Recent Case Results - Successful Outcomes in Robbery, Burglary, Probation, Possession, and Sex Crimes Cases

Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have continued to obtain successful results on behalf of our clients in cases involving sex crimes, robbery, burglary, and Possession with the Intent to Deliver. These successful outcomes have included bail reductions, the dismissal of all charges, favorable results in pre-trial Motions to Suppress, and probationary and house arrest sentences. In the past two months alone, we have achieved a number of wins, including:

Commonwealth v. S.A. - S.A. was charged with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, and related charges. The magistrate initially set bail at an extremely high amount due to the seriousness of the charges, and SA was unable to make bail. Within 24 hours of being retained, Attorney Goldstein obtained a significant bail reduction, and the defendant was able to make bail. After the defendant made bail, Attorney Goldstein was also able to have all charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing.

Commonwealth v. H.S. - Our criminal defense lawyers were able to obtain a full dismissal of all charges in a burglary case against HS at the preliminary hearing.

Commonwealth v. S.V. - Our attorneys were able to obtain a sentence of house arrest and drug treatment for a defendant who was convicted of drug charges. After the defendant was convicted of Possession with the Intent to Deliver, our defense attorneys arranged for the defendant's other open matters, including a case for which the defendant was on probation, to be brought in before the sentencing judge so that the defendant could be sentenced on all of the cases at the same time and only have one back judge. This procedure is called a 701 consolidation, and it can be very helpful in terms of avoiding multiple probation judges and consecutive sentences for a defendant who has violated probation.

Although the sentencing guidelines called for a state prison sentence and the defendant had been on probation at the time of the new arrest, our defense attorneys were able to convince the sentencing judge to give the defendant a chance to serve a house arrest sentence and obtain drug treatment. By investigating the client's background, our lawyers learned that despite being on probation for a similar offense, the defendant had never been ordered to undergo any kind of addiction treatment. Now, instead of serving time in state prison, the client will have the chance to receive treatment in the community, and the Court will also assist the client with obtaining educational and job training.

Commonwealth v S.A. - Attorney Goldstein obtained a full dismissal of all charges in a Robbery case at the preliminary hearing. In this case, the complainant alleged that the defendant had been part of a group that assaulted him and stole his tablet. After the complainant testified that he had been under the influence of prescription medication at the time of the incident and was no longer sure if the defendant had been present, Attorney Goldstein was able to convince the preliminary hearing judge to dismiss all charges. Prior to the preliminary hearing, Attorney Goldstein obtained a significant bail reduction which allowed the client to fight the case from out of custody.

Cmmonwealth v. D.S. - Our attorneys successfully moved for a bail reduction in a felony gun possession case. After the judge at the preliminary hearing refused to reduce bail, Attorney Goldstein immediately moved for a bail reduction in the Court of Common Pleas, and the Common Pleas judge reduced bail from $35,000 to $15,000.

In Re: J.W.: We negotiated an admission to Criminal Trespass in a juvenile delinquency case where the client was originally charged with felony burglary for breaking and entering into a school after hours. After hearing the defense's mitigation evidence and recommendation at disposition (sentencing), the Family Court judge found that the client was not in need of supervision and dismissed all of the charges. The defendant will not even have to be on probation, and the entire record of the case can be expunged.

Commonwealth v. E.G. - All charges dismissed prior to trial in domestic violence case involving Simple Assault and Recklessly Endangering Another Person charges.

Commonwealth v. M.M. - Client was arrested on a potential technical probation violation. Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to lift the detainer and had a hearing scheduled within a week. At the hearing, our defense attorneys convinced the judge to find that the client had not violated the terms of his probation. The client was immediately released the same day.

Commonwealth v. W.L. - The defendant was arrested on a bench warrant due to a failure to show up for court for a preliminary hearing. Our attorneys were able to have the bench warrant lifted without a finding of contempt of court and obtain Sign on Bond bail, meaning the defendant was released without an increase in bail.

Commonwealth v B.M. - We were able to successfully have Possession with the Intent to Deliver PCP and Conspiracy charges dismissed, leaving only charges related to marijuana sales for trial.

Commonwealth v. J.W. - Our defense attorneys obtained the dismissal of charges of selling crack cocaine and conspiracy at a preliminary hearing. The defendant will now face much less serious charges related only to marijuana in a trial in the Municipal Court. A conviction for Possession with the Intent to Deliver of crack cocaine may often involve jail time, whereas even a conviction for PWID of marijuana in the Municipal Court is more likely to result in probation.

Commonwealth v. M.G. - Successfully negotiated Section 17 disposition on drug possession charges. The Section 17 program requires the defendant to plead no contest and be placed on a period of probation. If the defendant successfully completes the probation, then the charges will be dismissed and can be expunged.

Commonwealth v. A.C. - Successfully negotiated for client who was facing assault charges to obtain entry into a Domestic Violence diversion program. If the client pays a small fine, completes a number of counseling sessions, and stays out of trouble for approximately four months, the entire case will be dismissed and can be expunged. Pursuant to the terms of the program, the client was not required to enter into any kind of plea or admission of guilt.

Commonwealth v. J.H. - Successfully negotiated for client's entry into drug treatment court for client facing two cases of Possession with the Intent to Deliver. If client completes the program, the charges will be dismissed and can be expunged, and client will not have a felony record.

SORNA/Megan's Law Update - PA Supreme Court Reduces Registration Requirements for Many First Time Offenders

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently announced some important changes for defendants previously facing or subject to registration on “Megan’s Law” for certain non-violent sexual offenses such as possession of child pornography. The Court held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) requires fifteen years of registration on Megan’s Law instead of lifetime registration for many first-time offenders convicted of multiple counts at the same time.
 
Previously, the State Police, who are responsible for implementing the registration component of SORNA, required first time offenders who were convicted of multiple counts of possession of child pornography or other Tier I or Tier II Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) offenses at the same time to register as Tier III offenders and to register for life. This interpretation of the statute had a tremendous impact on virtually all potentially Tier I defendants because police and prosecutors have enormous discretion in determining how many counts with which to charge any given defendant. For example, the prosecutor decides how many charges to bring against a defendant who possessed multiple prohibited images or multiple computers containing prohibited images. Prior to the Court’s ruling, if the prosecutor brought multiple counts, the defendant would potentially be subject to lifetime registration under the State Police’s interpretation of the Act. If the prosecutor brought only one count, then the defendant would be subject to fifteen years of registration. Prosecutors often could use this leverage to extract guilty pleas out of defendants with defensible cases by agreeing to allow the defendant to plead to only one count and thereby avoid lifetime registration in exchange for a guilty plea. 
 
However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just rejected the State Police’s interpretation of the statute. In the companion cases of Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison and A.S. v. PA State Police, the Supreme Court ruled that first time offenders without prior sex offense convictions are properly classified as Tier I or Tier II offenders (depending on the Tier of the offense) and subject only to fifteen or twenty-five year registration requirements regardless of how many counts the prosecutor chooses to file. The Court’s ruling hinges on language in the registration statute making someone with “[t]wo or more convictions of offenses listed as Tier I or Tier II sexual offenses” a Tier III offender." The Court held that because the SORNA law is a recidivist statute, meaning it is meant to provide an increasing level of punishment as an offender commits subsequent offenses, the statute “requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise subject to a fifteen- or twenty-five-year period of registration.”
 
It appears likely that the Court’s interpretation will be applied retroactively, meaning that offenders who were already deemed lifetime offenders by the State Police may have the opportunity to be re-classified. It is not yet clear whether the State Police will require each offender to file suit, file some sort of paperwork with the State Police, or whether the State Police will re-classify offenders automatically. It is also possible that there may be statutory time limits on an offender’s ability to petition for reclassification. Therefore, it is critical that you contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately if you are facing potential sex offense charges or already subject to lifetime registration under these or similar circumstances. 

The top-rated attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC have extensive experience representing individuals charged under Pennsylvania's SORNA and Megan's Law statutes. Our attorneys are extremely knowledgeable about recent developments in the law and able to use that knowledge to our clients' advantage. Call 267-225-2545 today for a free, confidential consultation. 

Related Articles: 

Appealing Retroactive Megan's Law Tier Increases

BREAKING NEWS: Retroactive Application of SORNA/Megan's Law Found Unconstitutional in Pennsylvania