Usually when you hear reports about judges and OVIs it is in the context of an unusual sentence or sentencing in a particularly egregious OVI. This week was anything but normal when the media covered judges and OVIs.
On Thursday - Valentines Day - in Fairfield County Municipal Court a Franklin County Domestic Relations judge was set for arraignment in her OVI arrest. It is a case I previously commented on because of the media coverage and nuances of OVIs and in particular the administration of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests to a person with an obvious head injury. I speculated and her attorney later confirmed that the judge did suffer from a concussion prior to her arrest. But this case had some other additional factors - a warrant for a blood test and a reported struggle with the judge to obtain the blood at the hospital, despite the issuance of the warrant.
The judge appeared with her attorney and of course the media was in court. But instead of entering a not guilty plea she entered a guilty plea to the OVI (the State dismissed the other charges include the obstruction of official business charge it had just filed as a result of the reported issues obtaining blood at the hospital). She received the minimum sentence required by law, was put on probation and granted driving privileges. The full video of her plea hearing is here: https://www.facebook.com/WSYXABC6/videos/775484582809567/.
But what about the concussion? Just because she entered a plea does not mean she did not suffer a concussion prior to the arrest. So why plea if she had a concussion? My best guess is that when the blood test results come back they would indicate an alcohol level above the prohibited concentration. I do not have any specific particularized knowledge of the case but based on what is publicly available I would likely made the same recommendation to a client in similar position - especially if I think the blood test results might indicate a "high test" or a concentration at least double the legal limit. In the end, she was convicted of OVI, was punished by the court similar to other first offense OVI offenders but she has the additional burden of the publicity because of her position.
But that was not the only judge in the Ohio news this week with OVI problems.
Shortly before the judge appeared in court, the news broke a story about a Portage County Common Pleas judge that had been arrested for OVI. Of course there was video. And the video is not good for the judge! Check it out four yourself: https://fox8.com/2019/02/13/video-northeast-ohio-judge-accused-of-drinking-and-driving/.
The Portage County judge refused Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and a breath test. Unlike the Franklin County judge she was not subjected to a blood draw authorized by warrant. But just like the Franklin County judge, she went into court at her arraignment and entered a plea of guilty.
Two important items these cases teach us and that we should remember: (1) judges are human too; and (2) everyone is better than their worst mistake.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Media Coverage of OVI Impairs Impartiality
There
has been a lot of reporting recently about a specific OVI in Fairfield
County involving a Franklin County Domestic Relations judge where the
news media is developing a narrative that she was highly intoxicated.
But the case also highlights the nuances of OVI cases in that at this
time we simply do not know whether or not she was impaired.
What about the police report and especially the video that shows her unable to keep her balance? Those are just a few of the nuances. Quick disclaimer - I am not the Brad representing the judge and I have no particularized knowledge of this case other than the media reporting and if I were the one representing her I would not be commenting, except to highlight how the media’s selected video segments, reports, and how their reporting is creating a condition in which it may be hard to seat a fair and impartial jury. Here’s what we know:
Confusion, disorientation, poor balance, and vomiting are symptoms of a concussion. She had a visible head injury and medics were called. She reportedly refused medical attention but she still should have been evaluated because those with head injuries (remember, they are confused) do not always appreciate their condition.
And the odor of alcohol? There was reportedly vomit on the floor of the car which, any person with a child knows, vomit often has a distinct odor of acid mixed with the last substances consumed. And if the stomach contained alcohol it was not yet digested and therefore not yet metabolized into the blood causing potential impairment but would give an odor of alcohol.
The video shows her losing her balance during the standardized field sobriety tests but other factors can cause a loss of balance - such as a concussion. The questioning leading up to the administration of standardized field sobriety tests are supposed to account for some of these other factors. One of the first questions that is supposed to be asked is “do you have a head injury” and if the answer is yes, standardized field sobriety tests should not be performed because a head injury can effect the subjects ability to perform the tests. And in this case there was a visible head injury that the officer was concerned enough about to summons medics to the scene.
Many questions remain about the blood draw and warrant. In my experience, unless there is an accident, a warrant is not usually sought when someone refuses to provide a breath, urine, or blood sample. Was a warrant sought because she is a judge and thus she was treated differently than others stopped for suspected OVI? What actually occurred during the blood draw? Was the blood draw obtained pursuant to the prescribed requirements?
These are just a few of the issues with this case and a few of the questions that remain and those with all the facts will have many more issues and questions. At the end of the case the blood test may be valid and it may indicate a prohibited level of alcohol in the blood but as of today, as of right now, there is no absolutely reliable evidence indicating impairment. The judge deserves the presumption of innocence - as everyone charged with a crime does - and the continued media attention showing only segments of potential evidence and provided without context or explanation of the nuances of OVI cases erodes that presumption.
What about the police report and especially the video that shows her unable to keep her balance? Those are just a few of the nuances. Quick disclaimer - I am not the Brad representing the judge and I have no particularized knowledge of this case other than the media reporting and if I were the one representing her I would not be commenting, except to highlight how the media’s selected video segments, reports, and how their reporting is creating a condition in which it may be hard to seat a fair and impartial jury. Here’s what we know:
- Her vehicle was reported by others and then observed weaving, hitting brakes, and generally driving erratically;
- The officer notes an odor of alcohol;
- There is a visible head injury;
- She cannot identify where she was coming from and seems to be disoriented as to where she is at;
- There is vomit on her clothes and the floor of the vehicle;
- When attempting standardized field sobriety tests she loses her balance and officers have to catcher her to keep her from falling;
- A warrant was obtained for a blood draw and it has been reported she needed to be restrained to obtain the blood sample;
Confusion, disorientation, poor balance, and vomiting are symptoms of a concussion. She had a visible head injury and medics were called. She reportedly refused medical attention but she still should have been evaluated because those with head injuries (remember, they are confused) do not always appreciate their condition.
