DISCLAIMER: These testimonials represent a small sampling of clients the firm has helped. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case.
Violent Theft Crimes Attorney in Chapel Hill
Every person charged with a crime has the constitutional right to legal representation and has the ability to defend him or herself. If you have been arrested and charged with armed robbery, burglary or another violent theft crime in Chapel Hill or elsewhere in the state of North Carolina, you need to exercise your rights by talking with a lawyer as soon as possible.
At the Roberts Law Group, PLLC, we fight aggressively and effectively for our clients who have been charged with misdemeanor and felony theft crimes. We treat every client with care and compassion, regardless of the charge, and work hard to get those charges reduced or dismissed when possible. Talk with us about your situation and learn more about what we can do to help preserve your rights and your freedom.
State vs. J.H. - Our client was accused of breaking into a neighbor's home and stealing money. We were able to prove that our client was at home when the break-in occurred. Result: The charges were dismissed. Read more about our Proven Results in Difficult Cases.
North Carolina Violent Theft Crimes and Armed Robbery
The Roberts Law Group is able to defend clients on a wide range of violent theft crimes and other property crimes, including:
- Burglary
- Breaking and entering
- Armed robbery
- Theft with assault
- Auto theft
- Shoplifting
- Juvenile theft offenses
Learn more about your rights and your options. You have the right to an effective defense against your criminal charges, and we will fight to preserve your freedom.
For more information regarding theft crimes, our firm can help explain the statutes in North Carolina outlining burglary and other property crimes. Read more information in statute § 14-51 that can carry anywhere from 38 - 201 months in prison.
Trust a Successful Record of Handling Theft Charges
If you have been arrested for a violent theft crime, including armed robbery, contact the Roberts Law Group and discuss your situation with an attorney. Schedule a free initial consultation by calling our Raleigh office toll free at 866-630-2389 to make an appointment.
Maryland vs. R.A.
Charge:
1st Degree Murder, Attempted 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder Attempted 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Second Degree Assault and Felony Handgun Charges
Facing:
Multiple Life Sentences
Result:
Not Guilty
This client allegedly fired shots into a New Years Eve party on January 1st 2006. The shooting resulted in the death of a 21 year old female (who was survived by her twin sister), and the wounding of the deceased's uncle.
Defense focused on:
- The week-long unexplained absence of an important Government witness after the shooting occurred;
- The lack of any witnesses testimony as to the Defendant firing a handgun;
- The inability of the State to produce a weapon;
- And the possibility of another shooter on the scene due to blood splatter evidence outside the home near the spot that the Defendant was standing.
Defendant was found not guilty on the murder charges. The jury was hung as to the manslaughter, assault and handgun charges. The defendant later pled to manslaughter and was given a ten year sentence, suspend all but 5 years.
Maryland vs. E.W.
Charge:
Domestic Violence -2nd Degree Assault (Two Counts), Deadly Weapon with Intent to Injure, Malicious Destruction of Property, and 4th Degree Burglary
Facing:
26 years, 60 days years
Result:
Dismissed
In a case of alleged domestic violence, cross examination of accuser, the government's main witness, cast doubt on the strength of the Government's case. The Judge granted the Defense motion for acquittal at the close of the State's case and dismissed all charges.
Maryland vs. M.W.
Charge:
Attempted Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Two Counts), Drug Possession
Facing:
44 years
Result:
Jury Trial - Not Guilty
Two officers testified at this jury trial. Inconsistencies elicited on the cross examination of the officers established that the Government did not do enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
