Maryland criminal lawyer

Blog Archives

Misdemeanor assault conviction dismissed on appeal.

Criminal attorney David Moyse gets second degree assault charges dismissed on appeal following finding in District Court. In a domestic violence case, with severe immigration consequences for his client. Mr. Moyse refused to accept any plea bargains on appeal, opting instead for jury trial. While the case was pending on appeal, the prosecutor made multiple lower plea offers, including an offer to Disorderly conduct, one of the least serious crimes in Maryland, on the evening before trial. Moyse and his client rejected the plea and insisted on trial. On the day of trial, the prosecutor elected to dismiss the case rather than proceed to trial, when a missing witness put his case in jeopardy.

DUI Charges Dismissed in Howard County.

DUI Attorney David Wooten won a DUI trial in Howard County, despite his client’s .13 blood alcohol level. The client ( a 21 year old petty Officer 3rd classin the Navy ) was elated because attorney Wooten even convinced the prosecutor to dismiss his speeding ticket prior to starting the trial… which was the only charge that he would have been convicted of in the end. The client’s two superiors, observing the trial in disbelief, walked out of court and sternly warned the jubilant petty officer.” Don’t let it go to your head”.

Drugs Charges Dismissed.

Maryland Criminal Defense attorney David Moyse convinced a Howard County prosecutor to completely dismiss drug charges against his client. The client was driving a car in which heroin was found in the passenger compartment. Both the driver and passenger were arrested and charged. However, Mr Moyse convinced the prosecutor to dismiss all charges against his client. Had the client been convicted, he would have faced certain loss of immigration status and possible deportation.

Theft Case Dismissed.

In January 2014, Maryland criminal attorney David obtained a complete dismissal of all charges in multiple count conspiracy theft case in Montgomery County. Moyse’s client mistakenly helped a friend sell stolen goods at a pawn shop in Silver Spring. Following a strongly contested trial in District Court, the State elected not to proceed on appeal, dismissing all charges.

Silver Spring man sentenced to eight years in prison for Wheaton robberies.

Link To Article

St. John Barned-Smith,
Posted: 12/12/2013 2:32 PM

Who was Joseph R. Urrutia — a dangerous career criminal or a man overcoming an addiction-filled past?

Defense attorneys and prosecutors wrangled over that question Thursday, before a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge sentenced Urrutia to eight years in prison on armed robbery charges.

In January, police arrested Urrutia, 48, of Benson Terrace, and charged him with robbing a Wheaton convenience store and a Capital One bank a few hundred feet apart on Georgia Avenue.

According to prosecutors, Urrutia was a “major career criminal,” with 35 arrests and 25 past convictions. Urrutia stormed into a local business wearing a balaclava — a mask covering most of his head and face — and sunglasses and holding a gun, then assaulted a 62-year-old shopkeeper, according to Assistant State’s Attorney Eric J. Nee.

Soon after, Urrutia robbed the Capital One bank branch, court records show.

Police arrested Urrutia the same day in a barbershop nearby. He was covered in red ink from exploded dye packs that were in bags of money from the bank, police records show.

“He has to prove to the parole board that he’s not a threat to society,” Nee said, asking that Urrutia receive a 16-year sentence.

Urrutia’s attorney, Andrew V. Jezic, said Urrutia’s actions stemmed from a childhood made brutal by abusive parents and from the trauma of watching his twin brother shot to death in front of him.

Despite the dozens of arrests his client had incurred, Jezic said for the most part, Urrutia had been a non-violent offender with convictions for disorderly conduct and loitering.

“He is not the monster the list of charges makes him out to be,” Jezic said.

He said Urrutia had tried to use his time in jail productively by attending therapy and addiction-treatment programs, working as a food preparer, and trying to obtain his GED.

Urrutia, Jezic said, turned his life around after marrying his wife, Nilda, in 2007.

“This is not someone who deep in their soul wants to live an assaultive … life,” he said.

In court, Nilda Urrutia said she married Urrutia — who she had known in her youth — while recuperating in Washington, D.C., after being flown from Iraq in 2003.

He had cared for her and supported her through the many surgeries she had to treat her war wounds, she said.

“He’s been my rock,” she said.

He started to turn his life around, she said, but descended into the grips of addiction to Oxycontin he had been prescribed for back pain.

“Things in the house started disappearing,” she told Mason, at times breaking down as she recalled how he sold her jewelry to fund his drug habit.

“What he did was so stupid and idiotic. I’m so sorry for what he did,” she said.

Joseph Urrutia, who pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery in July, said he committed the robberies in part because he hadn’t believed he was smart enough to get a normal job. It wasn’t until marrying Nilda, he said, that he finally began to believe in himself.

In apologizing for the robberies and everyone who has been affect, he said, “I know I impacted their lives.”

As he imposed the sentence, Mason noted Urrutia’s past and the trauma it had caused. “I can’t ignore the crimes you committed,” he said.

Urrutia likely would be eligible for parole in four years, Mason said, calling the sentence a “last opportunity.”

“If you don’t come to grips with your addiction, if you don’t get the help you need … if you come back before the courts … you may spend the rest of your life in jail,” he said.

sjbsmith@gazette.net

Jury acquits Jezic’s client of all sex offense counts after two Hours of Deliberation.

Mr. Jezic and Mr. Wooten successfully mounted an aggressive defense of a Rockville man accused of sexual assault, calling twice as many witnesses as the prosecution. After a four-day jury trial, the Montgomery County jury deliberated for less than two hours and acquitted Jezic’s client of ALL charges.

Silver Spring Man a year and half in jail for rape, second-degree assault.

Link to Article

St. John Barned-Smith,

Posted: 12/03/2013 7:12 AM

A Silver Spring man faces a year and a half in jail after entering an Alford plea to rape and pleading guilty to second-degree assault charges Monday.

Ramon Omar Vasquez, 36, of Little Sorrel Way, had been charged in two separate cases — one which took place in November 2012, and one which took place in May 2013.

In an Alford plea, a defendant acknowledges overwhelming evidence of a crime but does not admit guilt.

The sentence came after a plea deal with prosecutors. Montgomery County Circuit Judge Paul Weinstein sentenced Vasquez to 12 years in prison for the crimes, but suspended all but 18 months. Vasquez waived the six months he has spent in jail already since his May arrest.

Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Herdman said in court that investigators had struggled with “evidentiary issues,” and had been unable to obtain DNA evidence and that some of the victims had memory issues because alcohol had been involved.

Mr. Jezic continues to guide former Army Ranger toward freedom in Murder case in Montgomery County.

Link to Article

On Friday, October 25, a three-judge panel from Montgomery County Circuit Court reduced the sentence of former Army Ranger Gary Smith from 28 years to 15 years. With Smith’s 7 years of time served, he will be eligible for parole in 6 months.

Mr. Jezic and Mr. Moyse have been Mr. Smith’s attorneys from the day after the death of Mr. Smith’s close friend and former Army Ranger buddy, Mike McQueen, in September of 2006.

In November, 2006 Mr. Smith was charged with first degree murder despite passing two polygraph tests, indicating his innocence. Mr. Jezic secured Mr. Smith’s release on bond the next day – an extraordinarily rare occurrence for a first degree murder charge.

The first trial, lasting 11 trial days, resulted in acquittal of Mr. Smith on first degree and second degree murder charges, but guilty on a lesser form of second degree murder, called Deparaved Heart Murder. He received a 35 year sentence.

Recommending that the Mr Smith family hire the premier appellate attorney in the State, Gary Bair, Mr. Jezic worked closely with Mr. Bair, who eventually secured a unanimous reversal of the conviction in Maryland’s highest court on November 29, 2011.

Mr. Smith was soon out on bond again, and hired Mr. Jezic again after a brief representation by two excellent public defenders. When a critical defense postponement was denied during a very busy trial schedule for Mr. Jezic in the summer of 2012, Mr. Jezic recommended that the Smith family hire, as co-counsel, Barry Helfand and his law partner, David Martella.

In a twelve-day trial, Jezic, Helfand and Martella convinced a divided jury in September 2012 to acquit Mr. Smith of Depraved Heart Murder, but the jury still found Mr. Smith guilty of involuntary manslaughter and a gun charge. The same trial judge from 2008 gave Mr. Smith 28 years out of a maximum 30 years, despite sentencing guidelines calling for a sentence of 5 to 10 years.

Oral argument is set on December 11, 2013 in the Court of Special Appeals. Mr. Jezic has worked closely with Mr. Smith’s appellate attorney from the Public Defender’s office, Brad Peabody, a veteran appellate lawyer.

Mr. Jezic is very hopeful for a new trial – a third trial in 2014.

Ruling of Prince George’s County Circuit Court judge affirmed

Sinclair v. State.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that the limited, immediate search of an arrestee’s cell phone, pursuant to a lawful arrest, did not violate his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of various charges stemming from a carjacking in Temple Hills, Maryland. The record reveals that minutes after the Appellant’s lawful arrest, the on-duty officer conducted a limited search of the cell phone found on his person.[1] During the Appellant’s Circuit Court trial, defense counsel moved, in limine, to suppress the evidence seized from his phone.[2] The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County denied this motion, concluding that the search was valid incident to a lawful arrest.

On appeal, the Maryland Court struck down the Appellant’s claims, citing to a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[3] The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland balanced the Fourth Amendment rights of suspects against the need of law enforcement to preserve evidence when faced with nuances presented by modern technology.[4] Here, the Court concluded that, because the search was close in time to the arrest and the officer “merely opened the appellant’s cell phone” to find the evidence on the screensaver, the search was valid under the Fourth Amendment.

The Maryland Court also held that the introduction of other crimes evidence is proper, when the probative value outweighs any unfair prejudice that may arise. Here, the Court reasoned that because both parties stipulated (and the jury knew) that Appellant was previously found guilty of a disqualifying crime, the introduction of other crimes evidence[5] related to this stipulation was not overly prejudicial. Furthermore, use of this evidence was properly admissible for purposes of impeachment because it was related to a contested issue in the case.

[1] The evidence seized from the phone consisted of pictures found on Appellant’s screensaver which were later confirmed to be images of the stolen car.

[2] Defense counsel asserted that his Fourth Amendment rights protecting him against an unreasonable search and seizure when the arresting officer did not first obtain a warrant to search his phone.

[3] See United States v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405, 411 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding “The need for the preservation of evidence justifies the retrieval of call records and text messages from a cell phone or pager without a warrant during a search incident to arrest.”).

[4] The Court made note that, because evidence, such as text messages, pictures, and the like, can be erased so easily and quickly, the need to preserve such evidence justifies the search of cell phones pursuant to a lawful arrest.

[5] At issue was a recorded phone call Appellant made to his probation officer. At the trial level, defense counsel argued that the phone call’s prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

From attempted murder to simple assault.

Criminal Attorney David Wooten managed to turn a criminal case on its head in Howard County. Attorney Wooten’s client was held for 34 days pending charges for attempted murder, allegedly strangling his girlfriend to unconsciousness. Through diligent investigation and negotiation, however, Mr. Wooten worked out an amazing plea deal, whereby his client pled guilty to simple assault, and the client was sentenced to a straight probationary term. A straight probationary term means that his client was not even officially sentenced to the 34 days that he had already served, which is extremely important for a non-citizen who faces potential deportation as a result of a criminal conviction.