And the odor of alcohol? There was reportedly vomit on the floor of the car which, any person with a child knows, vomit often has a distinct odor of acid mixed with the last substances consumed. And if the stomach contained alcohol it was not yet digested and therefore not yet metabolized into the blood causing potential impairment but would give an odor of alcohol.
The video shows her losing her balance during the standardized field sobriety tests but other factors can cause a loss of balance - such as a concussion. The questioning leading up to the administration of standardized field sobriety tests are supposed to account for some of these other factors. One of the first questions that is supposed to be asked is “do you have a head injury” and if the answer is yes, standardized field sobriety tests should not be performed because a head injury can effect the subjects ability to perform the tests. And in this case there was a visible head injury that the officer was concerned enough about to summons medics to the scene.
Many questions remain about the blood draw and warrant. In my experience, unless there is an accident, a warrant is not usually sought when someone refuses to provide a breath, urine, or blood sample. Was a warrant sought because she is a judge and thus she was treated differently than others stopped for suspected OVI? What actually occurred during the blood draw? Was the blood draw obtained pursuant to the prescribed requirements?
These are just a few of the issues with this case and a few of the questions that remain and those with all the facts will have many more issues and questions. At the end of the case the blood test may be valid and it may indicate a prohibited level of alcohol in the blood but as of today, as of right now, there is no absolutely reliable evidence indicating impairment. The judge deserves the presumption of innocence - as everyone charged with a crime does - and the continued media attention showing only segments of potential evidence and provided without context or explanation of the nuances of OVI cases erodes that presumption.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Friday, January 25, 2019
Snow Emergency Follow-up
If I didn’t know better I would think the Dispatch was following me! Here’s the story about snow emergencies (and arrests) that posted January 24, 2019 - 3 days after I posted about snow emergencies. https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190124/who-sets-those-leves-for-snow-emergencies-and-does-anyone-ever-get-arrested
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Sunday, January 20, 2019
You Can Be Arrested For Driving During a Level 3 Snow Emergency
The past two weekends have brought us plenty of snow and plenty of snow emergencies with some counties reaching Level 3. And every time the media starts reporting snow emergencies they dutifully recap the various levels and, when discussing Level 3 Snow Emergencies, always inform us that it is illegal to be on the roads during a Level 3 and drivers could be arrested. But is it true - could you really be arrested for driving home from work during a Level 3 snow emergency? Yes, you could.
Ohio Revised Code 311.07 and 311.08 give the county sheriff broad powers and duties, including the authority to declare a snow emergency and temporarily close roads. Ohio Attorney General Opinion 86-023 confirmed this authority for county and township roads. The question was later posed to the Attorney General whether the authority to close roads extended to state and municipal roads. Ohio Attorney General Opinion 97-015 concluded the authority to temporarily close roads extends to all roads within the county. Relying on Opinion 86-023, it was noted that "the sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county, with jurisdiction coextensive with the county, including all municipalities and townships" and that "there is no reasonable basis for distinguishing between the different types of roads and streets that are located within the county." Plainly stated - the sheriff can close the roads in the county to preserve the peace and safety.
So, if you are driving during a Level 3 Snow Emergency - the roads are closed - what can you be charged with and will you be arrested? Most likely you will charged with "Misconduct at an Emergency" in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2917.13 (or a similar local ordinance). Revised Code 2917.13(A)(3) prohibits a person from knowing failing to obey a lawful order of a law enforcement officer at an emergency. "Misconduct at an Emergency" is a M4, which carries a potential maximum of 30 days in jail, unless the misconduct "creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property" and then a violation is a M1 with a potential maximum of 180 days in jail. With the potential of jail upon conviction, it is an arrestable offense.
In practice, officers have discretion and usually understand snow emergencies sometimes occur quickly, people are delayed in getting home, or may be deemed "essential" employees required to work even during emergencies. If you're driving during a Level 3 Snow Emergency and you're stopped by an officer, politely let him/her know why you are out driving. If you are running for a pizza or beer, you will likely get a ticket (or maybe arrested - but likely just a ticket to appear in court later) but if you have a good reason, you may get a warning.
No matter your reason for driving during a Level 3 Snow Emergency, if you are cited (or arrested) for "Misconduct at an Emergency" or any other charges for being on the roads, you need to protect your rights and consult counsel. Politely take your ticket, get home as quickly and safely as possible, and give us a call.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Ohio Revised Code 311.07 and 311.08 give the county sheriff broad powers and duties, including the authority to declare a snow emergency and temporarily close roads. Ohio Attorney General Opinion 86-023 confirmed this authority for county and township roads. The question was later posed to the Attorney General whether the authority to close roads extended to state and municipal roads. Ohio Attorney General Opinion 97-015 concluded the authority to temporarily close roads extends to all roads within the county. Relying on Opinion 86-023, it was noted that "the sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county, with jurisdiction coextensive with the county, including all municipalities and townships" and that "there is no reasonable basis for distinguishing between the different types of roads and streets that are located within the county." Plainly stated - the sheriff can close the roads in the county to preserve the peace and safety.
So, if you are driving during a Level 3 Snow Emergency - the roads are closed - what can you be charged with and will you be arrested? Most likely you will charged with "Misconduct at an Emergency" in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2917.13 (or a similar local ordinance). Revised Code 2917.13(A)(3) prohibits a person from knowing failing to obey a lawful order of a law enforcement officer at an emergency. "Misconduct at an Emergency" is a M4, which carries a potential maximum of 30 days in jail, unless the misconduct "creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property" and then a violation is a M1 with a potential maximum of 180 days in jail. With the potential of jail upon conviction, it is an arrestable offense.
In practice, officers have discretion and usually understand snow emergencies sometimes occur quickly, people are delayed in getting home, or may be deemed "essential" employees required to work even during emergencies. If you're driving during a Level 3 Snow Emergency and you're stopped by an officer, politely let him/her know why you are out driving. If you are running for a pizza or beer, you will likely get a ticket (or maybe arrested - but likely just a ticket to appear in court later) but if you have a good reason, you may get a warning.
