Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

The United States Supreme Court has overruled the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder. The petitioner had agreed that he was removable because of the two simple possession convictions but had applied for cancellation of removal. The 5th Circuit ruled that the petitioner's conviction on two simple possession charges constituted an aggravated felony thereby making the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. This ruling had potentially disastrous immigration consequences for thousands of non-citizens charged with petty drug offenses.

The petitioner had served 20 days on his first simple possession and 20 days on the second. The case was brought in Texas state court. The prosecutor had not sought an enhancement though enhancement as a recidivist offender was possible under both Texas and Federal law. The government argued successfully in the 5th Circuit that because the second offense could have been enhanced under the law, the second conviction constituted an aggravated felony.

The Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit. In short, the Court stated that in order to be convicted on an aggravated felony as a recidivist offender, the State must have provided notice of the intent enhance to the defendant so that he could have defended against those charges. The court refused to entertain the government's theoretical possibility of enhancement when in fact there had been no such allegations in the second criminal action. Nor did such a possibility factor into the plea which resulted in only a 10 day sentence under Texas law for simple possession.

This is good news for the petitioner and all non-citizens facing removal for petty drug offenses. However, this does not end the matter. Though the petitioner is now eligible for cancellation of removal, there is no guarantee that cancellation will be granted. If you find yourself or a loved one in this situation, contact an immigration attorney immediately. If you are charged with any kind of crime, especially drug offenses, then make sure you understand all possible immigration consequences of the charges and any offered plea. Even seemingly trivial offenses may have disastrous immigration consequences.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

One of the primary concerns of many facing domestic violence charges is the impact a conviction will have on their right to possess or carry firearms. This concern is particularly serious for those whose employment requires that they be allowed to possess or carry a firearm such as law enforcement, the military, and public or private security. The prohibition against possessing or carrying a firearm for people in these professions can be financially ruinous.

Conviction of a domestic violence offense in criminal court carries with it a lifetime ban on the possession of a firearm. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) provides for a lifetime ban for anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." Violation of the law results in very serious felony charges under federal law.

As a result, a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence can make an individual ineligible for employment in any occupation requiring the use of a firearm. This not only prevents individuals from pursuing employment in these areas, but can result in the lawful termination of a person's employment for a domestic violence conviction. This may be the case even for those who have been employed for years with that employer.

Of course, victims must be protected from domestic violence. However, there are a number of injustices that arise that are largely ignored under the pretext of protecting victims. First, as has been discussed in previous posts, false domestic violence actions are often filed for illegitimate purposes. Second, the definition of domestic violence is very broad. Prosecutors will often use the broad definition overcharge cases that really have no business being charged as domestic violence. Again, as a result of the incredibly broad definition, prosecutors will often also charge cases as domestic violence when the charge only vaguely resembles domestic violence. For instance, someone who kicks a wall, throws a phone, breaks some dishes or the like is often charged with domestic violence rather than simple destruction of property. Finally, the definition of assault which is part of the domestic violence offense of assault of a household member is really so flexible that anyone of the right mind could come up with charge no matter what the reality of the situation.

For an individual whose very livelihood depends on the outcome of these proceedings, the process is confusing, frustrating, and most of all frightening. Men and women who have spent their entire lives doing the right thing, without a single other blemish on their record, face the possibility of the loss of their gun rights, a right held sacred under our Constitution, and with that loss, a loss of any financially secure future in the profession which they have chosen. It is not infrequent that they face these consequences despite the absence true domestic violence for which the law was meant to protect.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Possession of a controlled substance, including marijuana, can have serious consequences for student aid. A conviction results in an automatic suspension of eligibility for federal student loans, grants and work assistance.

Suspension of eligibility for student loans, grants and work assistance is automatic for a duration of 1 year for a first time conviction for possession of a controlled substance. A second conviction carries an automatic 2 year suspension. A third conviction results in an indefinite suspension of eligibility.

Because the definition of controlled substance includes marijuana, both under federal and New Mexico law, any college student charged with possession of marijuana needs to carefully consider the consequences of any possible plea offers. Often, the prosecutor or district attorney will offer a plea disposition that ultimately involves a dismissal of the charges. This is very common in minor first time possession of marijuana. However, the prosecutor will often condition the plea and eventual dismissal on an admission of guilt such as in offers of a deferred sentence.

Any offer resulting in ultimate dismissal would typically be a very good option for a criminal defendant. Unfortunately, much like the untended immigration consequences related to seemingly trivial offenses, an admission of guilt to possession of a marijuana, despite a later dismissal, will jeopardize student loan eligibility.

Unfortunately, these harsh federal laws have not caught up with the national trends toward greater leniency in marijuana prosecution. California is moving toward decriminalization. At least one town, Breckenridge, has decriminalized marijuana usage. Medical marijuana legalization is expanding fairly rapidly across the country. Even law enforcement officials across the country are leaning toward leniency in marijuana enforcement. All the while, federal law continues to penalize recipients of student loans and grants for what is a fairly widespread practice on college campuses.

