DISMISSALS
State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
Mandatory minimum sentences are those that, by law, require a federal sentence of “not less than” a specified amount of time. These mandatory sentences remove discretion from the sentencing judge and often result in harsh penalties for some crimes.
Mandatory minimums apply to, among others:
If you are under investigation for a federal crime, it is important to involve a defense attorney as early as possible. A federal defense attorney may be able to work out a deal prior to an indictment; once you have been indicted it may be difficult to have the charges against you reduced to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence.
There are exceptions that allow sentencing below mandatory minimums:
Too many people are sentenced to years in federal prison because of mandatory minimums. These exceptions are narrow and are at discretion of the sentencing judge.
According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, more than half of federal inmates are behind bars for non-violent drug offenses. Mandatory sentences do little to actually protect the public and very often over-punish individuals for certain crimes. With taxpayers footing an annual $60 million bill for prison services, the time for reform is now. There should be no “one-size-fits-all” prison sentence for specific crimes.
False accusations of criminal acts happen all too frequently. Likely just as often, individuals are overcharged based on the actual facts surrounding their case. Unfortunately, the application of mandatory minimums has led innocent people to plead guilty out of fear of a lengthy sentence that would be required because of mandatory minimum sentencing.
Attorney General Eric Holder spoke about the Department of Justice shifting its prosecution policies away from charges that would trigger mandatory minimums. Although this is a step in the right direction, it relies heavily on the prosecutor to choose a lesser offense and provides no real guarantee of protection from mandatory sentencing yet.
U.S. vs. J.R.
Charge: Mail Fraud (9 Counts), Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud
Facing: Three years in prison
Result: One year, One day
Marcilliat & Mills, PLLC‘s client was convicted of nine counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The government alleged that our client fraudulently obtained more than $115,000 from her former employer. At the sentencing hearing, the Judge granted our motion for a downward departure, sentencing our client to one year and one day. The government had asked the judge to sentence our client to several years.
State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
State v. B.S. – First Degree Murder
State v. E.D. – Identity Theft
State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
Each case is different and must be evaluated on its individual facts. We work hard to assess each case individually. Prior results do not guarantee any future outcome.
Put our team of criminal defense lawyers on your side today. You are one phone call or email away from getting your questions answered by an experienced defense attorney.
Call us at 919-838-6643to set up a free consultation or send us an email.
Fields marked with an * are required
Call 919-838-6643 to schedule a free initial consultation. Offices open weekdays 8am – 7pm, Saturdays 9am – 5pm
*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories — legal ability and general ethical standards.
© 2024 Marcilliat & Mills PLLC. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy |