Violent Crimes Defense Attorney in Goldsboro
A criminal charge of assault and battery, domestic violence or another violent crime can carry significant criminal penalties upon a conviction. You may be facing fines, probation and prison time, as well as a permanent mark on your criminal record. If you are facing a serious criminal charge for a violent crime, get the experienced representation that you need from a criminal defense lawyer.
At the Roberts Law Group, PLLC, you can trust your defense to former Assistant District Attorney Patrick Roberts. He has achieved successful results for clients in Goldsboro and throughout North Carolina. We use our experience and in-depth legal knowledge to prepare a strong and effective defense in every case. Talk with us and learn more about our criminal defense practice.
State vs. J.A. - The State accused our client of stabbing another man and our client confessed his involvement in the altercation. He was facing 24 to 31 years in prison. Result: We were able to negotiate a dismissal of most of the charges. He ended up being sentenced to 25 to 39 months. Read more about our Proven Results in Difficult Cases.
North Carolina Assault and Battery Representation
Our violent crimes defense at Roberts Law Group includes charges such as:
- Assault and battery
- Aggravated assault
- Domestic violence
- Vehicular homicide and vehicular assault from DWI
- Homicide, including murder and manslaughter
- Armed robbery
In every case, we will thoroughly review the events in question, the prosecution's case and every available option for defense. We will also provide compassionate, caring representation. At our firm, you have a strong advocate on your side who will fight for you every step of the way.
Statute § 14-33, in North Carolina, outlines the crime of assault and the potential criminal penalties that can be involved in a conviction. Learn more about your rights from trial attorney Patrick Roberts at the Roberts Law Group.
Don't Take Chances With Your Assault Defense
If you are facing charges of assault and battery or another violent crime, contact the Roberts Law Group. Schedule a free initial consultation with us by calling our Raleigh office toll free at 866-630-2389 to make an appointment.
We also deal with issues involving:
- Military Law
- Court Martial
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.