Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Gordon Thompson Attorney
23 followers
23 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Mesa City Court Defendants Go to Florence Jail

Effective July 1, 2017, persons serving a jail sentence arising out of the Mesa Municipal Court will no longer serve it in the Maricopa County Jail, but instead will surrender at the Mesa Police Department and be transported to a private correctional center located in Florence, Arizona, owned and operated by CoreCivic. Aside from the controversies over privatized corrections, as Maricopa County Jail costs have recently increased (see my recent blog post: https://gordonthompsonattorney.net/maricopa-county-jail-dui-costs-go-up/) this change now means less out-of-pocket costs for those defendants.

As mentioned, after surrendering at the Mesa Police Department at 130 North Robson in Mesa, defendants will be transferred to Florence; those participating in work release will be transferred by bus back to Mesa PD at 130 North Robson, where they can keep their vehicle or access the light rail within a 5-minute walk. The 12-hour allotment for work release is considered to begin upon arrival at Mesa PD.

CoreCivic’s Central Arizona Florence Correctional Complex is located at 1100 Bowling Road in Florence, Arizona, and has two branches, East and West. Visitation for inmates out of Mesa Municipal Court are permitted on Wednesday and Friday; visitation is scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis and can be arranged by emailing FCCVisitation@corecivic.com up to 3PM the day prior to the desired visitation date (include MESA in the Subject Line and include the inmate’s Full Name and Inmate Number; for more information and/or assistance call (520) 868-9095 x22514); both video and in-person visits are permitted. Funds may be added to an inmates account online via Western Union, or by mail via Wachovia Lockbox.

For more information about CoreCivic’s Central Arizona Florence Correctional facility and detailed information about the rules affecting visitation and adding funds, click the link below:

http://www.cca.com/facilities/florence-correctional-center

Gordon Thompson
For more information about Arizona DUI and criminal law issues please contact Gordon Thompson who has used his experience to write a blog on topics of interest. You can also chat with Gordon about your specific questions. Website: https://GordonThompsonAttorney.net
https://gordonthompsonattorney.net/
https://gordonthompsonattorney.net/blog/

#DUI #CriminalLaw #DUIBlog
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Jaywalking While Black

African Americans are disproportionately stopped for Jaywalking throughout the United States according to a July 3, 2017 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Jaywalking While Black, by Ms. Jane Coaston. As examples Ms. Colson said that in a Sacramento, California neighborhood where 15% of the residents are African-American, 50% of those ticketed for Jaywalking were black. In Urbana, Illinois, from 2007 two 2011, 91% of those ticketed for Jaywalking were black however only 16% of the residents were African-American. Ms. Coaston cited other examples throughout the country.

In most jurisdictions around the country Jaywalking is a civil not a criminal offense and therefore should not be a high priority for police departments are pressed to deal with serious crime. The suspicion is that when blacks are disproportionately stopped for a civil charge like Jaywalking in a white neighborhood, as was happening in Urbana, Illinois is that the African-Americans were being stopped because they were African-American and not because of a problem with Jaywalking.

Jaywalking by African-Americans can in fact turn into something dangerous for them. An example of how the police can turn a civil, low priority civil charge like Jaywalking into a major felony incident took place in Mesa in June, 2017. The incident was subject to a broadcast on Phoenix Television Channel 12. The incident was captured in part on a civilian's cell phone. In the video Mesa police officers charged, and appeared to have assaulted an African-American who was walking on the sidewalk.  On a body camera video one of the officers said they had observed him Jaywalking. As seen in the video it appears that the police were not simply trying to subdue the African-American but were repeatedly punching and kneeing him. In the story on Channel 12 the civilian who made the video on his phone confirmed that is what he observed the officers doing.  This again was for a possible civil charge of Jaywalking. For the African-American's conduct in resisting the assault on him by the officers, the officers charged him in Maricopa County Superior Court with Resisting Arrest. Therefore from a simple incident of Jaywalking the African-American was assaulted by police officers and charged with a felony.



The incident may be viewed by clicking on this site from Phoenix television channel 12.

Ms. Carlson's New York Times article can be found by clicking on this link.



Mesa’s Jaywalking City Ordinance

10-7-1:          CIVIL TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS:

Any violation of or failure or refusal to do or perform any act required by Chapters 1 through 7 of Title 10 of the Mesa City Code constitutes a civil traffic violation except as otherwise provided. Civil traffic violations are subject to the provisions of Title 28, Chapter 6, Articles 20 and 21, Arizona Revised Statutes, and amendments thereto. (1771)

10-7-2:          AUTHORITY TO DETAIN PERSONS TO SERVE TRAFFIC COMPLAINT:

Any Police officer or duly authorized agent of the City may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of this Title and to serve a copy of the traffic complaint for any alleged civil or criminal violation of this Title. (1771)

10-3-19:       PEDESTRIAN’S RIGHTS AND DUTIES:

(A)      Pedestrians Subject to Traffic-Control Signals. Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic-control signals as heretofore declared in this Chapter, but at all other places, pedestrians shall be granted those rights and be subject to the restrictions stated herein. (Reso. 990,1771)

(B)       Pedestrian’s Right-Of-Way in Crosswalks. When traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. A pedestrian’s right-of-way in a crosswalk is modified under the condition and as stated hereinafter. (Reso. 990,1771)

Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle. (Reso. 990,1771)

(C)       Pedestrians to Use Right Half of Crosswalk. Pedestrians shall move, whenever practicable, upon the right half of crosswalks. (Reso. 990,1771)

(D)      Crossing at Right Angles. No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at any place other than by a route at right angles to the curb or by the shortest route to the opposite curb except in a crosswalk. (Reso. 990,1771)

(E)       When Pedestrian Shall Yield. (Reso. 990,1771)

Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Reso. 990,1771)
Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Reso. 990,1771)
The foregoing rules in this Section have no application under the conditions stated hereinafter when pedestrians are prohibited from crossing at certain designated places. (Reso. 990,1771)
(F)       Prohibited Crossing. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a crosswalk, and no pedestrian shall cross a roadway other than in a crosswalk in any business district. (Reso. 990,1771)

(G)      Pedestrians Walking Along Roadways. (Reso. 990,1771)

Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. (Reso. 990,1771)
Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction. (Reso. 990,1771)
No person shall stand in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride from the driver of any vehicle. (Reso. 990,1771)
(H)      Drivers to Exercise Due Care. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (Reso. 990,1771)

(I)        Pedestrians Soliciting/Distributing. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon or remain on any median or traveled portion of any street or highway to solicit an occupant of a vehicle for employment, business, or contributions; or for distribution of advertisements, merchandise, or other property; or to offer any services. (3271)



Gordon Thompson

For more information about Arizona DUI and criminal law issues please contact Gordon Thompson who has used his experience to write a blog on topics of interest. You can also chat with Gordon about your specific questions.   Website:  https://GordonThompsonAttorney.net


https://gordonthompsonattorney.net/blog/
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Maricopa County Jail DUI Costs Go Up

Defendants who serve DUI sentences in county jails are required by law to pay the costs of their incarceration.  Courts have discretion to reduce the assessment of jail costs if full the assessment would cause financial hardship on the defendant.  These requirements are set forth in 28 A.R.S. § 1444.

The procedure to impose and collect the incarceration costs is as follows: first, when a DUI defendant is booked into custody to serve the sentence, the county bills the sentencing court for the anticipated incarceration costs based on predetermined rates set by the county where the defendant will be serving the sentence.  These predetermined rates are set annually by the counties.  The court is required to pay the amount to the county no matter what else may happen.  Generally, based on the predetermined rates the sentencing court orders the defendant to reimburse the court for the amount it must pay to the county.

The jail cost rates are determined by each county as of the beginning of the fiscal year.  As of July 1, 2017, for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, Maricopa County has determined the first day booking cost for the Maricopa County Jail will be $325.65 and the housing rate for each day thereafter is $101.72.   Thus the costs for 4 days in the Maricopa County Jail are $631.41.  The rates go up every year; by contrast, ten years ago the rates were $189.23 and $72.33, respectively.

In Maricopa County rates for second offense misdemeanor DUIs are 50% of the otherwise applicable rates (or, $162.83 and $50.86).  Once Maricopa County learns that a DUI defendant is serving a sentence for a second DUI misdemeanor offense it will reduce the amount it bills the Municipal and Justice Courts by 50%.  In anticipation of the lower rates by Maricopa County, the Municipal and Justice Courts are supposed to impose the 50% reduced rate for second offense DUIs, however, some courts routinely refuse to impose the lower rates.  In effect, courts can profit from the difference in the rates because the court may order the defendant to pay the higher rate, and collect that amount from the defendant under penalty of going to jail if they do not, even though Maricopa County only requires the court to pay the lower rates.  The court therefore is able to pocket the difference.  If a defendant is going to be sentenced to serve time in the Maricopa County Jail for a second offense misdemeanor DUI they should insist their lawyer request the court order them to pay the correct second offense rates.  DUI Defendants by law are required to pay the costs of their incarceration, but they are not required by law to pay a profit to the court.

Current Maricopa County Jail costs can be found by clicking here:

https://gordonthompsonattorney.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-2018-Maricopa-County-Jail-Costs.pdf


Gordon Thompson

For more information about Arizona DUI and criminal law issues please contact Gordon Thompson who has used his experience to write a blog on topics of interest. You can also chat with Gordon about your specific questions.   Website:  https://GordonThompsonAttorney.net

https://gordonthompsonattorney.net/

https://gordonthompsonattorney.net/blog/
Photo
Add a comment...

What is a Felony DUI in Arizona, #9, State v. White.

The purpose of this series of podcasts is to discuss the facts, legal issues and sentences imposed in Arizona felony DUI cases so people can have an understanding of how individuals can be found guilty of Felony DUI and what sentences can be imposed.

The cases discussed in this series are primarily based on memorandum decisions issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals. Memorandum decisions are only binding on that individual case and are not legal precedent for other cases. However, their discussion of the facts, legal issues presented and sentences imposed are a good guide for what it takes to be found guilty of a felony DUI in Arizona, and what the sentences imposed could be. Keep in mind almost all of these cases arose from the defendant’s appeal after a Felony DUI trial. Sentences for Felony DUIs which are resolved by plea agreement are often less than those imposed after a jury trial.

State v. White, No. 1 CA-CR 14-0485 (8/20/15).

FACTS:

At approximately midnight on December 3, 2011, a Phoenix police officer observed defendant driving a vehicle the wrong way down a one-way street, without the car’s headlights on. After the officer stopped the defendant’s vehicle, the officer noticed that defendant had watery, bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol. The defendant admitted to drinking beer that night.

The defendant was then arrested and taken to another location where blood was drawn. The blood sample was tested at .203%.

The evidence was that time of defendant’s arrest, his driving privileges had been suspended.

The defendant was charged with Felony Aggravated DUI.

The defendant was found guilty in a jury trial.

LEGAL ISSUE:
No legal issues were discussed in the decision.

SENTENCE:
The defendant was sentenced to two years supervised probation to begin upon his release from prison after serving the mandatory four months.

The memorandum decision is available, along with the transcript/podcast of this recording, by clicking the link below:

https://gordonthompsonattorney.net/what-is-a-felony-dui-in-arizona-number-9-state-v-white/

Gordon Thompson
#DUI #CriminalLaw #DUIBlog
For more information about Arizona DUI and criminal law issues please contact Gordon Thompson who has used his experience to write a blog on topics of interest. You can also chat with Gordon about your specific questions.
Website: https://GordonThompsonAttorney.net
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded