Disparate Sentences for NBA Stars' Drunk Driving Convictions in Oakland County

A well-respected blog on sentencing picked-up on the infamous NBA drunk driving cases coming out of the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills, MI. The blog noted the difference between Jalen Rose's straight-forward OWI conviction [he did 14-days in the OCJ]; and the weapons charge component to Big Ben Wallace's OWI charge, recently resolved in the Oakland County Circuit Court before Judge Shalina Kumar.

Here is what the blog had to say about the two cases:

On the surface, it would appear that Wallace committed a (much?) worse offense but ultimately got a (much?) lighter sentence than Rose.  Of course, maybe there are some specific differences in the cases not obvious on the surface that justify this seeming disparity.  And, perhaps more importantly, the mere fact that can be (and often is) a lot of "low-level" sentencing disparity in this arena does not, in an of itself, necessarily establish that the applicable sentencing law is either unjust or ineffective.

Reading this blog post and being a local criminal defense attorney, I could not resist posting the following comment:

Great blog, DAB. This comment is from a criminal defense attorney in Oakland County, MI, where this Ben Wallace and Jalen Rose stuff went down. First, it is a suburb of Detroit; not in the "D", as we say. Also, Bloomfield Hills, where the district court is seated for that area, is a posh tony burb. (i.e. there are NBA stars driving around partying).

This comment seeks to shed some light on the "disparity" in the sentencing for the two NBA stars. Rose had the misfortune of driving drunk within the jurisdiction of the 48th District Court and to have his case randomly assigned to Judge Kim Small. Judge Small has made national headlines over the years for her drunk driving sentences; they often involve some jail time, even for first offenders with no criminal history. Currently, a group of high-end defense lawyers have challenged Judge Small, seeking to have her disqualified from all drunk driving cases on the basis that she is not fair or impartial, and that her "one-size-fits-all" sentencing policy (i.e. jail for all offenders), violates the "individualized sentencing" mandated by Michigan statute.
This is why Jalen Rose went to jail last summer. 

In the case of Ben Wallace, the big fella was OWI while packing some loaded cold steel in his Cadillac, upping his game to the felony level, and thereby "just passing through" the 48th District Court. Fortunately for him, although he too was randomly assigned to Judge Small, his attorneys executed a "fast break", waiving the preliminary exam, and binding Wallace over to the trial court. Once there, probation was available all day long. Good bye Judge Small; hello Judge Shalina Kumar. 

Unlike Rose, however, Wallace will have a felony weapons conviction on his record. Last year, Wallace spoke of going to law school. This probably puts the kabosh on that notion.
Here is a link to our local blawg coverage of Big Ben.

Sometimes an accused's notoriety helps his cause; sometimes it hurts the case.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Miss Michigan "Super Drunk" Candidate in Highland Park

Former Miss Michigan Rima Fakih

Oops, busted.  Former Miss Michigan and Miss USA Rima Fakih, 26, of Dearborn, MI, allegedly was cited at 2:15 am in Highland Park for driving with a blood alcohol content of .20.

Unfortunately for the beauty queen, this qualifies her for a charge under Michigan's relatively new "super drunk" law.  While Fakih, like most other motorists, will be initially charged with a standard "operating while intoxicated" offense, there is the potential for the "super drunk" charge if her BAC is greater than .17.

This "super drunk" charge subjects drivers to stiffer penalties.  Those penalties include a one-year license suspension for first-time "super drunks"; an increase in the potential maximum jail sentence from 93-days to 180-days; higher fines; and mandatory use of an "ignition interlock" device.

The super drunk law also features the longest alcohol rehabilitation treatment requirement on the books; one-year.

If convicted as a "super drunk", Fakih's driver's license will be suspended by the Secretary of State for one-year.  After a 45-day "hard suspension" where all driving privileges are suspended, she can apply for restricted driving privileges for the balance of the year provided, however, that an " ignition interlock" device is installed in her vehicle.

If allowed to plead to an ordinary "operating while intoxicated" charge, the hard suspension may only be for 30-days, depending on Fakih's master driving record, and there will be no interlock requirement.

