44th Circuit Court in Livingston County, Michigan - Josh Jones - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Handling All Felonies & Misdemeanors

44^th Circuit Court – Livingston County, Michigan

The Circuit Court is a division of the state judiciary, and it serves as a trial court of general jurisdiction serving all the citizens of Livingston County and the townships, cities and villages located within. The court is located at 204 S. Highlander Way, Howell, MI. The courthouse is known as the Trial Court and houses the circuit court and district court all in one building. The courthouse hours are 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

Two Judges oversee the court’s docket on a daily basis: Honorable Stanley J. Latreille (Chief Judge) and Honorable David Reader. The court takes a strong stance on dangerous crimes and appropriately addresses all less severe crimes. It has recently been a part of a huge Federal criminal case involving the I-96 shooter—only some of the incidences involved occurred within court’s jurisdiction.

The criminal division of the court will oversee all felony matters; however, it will also oversee or has the jurisdiction to preside over misdemeanor cases and charges. This will generally happen when the misdemeanor charge is also attached to a felony charge. The court also oversees the filing of personal protection orders (PPOs) and other various legal matters both civil and criminal, including crimes committed by juveniles within the court’s jurisdiction.

If you believe you have a hearing or have forgotten the date of your scheduled hearing you can check the court calendar here.  

Make sure you contact the right attorney to handle your criminal case. The Law Office of Josh Jones is here for your 7-days a week and can be reached by phone, text, email or instant message. We know the courts. We understand your stress and worry. In the end, we work hard at making sure you have a successful tomorrow.  

Judges & Medical Marihuana Immunity [People v Jones] - MMMA Case - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

Judges Deciding Immunity - People v Jones

On July 9, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals brought about further interpretation on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA). More specifically, People v Jones explained that the decision of Section 4 Immunity is left up to the judge, but in what cases or circumstances?

Generally, an issue of fact (or a factual issue) is to be decided by a Jury (or the trier of fact), yet an issue of law (or a legal issue) is to be decided by the judge. This is long standing procedure. However, here in the State of Michigan and in certain situations and instances a judge still determines factual issues within a case. These situations include entrapment, voluntariness of statements, suppression of physical evidence, or consenting to search, to name a few.

The issues at hand in the Jones case dealt with whether or not the Defendant was a resident of the State at the time of her application and whether she was possessing marihuana for the medical use as a caregiver and patient.

The court paralleled Section 4 to the Entrapment Defense, and ultimately determined that Section 4 “fact-finding is a question for the trial court to decide. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision finding that [Section] 4 immunity fact-finding is a question for the jury is reversed.” Jones. 

Controlled Substance Conviction Consequences - Part 2 - Michigan Criminal & Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones - ALL Felonies & Misdemeanors

Part II – Collateral Consequences For Controlled Substance Convictions: Housing & Public Benefits

When it comes to controlled substance (or drug) charges here in the State of Michigan, the legislature has drafted a strict set of consequences to inflict onto those convicted of the various types of crimes. Not only are there fines, possible jail time, possible drivers’ license sanctions, and other requirements when convicted of a drug crime, but there are also possible consequences that involve an individual’s housing or public benefits.

The following areas involve possible consequences, and each provides a brief outline of those consequences.

1.    Housing

a.     Private landlords

Private landlords may evict an individual for criminal activity related to the tenancy, which is common in drug cases. Furthermore, private landlords may also deny housing because of a criminal record. A lease or agreement between two individuals is a contract, and thus the terms in that contract are binding, which usually involves provisions about drug activity, use or the like.

b.     Conventional public housing and section 8 subsidies:

   

   Admission to programs: Relevant Authority: 24 CFR Subpart B - Admission

There is a mandatory denial of housing for individuals convicted of methamphetamine production. There is a presumption for denial is an individual has been convicted of a drug crime, which includes a family member engaging in illegal drug use. Moreover, there is a discretionary denial for any drug-related criminal activity, and thus an applicant may be required to exclude a family member who has participated in or has been culpable for criminal, alcohol, or drug-related activity.

Termination or eviction: Relevant Authority: 42 USC 1437d; 24 CFR 966.4

Mandatory termination is required for individuals convicted of methamphetamine production. However, there is discretionary termination for individuals engaged in illegal drug use. Discretionary termination is present when a tenant, a member of the tenant’s household, or a guest engages in any drug-related criminal activity on or off the premises or if any other person under the tenant’s control engages in any drug-related activity on the premises. Public Housing Authorities have the authority to evict individuals for drug-related criminal activity even if the tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control the behavior of other occupants or guests.

2.     Public benefits: Relevant Authority: 21 USC 862a BEM 203

Permanent revocation for an individual convicted of a drug-related felony, and thus he or she cannot receive federal cash assistance or food stamps during his or her lifetime. States are allowed to opt into or out-of that provision. In Michigan, individuals with one prior felony drug conviction will remain eligible for benefits; however, those with more than one felony drug conviction, which occurred after 1996, are not. However certain benefits will be excluded from the ban, which include, but are not limited to, emergency medical services, certain public health benefits, drug treatment programs, Medicaid, Social Security disability, and supplemental Social Security income. If considering moving to another state and having prior felony drug convictions research is advised because other states do enforce the ban described above.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Controlled Substance Conviction Consequences - Part 1 - Michigan Criminal & Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones - ALL Felonies & Misdemeanors

Part I – Collateral Consequences For Controlled Substance Convictions: Employment & Student Loans

When it comes to controlled substance (or drug) charges here in the State of Michigan, the legislature has drafted a strict set of consequences to inflict onto those convicted of these various types of crimes. Not only are there fines, possible jail time, possible drivers’ license sanctions, and other requirements when convicted of a drug crime, but there are also possible consequences that involve an individual’s career, financial aid or other areas of an individual's life (which will be discussed in Part II - Collateral Consequences For Controlled Substance Convictions: Housing & Public Benefits).

The following areas involve possible consequences, and each provides a brief outline of those consequences.

1.     Employment

Health professionals: Relevant Authority: MCL §333.16221(b); Mich. Admin. Code R. 338.3145. A summary suspension of the license will occur if an individual is convicted of a misdemeanor controlled substance crimes involving delivery, possession or use. Individuals previously convicted of a controlled substance crime and currently under a sentence for that conviction cannot work as pharmacists or in related jobs. Moreover, an individual’s controlled substance license would be invalid if suspended, revoked or denied because of a drug crime conviction.

Long-Term Care (adult foster care facilities, nursing homes, hospices, etc.): Relevant Authority: 42 USC 1320a-7; MCL § 330.1134a, MCL § 333.20173a, MCL § 333.20173b. If an individual is convicted of a felony relating to manufacturing, distributing, prescribing, or dispensing of a controlled substance after August 21, 1996, then a lifetime ban in the field will attach to that individual. An individual is banned for five years after the conviction for certain misdemeanor controlled substance offenses, which are listed in the statute, and involve the creation, delivery, possession, or use of a controlled substance. An individual under the age of 18 generally receives a one-year suspension from the date of conviction for most misdemeanor controlled substance offenses. 

Private Security, Security Guard, Security Alarm Contractor: Relevant Authority: MCL § 338.1056(1)(e), MCL § 338.1060(1)(c), MCL § 338.1067. An individual is not allowed to have a conviction involving a controlled substance within the last five years, which includes felonies and/or misdemeanors. Therefore, a 5-year gap rule applies.

2. Federal student loans: Relevant Authority: 20 USC 1091(r)(1) IRC 25A(b)(2)(D). The Federal law suspends an individual’s eligibility for any grants, loans, or work assistance when he or she is convicted (either by state or federal) of a controlled substance that involves the possession or sale of a controlled substance and while receiving student aid. Furthermore, Federal law denies the hope tax credit to a student and his or her family if he or she has a prior felony drug conviction. In possession cases, the period of suspension begins on the date of conviction and will last one-year. There is an enhanced suspension of two years for a second possession offense and complete revocation for a third offense. A delivery drug conviction brings about a two-year suspension for the first conviction and complete revocation for a second conviction. However, there are waiver or rehabilitation provisions that are available to some individuals.

Please stay tuned and look for PartII - Collateral Consequences For Controlled Substance Convictions: Housing & Public Benefits. 

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Michigan Medical Marihuana & Search Warrants - MMMA - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

Michigan Medical Marihuana Act: The Opinions Just Keep Coming

The Court of Appeals has recently determined that a Magistrate is allowed to issue a search and seizure warrant without the police officer first determining whether the individual is a Michigan medical marihuana cardholder. Yes, that was a confusing sentence. Let’s see if that idea can be expressed in simpler terms.

Ultimately, the court concluded that an officer is allowed to obtain a warrant to search an individual’s home without first establishing whether that individual is legal cultivating, using or possessing medical marihuana as allowed under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). See People v Brown.

The court based its conclusion on the fact that cultivating, using and possessing marihuana is technically illegal, unless the individual was obeying the requirements set out in the MMMA. 

In Brown, the issue was whether the officer had probable cause for a warrant based upon clippings and other materials found in the defendant’s garbage. The court indicated that such evidence constituted a reasonable conclusion that illegal activity was occurring in the defendant’s home, and thus the warrant issued by the magistrate was valid and the evidence entered into evidence during trial was not suppressed.

When reading the opinion, it will be easily noticeable that facts were limited and not really discussed, so in order to discuss the actual impact on a medical marihuana cardholder more facts would be needed. But this can be said, medical marihuana users will want to be careful and expressly show their medical marihuana card or approved paperwork. The opinion stated by the Court of Appeals is law, as of right now that is.

Anytime you are faced with legal issues that involve the MMMA, you need to contact an attorney that understands the Act’s limits. Do not hesitate or believe that the Act will simply protect you in every possibility. There is still a large amount of smoke that hovers of the rights of medical marihuana patients and caregivers. Make sure you have Josh Jones protecting those rights. 

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.