Plea Deal Case Study

Mark was charged and arrested with (DWI) driving while intoxicated. After patrol officers complete the investargation of the car crash of what could have cause the fatal car crash. Mark have been accuse of reckless driven meaning that he was operation an automobile in a dangerous manner under the circumstance, including speeding, driving after drunk and also having too many passengers in the car while operation the automobile. Mark also have four counts of felony assault causing physical harm and life threathen injure to more than one person. Along, with a involuntary manslaughter causing a untimely death of an individual as a result of operation am automobile while intoxicated.

According to police reports, Mr. Jonathan Hartshorn was involved in a single vehicle non-injury accident when the vehicle he was operating rear ended another vehicle in the drive thru lane at 1212 S Rock Rd. Officers were called to the accident and made contact with Mr. Hartshorn, who had moved to 1219 S Rock Rd. Officer Reser made contact with Mr. Hartshorn and detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on Mr. Hartshorn. Mr. Hartshorn also had slurred speech. Officer Reser had Mr. Hartshorn perform the sobriety tests, which he failed. Mr. Hartshorn submitted to a breath test which showed a BAC of

David Smith had proven himself to be a danger to the community when he decided to consume significant amounts of alcohol and then operate a motor vehicle. He has since been before this court on these same charges three times prior since 2009. As a matter of fact, Mr. Smith is out on bond for his four Driving Under Influence conviction in which he is scheduled to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin a three-year sentence. While waiting to begin his sentence, Mr. Smith still continues to participate in a lifestyle that has brought him nothing but destitute. The court has given Mr. Smith several opportunities to address his alcohol addiction. As part of all of his past three convictions, Mr. Smith was ordered by the court to complete an alcohol treatment program. Mr. Smith has completed these programs and promised the court that he would not return to court with these same issues. Mr. Smith has lied to the court and has preyed on the mercy of the court. He has proven himself to be someone who cannot be trusted and is a danger to this community when he drinks and then gets behind the wheel of a vehicle. Mr. Smith has hurt his family and now in recent events brought great sorrow to another family. With all facts considered that is why I am seeking the maximum 20 years, without the possibility of probation or parole, to run consecutively with his the three years that he is already serving for the charge of Vehicular Homicide Tenn. Code Annotated

There are a lot of driving under influence arrest that has been happening the past years. And you should choose the right lawyer for the job. The people who lack the experience will not be able to have the capability to save you from the problems that you have encountered because of the accident you have incurred. Among the penalties that one may incur is the loss of driving license, a lot of steep fines and also the possibility of incarceration. Not only that there is a possibility of having a conviction that will be placed against you.

The DWI defense attorneys will analyze your situation in all aspects and attempt to uncover a profitable a technique. you have discovered a record of DWI attorneys that appear to be nicely revered in the area, begin to discuss your case with them. Most of the Houston DWI attorneys will offer a totally free consultation or first meeting. Do not move up this possibility to meet with the attorney. Your interaction and personalized link with the lawyer should be a factor used for identifying who you will rent. If you talk with a number of attorneys, you can reach a final choice that you will feel comfortable with.

Anthony Cooper was charged under the laws of Michigan State with assault with intent to murder Mundy using a gun that he fired to Mundy and she was shot on her buttock but luckily she survived the attack. Besides the assault charges, he was also charged with possession of a weapon illegally, been under the influence of marijuana and turning to be a habitual offender. Blaine received an offer from the court to dismiss two of the charges and suggest a lenient sentence of 51-85 months for the two remaining charges, in exchange for a guilty imploration. Cooper on good faith admitted his offence and expressed his willingness to accept the offer. However, the respondent rejected the offer proposed by the court after his attorney managed to convince him that the court will not be able to prove his intention to kill Mundy because the victim was shot in her waist. On the first day of the trial, the prosecution proposed a substantially less attractive deal which made respondent reject the plea deal. After the end of the trail, Cooper was found guilty and was subjected to a compulsory least verdict of 185 to 365 months imprisonment. The petitioner filed an appeal at the Michigan Supreme Court based on the allegations that the advice of his attorney to decline the offer was an ineffective counsel. The canton court temporarily permitted the writ and instructed the first plea bargain presented to Cooper be employed. The court of appeals confirmed and the U.S Supreme Court accorded certiorari to review (Wynne & Klein, 2012).