Installing an interlock device will cost her about $50 and up to $100 per month to maintain.

So we will just have to wait and see whether this beauty queen's celebrity [perhaps "infamy" is a better word] will aid her cause, or hurt her case.  It is unknown at this time whether she was charged under local ordinance or state law; or whether the local prosecutor will elect to charge her under the "super drunk" law or with just plain old ordinary OWI.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Prisoner Has No Right to Miranda Warning During Prison "Investigation"

Homemade Prison Shanks

I have appellate clients doing time at the MDOC's Carson City Correctional Facility in Montcalm County.  One summer day a few years back, when I had just cleared the facility, a gang fight broke out in the yard which led to warning shots being fired from the gun tower and a 2-day lockdown.

Last month, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided a case involving the MDOC's attempt to get to the bottom of those gang disputes.  In the process, the intermediate appellate court touched on the nerve of an accused's right to have legal counsel prior to making statements to police.

In People v Cortez, the defendant, a prisoner at Carson City, underwent a cell shake-down which yielded two shanks from around his bunk.  Cortez was removed to a segregation unit and subsequently interviewed by an MDOC official who attempted to obtain information from the inmate relating to where the shanks came from and who was behind the gang violence.

In his statement, Cortez initially denied any knowledge of the shivs, then had a change of heart and told all, providing details about the gangs and the shivs.  He was charged with two counts of prisoner in possession of a weapon.

At his jury trial [yes, he utilized his right to crank-up a jury trial], Cortez's lawyer attempted to keep out his statements on the basis they were made during a custodial interrogation but without the benefit of Miranda warnings.

You remember Miranda v Arizona; the seminal criminal procedure and constitutional law case from the 1960s SCOTUS, requiring police to provide an accused suspect of his right to remain silent and to obtain a lawyer prior to answering any questions.

Anyway, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to allow the MDOC official testify about his questioning of Cortez; the questioning was characterized by the prosecutor as designed to elicit information about the gang violence within the facility and not to obtain evidence of Cortez's guilt.  Cortez's SADO attorney argued that the questioning was clearly intended for use in his subsequent prosecution.

The Court of Appeals held that Cortez was not entitled to Miranda warnings on the basis that he was not in "custodial interrogation" when he was, er, "interviewed" by the prison official; that the prison official was not the equivalent of the state police, nor was he acting on behalf of the state police, who later took over the case;  that the MDOC official's sole concern was prison safety, not gathering evidence against Cortez.

So, within the confines of a prison at least, an accused should not expect to be provided the seminal warnings that a police officer normally would provide about having a right to remain silent and to speak to an attorney before answering questions.

Hopefully, the holding in the case will be restricted to the context of the prison setting.  We don't want safer prisons at the expense of our constitutional rights out here in "the World".

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

SCOTUS to Hear Michigan Case on Plea Bargain Process

This week I had a 3-day jury trial. When it was completed, I walked out of the courthouse but my client did not.

In such criminal cases, at the brink of trial, it is common that the plea discussions give an accused serious pause. Rejection of a reasonable plea offer can result in significantly more time in prison thus, the stakes are high.

The counsel-driven plea process is at the heart of a Michigan case up for oral argument this week at SCOTUS: Lafler v Cooper. The case comes from the Wayne County Circuit Court; straight out of the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice.

The female victim in the case was shot 4-times by Anthony Cooper: twice in the buttocks, once in the abdomen, and once in the hip.  She survived these gunshot wounds.

Cooper's lawyer rejected a plea offer that would have capped his prison term to the lower end of his sentencing guidelines on an attempted murder charge.  The offer was rejected on grounds that the medical evidence in the case would demonstrate that Cooper was only trying to maim his victim; not kill her.  Counsel pushed for a reduction of the charges to assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

Well, as I've learned over the past two decades: "good luck with that..."

After his jury trial conviction, Mr. Cooper was sentenced to 135-360 months in prison.  On appeal, he raised a claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea bargain phase of his case in contravention of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

With his appeals exhausted in the state courts, Cooper filed a petition for Habeas Corpus in federal court.  The federal court ruled that the state appellate court erred by not accounting for the "affirmatively deficient advice" of Cooper's trial counsel in rejecting the prosecutor's initial plea offer.

The remedy: the federal court ordered specific performance of the initial plea offer: i.e. a 50-month prison term.  Understandably, the prosecutor appealed hence, the case now resides on the SCOTUS docket.

We will keep an eye on this one for you as it implicates how defense counsel handles the all-important plea bargain process.  So stay tuned...

http://www.waterfordlegal.com/

info@waterfordlegal.com

Panel Appointed to Examine Indigent Criminal Defense

This past week, Governor Rick Snyder issued an executive order appointing 10 people to serve on an "advisory commission".  Their mission: to quickly assess and make recommendations to the executive and legislature about the delivery of effective legal representation to the indigent accused.

Along with the 10 gubernatorial appointees, the commission also includes state legislative leaders from each political party; two from the state house and two from the state senate.

In reviewing the Governor's appointments, it was good to see Oakland County well represented.  Oakland County Circuit Judge Colleen O'Brien is on the commission along with former Oakland County Bar Association President Judith Gracey.

The problem presented to the Commission is how to provide effective assistance of counsel, as guaranteed under the United States and the Michigan Constitutions, for accused individuals that cannot afford to hire a lawyer.  Michigan is considered to be among the worst states in the Union in providing legal services for indigents.

This blog covered the problem last October when the Michigan Supreme Court reversed course in the Duncan v State of Michigan case, granting summary disposition to a constitutional challenge to our system of court appointed legal counsel.  So now the executive branch will make an attempt to fix what most everyone agrees is a broken system.

Here in Oakland County, this blogger has observed many a colleague providing quality legal service on a court-appointed [thus, low paying] basis.  A court-appointed lawyer may go through 50 pleas before taking a case to trial.

Similarly, at the appellate level, roster attorneys for the Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System subsist on a steady diet of guilty plea appeals which are essentially thankless fools' errands; done dirt cheap.  These MAACS attorneys, however, wait for a legitimate appellate assignment to come along, providing the opportunity to file a merits brief seeking to correct a constitutional wrong.

While professionally gratifying, the trial and/or appellate attorney can expect to be compensated at the rate of about $20 - $25 per hour.

Boozy Bears & MIPs

As Halloween approaches, here's an adult trick that's been going around; add a pint of vodka to some gummy bears and, viola; you have a batch of Boozy Bears.

The problem arises, however, when teens get their hands on the alcohol soaked candy.  Now, any gummy-munching teen will come under suspicion for being a minor in possession [of alcohol].

There are legitimate web sites for adults, that instruct party-goers how to make a batch of the Boozy Bears.  Effortlessly; just add Stoli.

These sites have had millions of hits on the Internet.  Things that are harmful to teenagers are all over the web.  Fortunately, several news stations recently splashed Boozy Bear warning segments across their evening newscasts.

So, be on the lookout...

Teenagers charged with an MIP have options.  Contact a local attorney if you are your family member has been charged.  And in the meantime, stay away from the Boozy Bears.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Oakland County Re-Visits Medical Marijuana Drama

The Oakland County Sheriff's interpretation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and the Controlled Substances Act has forced two local marijuana facilities to lock their doors.  One of the pot-growing operations, Big Daddy's Hydro, in Oak Park, closed voluntarily; the other facility, right here in Commerce Township where this blog post is being composed, was the subject of a task-force raid.

The Oakland Press ran a front-page story on Saturday about Big Daddy's Hydro.  The facility was on the receiving end of an Oakland County Sheriff's raid back in January.  Since then, the owners were resolved to carry on their operation; an operation they insisted was legal under the MMA.  Sounds like a movie might be in there somewhere.

Before Hollywood came knocking to negotiate the movie rights to this true crime drama, however, Big Daddy's in Oak Park locked its doors.  The decision was based on the observations of its management group that "patients" were being shook down on the street after leaving the facility.  Also, it did not help that four members of the management group were charged with distribution felonies by the Oakland County Prosecutor.

Big Daddy's is consolidating pot growing and distribution operations into their Chesterfield Township facility in Macomb County, and in Detroit.  Therefore, Big Daddy's alleged violations of the MMA or the Controlled Substances Act are now in the hands of Prosecutors Eric Smith and Kym Worthy.

The more recent raid on the Commerce Township facility presents an example of an increasingly sophisticated approach to medical marijuana enforcement by the Oakland County Prosecutor.  This bust was executed by a joint task force with a federal component; the DEA.  [Remember, marijuana remains illegal in any form under federal law.]  Also, the Sheriff has commented publicly that the facility violated the Controlled Substances Act, not the MMA.

Criminal defense attorney Neil Rockind was quoted in the Oakland Press yesterday as saying, "They can try to describe it any way they want.  I know what happened...and if they want to pursue a case then I'll be there."  Yeah, sounds like Neil; never one to shy away from high-stakes criminal defense litigation.

The Michigan Court of Appeals handed prosecutors a serious weapon when it issued its People v McQueen decision last month.  The published, thus binding, decision of the Court of Appeals runs a lance through most MMA distribution schemes; at least if those involved want to make any money from their elaborate growth and distribution operations.

This brings us back to the intent of the medical marijuana referendum that passed overwhelmingly by Michigan voters in the 2008 election.  The MMA is designed to encourage a "grow-your-own" and "trade-among-friends" approach to distribution.

From the outset, those involved in growing pot have been looking to make money from the provisions of the MMA.  Because the Act is silent on pot sales, a legal debate has, er, cropped-up about whether distribution via sale is permitted or proscribed by the Act.

Also, as the Law Blogger has pointed out time and again; the premise of patients getting medical attention from marijuana, although legitimate in a number of cases, is a complete sham in the overwhelming number of patient-care provider relationships.  This scam will likely bring down the MMA in the end.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Medical Marijuana Lawyer Seeks Further Appeal on Dispensary Case

This blog has covered the recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Michigan v McQueen which outlawed medical marijuana dispensaries as well as patient-to-patient pot sales.  This appeal is the latest chapter in the pot drama that has gripped our state since the passage of the referendum that legalized medicinal marijuana by a convincing 3/4 popular vote in the 2008 election.

Our readers may recall that the oral arguments in this appeal were the subject of some fanfare when journalist Eric Van Dussen sought to record the arguments, as he did in the People v Anderson medical marijuana case.  Jurisprudence in the making is certainly newsworthy; particularly when it concerns our fledgling yet tortured medical marijuana law.

Now this appeal grinds onward to the Michigan Supreme Court.  So promises Matthew R. Newburg, legal counsel to the Michigan Association of Compassion Centers, appearing as an amicus in the case.

The Court of Appeals granted Van Dussen's request to record the argument on behalf of the media; granted the Attorney General, also an amicus, 10-minutes of appellant's oral argument time; but denied Mr. Newburg's request to get in on the action at oral argument; his 10-minutes [of fame] will have to wait for another case, unless the Supreme Court grants his application for leave to appeal.

The Compassionate Apothecary claims it was simply operating a "club" of about 345 legal pot growers who "traded" various strains of medical marijuana.  In exchange for making a clubhouse available for its pot aficionado membership, Compassionate Apothecary took commissions off the top of all intramural marijuana transactions.

The intermediate appellate court ruled that the act does not authorize such commissions or transactions.  The Isabella County Prosecutor has mailed the appellate opinion to all marijuana dispensaries in the county;  advising them to cease any operations that contravene the appellate court's decision.

Going beyond the bald mechanics of his client's business model, however, Attorney Newburg told Michigan Lawyers Weekly that the MMA expressly provides for transfers from caregivers to patients and also allows patients who "grow-their-own".   The Apothecary's legal counsel also noted that the MMA is silent regarding so-called "patient-to-patient" transfers of the type that apparently went down at the club.

With those arguments in hand, the Compassionate Apothecary now proceeds to the Michigan Supreme Court.  Given the mess that this law has become, the High Court may actually take the bait and grant the Apothecary's application for leave to further appeal so they can sort it all out.

We will follow this one as it develops.  Even if the High Court declines this case, there are others building up behind it that are equally, er, "newsworthy".

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com