WELCOME TO THE BLOG OF THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL R. MORASKI, MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY

We blog about relevant issues in criminal defense law, discuss the misconceptions surrounding criminal defense law, and provide readers with helpful criminal defense information and resources.


Please visit www.massdefense.com for more information.


Monday, June 25, 2012

Manditory Life Sentence Without Parole For Teens Deemed Cruel And Unusual Punishment

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Currently there are 61 people serving life sentences for murders they committed as teens, and today it is unclear how this ruling will impact them. The Massachusetts Department of Corrections said that the 61 prisoners were serving the state’s toughest sentence for murders committed before the age of 18.

Justice Elena Kagen believes that the mandatory sentencing “prevents those meting out punishment from considering a juvenile’s ‘lessened culpability’ and greater ‘capacity for change.’” Kagen went on to say, “We therefore hold that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.”

Many defense attorneys are hopeful that the Supreme Court ruling may lead to new trials and the chance for release of their clients, which may not have been possible before. In the future, a juvenile can still be sentenced to life without parole, but as of today, that would no longer be a mandatory sentence.

Massachusetts child advocate Gail Garinger says she’s ecstatic about the ruling. “As a former juvenile court judge I’ve seen the kind of turnabouts that young adults can make in their lives.”

Jake Wark, the spokesperson for the Suffolk County district attorney’s office told the Boston Herald that the state needs to amend the existing statute and referred to the immediate impact of today’s ruling as “minimal.” Wark went on to say that, “Very few juveniles were ever subject to this sentence, and those who were have no guarantee that they’ll be released one day due to this ruling.”

At this time, officials with the Department of Corrections are determining which cases will be appropriate for review under this new ruling.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Thursday, June 21, 2012

CWOF Does Not Equal A Prior Conviction When Dealing With The RMV

On May 17th, 2012, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that within the Massachusetts OUI statute, a “continuance without finding” or CWOF is not the same as being “convicted.” For the purpose of RMV license suspensions, a CWOF cannot be treated as a prior conviction for a Breathalyzer test refusal on an OUI, even if an individual received a CWOF on a prior offense.

An issue arose when a Paul Souza appealed the RMV’s decision to suspend his license over a period of three years. In a previous OUI case, he admitted to sufficient facts and his case was continued without finding. Subsequently, Souza was arrested a second time for OUI and this time refused the Breathalyzer test. He was given a 3 year suspension on his drivers license, however, he believed that his license should only be suspended for 180 days due to the fact that he was never found guilty and therefore was not previously “convicted” of an OUI. In light of Melanie’s Law, the RMV felt as though a CWOF is equal to a guilty plea. Stated in Massachusetts General Laws, a person that refuses to submit to a Breathalyzer test following arrest for suspicion of OUI faces suspension of their license. If the driver has a prior “conviction” for OUI the time frame that the license is suspended increases. This increase corresponds directly with the number of previous “convictions” one has on their record.

The Supreme Judicial Court argued that if legislature had intended on including an admission of sufficient facts in the definition of “conviction,” they would have done so. The SJC went on to signify that the meaning of the word “conviction” is confined to a finding of guilty, a judgement of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere when in the context of an Administrative License Suspension Hearing. Within the context of criminal law, a CWOF is not interpreted as a criminal conviction, however, a CWOF case will appear on a CORI check.

When sufficient facts are admitted by the defendant and a CWOF is received, the case can be dismissed if the defendant has satisfied all of the conditions of their probation. A CWOF is a common disposition for defendants in regards to a first offense of OUI. One of the benefits is not having to indicate that there is a conviction on your record because a guilty finding was not entered.

After the SJC’s ruling, House Judiciary Chair Eugene O'Flaherty, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and state Senator Katherine Clark came together to work towards amending the definition of “conviction” to now include CWOFs and to close what they perceive as a “loophole.”

The outcome of Souza’s case is important and can effect your case if you have previously admitted to sufficient facts in a first OUI offense. Whether you have taken the Breathalyzer or not, you still need to contact a Criminal Defense Attorney with extensive knowledge and experience handling these types of cases. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com