Ok, here is another handy chart for those of you with recent traffic woes.  Many times our office can help with many of the violations below.  Feel free to call us for a free consultation at 937-432-9775.

If you are an Ohio driver who accumulates 12 or more points for convictions of the traffic offenses listed below, your license will be suspended for 6 months. If you plead guilty and pay your fine, that is the same as a conviction. Points stay on your license for 2 years after the conviction.

When you accumulate 12 points, the suspension is automatic, although you will be notified of your right to a court hearing. You must petition the court for a hearing. A judge may impose conditions upon your suspension, such as allowing you to drive only for purposes of getting to and from your job. Driving while your license is under suspension can subject you to severe criminal penalties, including jail time.

Upon completion of the 6 month suspension, you must complete a remedial driver education class, provide proof of insurance and take your drivers’ test again before your license will be reinstated.

If you complete an approved remedial driving course prior to accumulating 12 or more points, you will receive a 2-point credit. You can take this course up to 5 times in your lifetime, but no more than once ever 3 years.

6-point violations

4-point violations

2-point violations

points for speeding violations

People ask us all the time whether they should talk to the cops.  Think you can talk yourself out of a ticket, ovi, or a domestic violence? This is an interesting 4 part video of a law professor’s lecture.  He is pretty entertaining and the information can be useful to many. The second video deals with trying to talk yourself out of a ticket, ovi, dui, as well as hitting on many interrogation tricks that police use to solicit incriminating information.

I have noticed several users searching for a felony and misdemeanor maximum penalty chart.  I have responded by posting the easy to read chart below ….. <drumroll>

MISDEMEANORS

It happens all the time. A client will walk into my office to discuss a criminal matter and even before I can start the preliminary questioning about the situation, the client exasperatedly proclaims, “the police did not read me my rights.” Usually, the client believes that this is a case-winning fact and one that I ought to care much about. However, the truth of the matter is that the police do not have to read the widely-known “Miranda rights” to each and every person they arrest. And even if they do violate the person’s 5th Amendment rights, this may not have any impact on the ultimate outcome of the case.  

The reason is that under current constitutional law, the police only have to read the Miranda rights when they are conducting “custodial interrogation” of the suspect. That is, if the police do not attempt to question the person about a crime, they do not have to advise the person that they have the right to remain silent, to an attorney, and so on. Simply asking an arrestee his name and where he lives would not qualify as “interrogation.” The police must be attempting to elicit inculpatory information from the suspect about a possible crime in order for it to be said the suspect was “interrogated”.

In short, it is only when two distinct criteria are met that the Miranda requirement is triggered: (1) the suspect must be in “custody” (a very fact specific inquiry) and the (2) the police must attempt to question the suspect about a crime they are investigating. If neither of these are satisfied, there is no Miranda violation. For instance, if an arrestee volunteers statements to the police, sometimes done as a last ditch effort to avoid arrest, the police and prosecutor are completely free to use those statements at a later trial, even when the defendant is never Mirandized. Because the police did not interrogate the suspect, but merely listened to what the suspect had to say on his own, one of the two necessary criteria discussed above are absent. Lesson to take from this: it is almost always true that talking to the police is a bad idea.

Furthermore, it is not that uncommon for the police to feel that they have no need to immediately question the suspect due to the fact he or she believes they have all the evidence they need in order to sustain an arrest (and ultimately, a conviction). Perhaps the officer witnessed the crime first-hand, or there are numerous witnesses at the scene who immediately point the finger at the arrestee. In either case, the officer may have no need to question the defendant and, therefore, no need to read the Miranda warnings at all. The bottom line is that not every person arrested has a constitutional right to have the Miranda warnings read to them, but rather only when they are subjected to custodial interrogation.

But this is not the end of the story. Let’s assume that the police in fact engaged in custodial interrogation and failed to properly Mirandize the suspect. This constitutional violation may not have any practical impact on the resolution of the defendant’s case. The remedy available for such a violation is not that the case is dismissed (as many people incorrectly believe), but rather that the statements obtained as a result of the violation will be excluded from trial. If the state has ample other evidence to sustain a conviction, the exclusion of these inculpatory statements will not make much of a dent in the overall strength of the state’s case. The state may not care that these statements are inadmissible given all of the other evidence it can still put before a jury. And this can obviously impact plea bargaining leverage as well. Now, of course, if the state’s case is weak and the statements are really needed in order for it to carry its burden at trial, then the police misconduct ends up being a huge chip that the defense can use during plea negotiations. And in rare cases, if the state’s case is so weak that without the use of the defendant’s statements it can not make out a prima facie case, the case may be dismissed upon motion.

So the next time you here someone complain that they were not “read their rights,” do not get the impression that they are out of the woods.

Here is an easy to read chart answering a question that is asked weekly by many callers. When can I have my record sealed?  If you are looking for information on ILC or diversion click here.

Brought to you by the Ohio law offices of Morrison & Nicholson. Call today for a free consultation about sealing or the expungement of your records at (937) 433–9775.

Ohio drunk driving cases are referred to as Ohio OVI (operating a vehicle while intoxicated), Ohio DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol), or Ohio OMVI (operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, impaired, or intoxicated). All of these acronyms relate to the same offense, found in the Ohio Revised Code.

Most people think that when someone is indicted in Ohio for a felony that there are only two possible resolutions: (1) The person will plead or be found guilty, or (2) the person will be acquitted of the charges. That is not entirely true. Ohio has a couple of alternatives that an attorney could pursue on behalf of a felony criminal defendant. First, the attorney could file a motion for Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (“ILC”). In short, ILC basically allows a person who committed a crime due to their addiction to drugs or alcohol to receive treatment for their substance abuse problems instead of a conviction and prison time. But, ILC is not available for all felony defendants and a given defendant must first be found to qualify for ILC. Ask your attorney whether you qualify (ILC is not available for certain crimes and certain offenders). If the Court accepts the ILC it will then prescribe a particular treatment program for the defendant and suspend the pending criminal action. If the defendant does what the Court demands as far as the treatment goes, the Court will dismiss the charges and the defendant can avoid a felony conviction altogether.

The second possibility is something called “Diversion.” Diversion is similar to ILC in that if the defendant is accepted for diversion and completes the program, then ultimately he or she avoids being convicted of a felony. The defendant is “diverted” out of the criminal court system and given a chance to accomplish certain goals set by the program. If the defendant successfully completes the diversion program, then the Court will dismiss the charges. However, like ILC, only certain charges and certain types of criminal defendants are eligible for a diversion program.

People who have been caught “red-handed” in the commission of a felony in Ohio often just want to get the entire thing over and do not want to hire an attorney, believing that because they are so obviously guilty, there is nothing to do but plead guilty or no contest. This is a major mistake.

Attorneys provide value to all criminal defendants, even those that feel there is no point in fighting anything. Because prosecutors know that the average layman will not go to trial and make the prosecutor actually work to prove the defendants guilt, the prosecutors will not offer any reduction in charges (or drop some of the charges altogether), nor will they agree to stipulate to a certain sentence in exchange for pleading guilty. In other words, prosecutor have no incentive to enter into plea bargain discussions with a layman. An attorney on the other hand can threaten trial, which in practical terms, means A LOT OF WORK for the prosecutor and this provides a strong incentive for the prosecutor to work with the defense counsel in reaching some agreement that is much more beneficial for the defendant.

Furthermore, without benefit of counsel, defendants that are eligible for Diversion or “intervention in lieu of conviction” programs will not file the appropriate motions and therefore, these defendants are never considered for these programs. These programs are the best result that a criminal defendant can have short of an acquittal, because if accepted to either one, a defendant can avoid a conviction and criminal record.

The bottom line is that if you have been charged with a felony in Ohio, you need to retain counsel, or ask the court to appoint you counsel because the results are almost guaranteed to be better than if you merely plead guilty. Even if you are obviously guilty, there are benefits to having representation.