» Drug Possession

January 5^th 2017
Criminal Procedure Rule 30: Post-Conviction Relief- New Trial
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Client was a hard-working business owner and professional who sought to undo a past mistake. Years ago, after having been found guilty of possessing cocaine, he wanted to reverse that conviction. His contraband had been tested by a known, discredited lab chemist. The result was that a good faith basis to reverse the conviction was filed with an affidavit, memorandum, and certified supporting documentation. That package was filed with the court, and a hearing date was scheduled. In the interim, Attorney Barabino met with the District Attorney who was in agreement with his request. The Commonwealth did not file opposition. In the interest of justice, the motion for a new trial was allowed, and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion for New Trial, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

November 2nd 2016
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D
Drug Violation Near School/Park
Client was a young man in high school who was charged with distribution of marijuana in a school zone. After an investigation and digestion of the discovery and facts, a motion to dismiss was filed. The motion detailed the facts, the law, and argued how the case should be dismissed. The lengthy memorandum was filed and discussions with District Attorney additionally held. In the end, the hard working and professional district attorney agreed to simply dismiss the charges. All charges dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, CASE DISMISSED.

October 7^th 2016
Drug, Possession to Distribute
Drug, Possession to Distribute
Client was caught with a significant amount of Percocet, Suboxone and Cocaine. In addition, he was found with over $1000 in cash hidden away in a secret stash. After various motions were litigated and experts consulted, a last minute plea agreement was made where client would be on probation for 18 months with no jail time, and have no probation obligations such as drug testing or outpatient treatment. Client needed this outcome as he has a young child and employment obligations which would have conflicted with any other, more stringent requirements like jail time. Moreover, client had been convicted of distribution on prior occasions.
RESULT: Administrative Probation, NO CONDITIONS OR OBLIGATIONS AND NO DRUG TESTING

November 18^th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D
Conspiracy
Client was a high school student and charged with Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana and a separate charge of Possession with Intent to Distribute. After a previous dismissal, he found himself back at the same court for trial. With nearly a fourth a pound of marijuana, cash, and a scale, we were ready for trial. Moments before the trial began we agreed to a deal with the Commonwealth that would dismiss the Conspiracy charge, reduce the possession to distribute charge to simple possession, and dismiss the simple possession charge after a 21-day probation.
RESULT: CHARGE DISMISSED. SECOND CHARGE REDUCED AND DISMISSED AFTER PROBATION OF 21 DAYS. NO CONDITIONS.

July 5^th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class E
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Client was a young engineer involved with drugs. While under the influence, a young lady friend came over his home. She stayed at his home as a guest and tragically she passed away during the night as a result of a drug overdose. The defendant found her unresponsive and called police without hesitation. His attempts at first aid were valiant but unsuccessful. When police arrived to the home in response to the 911 calls they noticed various drugs in plain view. Those drugs included Morphine, Methadone, Suboxone, Klonopin, Gabapentin and Clonidine. There was enough in the view of police of each drug to charge distribution of the drugs. The police demonstrated a high level of expertise, professionalism, and sophistication. Their expertise was clear as they quickly noticed the necessity of applying for a search warrant for the drugs and conducting interviews and interrogations with proper rights administrated. In the end, the case moved through the court for nearly two years. As the case was close to trial, the District Attorney reduced the Class “A” charge to simple possession. That developed an opening to file a motion to dismiss not only that charge but also the remaining charges under the more recent law protecting people against being charged for possession of drugs when they call for help for people experiencing an overdose. The motion was filed. A hearing date was set. District Attorney stated his anticipated intend of dismissing the charges. On the day of the hearing, the case is dismissed in its entirety.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, CASES DISMISSED.

May 4^th 2015
Drug, Possession Class D (Weed), Distribute
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
According to police, while on patrol in a high-crime area, they noticed what they believed to be a drug transaction. They produced a lengthy police report, which detailed their observations. The officers based their actions on a hunch and that hunch proved to be correct. An attempt to dismiss the case suppressing evidence as an illegal search was surprisingly unsuccessful. However, Attorney Barabino and client moved on. After viewing the scene with client, reviewing the evidence in the possession of the government, and preparing witnesses, a trial date was set. The government had an admission of wrongdoing from the defendant, a quarter pound of weed (individually bagged and others empty bags), a scale, and a little more than two hundred dollars as evidence. Despite appearing ready at the first trial date, the Commonwealth was not ready. As a sanction, the judge said at the next date they must appear ready. On the second date, they were unable to answer ready and the judge agreed to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Class “D” Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy DISMISSED.

December 2^nd 2014
Possession to Distribute Class D
Client was a passenger driving in a motor vehicle with his friends. They were also under the eye of a special response unit or a specialized anti-drugs investigation unit. That unit converged on the vehicle and confiscated nearly 100 grams of marijuana, scales, ledgers for recording transactions, and over $1000 in cash. Attorney Barabino requested a challenge to the motor vehicle stop via a Motion to Suppress evidence. Once that motion, affidavits, and memorandum of law were filed, the police were brought into court for a hearing. The court issued a decision after a month’s wait indicating that the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case will be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress All Evidence, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

March 15^th 2013
Reckless Endangerment of Child
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Possession of Class “E” Substance
Client was a hard working waitress who had been associated with drug use and abuse for some time. On the above date, she was charged with possession of Class A, B, and E drugs and Reckless Endangerment of a Child. According to police, they received a 911 emergency call that two people were badly intoxicated, and they were consequently dispatched to investigate. Upon doing so, they saw a man who appeared to be intoxicated and client who was seated in a vehicle. According to police, there was evidence they were about to shoot heroin with their child in the back seat. Attorney Barabino challenged the method and extraction of client as unconstitutional and after hearing testimony, arguments being made, and supported case law asserted, the judge issued a decision, which allowed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Since the evidence was excluded, the case would be dismissed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.