Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer BlogJP, who is 47 years old, had been an oil burner technician his entire adult life. His job required not only that he have a license, but also that he have a commercial driver’s license. In 2008, before he hired Lewin and Lewin, JP was convicted of various drug related offenses. As a result, the Registry of Motor Vehicles suspended JP’s driver’s license for five years. Even worse, however, the RMV revoked his commercial driver’s license for life. (Drug convictions in Massachusetts carry with them a suspension/revocation of the convicted person’s driver’s license – even though the drug case may have had nothing to do with driving. If the drug charges are continued without a finding then there is no conviction and no loss of license.) This effectively meant that JP could never return to work and his career as an oil burner technician was over. In February 2011 JP retained Attorney Joshua Lewin. Attorney Lewin promptly filed a petition at the Board of Appeal in Boston, requesting that the Board rescind the lifetime revocation of his CDL and issue JP a license so that he could return to work. On March 9, 2011, Attorney Lewin appeared with JP before the Board of Appeal. The prosecutor from the RMV argued that JP’s license should remain suspended. Attorney Lewin, who had prepared a detailed and persuasive memorandum, argued to the members of the Board that they should reinstate JP’s license and rescind the revocation of his CDL. Two days later, JP received the Board’s decision: Petition allowed. The Board issued JP a license so he could return to work and rescinded the lifetime revocation of his CDL. As JP stated after receiving the decision and getting his license back: “this was the best money I could have spent.” In the background, Attorney Lewin could hear the sound of JP’s truck. JP was back on the road.
RAPE PROBATION VIOLATION SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED
In 1983, WC – then age 28 – went out on a date with a woman and ended up being accused of Rape. He did not deny the charge and was able to negotiate a plea where he was given a 7-10 year suspended state prison sentence and he was placed on Probation for five years. For four years he was a perfect probationer. At the beginning of his fifth year of probation he simply walked away from the probation and moved to Louisiana. From 1988 to 2011he lived in Louisiana. He started a business and became successful. The business was a custom motorcycle engine shop. On a February day he was in his shop when the US Marshalls showed up with a warrant for his arrest for being a fugitive from justice from the state of Massachusetts. They cuffed him and brought him to a local court in Louisiana where he was held for rendition back to Massachusetts. His friends contacted Attorney Robert Lewin in Massachusetts. WC ultimately waived a hearing in Louisiana and was transported back to Massachusetts. He was brought to Middlesex Superior Court (now in Woburn, MA) and brought before a Magistrate where he was ordered held without bail. He was served with a Notice of Surrender for Alleged Violation of Probation. There was no question that he had violated his probation: he left the state without permisssion; he failed to keep in contact with probation; he failed to report to probation; etc. The Probation Department was asking that his probation be revoked and the 7-10 year state prison sentence be put into effect. Attorney Lewin put together a memorandum for the Judge that included letters from associates in Louisiana, business records, and medical records. The case required some thinking outside the box. Extending his probation did not make sense as that would require that he not leave Massachusetts and that he wear a GPS bracelet. Sending him to prison to serve 7-10 years for a crime that occurred 28 years earlier did not make much sense either. WC’s friends in Louisiana were willing to put together a free WC fund and raised $15,000. Attorney Lewin suggested to the Judge that she find WC in violation of his probation and that she assess $5,000.00 as a court cost penalty and terminate his probation. The Judge liked the idea but thought the money way too short. The horse trading began and when the dust settled on March 22, 2011 the Judge ordered $15,000. WC’s friends wired the $15,000 up to Attorney Lewin who paid it to the Court. WC was brought back before the Judge who ordered his probation TERMINATED and ordered him RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. He was then discharged from the case and the case was closed. WC is back in Louisiana building engines and catching shrimp.
Framingham District Court Warrant Cleared
In 2009, DW, a 58 year old car parts salesman, gave a fellow a check for $1,500 that was worthless. The fellow went to the police and the police took out a criminal complaint against DB for Larceny Over $250, Forgery, and Uttering (all felonies). DB left Massachusetts and moved to Virginia and never received the summons to appear in Framingham District Court. A warrant issued for his arrest. Two years later (in 2011) DW learned of the outstanding warrant and contacted Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin spoke to the victim and confirmed that DB made good on the bad check plus interest. Attorney Lewin then contacted the police and the District Attorney’s Office and got the DA’s Office to agree to dismiss all the charges against DB prior to arraignment and without DB having to appear in Court. On April 5, 2011 Attorney Lewin appeared in Framingham District Court on DB’s behalf and the Judge went along and dismissed all the charges prior to arraignment without DB appearing personally. By dismissing the charges prior to arraignment the charges do not go on DB’s criminal record. It is as is it never happened.
CALIFORNIA RESIDENT GETS MASSACHUSETTS WARRANT CLEARED
For RD, a sixty-two year old California real estate broker, life was good until in 2011 the California Department of Motor Vehicles refused to renew his driver’s license because RD’s driving privileges in Massachusetts were suspended. It turns out that in 1983 (yes, 28 years ago) RD was arrested for DUI in Massachusetts. Back in 1983 he went to Westborough District Court (Massachusetts), pleaded guilty, was placed on probation for one year and ordered to complete a first offender drunk driving program. Before beginning the program RD’s then employer moved his job to California. RD “blew off” the probation and the DUI Program and moved to California. RD got a California license and for the next 28 years life was good. Meanwhile RD’s case in Westborough District Court went into default status, a notice of probation violation was issued, a warrant for his arrest issued, and the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles suspended his driving privileges in Massachusetts. Unfortunately for RD, over the years the computer tracking systems dramatically improved and in March of 2011 the California Department of Motor Vehicles notified RD that he could not renew his California license until he got reinstated in Massachusetts. On Friday, March 4, 2011 RD contacted Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin contacted the Westborough District Court and confirmed that RD was in default of his probation and that there was a warrant outstanding against him. The Chief Probation Officer at the Court took the position that RD had “blown off” his probation and therefore they were unwilling to do anything for him unless he returned to Massachusetts. And then Probation’s position was that RD should suffer a 1 year loss of his driving privileges in Massachusetts (the typical penalty in Massachusetts for persons who are either kicked out of the program or fail to attend). This would have meant a one year loss in of license in California. On Saturday, March 5 RD wired a retainer to Attorney Lewin. Over the weekend Attorney Lewin did a one-hour phone conference with RD and gathered all the necessary information from RD so that an effective written and oral presentation could be made to the Judge on Monday and Attorney Lewin prepared a Motion to get the matter cleared up. On Monday afternoon, March 7, 2011 Attorney Lewin appeared in Westborough District Court. The Chief Probation Officer’s position had not softened. After a full hearing on the Motion that Attorney Lewin presented to the Judge, the Judge took the following action: (1) The Judge excused RD’s appearance in Court and allowed Attorney Lewin to appear in his behalf. (2) The Judge removed the default that had entered back in 1983. (3) The Judge ordered the Warrant cancelled. (The cancellation of the warrant is the first required step in getting the driving privileges reinstated.) (4) The Judge found that RD was in violation of his probation because he left the state without permission, because he failed to complete the DUI program, and because he had failed to report to probation. (5) The Judge then reprobated RD and extended his probation for 5 months and ordered that he could now do the First Offender DUI Program in California. (Over the weekend Attorney Lewin had downloaded information on the California First Offender DUI Program and furnished it to the Judge anticipating that the Judge might take that course.) Attorney Lewin left the courthouse late that afternoon and called RD in California. Attorney Lewin told RD that Attorney Lewin still had to go to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to complete the process. On Tuesday morning, March 8, 2011 Attorney Lewin went to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles with the Notice of Warrant Cancellation from Westborough District Court. After a hearing the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles cancelled the suspension of RD’s driving privileges. This information was then entered (electronically) by Masscahusetts into the National Driver Register (NDR) System. Attorney Lewin left the Registry of Motor Vehicles building and called RD in California and told RD to get over to the California Department of Motor Vehicles and get his license. RD told Attorney Lewin “If you were standing in front of me I would give you a big hug!!!!” RD got his California License that same afternoon. Within 48 hours of being hired Attorney Lewin was able to clear up this 28 year old problem.
VIRGINIA MAN WINS DRUG CASE IN MASSACHUSETTS AND GETS HIS LICENSE REINSTATED
Carlos F, a thirty year old laborer, was arrested in Malden, Massachusetts in 2004 with a small amount of cocaine in his sock. He was living in Massachusetts at the time and went to Malden District Court where he was charged with possession of cocaine. Before his case was finished Carlos left Massachusetts for greener pastures in Virginia. As a result of his leaving, Carlos was defaulted in Malden Court and the Court issued a warrant for his arrest. As a result of the warrant the Msssachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles suspended Carlos’s license. Meanwhile Carlos had obtained a Virginia license and lived and worked in Virginia from 2004 to 2011. In late 2010 Carlos received a notice from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles that his Virginia license was being suspended because he was under suspension in Massachusetts. Carlos wrote letters to the Masssachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and he wrote to the Malden District Court trying to resolve the case without coming to Massachusetts; his letters fell on deaf ears. In early March 2011 Carlos retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the District Attorney’s Office to see if they would be willing to dismiss the case without Carlos coming to Massachusetts. At first the DA was adamant that they wanted Carlos to come to Court to face the cocaine charge. The arresting officer was still on the force; the drugs were still in the evidence locker; the state could easily prove its case. Attorney Lewin suggested to the DA that the state could use money – given the difficult economic times. Atorney Lewin suggested dismissing the case upon the payment of $500 in Court costs. The DA bit the bait and when the horse trading finished an agreement was reached to dismiss the cocaine charge on the payment of $1,500 in Court costs. Carlos needs three months to make payment and the DA agreed to a payment schedule of $500 per month. We still needed to get the presiding Judge in Malden Court to adopt this agreement. Judge Johnson is not an easy Judge in this type of case; he does not like people who “take off” and then when their driving privileges get suspended in some other state come back here lookling for relief. He often requires the people to come back to Massachusetts to “face the music”. On Monday morning, March 7, 2011 Attorney Lewin went into Malden Court and presented a written Motion seeking relief. After a hearing in which the DA joined in a request to dismiss the case upon the payment of $1,500 over three months the Judge granted Attorney Lewin’s request. The Judge excused Carlos’s appearance, the Judge removed the default, the Judge cancelled the warrant (the cancellation of the warrant is the first step in getting the driving privileges reinstated), and the Judge ordered the case dismissed upon the payment of $1,500 in three months. Attorney Lewin left court and called Carlos in Virginia and gave him the good news. Attorney Lewin told Carlos that Attorney Lewin was going to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to try to get his driving privileges reinstated. The next day Attorney Lewin went to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and had a hearing with a hearing officer to get Carlos’s driving privileges in Massachusetts cleared. It turned out that Carlos had two Massachusetts Licenses. This took a little doing to unravel but by the end of the day on Tuesday, March 8 Carlos’s driving privileges in Massachusetts were reinstated. Attorney Lewin called Carlos with the news; Carlos then went to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and got his Virginia license reinstated.
PROBATION VIOLATION NO JAIL
In 2008 JT plead guilty in Westborough District Court to two counts of larceny over $250 and one count of receiving stolen property. He was placed on Probation for 2 years, ordered to pay restitution and court costs, and ordered to have a substance abuse evaluation and treatment and remain drug and alcohol free. JT paid off the restitution and the court costs but then left the state without permission. He failed to follow through with the substance abuse evaluation. The probation department had a warrant issued for his arrest and he was subsequently picked up and brought to Westborough District Court. Attorney Lewin was retained. In November 2010. JT and Attorney Lewin appeared in Westborough District Court for a probation revocation hearing. Attorney Lewin had JT enroll in a substance abuse program. Attorney Lewin and JT met with JT’s probation officer and worked out a plan as an alternative to jail. The plan was presented to the Judge who extended JT’s probation for six month with the condition that he remian in treatment and not violate the criminal law. All JT had to do was remain clean for the six months and his probation would be terminated. JT was even given permission to relocated to Maine and his Probation supervision was transferred to Maine. Within a month JT was arrested in Maine and chraged with DUI and thereafter with Driving After Suspension Of His License. Maine notified Massachusetts and JT was once again served with a notice of revocation of probation. Attorney Lewin was once again retained and began negotiating with Probation. Ultimately Probation said they would recommend a 60 day committment to the House of Correction and then terminate his probation. On February 14, 2011 Attorney Lewin and JT appeared in Westborough District Court. The Judge found that on the basis of the subsequent arrests in Maine (for the DUI and the Operating After Suspension) that JT had violated probation. The Probation Officer recommended a committment to the house of correction for 60 days. Attorney Lewin reviewed for the Judge the entire history of the case including the fact that the restitution had been paid early on in the probation, that JT was an Honorably Discharged Veteran of the USAF, and that as a result of his arrests in Maine that JT was getting substance abuse treatment in Maine. Attorney Lewin pointed out that JT was employed full time in Maine as a machinist and was supporting his daughter and granddaughter (who also lived in Maine). Attorney Lewin suggested that rather than the State spending the money to house and feed JT for 60 days it would make more sense if JT paid a substantial sum to the Commonwealth to atone for his violations of probation. The Judge, after due consideration, agreed and ordered JT to pay $1,000 in court costs. JT’s family went immediately from the Courthouse to the nearest Bank of America, withdrew $1,000.00, returned to the Courthouse, and paid the $1,000.00 to probation. The Judge ordered the Probation terminated and JT was discharged from probation and from any further responsibility to the Court. The three cases in Westborough were closed and JT returned to Maine very happy. He had gone to Court in the morning prepared for the worst and left a happy man.
30 YEAR OLD WARRANT CLEARED
IS, a 47 year old businessman living in NY, went to obtain a high security clearance. He was told that he had warrants outstanding in an old criminal motor vehicle case in Cambridge District Court. The warrant dated back 30 years! IS emailed Attorney Lewin an inquiry. Attorney Lewin responded that he felt he could clear the warrant immediately. On February 7, 2011 IS sent Attorney Lewin a retainer by wire transfer at 9:00 AM. Within two hours, Attorney Lewin prepared a Motion to Cancel the Warrants and Dismiss the cases. Attorney Lewin went to Cambridge District Court, had the Clerk-Magistrate pull the papers on the cases, spoke with the District Attorney, and had the cases sent into the Courtroom. The Judge granted Attorney Lewin’s Motion and ordered the warrants cancelled and ordered the cases dismissed. Attorney Lewin walked out of Cambridge District Court slightly before 11:00 AM and called IS in New York. IS could not believe it was done so quickly. On February 9, 2011 IS got his high security clearance.
DOMESTIC ASSAULT NOT GUILTY IN MALDEN COURT
JR dated a girl for 2 years. They got engaged and then he discovered she was cheating on him. They broke up. Within several weeks she started calling him on the phone. He would not take her calls. One Saturday night JR was out with friends and went to a night club. He left the night club and when he got out to his car there was a voice message from the girl. She said she missed him terribly and wanted him to come over. He drove to her apartment. She let him in. They talked and then ended up in the sack and made love. After the love they began to argue. He got upset and threw some things in her apartment. She told him to leave and he left. She then called the Everett Police and said that JR had assaulted her with a box cutter. The police went and arrested JR. He was arraigned in Malden Court and charged with Assault and Battery and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (the box cutter). A review of the police reports showed that JR had never touched her (in any assaultive way). Attorney Lewin filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Assault and Battery. Assault and Battery requires proof of a battery; a battery is an unconsented to and intentional touching. There was no proof of such a touching and the Motion to Dismiss the Assault and Battery charge was granted. The DA’s Office offered to continue the Assault with a Dangerous Weapon charge without a finding. JR refused the offer and took the case to trial. At trial the girl testified that JR waved the box cutter at her and threatened her with it. JR testified that he had only picked up the box cutter and threw it into a closet and that he never threatened her with it. Attorney Lewin was able to impeach the credibility of the girl by shlowing that she had made a number of inconsistent statements to the police. On February 9, 2011 JR was found not guilty of the charge in Malden District Court following a jury-waived trial. Attorney Lewin and JR had met three times in the week and a half before the trial; JR was fully prepared to testify (and he did) and he was fully prepared to handle every question he was asked by the Assistant District Attorney on cross-examination. During their trial preparation sessions Attorney Lewin played the role of the District Attorney and grilled JR with questions. JR was ready and handled the DA’s questions with ease.
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON A CHILD: THE STATE AND THE DEFENSE BOTH BLINK
SN, a 60 year old man from Methuen, was arrested and charged with Indecent Assault & Battery on a Child Under 14. The child was his 12 year old niece who complained that he had sexually assaulted her when she was 7 or 8 years old. SN vehemently denied the charge. Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under 14 is a felony punishable by up to ten years in the State Prison. A conviction requires Sex Offender Registration for up to life and GPS Monitoring with an electronic bracelet. In pre-trial discovery Attorney Lewin was able to discover a police report wherein it was reported that the child had told her sister that she may have been dreaming. During her SAIN Interview the child denied ever saying to her sister that she may have been dreaming. The sister, who lived in New Hampshire, refused to be interviewed by the defense. Attorney Lewin filed proceedings in Lawrence District Court to force the sister to appear in Lawrence District Court for the trial. Papers were sent to Salem District Court in Salem, NH and a hearing was set for a judge in NH to order the sister to appear in Massachusetts for the trial. The sister then agreed to appear at the trial. On Januray 31, 2011 all the parties appeared in Lawrence District Court and the case was called for trial. Both sides answered ready for trial. The Assistant District Attorney approached Attorney Lewin and offered to reduce the charge to simple Assault and Battery. Simple Assault and Battery is a misdemeanor that does not involve sex offender registration and does not involve GPS Monitoring. The DA offered straight probation on a plea to simple assault and battery. As he was required to do, Attorney Lewin conveyed the offer of the DA to SN. SN, who for weeks had had visions of going to state prison and of having to register as a convicted sex offender and of wearing an ELMO (Electronic Monitoring Device), took the DA’s offer immediately. He tendered what is called an Alford Plea. An Alford Plea is when you plead guilty but do not admit to having committed the crime. The Court accepted the Alford Plea to simple assault and battery and placed SN on straight probation. SN walked out of the Courthouse and went home. The DA blinked first when she offered the reduced plea to Assault and Battery with a sentence of Probation. Some Defendants would have read the offer as a signal that the State’s case was falling apart and would have refused the offer and gone to trial. SN saw that, but decided not to take the risk of going to trial. He blinked and took the plea. These are not easy decisions. We always tell clients “Don’t plead guilty to a crime you did not commit.” Sometimes, however, clients feel compelled to plead when an offer is made that is too good to turn down. That appears to be what SN thought in this case. It is hard to say that he was wrong. A felony conviction – which was certainly possible – meant jail time, sex offender registration, and GPS monitoring. With the plea to a misdemeanor he locked in Probation with no registration and no GPS. What would you have done? Would you have blinked?
College Senior Keeps A Clean Record
On Friday night January 21, 2011 BG, a senior at a local college, went to his school’s hockey game at a rink in Malden. After consuming a few beers he became somewhat rude at the game and was asked to leave. Once outside one thing led to another and BG found himself under arrest for disorderly conduct. BG contacted his father – who happened to be a lawyer – and the father understood the ramifications of his son’s having a criminal record, even for a minor misdemeanor such as disorderly conduct. Attorney Lewin was contacted on Saturday, January 22, 2011. On Sunday Attorney Lewin contacted the Malden Police and began to negotiate a dismissal of the case,prior to the arraignment. The arraignment was scheduled for Monday, January 24, 2011. On Monday morning Attorney Lewin and BG appeared at court; at first the DA was reluctant to dismiss the case prior to arraignment. Eventually Attorney Lewin was able to convince the DA to agree to the dismissal prior to arraignment and the Judge went along with it. The significance of the case being dismissed prior to arraignment is that no entry will be made on BG’s CORI (criminal record). The case will not show up. It is rare for a DA or a Judge to go along with this; however, there is absolutely no harm in asking for the case to be dismissed prior to the arraignment as the worst the DA or the Judge can say is no. Had the case been dismissed after arraignment then the charge would show up on BG’s record and he would then have to explain to every prospective employer who checks his record what the disorderly charge was all about. Now he will be free of that entry on his record; his record is clean.