RI Maritime Cadet Gets Suspended Sentence

Although I was not involved in this case, I found it interesting enough to share. If you need help with a Military Criminal Defense matter, or a RI Criminal Charge, contact the Law Office of Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for more information.

Ex-Mass. Maritime cadet from RI avoids jail for hitting 3 people
FALMOUTH, Mass. (AP) - A former Massachusetts Maritime Academy cadet accused of being drunk when he struck two fellow cadets and a third person with his car has avoided jail.

Max Yerger of Westerly, R.I., pleaded guilty Thursday to charges including leaving the scene of personal injury accident and operating under the influence of alcohol.

The Cape Cod Times (http://bit.ly/WaWH4I ) reports he was given a six-month jail term suspended for five years of probation.

Prosecutors say the 22-year-old Yerger had four beers and two shots in four hours when he left the Port O' Call pub at about 1 a.m. May 18 and struck two cadets and a 31-year-old woman.

Yerger had a blood alcohol content of 0.18 percent, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

He was dismissed from the academy.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Wife Testimonial for Criminal Defense Attorney Calcagni

If you have been charged with a crime in RI and need assistance, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 now for a free consultation.

“When I found out that my husband had been arrested, I was very frightened. I didn’t know what to do or whom to call. I found Attorney John Calcagni’s website. I called him, praying that he would be the one for my husband’s case and thank God that’s how it was, from the first time I tried to contact him, he returned my call immediately, he was very honest with me, very professional, very attentive and very patient, especially since my English is not very good.  He was always very worried about me and encouraged me to be calm. He always answered my calls and while my husband was in jail, he always did excellent work and thanks to him, today my husband is once again at home with me and our daughter.  I don’t know how to express the gratitude I feel for Attorney Calcagni.  He is an excellent human being and an excellent lawyer.  I am very satisfied with his work and the results he obtained for my husband.  I am infinitely thankful for Attorney Calcagni’s dedication.  I heartily recommend the services he provides.  God bless you and many, many thanks.” - CR, Grateful Spouse of SM

Article 15 (Non-judicial Punishment)

The term "Article 15" refers to a military mandate known as a "non-judicial Punishment." Article 15 allows a commanding officer to punish an active-duty military member for a minor offense. The process is similar to a court-martial, however it is used as an alternative for offenses considered to be mild misconduct issues, rather than the more serious crimes that typically command the court martial process.

What to expect when issued an Article 15

Being subject to an Article 15 is not unlike a typical civilian arrest in some ways. Once a commander issues you an Article 15 he or she will formally notify you that you are being given one, and will provide you with the details of your misconduct. You will be presented with any evidence against you, followed by a notification of your rights under the UCMJ. Should you refuse the Article 15, you will be issued a court martial and given the opportunity to present your side of the story along with any evidence or witness testimony in your favor. (Refusing an Article 15 is not the same as pleading not-guilty.)

Factors to consider

In some cases, an accused member of the armed forces may be able to present clear undisputable evidence that they are not guilty of an offense; in which case a court-martial may not pose a great deal of risk while simultaneously dismissing all allegations. If the evidence presented is insufficient to prove innocence however, an individual may face much more severe penalties when found guilty.

In accepting an Article 15 you are agreeing to let your commander decide whether or not you are guilty and what (if any) punishment you should receive. Pleading not guilty will not result in a court-martial, but will instead open the opportunity to present your case to the commander. Accepting an Article 15 means that the consequences of the charge are much less serious than those of a court-martial.

If you are facing an Article 15

If you are facing an article 15 from your commander, understand that you have choices. The outcome of an Article 15 will be on your military record permanently regardless of whether you accept or choose a court-martial. An experienced Military criminal defense attorney can help you consider your options and assist you in making the best decision. If you are currently facing an Article 15 contact RI Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for more information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Understanding A Manslaughter Charge

 

In most states, manslaughter is distinctly defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with no implied intention to do harm, and lacks premeditation malice or an intent to kill. Manslaughter is not considered a lesser degree of murder, however it does yield less severe legal consequences, and lacks intent, or the aforementioned malice. There are many ways in which manslaughter occurs such as drunk driving, texting while driving, and various other careless acts that result in a human fatality (Involuntary Manslaughter).

Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary Manslaughter is less common than manslaughter, and refers to the intentional killing of another human being based on what the United States government considers "reasonable circumstances", which mitigate, but do not excuse the crime. Most references to Voluntary Manslaughter include the term "self defense" which basically means killing another human being as a last resort in an attempt to prevent them from harming you. Most states are reasonably lenient in regard to those facing a voluntary manslaughter charge provided an individual can provide enough evidence to justify the act.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter is often behind the bulk of fatal auto accident statistics and usually includes DUI's, deaths as a result of illegal substances combined with heavy machinery, texting while driving, or careless and intoxicated use of firearms. Contrary to popular belief, the use of intoxicating substances are not required to be charged with Involuntary manslaughter, and instead emphasizes on a state of carelessness as the key factor.

Criminally Negligent Manslaughter

Although very similar to Involuntary Manslaughter, Criminally Negligent Manslaughter is essentially a homicide which has resulted from a failure to act in a situation where an individual had the ability to prevent it. This could be as simple as preventing a child abuse death when the abuse occurred before someone who failed to intervene, or report it. Another example might be a failure to perform ones duty, such as a police officer or a fire fighter intentionally failing to respond to a distress call.

Have you been charged with Manslaughter?

There are many other forms of manslaughter, and it is very possible that poor circumstances, genuine mistakes, and even wrongful accusations can cause anyone, anywhere to be faced with them. If you or a loved one has recently been arrested for manslaughter and are facing charges in the state of Rhode Island an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately.

Arson in the state of Rhode Island

Although most fires are the result of negligence, old wiring, or simply accidental misfortune, a percentage of them are caused deliberately. The crime of intentionally starting a fire is called "Arson", and involves anyone who knowingly causes, procures, assists, counsels or creates a serious risk of harm to people or property via fire or explosion. The crime of arson is a serious one regardless of whether or not the intention is physical harm to another person, or if the fire involves a structure that isn't used for residential purposes.

1st Degree Arson

First degree arson involves injury or death and may result in a mandatory 20 year prison sentence, with a max of life imprisonment in addition to a $25000 fine. A death or injury is not required in order for a prosecution to charge you with 1st degree arson. Any person that commits arson of an occupied structure which has been inhabited within the past six months of the crime is guilty of arson in the first degree.

2nd Degree Arson

Second degree arson generally involves committing the act within an unoccupied building and doesn't not include death or injury to another individual. Second degree arson is still a very serious crime and may result in no less than five years imprisonment and $3,000-$25000 in fines.

Individuals convicted of Arson may not be subject to any minimum, mandatory sentences if it can be shown that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify a modification in sentence. This includes being able to demonstrate that a person is of exceptional character and background and fully cooperates with law enforcement authorities.

Have you been convicted of Arson?

Some states such as Rhode Island treat certain crimes very seriously, and will attempt to prosecute such cases with the most severe sentences possible. If you or a loved one has recently been arrested for Arson in The State of Rhode Island please contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation now.

Choosing the Best Criminal Defense Attorney for Your Needs

Now that you have a better understand of the types of legal fees (link to first post), the question remains: how much does it cost to hire an attorney. The answer is still “it depends.” Legal fees vary by geographic area; the type and nature of the case involved; and the particular attorney you choose to hire. Clients are often under the mistaken belief that all attorneys are the same – one size fits all. This could not be further from the truth.


Attorneys, even those who practice in the same geographic area and work on the same types of cases, are not alike. Each attorney has his or her own unique experience and background. For instance, some lawyers have a lot of trial experience and some do not. Researching an attorney’s true experience and background can be difficult. With the legalization of advertising for attorneys, many try to dazzle potential clients with fancy websites and colorful language regarding their skills and abilities. Don’t judge a book by its cover. Meet with the attorney in person; ask around about his or her reputation; and request examples of cases they have worked on in the past.

Aside from experience, lawyers also have different values and personalities. Some lawyers are more hardworking and dedicated to client needs and concerns than others. For instance, how many times have you heard the complaint that “my lawyer never returns phone calls” or “my lawyer is always out of the office.” These complaints do not describe all lawyers equally. Some lawyers return client calls the very same day the client leaves the message. Others work nights and weekends to be available to clients who otherwise work during the day and cannot meet with their lawyer during normal business hours.

The bottom line is that when it comes to lawyers, just like restaurants, automobiles and other consumer goods, the old adage holds true: you get what you pay for. If you prefer a lawyer who charges discount prices, you will certainly find one. However, if you choose to hire such a lawyer, do not be surprised if their representation has the same 'discount' quality. Perhaps you prefer higher quality and competence over discount prices.

Whatever your needs may be, take the time to find a lawyer who is right for you. When it comes to legal representation, choose an attorney who is qualified, competent, experienced, caring and devoted to your case. After all, what price is too high to pay for your rights and your future?