No matter your reason for driving during a Level 3 Snow Emergency, if you are cited (or arrested) for "Misconduct at an Emergency" or any other charges for being on the roads, you need to protect your rights and consult counsel. Politely take your ticket, get home as quickly and safely as possible, and give us a call.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Monday, January 7, 2019
Another Motion to Dismiss for Delayed Prosecution
Nine months ago I posted about a client charged with escape in 2005 but not brought before the court and indicated on the charge until 2017. During those intervening years my client was incarcerated. That case was dismissed and you can read about it here.
In late 2018 I started representing a client charged with assault in 2014. A review of the court docket makes it appears as if my client simply absconded from the court. But nothing could be further from the truth.
On the date of the alleged assault, my client was not arrested. Law enforcement responded to an incident after the incident allegedly occurred. Officers took statements from the alleged victim and my client. My client was not arrested at that time.
Several days later the State filed an assault complaint against my client. The State attempted to serve a summons via mail to my client's last know address but service failed. My client did not appear for his arraignment and the court issued a warrant for his arrest. It wasn't until over four years later he was arrested on the warrant.
So what's the issue? On the same day the State filed the assault complaint, my client was incarcerated in another county. He was subsequently sentenced to two years incarceration. My client was in the State's custody for two years while they supposedly had an active warrant for his arrest and no one ever served it on him. To make matters worse - for the State - he was released from prison after serving his two years while there was an active warrant for his arrest on the assault charge without anyone notifying him of the pending case. The State absolutely failed to notify my client of the pending charges.
I recently filed a Motion to Dismiss the case against my client based upon the State's delay in prosecuting the case. I fully expect at the hearing on the motion the case will be dismissed as the State, no matter how hard it may try, can justify delaying execution of a warrant and prosecution of this matter when my client was in the State's custody for two years and then released him from prison with an active warrant.
I have yet to receive a date for the hearing - assuming the State even wants to proceed with one and doesn't just dismiss the case (as they should). I will update this post once a hearing is held and decision by the court has been issued.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
In late 2018 I started representing a client charged with assault in 2014. A review of the court docket makes it appears as if my client simply absconded from the court. But nothing could be further from the truth.
On the date of the alleged assault, my client was not arrested. Law enforcement responded to an incident after the incident allegedly occurred. Officers took statements from the alleged victim and my client. My client was not arrested at that time.
Several days later the State filed an assault complaint against my client. The State attempted to serve a summons via mail to my client's last know address but service failed. My client did not appear for his arraignment and the court issued a warrant for his arrest. It wasn't until over four years later he was arrested on the warrant.
So what's the issue? On the same day the State filed the assault complaint, my client was incarcerated in another county. He was subsequently sentenced to two years incarceration. My client was in the State's custody for two years while they supposedly had an active warrant for his arrest and no one ever served it on him. To make matters worse - for the State - he was released from prison after serving his two years while there was an active warrant for his arrest on the assault charge without anyone notifying him of the pending case. The State absolutely failed to notify my client of the pending charges.
I recently filed a Motion to Dismiss the case against my client based upon the State's delay in prosecuting the case. I fully expect at the hearing on the motion the case will be dismissed as the State, no matter how hard it may try, can justify delaying execution of a warrant and prosecution of this matter when my client was in the State's custody for two years and then released him from prison with an active warrant.
I have yet to receive a date for the hearing - assuming the State even wants to proceed with one and doesn't just dismiss the case (as they should). I will update this post once a hearing is held and decision by the court has been issued.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Saturday, January 5, 2019
Misdemeanor or Felony - What's the difference?
What's the difference between a misdemeanor crime and felony crime? Depending on who you ask it could be the seriousness of the crime, what court can hear the case, or the potential penalties. I always use the potential penalties (and court jurisdiction) explanation - if incarcerated as part of the sentence upon conviction, a person can only serve local jail time for misdemeanors but incarceration for a felony is served in prison. Only the common pleas court can hear felony cases.
The potential maximum penalties for misdemeanors and felonies are:
Some crimes, such as OVI, rape, and murder, have specified penalties outside the chart above. Other factors may also enhance the maximum penalties such as the use of a firearm, the age of the victim, or if the person is a repeat offender.
All criminal charges should be taken seriously. Even a minor misdemeanor can have an effect on your life. If you have been charged with a crime, or are a suspect in a criminal investigation, you should consult with an attorney.
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA, regularly represents persons charged with all degrees of offenses, from minor misdemeanors to felonies. Call 740-422-9280 or complete this CONTACT FORM to schedule a consultation and protect your rights.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
The potential maximum penalties for misdemeanors and felonies are:
| Degree of Offense | Maximum Fine | Maximum Incarceration |
| Minor Misdemeanor (MM) | $150 | None |
| Fourth Degree Misdemeanor (M4) | $250 | 30 days - local jail |
| Third Degree Misdemeanor (M3) | $500 | 60 days - local jail |
| Second Degree Misdemeanor (M2) | $750 | 90 days - local jail |
| First Degree Misdemeanor (M1) | $1,000 | 180 days - local jail |
| Fifth Degree Felony (F5) | $2,500 | 12 months - prison |
| Fourth Degree Felony (F4) | $5,000 | 18 months - prison |
| Third Degree Felony (F3) | $10,000 | 3 or 5 years - prison |
| Second Degree Felony (F2) | $15,000 | 8 years - prison |
| First Degree Felony (F1) | $20,000 | 11 years - prison |
Some crimes, such as OVI, rape, and murder, have specified penalties outside the chart above. Other factors may also enhance the maximum penalties such as the use of a firearm, the age of the victim, or if the person is a repeat offender.
All criminal charges should be taken seriously. Even a minor misdemeanor can have an effect on your life. If you have been charged with a crime, or are a suspect in a criminal investigation, you should consult with an attorney.
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA, regularly represents persons charged with all degrees of offenses, from minor misdemeanors to felonies. Call 740-422-9280 or complete this CONTACT FORM to schedule a consultation and protect your rights.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Monday, December 31, 2018
2018 Year In Review
2018 was a good year - starting with a jury trial not guilty in January and ending with a not guilty in a vehicular manslaughter jury trial in December. But not all successes end in jury trial and are often resolved through motions and oral arguments. Such was the case for a client charged with F2 aggravated trafficking (mandatory prison time) that was dismissed. There are simply too many successful resolutions for client matters this year to detail them all but here are some statistics for the year:
Thank you to all the clients that trusted the Nicodemus Law Office with your legal matters in 2018. I look forward to continuing to provide legal representation to the residents of Fairfield County in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
- Opened in 2018: 93 criminal matters, 122 total;
- Closed in 2018: 96 criminal matters, 113 total;
- 57 matters both opened and closed in 2018;
- 45 criminal matters remain pending; and
- New Clients in 2018: 70.
Thank you to all the clients that trusted the Nicodemus Law Office with your legal matters in 2018. I look forward to continuing to provide legal representation to the residents of Fairfield County in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Monday, November 12, 2018
The First One - Again!
About a year ago I published the first post in this blog. For the next few months I managed to publish a few posts - and then there were none. It's not because there is a lack of legal articles and topics to discuss, there just was not always enough time. So, here I am again, publishing another "first" post with the hopes that I will be more consistent in my posts.
In the event you want to read the real "First One" here's the quick link to it: https://nicodemuslawoffice.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-first-one.html.
I am marginally better at posting to social media so you can always follow the practice and my thoughts and musing on legal issues on Facebook and Twitter.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
In the event you want to read the real "First One" here's the quick link to it: https://nicodemuslawoffice.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-first-one.html.
I am marginally better at posting to social media so you can always follow the practice and my thoughts and musing on legal issues on Facebook and Twitter.
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Criminal Pre-Trial Delay Leads to Dismissal
Ohio law is favorable to the State when it comes to Statute of Limitations, tolling of time, and pre-trial delay. The burden, even though technically shifted to the State in Motion to Dismiss for Pre-Trial delay, is often still on the defendant. A recent case of mine addressed the issue of pre-trial delay and highlights why everyone deserves a high-quality defense and why justice demands it.
In June 2017 my client was charged with F5 Escape, i.e., alleging he was arrested for a misdemeanor crime and escaped from police custody after his arrest. At arraignment and subsequent bond hearing (which was denied) I raised the issue of pre-trial delay which violated my client's rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. I subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss and had the matter set for a hearing. Prior to the hearing - and I must give credit to the prosecutor for reviewing the case and determining they could not justify the delay - the case was dismissed. So what happened that someone arrested for an alleged crime and then allegedly escaped custody would then have the case dismissed? It all started over 11 years ago.
In December 2005 my client was allegedly arrested for a misdemeanor for which he could have been jailed upon conviction for up to 6 months. Once arrested and in police custody, he allegedly escaped the police cruiser and was not able to be re-apprehended by the police. In January 2006 a complaint for escape was filed and a warrant for his arrest was issued. That warrant was not executed until late May 2017 and was indicted for escape in June 2017.
In the intervening 11 years, my client was arrested, indicted, and convicted on numerous other charges in numerous counties throughout the state. In all, he was convicted in at least two other counties of numerous felonies for which he served the better part of five years in prison. After his release from prison - while the escape warrant was still active - he was indicted on new state felony and federal firearms offenses which he was convicted of and served another five years in federal prison. After his release from federal custody - again while the escape warrant was active - he was again arrested, jailed, and released, on new charges, in the same county that had the active escape warrant. It wasn't until he was arrested for a failure to appear warrant on pending charges that he was finally served the 2006 warrant for escape.
So what's the problem - there was an active warrant for escape and now he was going to be accountable for the allegations against him. Luckily for all of us we have rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution. Eleven years, with all the intervening arrests and imprisonments when the State could have easily brought the defendant before the court to answer for his crimes, was simply too long and prejudicial against the defendant's rights.
Eleven years of delay undoubtedly prejudiced – i.e, impaired the ability of the defendant to adequately to prepare his case and skewed the fairness of the entire system – leaving the only question for the court to determine if the delay was justifiable. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 532 (1972). Generally, there are two scenarios that result in an unjustifiable delay as a matter of law – where the state acts intentionally to disadvantage the defendant and where the state ceases an investigation and later resumes its case based upon the same information. State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984).
In this case, the Court did not need to make a determination regarding the eleven year delay. After laying out the evidence I intended to introduce at a hearing on this matter to the prosecutor, and he evaluated it, it was determined that the State could not sufficiently prove justification for delaying prosecution for 11 years. Subsequently, the indictment against my client was dismissed and he was released from custody.
Without investigating my client’s past, his prior convictions, developing a timeline of all the occasions the State could have brought him before the court for his alleged crimes but did not and, reviewing dozens of similar cases, my client may still be in jail with an escape charge.
All persons accused of crimes deserve this same level of representation. If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, call the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the contact form to schedule your consultation and protect your rights.
In June 2017 my client was charged with F5 Escape, i.e., alleging he was arrested for a misdemeanor crime and escaped from police custody after his arrest. At arraignment and subsequent bond hearing (which was denied) I raised the issue of pre-trial delay which violated my client's rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. I subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss and had the matter set for a hearing. Prior to the hearing - and I must give credit to the prosecutor for reviewing the case and determining they could not justify the delay - the case was dismissed. So what happened that someone arrested for an alleged crime and then allegedly escaped custody would then have the case dismissed? It all started over 11 years ago.
In December 2005 my client was allegedly arrested for a misdemeanor for which he could have been jailed upon conviction for up to 6 months. Once arrested and in police custody, he allegedly escaped the police cruiser and was not able to be re-apprehended by the police. In January 2006 a complaint for escape was filed and a warrant for his arrest was issued. That warrant was not executed until late May 2017 and was indicted for escape in June 2017.
