in Arizona when voters approved Proposition 203 in 2010. Many people who use medical marijuana also drive and are concerned about being charged with driving under the influence because they use medical marijuana. As discussed below, Arizona law does not immunize them from being charged with driving under the influence of marijuana. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) is found Chapter 28.1 of Title 36 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. § 36-2802(D) states:
“This chapter does not authorize any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil, criminal or other penalties for engaging in, the following conduct: 1.Operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.”
  The relevant Arizona Driving under the Influence statute is A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3):
“A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:
3.While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body.”
  The Supreme Court of Arizona has held that a medical marijuana patient has an affirmative defense to driving under the influence in Dobson v. McClennen, 238 Ariz. 389, 393 ¶ 20 (2015) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2015/CV140313PR.pdf:
“A qualifying patient may be convicted of an (A)(3) violation if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the patient, while driving or in control of a vehicle, had marijuana or its impairing metabolite in the patient's body. The patient may establish an affirmative defense to such a charge by showing that his or her use was authorized by the AMMA—which is subject to the rebuttable presumption under § 36–2811(A)(2)—and that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment. The patient bears the burden of proof on the latter point by a preponderance of the evidence, as with other affirmative defenses. SeeA.R.S. § 13–205(“[A] defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence.”).”
The Arizona Court of Appeals found that a medical marijuana patient does not have to present expert testimony in order to establish his or her affirmative defense in Ishak v. McClennen, 241 Ariz. 364, 372 ¶ 20 (App. 2016) http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2016/1%20CA-SA%2016-0134.pdf:
“In sum, an authorized medical marijuana user charged with violating § 28-1381(A)(3) may establish the affirmative defense afforded by § 36-2802(D) by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the marijuana metabolite concentration in his or her system was insufficient to cause him or her to be impaired at the time he or she operated or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The cardholder may satisfy that burden by, inter alia, cross-examining the arresting officer and the State's expert forensic scientist and/or by offering any admissible evidence (including his or her own testimony) relevant to proving whether he or she was impaired at the time of the stop. That evidence may or may not include, as here, expert testimony that the cardholder's THC concentration is not always sufficient to cause impairment.”
If you are a medical marijuana patient and have been charged with driving under the influence of marijuana, you need an experienced attorney to represent you. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over three decades of experience. Please call him today for a free consultation. Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing provides services to the following cities for DUI and DWI's: DUI/DWI Lawyer Litchfield Park, AZ DUI/DWI Attorney Avondale, AZ DUI Defense Peoria, AZ DUI/DWI Legal Defense Surprise, AZ  

Driving under the Influence of Medical Marijuana was originally published to http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2



from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/dui/driving-under-the-influence-of-medical-marijuana/