Michigan Criminal Attorneys Blog

August 7, 2013

Urban Drug Court

The Urban Drug Court is a sentencing option for persons convicted of non violent crimes that occur in the city of Pontiac, Michigan. The residency of the Defendant does not have to be in Pontiac – just the non violent crime must have occurred there. A violent crime is defined as an offense involving the death or serious bodily injury to any individual OR the carrying, possessing, or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, whether or not it is an element of the crime. Other participation requirements of this program include: the participant may not have a prior conviction for a felony involving the use or attempted use of force against another with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm; the participant must have either a substance abuse or dual dependence diagnosis; and the participant must be willing to admit that he or she has a drug problem and are willing to do something about it.

The length of the Urban Drug Court program is anywhere from a year to two years. Discharge occurs when it is felt that the participant has successfully completed all components of the program and has shown a commitment to their recovery. Entry into this program is not automatic. The Defendant is evaluated by the Urban Drug Court team to determine their eligibility, and it is up to the sentencing Judge to allow for the program.

The program involves: frequent, random drug and alcohol tests; attendance and participation in Drug Court every other week; support groups such as AA, NA, or Smart Recovery; appearing and participating in counseling sessions; completing any assignments; abstinence from drugs and alcohol; avoiding contact with known drug users; obeying all laws; reporting to probation as ordered; obeying all rules of the Urban Drug Court and any treatment center that the person is involved with. There are some funds available through the program to cover the costs of the alcohol/drug treatment.

August 1, 2013

Attorney Daniel Hilf’s Interpretation of the Larceny from Person Statute Prevails at the Michigan Supreme Court

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

On July 30. 2013 the Michigan Supreme Court decided the case of the People of the State of Michigan v. Chandra Valencia Smith Anthony (docket number 145371). The Michigan Supreme Court held that “Michigan law requires a taking from the person or immediate presence of a victim to satisfy the from-the-person element for the crime of larceny from the person. This standard is satisfied when the defendant takes property that is in the physical possession of a victim or property that is in immediate proximity to a victim when the taking occurs. Only in the rare larceny-from-the-person case in which the constructive-presence exception applies may a taking outside of a victim’s immediate presence satisfy the from- the-person element. The 2004 amendments to Michigan’s robbery statute did not change these established requirements.

In this case, there was no evidence that defendant took property that was in the physical possession of or immediate proximity to the loss-prevention officer, and there was no evidence that defendant used force or threats to distance the loss-prevention officer from the property at the time of the taking. As a result, there was insufficient evidence that defendant took property “from the person” of the loss-prevention officer. The Court of Appeals properly reversed defendant’s conviction, so we affirm the judgment of Court of Appeals”.

Attorney Daniel Hilf of Hilf & Hilf, PLC represented Chandra Valencia Smith Anthony during the original trial of this matter and Attorney John D. Roach served as her appellate counsel. The trial was conducted before the Honorable Michael Warren of the 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County (case number 2010-232465-FH).

July 18, 2013

Retail Fraud, Loss Prevention, and Criminal Prosecutions

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

Retail Fraud (also known as Shoplifting) is a crime committed by persons of all religious backgrounds, races, ethnicity, ages, and income level. Throughout the United States, over a half million retail fraud incidents occur each day. To combat retail fraud, many stores spend a lot of money in: employing loss prevention officers; training employees to detect and address retail fraud; the installation of theft detection devices (for example sensors) or equipment (for example, locked cases) to reduce the amount of theft.

Loss prevention officers are trained to identify person likely to shoplift, and conduct surveillance prior to the commission of any offense. The typical red flags for loss prevention officers are any or a combination of the following:

1. Nervous demeanor;

May 10, 2013

Attorney Daniel Hilf and Attorney Sufen Hilf are scheduled to appear on Street Beat.

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

Attorneys Daniel Hilf and Sufen Hilf, of the law firm of Hilf & Hilf, PLC recently were selected for their legal expertise to appear on CW50’s Street Beat program concerning immigration law. Their segment is scheduled for broadcast on Sunday June 2, 2013 at 12:30 a.m.. Repeats of this program will be available to be viewed online after June 2, 2013 at http://cwdetroit.cbslocal.com/show/street-beat/.

Street Beat goes behind the headlines to focus on community issues and stories of interest to Metro Detroit presented in an upbeat mix of in-studio interviews and pre-produced packages by a crew of local people dedicated to improving our city.

For more information please visit the link below.

May 6, 2013

Drug Addiction and Criminal Defense

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

There are a variety of reasons individuals experiment or become addicted to drugs, such as: social history, genetic disposition, use by friends and/or family members, income level, how the individual handles stress, etc. A list from most addictive to least addictive substances include:

1) Heroin – the most addictive substance. Users often feel intense drug cravings and withdraw when denied this substance.

2) Crack Cocaine – crack is the most potent form of cocaine. Due to the fact that the high lasts approximately 15 minutes, it leads to repeated use which speeds up the onset of addiction.

April 30, 2013

Asylum

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

A person inside the United States can obtain asylum for himself or herself (and derivatively for the asylum applicant’s spouse and/or unmarried children under 21 years old) if he or she can demonstrate that he or she has suffered past persecution or has a well founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Persecution in some circumstances may include, but is not limited to, physical abuse, mental abuse, interference with a person’s privacy, being forced to live in substandard dwellings, exclusions from work or educational institutions, constant surveillance, forced family planning, mutilation, etc. Whether or not a individual was or might be persecuted, or has a well founded fear of persecution, is a matter of interpretation. Persecution must amount to more than mere harassment or annoyance. Persecution can be either by the government or a group that the government cannot or will not control. If the applicant can establish past persecution, there is a presumption of future persecution. If past persecution is established there is a presumption of persecution and the burden shifts to the government to rebut that presumption. It is up to the applicant to prove a nexus (meaning that there is a relationship) between the past or feared persecution and its connection to the race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion of the applicant.

An asylum applicant only needs to show that there is a reasonable possibility that he or she will be persecuted. The well founded fear must be established both subjectively (meaning that the applicant actually has the fear) and objectively (meaning that there are specific facts through objective evidence or through persuasive credible testimony and that this evidence would cause a reasonable person to experience a fear of persecution). According to the important case of Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987), there are 4 elements that the asylum applicant must show in order to establish a well-founded fear of persecution (1) the applicant possesses a belief or characteristic a persecutor seeks to overcome in others by means of punishment of some sort; (2) the persecutor is already aware, or could become aware, that the applicant possesses this belief or characteristic; (3) the persecutor has the capability of punishing the applicant; and (4) the persecutor has the inclination to punish the applicant.

In order to gain asylum, the alien must persuade the Asylum Officer or Immigration Judge that he or she is credible. It is recommended that you hire the experienced immigration lawyers at Hilf & Hilf, PLC to handle your asylum claim. Pursuant to the REAL ID Act, an Immigration Judge may grant asylum based on the testimony of the applicant, but only where the applicant is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. Unless the Asylum Officer and/or Immigration Judge is satisfied that the applicant cannot reasonably obtain the evidence, the Asylum Officer and/or Immigration Judge may require additional evidence to corroborate the applicant’s testimony. In the vast majority of cases, due to the REAL ID Act, corroboration is required. What will be considered as corroborating evidence depends upon the specific facts of the applicant’s case. Examples of items which may constitute corroborating evidence include: affidavits, letters, newspaper articles, arrest records, medical records, photographs, etc., etc. Obviously, the quality, quantity, and credibility of the corroborating evidence all play a role in the decision reached as to the claim for asylum. All exhibits in a language other than English must have certified translations provided.

April 25, 2013

Why you should not talk to the police.

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

In most instances, talking to the police concerning a criminal accusation will not help the person being questioned and usually hurts them. Many people have an idea of a police officer or a detective as someone who has a balanced view, and will listen to both sides of the story fairly. The truth is, the reason the police probably is contacting a person is because they suspect that the individual has committed a crime or has material information as to a crime that has occurred, and they are trying to build a case. If the individual is in custody, this means that the police officer or detective believes that probable cause exists to arrest the person and that law enforcement is not on that person’s side. When the police have these beliefs they are clearly not balanced, and they are certainly not on the side of the person who they are investigating.

Police officers and detectives speak to individuals often to obtain a confession. A confession is desired because people who confess usually decide to plead guilty when the case is prosecuted, which results in less time, work, and expense for the police and the prosecution. People that confess also sometimes can be manipulated to assist the police on other matters (especially on drug cases) by using fear and promises of leniency to work against others who may be engaged in illicit activities.

The reasons persons sometimes choose to speak to law enforcement include: fear, intimidation, ignorance of the 5th Amendment privilege against self incrimination, arrogance (the person believes he or she is smart enough to talk himself or herself out of the situation), the hope for leniency, and/or the belief that since he or she is innocent of the allegation. The expression “the truth shall set you free” is often not true when it comes to criminal law, and more often than not the opposite of this expression is true. When the police want to speak with you about an alleged crime, you should immediately contact attorney Daniel Hilf of the law firm Hilf & Hilf, PLC.

March 18, 2013

Avvo Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

Daniel Hilf, of the law firm of Hilf & Hilf, PLC is a frequent Avvo contributor, and has received awards from Avvo for his outstanding contributions as a criminal defense lawyer. He currently has an “superb” rating with Avvo (Avvo’s highest rating level). Mr. Hilf takes great pride in the large number of persons he has helped throughout his distinguished career to receive excellent results. Hilf & Hilf, PLC represents individuals in State and Federal Courts throughout the State of Michigan. We handle all felony, misdemeanor, local ordinance, and ticket matters.

Hilf & Hilf, PLC is conveniently located at 1775 W. Big Beaver Road in the city of Troy, Michigan. We can be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at (248)792-2590.

A listing of criminal cases that Hilf & Hilf, PLC handles include, but are not limited to the following:

March 13, 2013

7411 Status

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

A person convicted of a drug possession offense in Michigan may qualify to have his or her record expunged at the time of sentencing.

In Michigan (for non federal cases) an individual who either pleads guilty or is found guilty of possession or use of a controlled substance, or possession or use of an imitation controlled substance for a second time, may be granted by the Court a special provision of the law called 7411 (also known as Michigan Compiled Law 333.7411) as long as he or she has not previously been convicted of a drug possession or delivery charge. Under 7411 status the Court without entering a judgment of guilt may defer proceedings and place the individual on probation. Probation would include the payment of fees and cost, and may (but does not have to) include conditions such as a jail sentence, drug/alcohol treatment, drug Court, drug/alcohol testing reporting to a probation officer and other standard terms and conditions of reporting or non-reporting probation. If the person successfully completes the terms and conditions of probation ordered by the Court, the Court shall discharge the individual and dismiss the proceedings without an adjudication of guilt. An individual in Michigan has only 1 opportunity in life for 7411 status. However, an individual charged with multiple drug charges as part of the same case (for example, a person charged with being in possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine at the same time) can receive 7411 status for all the drug offenses incurred at that time.

For any criminal offense, your best bet is to hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer, such as Attorney Daniel Hilf from the law firm of Hilf & Hilf, PLC.

February 21, 2013

False Claim of US Citizenship Can Act as a Permanent Bar

by Hilf & Hilf, PLC

The most serious of all immigration violations is a False Claim of United States Citizenship. This acts as a permanent bar for any form of immigration relief. This fraud or willful misrepresentation, which involves making a false claim of United States citizenship for any purpose or benefit under United States immigration laws or others laws, renders the alien inadmissible pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). If substantiated, the alien in most cases is not able to obtain: admission into the United States; a visa to come to the United States or remain in the United States; or permanent residence. The only possible waiver available is for situations where the alleged False Claim of United States Citizenship occurred on or before September 30, 1996.

A False Claim of United States Citizenship is more typical in connection with an alien’s entry to the United States, admission to the United States, or concerning visa applications. It also occurs when the alien is seeking some form of a benefit, such as employment (either private or with the government), welfare, the ability to vote, or driving privileges in States that inquire into citizenship. Some persons make a False Claim of United States Citizenship to police officers or probation officers when they are arrested or convicted of crimes to hopefully avoid ICE detection for their criminality.

It is important to stress that other fraud violations that do not involve a False Claim of United States Citizenship do not necessarily act as a permanent bar. The alien may be able to obtain waivers depending upon his or her circumstances. Any alien who is accused of fraud, or who requires a waiver, needs the assistance of an experienced immigration lawyer.