In the intervening 11 years, my client was arrested, indicted, and convicted on numerous other charges in numerous counties throughout the state. In all, he was convicted in at least two other counties of numerous felonies for which he served the better part of five years in prison. After his release from prison - while the escape warrant was still active - he was indicted on new state felony and federal firearms offenses which he was convicted of and served another five years in federal prison. After his release from federal custody - again while the escape warrant was active - he was again arrested, jailed, and released, on new charges, in the same county that had the active escape warrant. It wasn't until he was arrested for a failure to appear warrant on pending charges that he was finally served the 2006 warrant for escape.
So what's the problem - there was an active warrant for escape and now he was going to be accountable for the allegations against him. Luckily for all of us we have rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution. Eleven years, with all the intervening arrests and imprisonments when the State could have easily brought the defendant before the court to answer for his crimes, was simply too long and prejudicial against the defendant's rights.
Eleven years of delay undoubtedly prejudiced – i.e, impaired the ability of the defendant to adequately to prepare his case and skewed the fairness of the entire system – leaving the only question for the court to determine if the delay was justifiable. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 532 (1972). Generally, there are two scenarios that result in an unjustifiable delay as a matter of law – where the state acts intentionally to disadvantage the defendant and where the state ceases an investigation and later resumes its case based upon the same information. State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984).
In this case, the Court did not need to make a determination regarding the eleven year delay. After laying out the evidence I intended to introduce at a hearing on this matter to the prosecutor, and he evaluated it, it was determined that the State could not sufficiently prove justification for delaying prosecution for 11 years. Subsequently, the indictment against my client was dismissed and he was released from custody.
Without investigating my client’s past, his prior convictions, developing a timeline of all the occasions the State could have brought him before the court for his alleged crimes but did not and, reviewing dozens of similar cases, my client may still be in jail with an escape charge.
All persons accused of crimes deserve this same level of representation. If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, call the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the contact form to schedule your consultation and protect your rights.
Monday, April 2, 2018
Police & Prisoners Sex Prohibited
As recent as January 2018, there were 35 states that permitted police officers can have sex with persons they have arrested and were in custody. “Permitted” might be the wrong adjective to describe the encounters but when the other 15 states describe sexual encounters between police and prisoners as sexual assault, it certainly isn’t prohibited.
In March the State of New York passed a law prohibiting sex between police officers and persons in their custody. In Ohio, sex between persons – even consensual sex – is illegal, and has been for years, if there is a power dichotomy between the persons. In 2014 the Eighth District Court of Appeals, in Cuyahoga County, upheld a sexual battery conviction of a probation officer that engaged in sex with a probationer.
Ohio Revised Code 2907.03 delineates sexual battery and includes numerous prohibitions between persons in authority positions and their subordinates. Health care professionals and patients, teachers and students, prison workers and prisoners, and police officers where the other person is in custody are all prohibited sexual encounters – even if all parties are adults.
In determining the probation officers committed sexual battery by engaging in sex with a probationer, the Court determined
Ohio Revised Code 2907.03 has effectively determined that a person cannot consent to sexual encounters with another person in certain situations.
In March the State of New York passed a law prohibiting sex between police officers and persons in their custody. In Ohio, sex between persons – even consensual sex – is illegal, and has been for years, if there is a power dichotomy between the persons. In 2014 the Eighth District Court of Appeals, in Cuyahoga County, upheld a sexual battery conviction of a probation officer that engaged in sex with a probationer.
Ohio Revised Code 2907.03 delineates sexual battery and includes numerous prohibitions between persons in authority positions and their subordinates. Health care professionals and patients, teachers and students, prison workers and prisoners, and police officers where the other person is in custody are all prohibited sexual encounters – even if all parties are adults.
In determining the probation officers committed sexual battery by engaging in sex with a probationer, the Court determined
R.C. 2907.03(A)(6) represents an exception to the general rule which permits sexual activity between consenting adults. As reflected in the committee comment, the section proscribes even voluntary sexual activity between an inmate and a person who has supervisory or disciplinary authority over the inmate. The purpose of the statute is to protect from sexual abuse those who come under the care and custody of the State. The statute is directed at those situations where the offender, through power conferred by the State, is able to coerce or force sexual activity by the misuse of that authority.State v. Maresh, 2014-Ohio-3410, ¶ 41 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga)
Ohio Revised Code 2907.03 has effectively determined that a person cannot consent to sexual encounters with another person in certain situations.
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
OVI Overview
While Annie's Law may have changed some the sentencing requirements upon conviction of OVI, those changes still require a conviction. But how does an officer work towards obtaining evidence for a conviction?
From the moment an officer suspects you are driving impaired he is attempting to collect evidence against you. An officer may believe you to be impaired when he first notices your vehicle based on your driving (weaving, fluctuations in speed, etc) or during a traffic stop for other purposes (you're driving at 1AM on a Saturday with a license plate light out).
Your driving, your speech, the odor of your breath and clothes, and your ability to provide your driver’s license are all factors the officer will consider when determining whether or to ask you to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs). After determining you are impaired based upon the FSTs, the officer will place you under arrest and transport you to a police station. At the station the officer will ask you to submit to another test – usually a breath test.
To blow or not to blow? Put simply, without a scientific test to prove your impairment the State has a harder time convicting you (though a jury can still find a person guilty based upon the FSTs). But there can be additional consequences if you don't blow - increases in driver's license suspension times and there may be professional ramifications for those with professional licenses, CDLs, etc. Additionally, some courts do not generally grant limited driving privileges during the pre-trial phase of the case if there is a refusal on a breath or other chemical test.
But just because the officer says you failed the FSTs or that you have a test result that indicates you over the legal limit, it does not mean you were impaired and guilty. Minor deviations in the FSTs can effect the results the officer observes and breath-testing machines and the officers that operate them have stringent guidelines that must be followed.
What surprises most people that take standardized field sobriety tests and a breath test (or other chemical test like urine or blood) is that they are charged with two OVI offenses.
Ohio’s OVI laws are extremely specific and technical and it takes trained OVI attorneys to protect your rights. If you, or someone you know, has been charged with an OVI, you must obtain counsel to protect your rights. The Nicodemus Law Office will fully investigate your OVI charge and will protect your rights if you have been charged with an OVI. Call 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to schedule your consultation.
From the moment an officer suspects you are driving impaired he is attempting to collect evidence against you. An officer may believe you to be impaired when he first notices your vehicle based on your driving (weaving, fluctuations in speed, etc) or during a traffic stop for other purposes (you're driving at 1AM on a Saturday with a license plate light out).
Your driving, your speech, the odor of your breath and clothes, and your ability to provide your driver’s license are all factors the officer will consider when determining whether or to ask you to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs). After determining you are impaired based upon the FSTs, the officer will place you under arrest and transport you to a police station. At the station the officer will ask you to submit to another test – usually a breath test.
To blow or not to blow? Put simply, without a scientific test to prove your impairment the State has a harder time convicting you (though a jury can still find a person guilty based upon the FSTs). But there can be additional consequences if you don't blow - increases in driver's license suspension times and there may be professional ramifications for those with professional licenses, CDLs, etc. Additionally, some courts do not generally grant limited driving privileges during the pre-trial phase of the case if there is a refusal on a breath or other chemical test.
But just because the officer says you failed the FSTs or that you have a test result that indicates you over the legal limit, it does not mean you were impaired and guilty. Minor deviations in the FSTs can effect the results the officer observes and breath-testing machines and the officers that operate them have stringent guidelines that must be followed.
What surprises most people that take standardized field sobriety tests and a breath test (or other chemical test like urine or blood) is that they are charged with two OVI offenses.
Ohio’s OVI laws are extremely specific and technical and it takes trained OVI attorneys to protect your rights. If you, or someone you know, has been charged with an OVI, you must obtain counsel to protect your rights. The Nicodemus Law Office will fully investigate your OVI charge and will protect your rights if you have been charged with an OVI. Call 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to schedule your consultation.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Grandparent Visitation Rights - Overview
Ohio recognizes in the inherent right of parents to make decisions
regarding their children's upbringing. But grandparents also have rights that are statutorily defined.
If grandparents are prohibited from seeing their
grandchildren the courts can
become involved, in certain circumstances, to determine if the statutory
requirements are met for granting
grandparent time.
The most crucial requirement for the assertion of grandparent rights is there be a court action involving a "divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, annulment, or child support proceeding" involving the child. Once a court has jurisdiction over a child, that court can also determine whether grandparents should be permitted visitation rights with their grandchild.
The Nicodemus Law Office has worked with both parents and grandparents in these matters. Whether you are a grandparent yearning to see your grandchild or a parent seeking to prohibit grandparent time, contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to schedule a consultation.
The most crucial requirement for the assertion of grandparent rights is there be a court action involving a "divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, annulment, or child support proceeding" involving the child. Once a court has jurisdiction over a child, that court can also determine whether grandparents should be permitted visitation rights with their grandchild.
The Nicodemus Law Office has worked with both parents and grandparents in these matters. Whether you are a grandparent yearning to see your grandchild or a parent seeking to prohibit grandparent time, contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to schedule a consultation.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Misdemeanor v. Felony - What's the Difference
In Ohio, criminal offenses are classified as either misdemeanor or felony offenses (there's also unclassified misdemeanors and felonies but that is an entirely different discussion). Misdemeanor offenses are typically heard by the municipal or county court and may even be heard in a mayor’s court. Felony offenses are heard in a common pleas court. Some common misdemeanors are petty theft and OVI. Some common felonies are theft, forgery, aggravated drug possession, and drug trafficking.
Both misdemeanor and felony offenses are separated into degrees based on the severity of the offense with a minor misdemeanor being the least severe offense and a first degree felony being the most severe. In many instances a crime may be classified as either a felony or misdemeanor depending on the facts and circumstances of the alleged crime.
The potential maximum penalties for misdemeanors and felonies are:
Some crimes, such as OVI, rape, and murder, have specified penalties outside the chart above. Other factors may also enhance the maximum penalties such as the use of a firearm, the age of the victim, or if the person is a repeat offender.
All criminal charges should be taken seriously. Even a minor misdemeanor can have an effect on your life. If you have been charged with a crime, or are a suspect in a criminal investigation, you should consult with an attorney.
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA, regularly represents persons charged with all degrees of offenses, from minor misdemeanors to felonies. Call 740-422-9280 or complete this CONTACT FORM to schedule a consultation and protect your rights.
Both misdemeanor and felony offenses are separated into degrees based on the severity of the offense with a minor misdemeanor being the least severe offense and a first degree felony being the most severe. In many instances a crime may be classified as either a felony or misdemeanor depending on the facts and circumstances of the alleged crime.
The potential maximum penalties for misdemeanors and felonies are:
| Degree of Offense | Maximum Fine | Maximum Incarceration |
| Minor Misdemeanor (MM) | $150 | None |
| Fourth Degree Misdemeanor (M4) | $250 | 30 days - local jail |
| Third Degree Misdemeanor (M3) | $500 | 60 days - local jail |
| Second Degree Misdemeanor (M2) | $750 | 90 days - local jail |
| First Degree Misdemeanor (M1) | $1,000 | 180 days - local jail |
| Fifth Degree Felony (F5) | $2,500 | 12 months - prison |
| Fourth Degree Felony (F4) | $5,000 | 18 months - prison |
| Third Degree Felony (F3) | $10,000 | 3 or 5 years - prison |
| Second Degree Felony (F2) | $15,000 | 8 years - prison |
| First Degree Felony (F1) | $20,000 | 11 years - prison |
Some crimes, such as OVI, rape, and murder, have specified penalties outside the chart above. Other factors may also enhance the maximum penalties such as the use of a firearm, the age of the victim, or if the person is a repeat offender.
All criminal charges should be taken seriously. Even a minor misdemeanor can have an effect on your life. If you have been charged with a crime, or are a suspect in a criminal investigation, you should consult with an attorney.
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA, regularly represents persons charged with all degrees of offenses, from minor misdemeanors to felonies. Call 740-422-9280 or complete this CONTACT FORM to schedule a consultation and protect your rights.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Divorce or Dissolution
The decision to end a marriage is never an easy one, even when
both parties agree that the marriage should end.
The decision, and the process is even more difficult when
you and your spouse are less than amicable. Children, business
interests, and long term marriages add additional stress and tension. Divorce and Dissolution are the two most common ways to terminate a marriage in Ohio. However, many people don't understand the difference between the two.
If you have been served with divorce papers or are contemplating ending your marriage, contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or by completing the CONTACT FORM to schedule a consultation to discuss your rights.
While it is true that most divorces are resolved prior to trial, that resolution only comes after the parties and their attorneys fully discuss and litigate all the issues. Litigating these matters may also include Guardians for the children or experts to place values on marital property and businesses. Divorces, even when they resolve without a trial, can take a year or more to complete.
Dissolutions are often resolved much quicker than divorces. By law, once a Petition for Dissolution is filed, the court must hear the matter within 90 days.
If you have been served with divorce papers or are contemplating ending your marriage, contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or by completing the CONTACT FORM to schedule a consultation to discuss your rights.
Divorce
Divorce is adversarial by nature - one spouse suing another. The State of Ohio has enumerated 11 specific reasons a person may file for and be granted a divorce (see RC 3105.01). Often the most contentious issues in a divorce are not the the reasons for the divorce but are instead the issues of custody of children and division of the marital property.While it is true that most divorces are resolved prior to trial, that resolution only comes after the parties and their attorneys fully discuss and litigate all the issues. Litigating these matters may also include Guardians for the children or experts to place values on marital property and businesses. Divorces, even when they resolve without a trial, can take a year or more to complete.
Dissolution
A Dissolution may be an appropriate way to terminate a marriage when both parties are aware and agree that a marriage needs to end and they believe they can resolve all marital matters between themselves amicably. Sometimes, even when spouses haven't fully agreed on all issues, they may agree a dissolution is preferable (often when children are involved) and will engage an attorneys to help resolve any issues.Dissolutions are often resolved much quicker than divorces. By law, once a Petition for Dissolution is filed, the court must hear the matter within 90 days.
Monday, March 5, 2018
Criminal Law Overview
Criminal law arises when someone has been charged with a crime or is a suspect in a criminal investigation. It is the area of law most people are familiar with. Who hasn't heard of Miranda warnings? Unfortunately, the understanding most people have of criminal law is from TV, basic classes in high school, or from knowing someone "who has been through the system." But this basic understanding does not cover the nuances of the actual practice of criminal law. For instance, contrary to popular belief, the police do not need to read Miranda warnings to everyone who has been arrested.
Criminal charges can be an overwhelming, stressful, and a scary experience. Even a seemingly “minor” charge can have serious repercussions in the future. No criminal charge, in any court, should be taken lightly. Whether you have been charged with a felony or misdemeanor, or believe you are being investigated but have not yet been charged with a crime, it is important that you understand your rights and how a conviction may affect your future.
Contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to protect your rights.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Family Law Overview
Family Law, also known as Domestic Relations, is the broad area of law covering most legal topics that deal with families and
relationships. Some of the areas of law included are divorce (and dissolution), alimony/spousal support, paternity, child custody and
parental rights, child support, and grandparent or third-party custody and visitation.
Family law is often emotionally and physically trying on everyone, especially when dealing with children. And domestic relations courts often move in slow and measured steps to assure children are properly protected and cared for - this means a divorce involving children can take over a year to complete.
Working with our clients the Nicodemus Law Office strives to lessen your stress of being in domestic relations court while ensuring you fully understand the entire court process while protecting your rights and interests.
Contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to schedule your consultation.
Family law is often emotionally and physically trying on everyone, especially when dealing with children. And domestic relations courts often move in slow and measured steps to assure children are properly protected and cared for - this means a divorce involving children can take over a year to complete.
Working with our clients the Nicodemus Law Office strives to lessen your stress of being in domestic relations court while ensuring you fully understand the entire court process while protecting your rights and interests.
Contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to schedule your consultation.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
OVI - Equestrian Style
According to a Huffington Post report, police in Polk County, Florida, recently arrested a woman, Donna Byrne, for driving under the influence and animal cruelty for riding a horse while being intoxicated at twice the legal limit. (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dui-horse-woman-florida-donna-byrne_us_59fda7d6e4b0baea2631f45b?section=us_crime) What would happen if this occurred in Ohio?
Ohio Revised Code 4511.19 prohibits the operation of "any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley" if the person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them. The question here is, what constitutes a vehicle? The Ohio Revised Code defines "vehicle" as:
every device, including a motorized bicycle, in, upon, or by which any person or property may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except that "vehicle" does not include any motorized wheelchair, any electric personal assistive mobility device, any personal delivery device as defined in section 4511.513 of the Revised Code, any device that is moved by power collected from overhead electric trolley wires or that is used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks, or any device, other than a bicycle, that is moved by human power.There is no argument that an operational car qualifies as a vehicle. But what else qualifies as a vehicle? In State v. Prater, 2008-Ohio-966, the court upheld an OVI conviction of operating a bicycle while intoxicated. In 2009, a Licking County man pleaded guilty to OVI for operating a motorized bar stool (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/31/barstool.dui/index.html). But what about a horse like the case in Florida?
The Portsmouth Municipal Court had the opportunity to determine whether a horse constitutes a vehicle. In 1996 Brian Euton was charged with OVI for riding his horse on the roadway and Mr. Euton was allegedly impaired. Mr. Euton, while on his horse, and another vehicle were involved in an accident. Mr. Euton's attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss challenging whether or not a horse constitutes a vehicle. The court determined that "an individual riding a horse while under the influence of alcohol does not violate R.C. 4511.19" and ordered the case dismissed. State v. Euton, 77 Ohio Misc.2d 19, 665 N.E.2d 775, 776 (M.C.1996).
But be careful - while riding a horse while intoxicated may not violate Ohio's OVI statute, if the horse is pulling a buggy, the buggy is classified as a vehicle and an impaired driver of the horse and buggy could be charged with OVI.
If you or someone you know has been charged with OVI, call The Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 to protect your rights.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
20,000 Convicted Drug Offenders' Cases Will Get Thrown Out
On every drug case that I represent someone, I file a motion to compel the
testimony of the lab analyst performing tests (Ohio law presumes the
validity of the test by the analyst via affidavit). I know that, if the
lab analyst is less than honest, it is not likely to come out at a
single hearing because the analyst has a vested interest to protect their work. But I also believe with enough hearings, by enough
attorneys, with the same analyst, if the analyst's work is suspect, it will
eventually be discovered. It happened not that long ago here in Ohio
with analyst on OVI cases.
That said, the analysts I've spoken to, both in and out of court, do value the integrity of their work and would admit (and have) mistakes that potentially compromised the results. But I still file the motions.
20,000 Convicted Drug Offenders’ Cases Will Get Thrown Out
That said, the analysts I've spoken to, both in and out of court, do value the integrity of their work and would admit (and have) mistakes that potentially compromised the results. But I still file the motions.
20,000 Convicted Drug Offenders’ Cases Will Get Thrown Out
Friday, January 19, 2018
.05 Limit?!
Most people know the .08 limit for OVI thanks to effective public
service announcements. But in Utah, that limit has been lowered to .05.
Will a lower limit lead to reduced OVI accidents and fatalities or just
an increase in arrests? Will other states move to adopt a lower limit?
We'll have to wait and see.
For now, in Ohio, the limit remains at .08. However, you can still be arrested for OVI for impaired driving without a breath test. Most people don't realize that until it's too late. No matter the legal limit, if an officer believes you are driving impaired, you will be arrested for OVI.
If you or someone you know has been arrested for OVI, call The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA, at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to protect your rights.
Utah Adopts Nation’s Strictest Drunk Driving Law
For now, in Ohio, the limit remains at .08. However, you can still be arrested for OVI for impaired driving without a breath test. Most people don't realize that until it's too late. No matter the legal limit, if an officer believes you are driving impaired, you will be arrested for OVI.
If you or someone you know has been arrested for OVI, call The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA, at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to protect your rights.
Utah Adopts Nation’s Strictest Drunk Driving Law
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Crimes of Violence - Overview
Crimes of violence can range from lower-level misdemeanors to serious felonies.
Unlike other crimes, crimes of violence necessarily involve third parties and
that party's desires factor heavily into the State's prosecution of the
case. The more harm to the other party, the more the State is likely to seek
maximum penalties.
Domestic violence and awareness of domestic violence receives immense media coverage and public awareness. Domestic violence and its elimination has become a priority for legislatures and law enforcement. An allegation of domestic violence can stigmatize a person, let alone being charged with or convicted of domestic violence. Defending yourself against domestic violence is not easy since the alleged crime usually occurs in isolation with no witnesses other than the accused and the alleged victim.
However, a vigorous defense is necessary as domestic violence is an enhanceable crime. What does it mean that domestic violence is an enhanceable crime? It means that once convicted of domestic violence the level of offense of any future allegations of domestic violence could be escalated. A brief example will illustrate the severity of an escalation.
Domestic violence - knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to a family or household member - is a first degree misdemeanor for a first offense, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and one-hundred eighty (180) days in jail. Suppose a person, with no prior criminal history, is charged and convicted of making domestic violence threats, a fourth degree misdemeanor punishable by a fine and up to thirty (30) days in jail. If that person is later accused of domestic violence he or she could not be charged with a first degree misdemeanor but could be charged with a fourth degree felony. Additionally, if convicted of a felony domestic violence charge, the person could face a mandatory prison term.
The Nicodemus Law Office has successfully represented persons charged with crimes of violence, including felony domestic violence. If you have been charged with or investigated in connection with a crime of violence, contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to schedule your appointment and protect your rights.
Domestic violence and awareness of domestic violence receives immense media coverage and public awareness. Domestic violence and its elimination has become a priority for legislatures and law enforcement. An allegation of domestic violence can stigmatize a person, let alone being charged with or convicted of domestic violence. Defending yourself against domestic violence is not easy since the alleged crime usually occurs in isolation with no witnesses other than the accused and the alleged victim.
However, a vigorous defense is necessary as domestic violence is an enhanceable crime. What does it mean that domestic violence is an enhanceable crime? It means that once convicted of domestic violence the level of offense of any future allegations of domestic violence could be escalated. A brief example will illustrate the severity of an escalation.
Domestic violence - knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to a family or household member - is a first degree misdemeanor for a first offense, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and one-hundred eighty (180) days in jail. Suppose a person, with no prior criminal history, is charged and convicted of making domestic violence threats, a fourth degree misdemeanor punishable by a fine and up to thirty (30) days in jail. If that person is later accused of domestic violence he or she could not be charged with a first degree misdemeanor but could be charged with a fourth degree felony. Additionally, if convicted of a felony domestic violence charge, the person could face a mandatory prison term.
The Nicodemus Law Office has successfully represented persons charged with crimes of violence, including felony domestic violence. If you have been charged with or investigated in connection with a crime of violence, contact the Nicodemus Law Office at 740-422-9280 or complete the CONTACT FORM to schedule your appointment and protect your rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)