If you are in need of quality and experienced legal representation, and you want a lawyer who is responsive to your needs; returns phone calls; is available to you anytime and anywhere; knows the law; and will fight for your rights, call Attorney John L. Calcagni III today for a free consultation. Contact us now at 401-351-5100 or jc@calcagnilaw.com.

Felony Assault and Rape Suspect Arrested

 

Felony assault and rape are serious criminal charges that carry with them the potential for substantial prison sentences if found guilty. If you are a suspect or have been charged with a felony assault or other serious sexual offense, contact John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 or use the contact form HERE for more information.

 

R.I. Police Digest: Rape, assault suspect captured on Block Island
September 20, 2011
New Shoreham

Rape, assault suspect captured

A man wanted by North Providence police on charges of rape and felony assault was apprehended early Sunday morning on Block Island, according to New Shoreham Police Chief Vincent Carlone.

Named on the Rhode Island Most Wanted website, Jossie J. Gomez, 21, last known to live in Providence, was taken into custody around 1 a.m. Sunday by New Shoreham officers after a brief foot chase, and was taken by medical helicopter to Rhode Island Hospital in Providence after injuring himself when he attempted to flee, Carlone said.

Gomez was wanted by the North Providence police on charges of kidnapping, first-degree sexual assault and felony assault. Superior Court warrants were also outstanding for drug possession, probation violation and failure to appear for an arraignment on a charge of domestic assault.

Carlone said the police received a phone call reporting that a fugitive from justice was on the island.

Gomez was found at a rooming house on Water Street, Carlone said.

“While receiving permission to conduct a search, [officers] heard scrambling and saw the man running,” Carlone said.

While fleeing, Gomez jumped off a deck and landed on some lobster pots, injuring himself, Carlone said.

When Gomez was captured, Carlone said, “he had a substantial amount of cash.”

BRYAN ROURKE

Military Criminal Defense Lawyers Post Case Results

 

CHARGES: Larceny of Military Property; False Official Statement; Dereliction of Duty.

SENTENCE: Not Guilty After Trial

A U.S. Army Field Grade Officer received orders to PCS to a new duty station. Upon arrival, she was assigned and moved into government quarters. Notwithstanding this fact, she began receiving basic allowance for housing (BAH) at the approximate rate of $2500.00 per month. BAH is a financial benefit provided to military personnel to assist with the cost of living on the economy or in private, non-government quarters. The Officer continued to receive BAH for a period of 35 months – nearly three years. One day, while on duty, her supervisor approached her to inquire if she in fact was receiving BAH. The Officer replied “yes, but that it was subsequently taken out from her pay for housing.” The supervisor directed the Officer to contact the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to inquire into whether she was in fact receiving BAH, whether or not she was authorized to receive it, and if not, how much unauthorized funds she had received. The Officer complied with all of her supervisor’s directives and learned from DFAS that she had received nearly $100,000.00 in unauthorized BAH.

The Officer was charged with three violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Larceny of Military Property; Providing a False Official Statement to her supervisor; and Dereliction of Duty for failing to carefully monitor her monthly Leave and Earnings Statement (LES). These charges were referred for trial by General Court-Martial (GCM). The Officer was well represented at trial by the unstoppable defense “dream team” consisting of Attorney John L. Calcagni, a part-time U.S. Army Judge Advocate, and his colleague, Attorney Troy A. Smith, also an Army Judge Advocate. Attorneys Calcagni and Smith have a long history of trying cases against one another, as well as teaming up to defense Soldiers accused of crimes within the military. These attorneys make an unstoppable defense team and have a proven track record together of achieving success in the courtroom.

The Officer in this case elected her right to trial by a panel – the military equivalent of a civilian jury. The defense shaped the battlefield at trial with Attorney Calcagni’s heart-pounding and captivating opening statement. The defense characterized the governments view of the evidence as a “tale” and set the stage for its theory of innocence: the accused was unaware of the unauthorized BAH until it was brought to her attention by a supervisor; her reaction was characterized as “shocked, surprised, confused and YIKES;” she following all directives from her superiors, law enforcement personnel and DFAS regarding the BAH; had repaid most of the money by the time of trial; and had even assisted DFAS with re-calculating the outstanding debt to her own detriment on multiple occasions.

Once the actual trial got underway, government prosecutors presented several witnesses to establish that the Officer lived in government housing; was not entitled to BAH; and had received nearly $100,000.00 in unauthorized housing allowances over the course of 35 months. The defense team of Calcagni and Troy delivered devastating cross examinations to all government witnesses. In one instance, Attorney Calcagni turned one government witness – the Officer’s very own supervisor who brought her receipt of unauthorized BAH to light – into a defense character witness. Attorney Calcagni was able to have this witness testify unequivocally that the Officer was an outstanding military officer who was both law-abiding and truthfulness to the extent that she “doesn’t have a dishonest bone in her body.” In another instance, Attorney Smith virtually dismembered a law enforcement witness – a Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Agent – who obtained a sworn statement from the accused Officer.

Though the CID Agent characterized the Officer’s statement as a confession, Attorney Smith demonstrated clearly through his surgical cross-examination questions that the CID Agent lied under oath on multiple occasions and when questioning the Officer, was more concerned about characterizing her answers to accommodate his theory of her guilt rather than learning the truth of her innocence. Following these attorneys’ examinations and upon the close of the government’s case-in-chief, Attorney Calcagni successfully moved for dismissal of the Dereliction of Duty charge for lack of evidence.

The Defense put on a strong case at trial. Though the defense has no obligation to ever present a defense and it is the government’s burden to prove the accused’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, both Attorneys Calcagni and Smith are large proponents of presenting affirmative defense evidence at trial. Their shared philosophy paid dividends for the Officer charges in this case. The defense presented evidence that the Officer never checked or scrutinized her LES for receipt of BAH. They further proved, through the testimony of the accused, her husband and voluminous bank records, that the Officer did not carefully check or scrutinize her bank records or statements either. During the 35 months that she received the unauthorized BAH, she and her family had received nearly $100,000.00 in cash windfalls from unique tax credits and other forms of disposable income. The defense further presented character witnesses on the Officer’s behalf, which included a police officer, a retired Army Colonel who served with the accused Officer, a religious leader who was a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and retired Naval Commander, and a well-respected attorney and close friend of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. These character witnesses all testified emphatically that the charges against the Officer were ludicrous and beyond her capability. They further highlighted her outstanding character for honesty and law-abidingness.

The defense closed its case with Attorney Smith’s precision-guided closing argument. This argument cast a dark cloud over the integrity of the investigation into the Officer’s receipt of unauthorized BAH. Attorney Smith quoted the Officer’s spouse that his client is considered “the Forrest Gump of the Army” for not more carefully analyzing her pay or bank records, but that she was mistaken about receiving the funds; she was distracted with other obligations in her life during the 35-month period that she received the BAH; had benefited from a number of significant financial benefits during this time period; and did “not have a dishonest bone in her body.”

The carefully constructed defense by Attorneys Calcagni and Smith sent the panel into deliberations with one mission – to acquit the Officer of the remaining charges of Larceny and Providing a False Official Statement. Several hours later, this mission was accomplished. The panel returned with a verdict consistent with the evidence presented at trial – not guilty on all counts. The charged officer was cleared of all wrongdoing and fully reinstated to her unit and position within the U.S. Army.

The Crime of Armed Robbery

All robberies are felonies, however the addition of a weapon to the existing crime of robbery constitutes what is considered a Class A felony in most jurisdictions, punishable under very harsh sentences.

In prosecuting the crime of armed robbery, although the circumstances of the crime are always taken into account, sentences typically involve prison time. Keeping any previous convictions or charges in mind, an armed robber who is a repeat offender will most certainly be looking at some sort of prison sentence, if not the death penalty in states where it applies.

The circumstances of an armed robbery are likely to be one of the most prevalent mitigating factors in determining a sentence. Whether other crimes were taking place at the same time as the armed robbery; whether an injury or death occurred as a result of the crime; the kind of weapon used, and the severity of the crime are all taken into account for sentencing purposes.

Criminal defense attorneys are well versed in the different laws dealing with armed robbery and can provide you with the best possible defense. As a former military prosecutor in the U.S. Army JAG Corps and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, John L. Calcagni has a unique understanding of what process the prosecution will follow.

A situation where a death has occurred as a result of an armed robbery, whether or not the perpetrator intended to cause the death, is treated as a murder charge. Felony murder charges do not need to satisfy any intent criteria, merely show that the accused could have reasonably assumed that death would occur as a result of their actions.

If you are being charged with armed robbery, or another felony crime in RI, MA, or at a Federal level, you need experienced legal representation. Contact Mr. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 or use the contact form HERE for more information.

Criminal Defense Attorney in RI

A recent Federal Court case for a RI client brought the result we had both hoped for...

“I am so immensely humbled and impressed by how you represented me before the Federal Court. Everyone in my family is extremely pleased with your work. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.” Mr. N.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Criminal Assault and Battery Can Become a Civil Personal Injury Matter

 

An assault and battery is a personal injury that is inflicted on purpose by one person or group of people upon another. For this reason, many assault and battery cases are not only prosecuted from a criminal perspective by the state, but are also then sued civilly for damages from personal injuries to the victim. This is particularly true when the accused has been convicted at the criminal level.

Under the requirements for assault only, no contact need occur, and under the requirements for battery only, no intention need exist - yet to satisfy the requirements of assault and battery, the accused must be proven to have intended to cause either fear or harmful contact, as well as actually commit the offensive contact in question.

The only elements that need to be satisfied in order for a battery to exist are measurable harm, either physically, emotionally, or financially. The elements that must be satisfied in order for an assault to exist are only that the intent to do harm or cause fear, apprehension, or discomfort, be clear to a reasonable person. Under criminal law, if a battery is proven, the victim can file for compensation through a victim's fund, as well as file a civil lawsuit for personal injury compensation.

Search and Seizure and Your Rights

In any law enforcement situation, you have rights as a citizen and person, and should inform yourself as to those rights. It is a well known and documented fact that the police or government may not enter your home or business with the intent to search it without a warrant or other formal court order allowing them to do so. If someone in charge on the premises is asked by law enforcement for permission to search the home or business, it is definitely within their rights to refuse entry and decline to speak to them until after speaking with an attorney.

If the police or government agents appear at your door with a search warrant you are to step aside and allow them entry, and the police may detain you there while they search. In every case the owners and residents are permitted to observe the search as it is conducted. When they are finished with their search, you should receive a copy of the warrant, and receipts for anything seized during the search. You need to contact an attorney immediately after a search by law enforcement.

You are not required to speak to agents however, and should remain calm if possible and avoid chatting nervously in particular. Government agents tend to have an intimidating and commanding presence, however they are just like you and I, and are merely doing a job. Decline any offers of an interview and contact your attorney immediately.

You may speak to them if you choose to, and place limitations on your conversation, such as topics you will and will not discuss, where and when you will permit them to interview you, and the length you will agree to. Remember that any statements that are made to you by government agents concerning leniency or agreements made verbally are not binding on the government and as such should be entered into lightly. Obtain any and all agreements in writing and in the presence of your attorney for the protection and safe-guarding of your rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Second Degree Murder Conviction in Fall River

A conviction of second degree murder in MA can carry with it a maximum sentence of life imprisonment with parole after 15 years. Second Degree Murder is differentiated from First Degree Murder by the missing requisite qualities of intent and premeditation.

In the instance below, the defendant was given the maximum sentence.

Fall River man guilty of second-degree murder

A Fall River man has been found guilty of killing a man whose body was rolled in a carpet and dumped in a Rhode Island river.

The Herald News reports that Arnaldo Flores was convicted of second-degree murder Thursday in Fall River Superior Court and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in 15 years.

The 27-year-old Flores took the stand at trial and claimed self-defense. He and other witnesses said the victim, Osvaldo Martinez, went to Flores’ home in December 2009 intending to rob him.

Flores said he fought back. Martinez was struck three times, including once in the chest.

Prosecutors say Flores, his sister and her boyfriend rolled Martinez’s body in a rug and dumped it in the Sakonnet River in Little Compton.

Associated Press

Landmark Email Seizure Decision by 6th Circuit Court

The 6th Circuit Court, in a landmark decision, has applied the Fourth Amendment to an email seizure decision. The decision, U.S. v. Warshak, involved the secret seizure of the defendant's email from the Internet Service Provider, without a warrant.

Martin G. Weinberg of Boston, Attorney for the defendant, commented that in the 25 years the Department of Justice has been seizing emails with this practice, no appellate court has challenged it with the Fourth Amendment. He said, “It constitutes a seismic change in how the government is going to attempt to acquire the content of e-mails.”

John L. Calcagni, III, former Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and RI Criminal Defense Attorney said,“I don’t think you’d find an American out there who would disagree with the fact that we have an expectation of privacy in communications we transmit through e-mail. Because of the changing technology, the law itself needs to evolve. This seems to be a case where the justices in the 6th Circuit have addressed those changes in a way that is consistent with the protections of the Fourth Amendment.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Malicious Destruction of Property in RI Landlord Tenant Matter Resolved

RI Criminal Defense Attorney Calcagni handles Malicious Destruction of Property case between Landlord and Tenant where Tenant will have no conviction for charge.

Malicious Destruction of Property: Filed Without Change of Plea.
Tenant evicted from tenement apartment. After he leaves, landlord discovers approximately $5000 in damage to apartment. Landlord notifies police and tenant is charged with Felony Malicious Destruction of Property. Successfully negotiated at pretrial conference that case be filed without changing tenant’s “not guilty” plea. Tenant will not receive a criminal conviction from this disposition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.