Case Results

Possession of A Controlled Substance - First Degree Felony – Reduced & Expunged

"Jimmy" was a 17-year-old high school senior hosting a party at his home while his parents were out of town. Police responded to the residence after a neighbor called in a noise complaint. The officers legally entered the home and found a cake pan that contained a large brownie. The police confiscated the cake pan and tested the brownie for narcotics. The substance tested positive for THC (Marijuana).

Under Texas law, if THC or marijuana is contained in a substance, the legal penalty is determined by the weight of the substance including any adulterants or diluents. These laws were put into place when people were claiming their drugs were not "pure" so they should not be punished as harshly as if they were.

But today, the result is that the ENTIRE substance is weighed. Unfortunately, the weight of the substance made the penalty a First-degree felony with a possible punishment of up to 99 years or life in prison.

After months of work, we were able to successfully negotiate a resolution for our client that not only reduced the potential punishment to a misdemeanor but we were also able to obtain a pre-trial diversion program. This type of program allows for a dismissal of the criminal charge entirely. After the dismissal, we obtained an expunction of his criminal records. Today, our client is a thriving college student with no criminal record.

Possession of a Controlled Substance - Reduction charges

"Michelle" was pulled over for speeding and admitted having illegal narcotics in the vehicle. After finding the drugs, Michelle was arrested and charged with felony drug possession.

The district attorney’s office offered Michelle 5 years felony probation in return for her plea of guilty. After the attorneys at Biederman & Burleson reviewed the case with her, we recommended that the case be set for trial.

There are many reasons why a client will set his or her case for trial. Sometimes cases are set because a person believes he or she is not guilty of the crime. But another reason to set a case for trial is to attempt to get better punishment.

Setting a case for trial puts tremendous pressure on the district attorney’s office. Once set for trial, the district attorney has a duty to produce witnesses and evidence to prove a person guilty. Often times, this causes many unforeseen problems for the state. In regards to this particular case, the state had problems getting witnesses to trial. As a result, the state reduced the charge to a simple class C misdemeanor. Our client paid a fine of $99 and his arrest records were expunged.

Settings cases for trial in order to push for better deals is a strategy we have used often and to an extremely high degree of success. In this case, the move was obvious, because even if we were forced to trial, there was no downside. At worse, she would have gotten a better result than the plea "bargain." In this case, the deal got significantly better allowing her records to be fully expunged.

CBD – Charged with THC Possession – NOT GUILTY

"Justin" purchased a product from a local CBD store. He was stopped for a traffic offense and the officer noticed the CBD product, field tested it (came up positive) and charged him with possession.

Insistent that he had done nothing wrong, we set the case for trial. At trial the officer testified that the product contained THC and was therefore illegal. The state produced a forensic scientist who testified, in his opinion, that the product was illegal under Texas law.

During cross-examination, we were able to show that the forensic scientist did not follow proper scientific protocol when testing the product, specifically that the scientist did not perform a quantitative analysis on the product that showed the presence of any THC. The jury did not believe the testimony offered by the state and instead believed that the product was legally purchased. Justin was found not guilty and eligible to have his record expunged.

Possession of Marijuana – NOT GUILTY

"Kelly" was the passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by an officer. During the stop, the officer suspected that narcotics might be in the vehicle and the officer called a canine unit to inspect the vehicle.

A common theme in many of our drug cases is the inability of the state to prove who actually possessed a drug or narcotic at the time of the arrest. Our client was charged with possession of an illegal narcotic. The canine alerted on a backpack located in the back floorboard of the vehicle. The backpack was located near Kelly’s feet. Because she was closest to the backpack she was charged with possession.

At trial, we cross-examined the officer on the number of other passengers in the vehicle and attacked the officer’s conclusion that the backpack belonged to Kelly.

The jury had reasonable doubt as to who actually owned or possessed the backpack in which the narcotics were located and the jury swiftly found Kelly not guilty.

Possession of a Controlled Substance - NOT GUILTY

Jeremy was pulled over for speeding and arrested for a warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket. After his arrest the officers "inventoried" the car before it was towed. This is a legal reason/justification for officers to search a car that someone was arrested in.

Inside the car, officers found a backpack that contained less than 1 gram of cocaine. Possession of a controlled substance less than a gram is a state jail felony, punishable by up to 2 years in prison.

Jeremy was the sole occupant of the vehicle at the time of the stop and search by the police. At trial, the State argued that since Jeremy was the sole occupant of the vehicle he was the only person in possession of the narcotics.

During cross-examination, we were able to establish reasonable doubt as to whether or not the client actually knew about the narcotics located in the backpack. Possession of drugs by law must be intentionally or knowingly.

The officers were unable to prove that Jeremy was the only person to handle the backpack recently and therefore could not produce sufficient evidence to prove Jeremy knowingly or intentionally possessed the narcotics. The 12 jurors returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.