Speak Directly with an Attorney 440.709.8088

Recent Case Results

  • Charges Avoided

    Federal Charges

    Unindicted

    Client was owner of a head shop. Allegedly sold controlled substance analogues.

  • Not Guilty at Trial

    Murder

    State v. Brandon Betliskey

    Client was accused with attempted murder and felonious assault for stabbing an individual with a knife during a fight.

    At trial we demonstrated that the prosecution’s witnesses were unreliable, that they had motives, and that some of the witnesses had even assisted in the assault on Mr. Betliskey. The client faced over a decade in prison, and the prosecution had offered a plea of three to five years in prison.

  • Felonies Reduced to a Misdemeanor

    Fraud

    State v. Bankston

    Case 554763

    Client charged in a massive mortgage fraud operation by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s office. As a result of our efforts the client went from the possibility of both spending a significant time in prison and not being able to maintain his employment to being able to enter a plea to a misdemeanor and putting it behind him.

  • Felonies Reduced to a Misdemeanor

    Fraud

    State v. Bailey

    Client faced over five years in prison relating to fraud coming from purchases on certain credit cards. The FBI had been involved in investigating a credit card fraud ring, we demonstrated that our client who had no prior record was not involved in this. The charges were all reduced to a misdemeanor.

  • Sentence Reduced to 55 Months

    Federal Charges

    United States v. Pugh

    1:16-cr-00291-BYP

    Client faced possession with intent to distribute LSD 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)

    Mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, with potential for life in prison.

    Result: 55 month sentence, entry into drug program recommendation, recommendation of camp incarceration.

  • Evidence Suppressed, State Lost the Appeal

    DUI / OVI

    City of Cleveland v. Oles

    Client was stopped for what a trooper described as being an illegal lane change. The trooper, in our opinion, employed improper investigative techniques that we argued violated our client’s rights. Trial court agreed.