Martin Sheen who played President Bartlet on "The West Wing" lobbied congress this week to support drug court programs. Drug Courts are programs designed to keep non-violent drug offenders out of jail. If someone is charged with being under the influence of a controlled substance or narcotics or possession of a controlled substance or narcotics they can participate in a couple of different programs. Individuals charged with sales of narcotics are not eligible for drug court.
In California there is diversion program for first time drug offenders. If someone is charged with being under the influence or possession they can participate in a 6 month drug class. They then have to stay out of trouble for an additional 12 months and their case will be dismissed. Drug Court is a more complex version of this designed individuals who have aleady gone through a diversion program.
Drug court is designed help drug addicts overcome their addiction and give them tools to stay clean rather than sending them to jail or prison. Our jails and prisons are already far too overcrowded. Drug addicts do not need punishment, they need rehabilitation. Drug court provides that opportunity. Drug court is an intensive program which involves mental health services, supervision by probation, drug testing, group and individual counseling and frequent court appearances. This program can last for up to several years depending on the individual. If a drug court participant uses and has a "dirty" or positive drug test, they are sanctioned and might spend a few days in jail. They are then released and placed back in the program.
Many individuals have successfully completed drug court and they have gone on to lead productive lives. Many have gone on to assist others in their rehabilitation. Sending an addict to jail does not serve anyone. The addict is released from custody and continues to use drugs. The community suffers. If we can rehabilitate drug addicts through drug court programs society will benefit. There will be less crime, less violence, less overcrowding in prisons and more contributing members of society. How can we lose?
If you or a loved one are charged with drug or narcotics offenses you should always be represented by an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact the Law Office of Diane C. Bass at (949) 494-7011.
Readmore »»
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Jesse James' Sister Charged in Federal Mail Fraud Case
A Federal Grand Jury has indicted Juliana James England for Mail Fraud. Ms. England is the sister of Sandra Bullock's infamous ex-husband Jesse James. Ms. England was arraigned in Federal Court in Santa Ana, California this week after being arrested at her home in Arkansas. She made her initial appearance in Federal Court in Arkansas where she was released on her own recognizance.
Ms. England allegedly defrauded her former employer, Callan Western Sales in Los Alamitos, California out of approximately $400,000. Ms. England had access to the company's checks, credit cards and online checking account. Ms. England allegedly wrote checks to herself and used the company credit cards without authorization. The fraud was discovered after the business closed due to financial difficulties and the owners received credit card statements with charges unrelated to the business.
Why is she charged with mail fraud you may ask? Because Ms. England allegedly had the credit card statements mailed to a post office box which she specifically opened to hide the transactions from her employer. Any time the mail is used during the commission of a crime involving fraud, it can be charged as mail fraud.
Here's where it gets silly; news articles and press releases, even one by the FBI itself, state that Ms. England is facing 60 years in Federal Prison. Let's get this straight. There is a huge difference between someone's statutory maximum sentence, which may be 60 years in this case, and what they will actually be sentenced to IF convicted. First, we have to pressume that Ms. England is innocent. If the U.S. attorney's office can prove that she is guilty of each element of the offenses for which she is charged beyond a reasonable doubt, or if she enteres a guilty plea, then and only then will she be sentenced. Sentencing in Federal Court is quite complex but basically it is based on a set of guidelines. Under the sentencing guidelines, assuming Ms. England has no prior criminal convictions, and assuming she pleads guilty to the charges, she is facing approximately 21 months in federal prison, of which she will serve around a year and a half.
If I were Ms. England's attorney, after reviewing the evidence and helping her decide how she should proceed with her case I would spend time with Ms. England determining whether there were any mitigating factors to present to the court which might persuade a judge not to send her to prison at all. An experienced federal criminal attorney will know what issues a court would find extraordinary and what factors are important to the court. I have worked with the assistant United States attorney who is handling this case and the Judge who is assigned to this case many times. I have a great deal of respect for both of them. I'm sure they will do the right thing for all of the parties involved in this case. Readmore »»
Ms. England allegedly defrauded her former employer, Callan Western Sales in Los Alamitos, California out of approximately $400,000. Ms. England had access to the company's checks, credit cards and online checking account. Ms. England allegedly wrote checks to herself and used the company credit cards without authorization. The fraud was discovered after the business closed due to financial difficulties and the owners received credit card statements with charges unrelated to the business.
Why is she charged with mail fraud you may ask? Because Ms. England allegedly had the credit card statements mailed to a post office box which she specifically opened to hide the transactions from her employer. Any time the mail is used during the commission of a crime involving fraud, it can be charged as mail fraud.
Here's where it gets silly; news articles and press releases, even one by the FBI itself, state that Ms. England is facing 60 years in Federal Prison. Let's get this straight. There is a huge difference between someone's statutory maximum sentence, which may be 60 years in this case, and what they will actually be sentenced to IF convicted. First, we have to pressume that Ms. England is innocent. If the U.S. attorney's office can prove that she is guilty of each element of the offenses for which she is charged beyond a reasonable doubt, or if she enteres a guilty plea, then and only then will she be sentenced. Sentencing in Federal Court is quite complex but basically it is based on a set of guidelines. Under the sentencing guidelines, assuming Ms. England has no prior criminal convictions, and assuming she pleads guilty to the charges, she is facing approximately 21 months in federal prison, of which she will serve around a year and a half.
If I were Ms. England's attorney, after reviewing the evidence and helping her decide how she should proceed with her case I would spend time with Ms. England determining whether there were any mitigating factors to present to the court which might persuade a judge not to send her to prison at all. An experienced federal criminal attorney will know what issues a court would find extraordinary and what factors are important to the court. I have worked with the assistant United States attorney who is handling this case and the Judge who is assigned to this case many times. I have a great deal of respect for both of them. I'm sure they will do the right thing for all of the parties involved in this case. Readmore »»
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)