Recent Cases

Probation Violation-Terminate and Discharge

Probation Violation-Terminate and Discharge

Probation Violation-Terminate and Discharge

May 17th 2017
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was given a suspended on and after jail sentence with on and after time. On and after time means when the client finishes the first sentence he must then start the second sentence. He had on year of jail time that he was required to serve if he violated probation terms. He did in fact violate those probation terms as he did not show up and used drugs during his probation. After some time in warrant status he turned himself in and Attorney represented him at the final hearing where he was not sentenced to his jail term, but terminated and discharged and allowed to go home.
RESULT: Probation Surrender with SUSPENDED JAIL SENTENCE, Terminated and Discharged, Client RELEASED from CUSTODY; No Jail.

1st Offense OUI, NO Criminal Conviction, NOT RESPONSIBLE on CIVIL Infraction.

1st Offense OUI, NO Criminal Conviction, NOT RESPONSIBLE on CIVIL Infraction.

1st Offense OUI, NO Criminal Conviction, NOT RESPONSIBLE on CIVIL Infraction.

May 5th 201
Cambridge District Court
1st OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1) 
Marked Lanes Violation Chapter 89 Section 4(a)
Client was a successful biotech executive. After leaving work late one night, they got into a one-car accident. The accident was serious and resulted in a totaling of the fire department property. At a plea hearing, the District Attorney sought the accused be found guilty based on the severity of the crash. Attorney Barabino argued for a different outcome, which would preserve his criminal record and eventually be dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sided with Attorney Barabino and client began the process for obtaining his hardship license and moving the whole event behind him. Attorney Barabino will continue to monitor any restitution owed for the damaged city property. Lastly, court issued client NOT RESPONSIBLE for civil infraction of Marked Lanes violation.
RESULT: 1st Offense OUI, NO Criminal Conviction, NOT RESPONSIBLE on CIVIL Infraction.

SIXTY- DAY Probation Period-Unnatural and Lascivious Conduct

SIXTY- DAY Probation Period-Unnatural and Lascivious Conduct

SIXTY- DAY Probation Period-Unnatural and Lascivious Conduct

April 28th 2017
Salem District Court
Unnatural and Lascivious Conduct Chapter 272 Section 35
Client was an educated mother and grandmother who succumbed to drug addiction. During that period of addiction, Police saw her making a movement and behavior consistent with oral sex to a known LEVEL III sex offender. That event was nearly two years ago and she has been in warrant status since.  To client’s credit, she did what the court could only hope for in those missing years. She got herself clean and off drugs, into rehabilitation and fully engaged with society. For those reasons, and her otherwise decent criminal record, Attorney Barabino was able to argue that the Commonwealth’s sentence of a felony conviction, 18 Month’s Probation, and various programs was not the answer. At the conclusion of the plea, the court accepted a 60-day period where her case would be dismissed if he remained out of trouble with no conviction.
RESULT:   DISMISSED if stays out of trouble for sixty days.

Probation Terminated EARLY

Probation Terminated EARLY

Probation Terminated EARLY

April 21th 2017
Brighton District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3

A construction professional was on probation and charged with a new crime. The new crime triggered a violation of his probation. Attorney Barabino and client got the new charge dismissed. The result was the probation officer withdrew her request for a violation. At that same hearing, Attorney Barabino petitioned the Judge to terminate his entire probation early and enter a dismissal. The judge, after a hearing, agreed and the probation was terminated early and no violation.  
RESULT: Probation Terminated EARLY.  

TAXI FARE EVADING DISMISSED

TAXI FARE EVADING DISMISSED

TAXI FARE EVADING DISMISSED

April 20th 2017
Brighton District Court
Taxi Fare, Evade Chapter 159 Section 16
A Boston University Student was charged with evading a taxi fare. In this case, the fare was particularly large amount of nearly five hundred dollars. The police believed in good faith that this was an intentionally evasion of the fare and brought a complaint before a clerk magistrate.  Attorney Barabino reached out to all involved, paid the fare, and at the hearing, client found not responsible and case DISMISSED.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED.

NOT GUILTY of Threat to Murder

NOT GUILTY of Threat to Murder

NOT GUILTY of Threat to Murder

April 14th2017
Salem District Court
Assault Chapter 265 Section 13M(a) 
Threats  to Commit Murder Chapter 275 Section 2 

Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15B(b)

Strangulation or Suffocation Chapter 265 Section 15D(b) 
Client had been convicted of seriously abusing his girlfriend many decades ago. Now, once again, she made credible accusations. Client denied those new accusations, but also realized that based on the past conduct and the credible nature of the evidence that a plea was preferable since it would mitigate the otherwise harsh sentence that the judge has proposed. But with little offered in a plea, a trial was held. As a result, the verdict was predictable, and the sentence was very close to the original offer, before trial, and the client was found NOT GUILTY of the threats accusation.
RESULT: Threat to Murder, NOT GUILTY. Little Additional Exposure.

Generally Continued with No Admission of Wrongdoing & 2nd Charge DISMISSED on $100.00

Generally Continued with No Admission of Wrongdoing & 2nd Charge DISMISSED on $100.00

Generally Continued with No Admission of Wrongdoing & 2nd Charge DISMISSED on $100.00

April 11th 2017
Malden District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15B(b)
 
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Client was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property under $250.00 and assault and battery on his girlfriend. In the early morning hours, police were called and an allegation was made of punching a wall and according to the accuser threw a bottle at her causing a mark which was photographed. The case proceeded the normal course and eventually a trial was scheduled. At the day of trial, the very favorable deal was struck providing the Defendant with a no admission for any wronging or any probation or conditions.   
RESULT:  Generally Continued with No Admission of Wrongdoing & 2nd Charge DISMISSED on $100.00

RESULT: NO Probable CAUSE. CASE DOES NOT ISSUE

RESULT: NO Probable CAUSE. CASE DOES NOT ISSUE

RESULT: NO Probable CAUSE. CASE DOES NOT ISSUE

April 10th 2017
Salem District Court
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 10
Client was working two full time jobs when he got into two separate car accidents, and did not remain on the scene. For various reasons, he left when he should not have. Fortunately, with adequate preparation time, client and Attorney Barabino were able to gather weather data for the date of the accident from the Federal Government, as well as work with the insurance companies to allow verification of the payment for damage. With those mitigating factors in place, the hearing was held and a decision was made that no probable cause issue—and the case does not proceed.
RESULT: NO Probable CAUSE. CASE DOES NOT ISSUE.

No Complaint ISSUES- Probable Cause Hearing

April 6th 2017
Suffolk Juvenile Court
Annoying and Accosting Chapter 272 Section 53 

Client said statements which were unacceptable, and in this case, criminal.  A substantive review of the client’s history, background combined with the intense remedial programs and efforts placed the client in an excellent position. At the hearing, intense remedial measures were efforts placed the client in the best position to be reviewed a probable cause/clerk magistrate hearing. With the remedial efforts made and an agreement to continue monitoring WITHOUT COURT intervention was agreed upon.
RESULT: NO Complaint Issued.

Mutual Combat- Dismissed At Trial

April 3rd 2017
Somerville District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 13 

Client was hard working contractor. He was charged with assaulting and battering his houseguest. Charges were filed against both parties as even the police believed “mutual combat” had taken place. In the end, prior to starting a trial the accuser failed to appear—resulting in a dismissal of the charge. Case DISMISSED.
RESULT: Charge DISMISSED at Day of Trial.

sidebar_in_the_news

Contact Us

Fill out our online form