Hopefully, the federal law will catch up with state laws and the realities of widespread marijuana usage throughout the population, including college students. However, until that day comes, any New Mexico college student facing this situation would be well advised to seek the advice of a New Mexico attorney. Going to court without the assistance of counsel believing this to be a minor matter could prove very costly.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Arguments were heard last week by the Supreme Court in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder. The case addresses the immigration consequences of removal and deportation of immigrants from the United States for minor possession of marijuana. I set forth a summary of the case in a prior post. The last post did not address the public policy implications of the case. There are many that will be felt here in New Mexico.

News reports over the last several weeks have included California releasing thousands of prisoners due to budget issues. The State of New Mexico is considering permanently cutting over 1000 employment positions in the State, many of which are corrections and law enforcement. The New Mexico State Police have cut back on officers. Other cities and towns, including Albuquerque, are cutting law enforcement positions and/or salaries. The courts in New Mexico, including the Second Judicial District, are cutting hours and staff due to budget issues. Prosecutor budgets are being cut with prosecutors taking pay cuts. Think of what a continuation of the policy of deportation of immigrants on minor possession of marijuana has on prosecutor's offices.

Immigrants facing these charges have no plea options. Prosecutors are left with one few options, dismissing the case or going to trial. In many cases, these are only options if there were no other charges in the complaint. There is simply no lesser included offense that would allow plea. Criminal defense attorneys cannot advise their clients to take a plea involving any hint of drug possession. They cannot even allow a plea that would result in a dismissal if the plea involves an admission of marijuana possession. The admission alone, despite the later dismissal, is a deportable act.

Thus, the policy forces defendants to go to trial on otherwise trivial charges. Trials are a huge burden on the courts and prosecutors who are already under severe budgetary strains. Just today, the Albuquerque Journal reported that Albuquerque Public Schools face a $43 million budget deficit forcing the layoff of 664 APS employees. How should we as a society spend our tax dollars? For teachers or for prosecuting and deporting otherwise law-abiding immigrants on minor possession of marijuana?

Morality, humanity, compassion carry little weight in immigration debates. Money is always persuasive, and though money cannot buy happiness, it might buy change in a cruel and irrational immigration enforcement policy.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Arguments in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder began yesterday before United States Supreme Court. The case addresses the issue severe immigration consequences of removal and deportation of immigrants from the United States for minor possession of marijuana.

The case involved a situation where the defendant was convicted for simple possession of marijuana in 2004. He was sentenced to 20 days in jail. One year later, he was convicted of simple possession of xanax on a no-contest plea. Both were misdemeanors under Texas law. Despite the fact that both convictions were misdemeanors, the prosecutor argued and the Court agreed (both the district court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas) that successive convictions allowed for the defendant to be charged with drug trafficking for the second offense. Drug trafficking convictions are deportable offenses, with very few exceptions.

The Supreme Court will address whether or not the practice of equating two misdemeanor drug offenses to a drug trafficking offense is constitutionally allowed. Several Circuits have already ruled that it is not with the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) continuing the practice.

The Court's ruling will affect thousands of immigrants facing immigration for misdemeanor drug offenses. Under the current state of the law, there is an exception to removal for first time simple possession of marijuana (less than 30 grams). Any subsequent drug offenses no matter how trivial will result in removal and deportation.

The New York Times addressed an individual who is keenly interested in the case's outcome. The article addressed Jerry Lemaine who had been arrested for a small amount of marijuana as a teenager. That case was dismissed. He was caught later with a single marijuana cigarette in 2007. His public defender had advised him to plead guilty and pay the $100 fine. This would make sense in the typical case, but in case of an immigrant, the plea resulted in Jerry being placed in removal. He has spent the next three years in confinement fighting removal to Haiti where he left when he was 3 years old. The court refused to consider his exemplary life where he was working on a nursing degree, helping to care for a brain injured United States citizen sister, and helping his mother single mother who worked two jobs to care for the family and get them out of a dangerous Bronx neighborhood to Long Island.

There are thousands of others currently in removal proceedings for similar charges of minor possession of marijuana. The Court's ruling will affect thousands of immigrants facing immigration for misdemeanor drug offenses. Under the current state of the law, there is an exception to removal for first time simple possession of marijuana (less than 30 grams). Any subsequent drug offenses no matter how trivial will result in removal and deportation.

The immigration enforcement policies have tragic consequences for many immigrants and their families. The policies have broader policy implications that directly impact local law enforcement, prosecutor offices and the Courts. These will be addressed in the second part of this article.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Read the New York Times Article

Many times clients are confused on the difference between a criminal domestic violence action and a civil domestic violence action. There are many distinctions between the two, too many to enumerate them all here. In short, however, each is extremely serious and should be treated as such.

A criminal domestic violence action usually begins with a criminal complaint alleging battery on a household member or assault on a household member. In Albuquerque, these are filed in Metropolitan Court. In other areas, including Rio Rancho and Sandoval County, they are filed in magistrate court. In cases involving serious injury or deadly weapons, the cases will be filed as felony domestic violence and the case will eventually be transferred to District Court.

A civil domestic violence action begins with a Petition for Order of Protection Against Domestic Abuse. In most areas of New Mexico including Albuquerque, Rio Rancho and Santa Fe, these cases are heard by a domestic violence hearing officer. These are not criminal in nature. As such, the standard of proof is not as rigorous as in a criminal proceeding and sometimes it seems that the hearing officers are predisposed to make a finding of domestic violence despite the evidence. On the other hand, a finding of domestic violence in a civil hearing will not result in criminal penalties such as probation or jail time.

In both the criminal and civil domestic violence actions, the alleged perpetrator of domestic violence will be ordered to have no contact with the alleged victim. In a criminal case, the "no contact" provision will be in the Order Setting Conditions of Release. In the civil action, a Temporary Order of Protection is issued upon filing the Petition for Order of Protection from Domestic Abuse. This Temporary Order will remain in effect until the hearing which usually is set within 10 days of service of the Order on the Respondent (alleged perpetrator). If there is a finding of domestic violence at the hearing on the Petition for Order of Protection, the Order of Protection will be extended for 6 months. It may be extended an additional 6 months for good cause on a Motion to Extend Order of Protection.

In both the civil and criminal cases, a violation of the "no-contact" provisions have very serious consequences. Violations of these Orders is a crime. In fact, violation can be charged as a felony in the criminal case with very serious penal consequences. In the criminal case, the defendant will be arrested and the judge may order the defendant held in custody until the trial date. In addition, the defendant will likely face new charges including possible felony domestic violence. In the civil case, a violation of the no-contact order can and typically does result in a finding of contempt for which the Respondent can be taken into custody often times for 10 days, though the judge can order a longer time period.

In addition to the distinctions above, the jurisdiction of the court over matters related to the parties is very different. The family court domestic violence officer can address who stays in the home, generally the alleged victim. The domestic violence hearing officer can also address temporary child custody and time-sharing , and child support. The criminal court cannot address these issues as its jurisdiction is limited to criminal prosecution. However, the no-contact order in the Order Setting Conditions of Release often has the effect of awarding the home to the alleged victim.

It is important that you understand the difference in these two proceeding if you have been accused of domestic violence. Though the criminal case may appear much more serious, the reality is that the civil case has much broader consequences addressing property rights, child custody and child support. And of course, a finding of domestic violence in the family court has most of the same negative consequences of a criminal conviction such as immigration consequences, employment consequences and gun ownership to name a few.

In short, in either case, you should contact an attorney immediately upon learning of allegations of domestic violence. The possible consequences are too severe to take these matters lightly.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The collateral consequences of a criminal conviction can often outweigh the criminal penalties. The employment consequences can be particularly problematic. The impact of a criminal conviction on employment can be difficult to determine because the laws and regulations are often industry specific and are therefore found in the industry codes and regulations.

However, it is clear that many convictions will impact future employment. Most employers (80% of large corporations and 69% of small businesses) conduct background checks on all employees. It is estimated that two-thirds of employers will not hire a former offender. Due to the widespread practice of background checks along with the reluctance to hire those convicted of crimes, chances are a conviction will have serious consequences for your future employment.

In fact, there are many occupations where employment is barred completely by a variety of offenses, not all of which are felonies. Most professions and occupations will bar licensure in cases of felony convictions. In addition, many also bar licensure in cases of dishonesty or fraud. These categories cover a lot of ground, not unlike the crimes of moral turpitude classification critical to immigration cases. Those professions involving fiduciary responsibilities such as banking and financial services also carry bans for convictions involving breach of trust and money laundering.

Even where a conviction does not create an absolute bar, licensing agencies often may refuse licensing on the grounds of moral character. Those offenses reflecting on moral character can be quite broad ranging from failure to pay child support, domestic violence/battery on a household member, crimes of dishonesty, fraud and certainly any felony conviction.

There a number of professions that bar employment for controlled substance offenses including the medical profession, law enforcement, and private security. And of course, convictions for controlled substance offenses can be used in judging moral character. The problem with the controlled substance conviction is that by statute in New Mexico, marijuana remains classified as a controlled substance. As such, a marijuana conviction can potentially harm potential employment opportunities in the future.

Finally, many occupations and professions will have occupation specific bars. The most obvious case is daycare and teaching for those convicted of sex crimes. Again, charges for sex crimes can sometimes involve what would appear to rational people to be relatively innocent behavior. The most egregious abuse of sex crime statutes involves prosecution of young men and women, and even children, for sexual exploitation for carrying or transmitting explicit pictures of friends/classmates on their mobile phones. A conviction for even this can carry lifetime registration as a sex offender with all the employment consequences of said registration.

It is important to know the employment consequences of a conviction as you move forward in your case. Unfortunately, some charges are so severe that there is little room to maneuver or avoid the possible employment consequences without taking even greater risks of criminal consequences. However, it is important that you understand all of the collateral consequences of a conviction which often go well beyond punishment by the courts.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com