History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant’s home was searched pursuant to a warrant. The information used to obtain the warrant was provided by a confidential source. During the search, the police found illegal narcotics and firearms. The defendant then moved to suppress the evidence found during the search on the grounds that the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Probable Cause for Issuing a Warrant

Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause and must specifically describe the place to be searched and the times that are likely to be found during that search. The courts will find probable cause when it is illustrated that there is a fair likelihood that evidence of a crime or illegal items will be found in a particular place.

The courts determine whether a search warrant establishes probable cause by examining the totality of the circumstances. In some instances, like the present case, the search warrant will include information obtained via a confidential source. If the constitutionality rests, all or in part, on the confidential information, the reliability of that information must be sufficiently corroborated through independent means or clearly demonstrated

In the subject case, the defendant argued that because the confidential source that provided information for the warrant was not reliable, the warrant lacked probable cause, and the search of his home was an illegal search and seizure. The court disagreed, noting that the confidential source was known to police and in their custody, which gave their statements greater weight. Further, the source provided substantial detail about the defendant’s home and the weapons he had, which added to his credibility. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion.

Meet with a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If the police violate a person’s rights during the investigation of a crime, any evidence found during that investigation may be inadmissible. If you are accused of violating the law, it is smart to meet with an attorney to discuss what measures you can take to protect your interests. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to provide you with a good chance of obtaining a favorable outcome. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant and another individual attempted to rob a drug dealer. The drug dealer was shot during the incident. The government then charged the defendant with several crimes, including conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery. Additionally, the defendant’s indictment asserted that both offenses were predicate crimes of violence. The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and the use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

It is alleged that the government agreed to dismiss the rest of the charges against the defendant. The court convicted the defendant of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. He then sought habeas review, arguing that the predicate offenses did not constitute crimes of violence and, therefore, his conviction should be vacated. The appellate court granted the appeal, and the government sought certiorari review.

The Definition of Crimes of Violence

On appeal, the Court answered the distinct question of whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery falls under the definition of a crime of violence under federal law. The Court ultimately ruled that it did not and affirmed the intermediate court’s ruling. In its opinion, the Court noted that the government was required to demonstrate that the defendant intended to take another party’s property through threat or force and took a substantial step in the direction of meeting that goal in order to obtain a conviction for Hobbs Act robbery.

As the Court explained, though, the elements of attempted Hobbs Act robbery do not categorically involve the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force. Therefore, Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under federal law, as a predicate for a felony conviction and imposing enhanced sentencing for using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

Talk to a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Charges

People convicted of violent crimes face significant penalties, especially if the offense involved the use of firearms. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is essential to set forth a compelling defense, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible to determine your options. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and help you to seek a good outcome. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Defendant’s Charge and Conviction

It is alleged that police officers were looking for the defendant, as he was absconding from parole, and there were seven warrants out for his arrest. They received permission from a homeowner to search his house, and during the search, they found the defendant in the basement. He was sleeping on a mattress on the floor near an unloaded pistol and a magazine.

It is reported that the defendant was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to fifty-one months in prison. He appealed, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Sentencing in Gun Crime Cases

Appellate courts review sentences for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. The court explained that when a defendant asserts that a sentence is substantively unreasonable, they are essentially arguing that it is too long. A sentence will be considered too long if it is greater than is necessary to achieve the goal of sentencing.

The court further explained that when a criminal defendant argues that a sentence is substantively unreasonable, they are asserting that the court granted some sentencing factors too little weight and others too much. Some elements that are relevant for sentencing purposes are the circumstances and nature of the offense and the characteristics of the defendant. In other words, a court can consider a defendant’s criminal history when issuing a sentence, even if it is already reflected in the advisory guidelines range.

The mere fact that a court issues a sentence that is above the guidelines does not mean that it is presumptively unreasonable. In the subject case, the court found that based on the defendant’s extensive criminal history and the goal of deterring him from committing additional crimes, the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. Thus, it denied his appeal.

Consult a Skillful Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

People convicted of felonies often lose important rights, including the right to own or carry a firearm. If you are charged with unlawfully possessing a gun, it is advisable to meet with an attorney to discuss your possible defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skillful Michigan criminal defense lawyer who takes pride in helping criminal defendants mount compelling defenses, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with numerous federal crimes, including carrying a firearm or aiding and abetting using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. A jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to serve sixty consecutive months in prison for the firearm offense. He filed a motion to vacate his sentence, arguing that abetting and aiding attempted robbery, the underlying crime of violence, was not a crime of violence as defined by the applicable statute. The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Crimes of Violence Under Federal Law

An appellate court will review the question of whether an offense is considered a crime of violence de novo. In doing so, they must apply the categorical approach as dictated by the elements clause of the relevant statute. In other words, they must assess the elements of the alleged offense rather than the particular facts out of which the defendant’s conviction arose.

In the subject case, the appellate court ultimately determined that, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, aiding and abetting an attempted robbery was categorically a crime of violence as defined by the statutory meaning of the phrase under the elements clause. The court elaborated that a conviction for attempted robbery required an attempted taking from another individual using violence and force or intimidation.

Further, because intimidation refers to the threat to use physical force, and even an attempt to take something from another person via force, violence, or intimidation constitutes an act of violence under the applicable law, aiding and abetting attempted robbery was a crime of violence. Based on the foregoing, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate his sentence.

Meet with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

People charged with crimes often fear that the odds are stacked against them, but there are numerous steps between an arrest and conviction and many criminal defendants are able to obtain not guilty verdicts. If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is smart to meet with an attorney to discuss what defenses you may be able to assert. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise you of your options and help you to seek a favorable outcome. You can contact Mr. Bernstein via the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a consultation.

The Defendant’s Arrest

Allegedly, the defendant was arrested at a gas station for carrying a concealed gun without a license. Apparently, an officer saw the gun in the defendant’s waistband with the handle protruding from his coat. The officer asked the defendant if he had a license to carry the gun, to which he replied he did not. The officer then confiscated the gun and arrested the defendant, after which it was discovered he had heroin in his possession as well.

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous weapons crimes and possession of heroin. He moved to suppress the evidence found during his arrest on the grounds that it was the product of an illegal search and seizure. Specifically, he argued the gun was not concealed but was being carried in accordance with the State’s open carry law. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the State appealed.

Constitutional Protections Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure

On appeal, the State argued that the investigatory stop of the defendant did not violate his rights. The court agreed and reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that, generally, a seizure or search conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable, and therefore, unconstitutional. The Terry stop, also known as the investigatory stop, is one exception to the warrant requirement, however.

Pursuant to this doctrine, if an officer has an articulable, reasonable suspicion that a person either committed a crime or is in the process of committing a crime, it can stop a person. Further, an officer can approach and detain an individual under the Terry doctrine for the purposes of investigating potential criminal behavior, even if no probable cause exists to arrest the person. The scope of the seizure and search must be limited to what is needed to promptly confirm or disprove the officer’s suspicion.

In the subject case, the court found that under the totality of the circumstances, the officers were justified in approaching the defendant and questioning him regarding the gun. Thus, it reversed the trial court ruling.

Confer with a Skillful Criminal Defense Lawyer in Michigan Drug charges can result in significant penalties, but there are often numerous defenses a person charged with a drug offense can assert. If you are charged with a drug crime or any other offense, it is wise to confer with a lawyer to determine your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skillful Michigan criminal defense attorney who can aid you by developing a strategy designed to provide you with a strong chance of a successful result. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the online form or by calling (734) 883-9584 to schedule a conference.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of federal law. He had an extensive history of criminal convictions, including felony convictions for assault and delivery and possession of drugs. He pleaded guilty to the firearms charge and was sentenced to 46 months in prison. He began serving his sentence in January 2019. The defendant filed two motions for compassionate release. He withdrew the first, and the second was denied. He then filed a third motion for compassionate release, which was also denied.

Grounds for Compassionate Release

Pursuant to the First Step Act, a district court can consider motions filed by incarcerated defendants asking for reductions in their sentences. In determining whether to grant a compassionate release motion, a court has to engage in a three-part analysis. First, it must find that compelling and extraordinary reasons warrant a reduced sentence. The court must then ensure that the reduction complies with the applicable policy statements issued by the sentencing commission. Finally, the court must weigh all relevant statutory sentencing factors. If the court finds that each requirement is met, it may reduce a prison sentence but is not required to do so.

In the subject case, the court found that the defendant had not demonstrated a compelling and extraordinary reason to justify a sentence modification and that the sentencing factors did not weigh in favor of a reduction. Specifically, the court noted that generalized fear of contracting COVID-19, in and of itself, is not a compelling reason to grant an individual compassionate release. The court explained that the defendant did not demonstrate that he suffered from any medical conditions that created a greater risk that he would suffer severe illness were he to contract the coronavirus. Further, the court found that even if he had shown there was a persuasive reason for a reduced sentence, a modification was nonetheless not warranted in light of the sentencing factors. As such, the court denied his motion.

Consult an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Michigan

People with prior felony convictions are often prohibited from possessing guns, and face weapons charges if they are caught with firearms. If you are accused of committing a gun crime, it is smart to consult a lawyer regarding your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney with the skills and resources needed to help you pursue a successful outcome. Mr. Bernstein can be reached through the online form or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Underlying Incidents and Defendant’s Conviction

It is reported that the defendant sent the victim threatening text messages, including a picture of an assault rifle. Later that day, the defendant went to a party hosted by the victim and got into a verbal altercation with her before pointing a gun at her head. He left the party, but that evening he became involved in a high-speed chase with the victim and fired shots at her vehicle. The victim then called the police and reported the defendant shot at her.

Allegedly, the defendant was arrested a week later. The police searched his home and found an assault rifle. He was charged with multiple crimes, including possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony. The defendant appealed, arguing in part that the prosecution improperly relied on evidence of other acts to establish his guilt.

Admissibility of Evidence of Other Acts

The defendant argued that the arresting officer’s testimony regarding a rifle found in the defendant’s home a week after the incident was inadmissible other act evidence and that its admission was highly prejudicial. The admission of evidence of other acts is governed by Michigan law. Specifically, the law provides that evidence of other wrongs or crimes is not admissible to prove a person’s character or that they acted in accordance with a certain character, but it may be admitted for other purposes, such as to show motive, opportunity, or intent.

In the subject case, the court found that the evidence in question did not truly constitute other acts evidence. The court explained that it is not uncommon for a criminal defendant to roam free for some time prior to an arrest and that searches conducted days after a crime is committed often uncover tools used in the crime. As such tools are evidence of the crime rather than evidence of separate acts of possession, they do not fall under the umbrella of other acts. Thus, the defendant’s conviction was affirmed.

Meet with a Skilled Criminal Defense Attorney in Michigan Firearm crimes can carry significant penalties, and it is critical for people charged with weapons crimes to seek legal counsel regarding their options. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skilled Michigan criminal defense lawyer, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly to help you pursue a favorable result. You can reach him through the online form or at (734) 883-9584 to set up a free meeting.