» Subsequent Offense

License Suspended, Subsequent Offense, REDUCED

June 27th 2018
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense
Client was a hardworking father who was in a traffic accident. Upon police inquiry, they determined that his license was suspended. In fact, he had been convicted of the offense before. As a result, the police officer properly charged client with driving on a suspended license, subsequent offense. After several hearing and courts dates, a trial was scheduled, and at the trial date Attorney Barabino was able to obtain an agreement with the District Attorney to reduce the subsequent offender portion of the charge and make a deal for short probation, no conditions of the lesser included offense only.

Drug Possession, DISMISSED

May 19th 2015
Drug, Possession Class A, Subsequent Offense
According to police, they arrived at a local McDonald's bathroom to find the accused under the influence of a drug and with brown bags of powder and a needle. According to police, he admitted that he had taken heroin. The Commonwealth made an attempt to obtain medical records to support the charge, but after a hearing, that was denied. Also, the commonwealth was unable to obtain a drug certification certificate from the state crime lab. As a result, at the day of trial, they simply withdrew the prosecution. The court and its staff along with the District Attorney were professional, competent, and classy. In the end, the case was withdrawn from prosecution. In essence, Dismissed.


January 23rd 2014
Possession of Class B, Subsequent Offense
Client had previously admitted guilt to a charge of possession of cocaine, subsequent offense. Attorney Barabino sought to reopen his case since the drugs had been tested by the drug lab manipulator “Annie Dookham”. Attorney Barabino brought a motion to reopen the case or a Motion for a New Trial. That motion was allowed despite being vehemently opposed by the District Attorney. The District Attorney refused to dismiss the charges even though client had served a majority of the jail time that is permitted for the charge. As a result, Attorney Barabino sought to dismiss the evidence, since he alleged that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights—which ultimately would have forced the case to be dismissed. The court, in its eventual ruling, sided with the defendant. In this case, the Commonwealth sought additional time to consult with their appellate division, but the result remained clear, and despite the additional time, the case would be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion for a New Trial, ALLOWED, Motion to SUPPRESS, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED.