On January 22, 2018, Sheriff Kincaid notified Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office will no longer hold inmates past their release date unless an ICE administrative request to detain the inmate is accompanied by a criminal detainer issued by a court. Sheriff Kincaid conveyed her decision to terminate the County-ICE Intergovernmental Service Agreement effective May 23, 2018.
Sheriff’s Offices throughout the Commonwealth are statutorily required to determine the residency status of individuals who are brought to jail. Fingerprints, which are taken during the booking process, are transmitted to a state database that can be accessed by all local, state and national law enforcement agencies.
A groundswell of support was seen in 2017 to raise the the felony theft threshold in Virginia from $200. Indeed, Governor Northamhas vowed to make it one of his legislative priorities, Lt. Governor Fairfax has stated that we should “not making felons out of so many people” under this archaic threshold, and Senator Saslaw (D-Fairfax), who has called the felony theft bar “unethical”, recently said, “No Virginian should be marked as a felon for stealing a pair of sunglasses.”
On January 18, the Senate voted to raise the felony theft threshold from $200 to $500. The fate of Senate Bill 105 remains to be seen; however, as the House has consistently blocked such efforts in the past.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. “Tommy” Norment Jr. (R-James City County) is expected to propose a bill this session that aims to further reform simple possession marijuana policy for first-time offenders. Current law provides for “deferred dispositions” for first-time offenders, which includes dismissal of the charge after the defendant complies with certain court-ordered conditions. Unfortunately, despite the dismissal, the record of the arrest can still be found on a criminal history database (i.e., the defendant’s record is not “clean” after the dismissal). Norment seeks to amend current law by allowing the record of the arrest for possession of marijuana to be removed from the national criminal database upon a defendant’s compliance with court-ordered conditions. Norment’s proposal, however, falls short of decriminalization and if fails to address concerns regarding enforcement of marijuana laws in the Commonwealth.
The GOP tax plan has been passed by Congress and presented to the President for signature. Certainly, if the tax bill becomes law, the impact will be felt by nearly all Americans. One change impacting divorcing couples is the elimination of the 75-year old provision allowing for the deduction of spousal support (alimony).
Currently, spousal support is deductible to the payor spouse and is included as income to the recipient spouse (payee). Under the GOP tax plan, spousal support will no longer deductible by the payor spouse. Further, the payments will not be included in the payee spouse’s gross income; rather, the money used for spousal support will be taxed at the payor spouse’s tax rates.
If this plan becomes law, the provision eliminating the deduction for spousal support payments will be effective for divorce and separation agreements signed after Dec. 31, 2018.
The case is Yokshas v. Bristol City Department of Social Services (2017).
In Virginia, a “person with a legitimate interest” may pursue custody of a child, and Section 20-124.1 of the Code of Virginia requires Courts to broadly interpret this term to accommodate the best interests of the child. The Section specifically includes and excludes persons when defining the term; however, it is silent as to whether foster parents fall within such category of persons with interest. In an unpublished opinion authored by Judge Teresa B. Chafin, the Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court’s ruling excluding the foster parents, citing to the statutory mandate that the term “persons with legitimate interest” must be broadly construed.
Comments Off on VIRGINIA: SIMPLE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA AND DRIVING PRIVILEGES
Section 18.2-251 of the Code of Virginia was revised as it pertained to the mandatory suspension of driving privileges for an adult convicted of a first offense possession of marijuana. Previously, the law required a six-month loss of driving privileges for a person placed on deferred disposition for an offense of simple possession of marijuana. The law has been revised to provide that the court has the discretion to suspend or revoke the driver’s license of a person placed on deferred disposition for simple possession of marijuana but must suspend or revoke for six months the driver’s license of such person who was operating a motor vehicle at the time of the offense. Juveniles, however, remain subject to license suspension.
Comments Off on US Supreme Court Will Decide Whether an Attorney Can Concede a Client's Guilt Over the Client's Express Objection.
The case is McCoy v. Louisiana.
In 2004, and in connection with the 6th Amendment, the United Supreme Court held, in Florida v. Nixon, that it is not necessarily ineffective counsel for a lawyer to concede guilt when a client is informed of the litigation strategy and “neither consents or objects.” Nixon is distinguishable from McCoy, however, because Mr. McCoy (the defendant) objected to pleading guilty. Mr. McCoy, charged with first-degree murder of his estranged wife’s child, mother, and step-father, had consistently claimed his innocence. At trial and over Mr. McCoy’s interruptions, defense counsel conceded his client’s guilt in the hopes of sparing him the death penalty. Mr. McCoy was convicted and sentenced to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Mr. McCoy’s appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel and held that “admitting guilt in an attempt to avoid the imposition of the death penalty appears to constitute reasonable trial strategy.”
The Supreme Court will now consider whether it is unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused’s guilt over the accused’s express objection. The decision is expected in 2018.
Comments Off on Limited Scope Representation in Maryland
In recent years, a growing number of clients have sought “alternative fee arrangements” in lieu of the traditional billable hour when they require the services of an attorney.
In Maryland, approximately 70% of family law litigants are pro se or self-represented with most either unable or unwilling to pay for full legal representation. Full legal representation involves hiring an attorney for representation for all aspects of a case. Usually, in full legal representation, the attorney requests that the client provide an upfront retainer to begin representation and will draw off the retainer as work is performed in a case.
Limited scope representation, or “unbundling” is an alternative to full legal representation. Unbundling legal services allows for clients to tailor the legal representation to their needs, and is often a more affordable option to the client. A review of each case would determine whether “unbundled” legal representation is appropriate. Limiting an attorney’s services does not mean that a client receives a reduction in quality, just a limit on the services a lawyer may provide.
Examples of limited scope representation could include the following:
assisting a client in preparing documents for filing, including editing and reviewing documents prior to the client filing documents, serving parties and preparing for litigation;
assisting a client by drafting pleadings, motions, and other documents for the court;
providing client coaching in preparing for trial including organizing a trial binder to know appropriate questions to ask and how to present evidence in court; or
entering a limited appearance at a hearing or trial on behalf of the client, and representing the client for a hearing on a specific issue.
Our Maryland unbundled attorney, offers both full legal representation and limited scope representation to individuals seeking divorce, guardianship, custody, visitation and support. Contact us today, (410) 415-9333, to set an appointment to discuss how we can be of assistance.
Comments Off on DRINKING. SEX. “PHYSICALLY HELPLESS” – PARALLEL BETWEEN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES FACED BY RAY ANTHONY LEWIS III AND VIRGINIA LAW.
Ray Anthony Lewis, III, the son of Ray Lewis Jr., former Super Bowl Most Valuable Player and one of the greatest linebackers of all time, has been charged with third degree criminal sexual conduct in South Carolina for allegedly “sexually assaulting an 18-year-old woman while knowing she was under the influence,” and “when the defendant knew or had reason to know that the victim was mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.” Lewis III, a cornerback at Coastal Carolina University, has been placed on “indefinite suspension” by his team. He currently is released on a $10,000.00 bond.
Virginia, like South Carolina, criminalizes “sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse . . . through the use of the complaining witness’s mental incapacity or physical helplessness”, and punishes such behavior as forcible rape. “Physical helplessness” has been held to include incapacitation due to voluntary intoxication. The punishment upon a determination of guilt is five years to a life term subject to certain conditions. Moreover, in these alcohol-facilitated sexual assault cases, there is a presumption against bond. Accordingly, a person accused of engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who is physically helpless as a result of incapacitation due to alcohol or other substance may have to remain in jail pending adjudication of the charge. See Va. Code § 18.2-61. …
Comments Off on Owe Child Support and Need to Renew Your Passport?
When filling out a request for passport renewal or applying for a passport, the application requests your social security number. More than likely you will see a statement that says your social security number is requested …
