In P v. M.E., the defendant, who had both a prior felony strike conviction for attempted murder and a prior felony conviction for drug trafficking, was arrested and charged with possessing over 20 pounds of marijuana seized from a large box he had personally delivered to a UPS store and from an apartment a few miles away from that store. After his arrest, the defendant confessed to DEA task force officers that the marijuana in the residence belonged to him and that he had brought the package to the UPS store with the intent of transporting it to another state, namely West Virginia. Because of that confession, because of substantial surveillance evidence, and because of the extensive amount of state prison time the defendant was facing due to his prior attempted murder conviction–over 12 years, 85% actual time–the defendant’s first lawyer advised him to accept a plea bargain for 32 months at 85%. Rather than take that deal, the defendant decided to hire Mr. Dudley. Recognizing certain improprieties with the manner in which the UPS box and the apartment were searched, Mr. Dudley filed a motion to suppress evidence. After reading that motion, the prosecuting attorney conceded that there was a substantial likelihood that it would be granted. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all the felony charges in exchange for the defendant’s no contest plea to one misdemeanor which carried no jail time and no other penalties.
Defense Lawyer Federal Crime News
In P. v. K.P., the defendant, who had owned an after-hours nightclub, was charged by local authorities with violating several city ordinances, all misdemeanors, in relation to the operation of that club. The defendant’s initial attorney advised her to plead guilty to one of those charges and accept county jail time as a condition of probation. The defendant then decided to hire Mr. Dudley for the purpose of negotiating a better disposition. After presenting the city prosecutor with two important mitigating circumstances which prior counsel had not brought to her attention, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all the misdemeanor charges and allow the defendant to plead no contest to a minor infraction, with the imposition of court costs as the only penalty.
Admitted to represent pro had vice the claimant in U.S. v. U.S. Currency, a pending civil forfeiture case in the Northern District of Alabama, Attorney Dudley has now practiced law in 46 United States District Court jurisdictions across the country. Alabama becomes the 38th state in which Mr. Dudley has represented defendants facing serious federal or state criminal charges or claimants seeking the return of seized assets or currency. If you are facing major criminal charges or attempting to claim money or assets seized by the government, Mr. Dudley can provide you with the highest level of representation, no matter what the jurisdiction.
U.S. v. V.S. is a pending federal investment fraud prosecution in which the defendant is accused of directing a massive $20,000,000 Ponzi scheme in Northern California by taking advantage of his cultural affinity to approximately 190 supposed victims. Seeking an aggressive defense against those charges, the individual accused in that matter has recently retained Attorney Dudley as trial counsel.
S.F., Inc. is a forestry company that was does business in New Mexico and other states. In February of this year one of its work vehicles, an expensive four-wheel drive van, was stopped by agents of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The agents arrested several S.F. employees who were riding in the van as undocumented immigrants. The officers then seized the van and the agency moved to forfeit it. S.F. retained Attorney Dudley to defend the forfeiture and recover the vehicle. In a detailed Petition for Remission of Forfeiture, Mr. Dudley demonstrated that the company itself had not violated any laws whatsoever. Within days of receiving that Petition, Customs and Border Protection agreed to release the van.
In P. v. S.L., the defendants, husband and wife, were charged with submitting false documents to a governmental agency on behalf of a security company that they owned. Those documents were allegedly presented in furtherance of a worker’s compensation fraud scheme which eventually cost the agency over $200,000. Each defendant was facing a state prison sentence for that purported conduct. Through extended negotiations with the prosecution, Attorney Dudley secured an offer under which the district attorney would dismiss all charges against both of his clients individually in exchange for a felony plea by the company and partial restitution.
In U.S. v. N.B., the defendant was indicted for allegedly assisting her husband orchestrate a massive immigration fraud scheme involving dozens of sham marriages. Pursuant to the sentencing guidelines and the statutory maximum, she was facing a prison term of five years. Attorney Dudley prepared a written presentation to the United States Attorney’s office detailing the evidentiary weaknesses of the prosecution’s case against her and various mitigating circumstances which applied to his client. As a result of the letter, the supervising prosecutor in the unit that was handling the case approved a settlement of the matter pursuant to which the defendant would receive a form of deferred adjudication, allowing her to avoid prison time and leaving her with a clean record after satisfaction of the deferment conditions.
The defendant in S. v. A.R., was an interstate truck driver charged with transporting 79 kilograms of cocaine from the Southwest United States to North Carolina. Local law-enforcement officers seized the cocaine from a van which was parked near the defendant’s truck in an isolated warehouse lot late at night. They found the defendant trespassing and apparently hiding inside the warehouse. It looked as though the truck had been recently unloaded and a narcotics-sniffing canine alerted to the presence of drug particles within the truck. Attorney Dudley’s client, who had a prior conviction for attempted murder for which he had served eight years in state prison, was facing a potential sentence of approximately 30 years of incarceration under North Carolina law. The prosecution initially offered to resolve the case for 15 to 18 years. On Mr. Dudley’s advice, the defendant rejected that offer. After a year of off-and-on plea negotiations, it became clear that the defense was intent on taking its case to trial. Weeks before trial was set to commence, the prosecution finally agreed to a settlement acceptable to Attorney Dudley and his client. Under that agreement, the defendant received a prison term of 30 to 33 months and will be released before this year’s end.
The defendant in P. v. G.C. was investigated by a federal/state task force for orchestrating a conspiracy to distribute substantial amounts of cocaine from Mexico into Southern California. That investigation resulted in wiretaps of his and other co-conspirator’s telephones. Those wiretaps captured multiple conversations in which the defendant directed others to distribute several hundred kilograms of cocaine. Eventually charged in California state court, the defendant, who already had one prior felony drug-trafficking conviction, faced a potential sentence of almost 30 years. Attorney Dudley, however, negotiated a disposition of only 9 years. With Mr. Dudley’s post-sentence assistance, under the state’s new realignment system, his client will probably qualify for programs which will reduce his actual time of incarceration to no more than 3 years.
In U.S. v. J.P., the defendant was accused of participating in a conspiracy by a street gang to distribute large amounts of crack cocaine. His prior criminal history qualified him for career offender status under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The conviction that ultimately placed him in that status was one for assault with a deadly weapon—a case in which he had fired multiple rounds from a semi-automatic weapon at a private security officer in his patrol vehicle. Under the habitual offender provisions of the guidelines, the defendant faced a minimum sentence of 188 months. While emphasizing the extreme seriousness of that conviction for assault with a firearm, the district court accepted Attorney Dudley’s argument that his client had committed that crime, and several other felonies, many years in the past when he was a young, misguided, abused, drug-addicted, and reckless youth. Consequently, he sentenced the defendant to an imprisonment term of 96 months, over 8 years less than that recommended by the guidelines.