However, the case was resolved in a new deal in which the court agreed to adopt the recommended sentence, with additional local jail time, if Lunsford stood on his prior guilty plea. As part of the deal, the state also agreed to dismiss the newer misdemeanor charge.

More than 90 percent of criminal convictions come from negotiated pleas, also known as, plea bargaining. Plea bargains are used every day at both the federal and state court level. They certainly have their “proponents” as well as their “opponents”. A plea bargain basically is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. That agreement is usually in the form of a defendant pleading guilty to a “lesser” crime with a reduced sentence in return for the prosecuting authority not having to expend the time, energy, expense and manpower in seeking a conviction in a trial of a more serious charge. An evaluation of the evidence against the defendant is usually a significant factor by the prosecutor in determining whether or not a plea bargain should be offered. If the prosecutor’s case is strong, the chances of a plea bargain being offered to the defendant are lessened. While at the same time, if the prosecutor feels that his evidence is on the weaker side, the probability of a plea bargain being offered is enhanced.

The case involved a suspect who was stopped by a police officer for allegedly violating the right away of another vehicle in the City of Colton. He was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). This would have been his 3rd offense for DUI within 10 years. In the state of California, if found guilty, he could face 120 days in jail and 2 years revocation of his driver’s license. The Defendant believed that the police officer was not in a position to observe what he said he saw. A Department of Motor Vehicles hearing was schedule. The Defense presented evidence to the DMV officer to show that the officer could have not possibly seen what he indicated in his police report.

There are two types of plea bargains. One type of plea deal involves the defendant pleading guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of

Getting convicted under a DUI case in Ohio, Cleveland can land you in great trouble in terms of fines, penalties, suspended driving, installation of interlock and even jail. It is hard to manage all the court hearings and charges levied against you without a legal counsel. Only an experienced and knowledgeable Cleveland Law Firm with a team of affluent and skilled lawyers can help you out of this situation by fighting for your rights and defending you aggressively in the court.

Looking at an prosecutor's point of view; plea bargains are effective. Plea bargains result in convictions, and prosecutors are measured by their conviction rate. Most prosecutors would want to spend a week negotiating a plea for a lesser conviction. Than spend a year to meet a greater conviction. They can still up their conviction rate, and claim to be tough on crime, while doing it in a much more efficient way. Any experienced prosecutor knows how much of a gamble a trial is. Plea agreements are known to be a sure thing.

Judge DiMango explained to Browder, “If you go to trial and lose, you could get up to fifteen.” Then she offered him an even more tempting deal: plead guilty to two misdemeanors—the equivalent of sixteen months in jail—and go home now, on the time already served. “If you want that, I will do that today,” DiMango said. “I could sentence you today. . . . It’s up to you.”

In the United States, plea bargaining seems to determine the fate of criminal defendants, rather that trials. This is true in federal cases, but specifically in drug cases. An estimated three percent of federal drug defendants actually go to trial (Fellner). Also, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 50% of inmates are in federal prison for drug offenses. Of those in prison for drug offenses, evidence has shown that “defendants convicted of drug offenses with mandatory minimum sentences who went to trial received sentences on average 11 years longer than those who pled guilty (215 versus 82.5 months)” (Fellner). Harsh sentences for drug offenses has fueled climbing federal prison population since the anti-drug effort began in the mid-1980s.

On January 22, 2009, I pled guilty to a Class B misdemeanor DUI charge in Logan, Utah. The offense occurred in November of 2008. On the day of the offense, I had consumed alcohol after work with some friends but felt safe to drive. I was an inexperienced drinker and used poor judgment. When I was pulled over my blood alcohol content was below the legal limit, but I was still cited with a DUI. At first I felt like the victim of injustice but soon realized I was actually the victim of my own poor judgment. I accepted the consequences, pled guilty, and made the decision to never find myself in questionable circumstances again. I was fined and sentenced to two days in jail, one year probation, and required to complete an alcohol treatment course.