August-September, 2014

Subscribers to the Criminal Defense Resource Center’s online resources, found at www.sado.org, have access to more than 1,800 appellate pleadings filed by SADO Attorneys in the last five years.  The brief bank is updated regularly and is open to anyone who wants to subscribe to online access.  On our site, briefs are searchable by keyword, results can be organized by relevance or date, and the pleadings can be filtered by court of filing.  Below is a sample of some of the questions presented in briefs added to our brief bank in the last few weeks:

BB 231299:  DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS MUST BE REVERSED AND THE PLEA OFFER REINSTATED WHERE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO WITHDRAW FROM A PLEA AFTER HIS ATTORNEY GAVE ERRONEOUS OR INADE-QUATE ADVICE ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF PLEA WITHDRAWAL.

BB 231140:  DEFENDANT ENTERED AN IN-VOLUNTARY PLEA IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAUSES WHERE HE PLED GUILTY TO THE PROBATION VIOLATION CHARGES WITHOUT TRULY UN-DERSTANDING THE PENALTY HE FACED BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD BY THE JUDGE THAT A THIRD VIOLATION OF THE SWIFT AND SURE PROGRAM WOULD RESULT IN 15 DAYS IN JAIL, AND YET HE WAS TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM AND GIVEN A PRISON SEN-TENCE FOR HIS THIRD VIOLATION OF THE PROGRAM.

BB 231438:  BECAUSE NONE OF THE SENTENCING OFFENSES AROSE FROM THE SAME TRANSACTION, THE SENTENCES MUST BE AMENDED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.

BB 231438:  BECAUSE THE JUDGE’S MID-TRIAL COMMENTS ABOUT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S COMING “APPEAL PERIOD” BETRAYED HER PREJUDGMENT OF THE ISSUES, SHE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEFENSE MOTION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AND RECUSED HER-SELF.

BB 231645:  THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON A MANNER OF SEXUAL PENETRATION THAT THE PROSECU-TOR HAD NOT CHARGED; FURTHERMORE, DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITU-TIONALLY INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO OB-JECT.

BB 231720:  DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED DURING THE PROBATION VIOLATION PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCED WHILE BEING EITHER CONSTRUCTIVELY DEPRIVED OF THE REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL, OR, ALTERNATIVELY INEFFECTIVELY REPRE-SENTED, IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.

BB 231825:  DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO OBJECT TO, OR ACTUALLY ELICITING, IRRELEVANT AND UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT WAS ALLEGEDLY INVOLVED IN DRUG DEALING AND HAD ASSAULTED A PROSECUTION WITNESS.

BB 231825:  THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY ELICITING THAT TWO ALLEGED ACCOMPLICES WERE NOT ONLY TESTIFYING UNDER PLEA AGREEMENTS INVOLVING TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY, BUT HAD ALREADY PLEADED GUILTY BEFORE APPELLANT’S TRIAL, THEREBY IMPROPERLY VOUCHING FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES; ALTERNATIVELY, DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO OBJECT.

BB 231825:  DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO CROSS-EXAMINE APPELLANT’S ALLEGED ACCOMPLICE ABOUT FACING A LIFE SENTENCE BEFORE ACCEPTING THE PLEA OFFER AND AGREEING TO TESTIFY AGAINST APPELLANT.

BB 232136:  THE FINE IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT AT SENTENCING IS INVALID BECAUSE THE FINE WAS NOT PART OF THE SENTENCING AGREEMENT; DEFENDANT ASKS THE COURT TO CORRECT THE SENTENCE BY VACATING THE ILLEGAL PORTION, I.E., THE FINE.

BB 232218:  THE PROBATION CONDITION WHICH BANS DEFENDANT FROM ANY SOCIAL SITE INTERACTION OR INTERNET ACCESS ON HIS HOME COMPUTER IS OVERBROAD AND UNREASONABLE UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATE CONSTITUIONS AND COMPARABLE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS.

BB 232335:  DUE PROCESS REQUIRES REDUCING COURT-ORDERED RESTITUTION BY THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT’S VEHICLE THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE DISMISSED UDAA CHARGE AND WHICH DID NOT RESULT FROM THE SENTENCING OFFENSE OF LARCENY IN A BUILDING.

BB 233174:  DUE PROCESS REQUIRES REINSTATING A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER WITH A 28-50 YEAR SENTENCING AGREEMENT WHERE DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL ADVISED DEFENDANT THAT HE WOULD RECEIVE A BETTER DEAL IN FRONT OF THE ASSIGNED TRIAL JUDGE; DEFENDANT REJECTED THE OFFER AND PLEADED NO CONTEST THE FOLLOWING DAY BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE; AND DEFENDANT THEREAFTER RECEIVED A 45-90 YEAR SENTENCE.

BB 233194:  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ONLY 28 DAYS OF JAIL CREDIT WHERE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED FOR 405 DAYS FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THE CURRENT OFFENSE AND A CLOSELY CONNECTED PROBATION VIOLATION, AND BOTH SENTENCES MUST BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY AS A MATTER OF LAW.

BB 233301:  THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY DISCLOSING TO THE JURY THE PRIOR RULING THAT THE POLICE DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT’S MIRANDA RIGHTS; ALTERNA-TIVELY, DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE IN INVITING THE TRIAL COURT’S INSTRUCTION BY QUESTIONING THE DETECTIVE AT TRIAL ABOUT REFUSING TO STOP THE INTERROGATION.