Roberts Law Group PLLC

North Carolina Criminal Defense Attorneys

Hablamos Español • Credit Cards Accepted Visa | MasterCard | American Express | Discover Network
Download Our App Now
Android App on Google PlayDownload on the App Store

Repeat Offender Gets Life in Prison for Marijuana Charges

A man who was sentenced to probation only after each of his three marijuana convictions in New Orleans got quite a shock after moving to a new town - he was sentenced to life in prison after his fourth drug possession charge. The man was convicted of attempting to possess and distribute marijuana for the fourth time and was sentenced under Louisiana's repeat-offender law.

Those who are charged with drug offenses for a fourth time are subject to Louisiana's strict punishment of life imprisonment. The life imprisonment sentence is only applicable on the fourth conviction if the three previous drug offenses carried a sentence of 10 years or more.

The man's previous marijuana convictions were in 2005 and 2009. The man was caught with two pounds of marijuana throughout his home, which he shared with his mother and son, when his new probation officer visited his house for a routine visit. Other items were also seized from the man's house that indicated his intent to distribute the marijuana including a digital scale, bags and $1600 in cash.

While North Carolina drug crime laws differ from Louisiana's drug possession laws, it's important to note that all states take a tough stance toward repeat offenders. Sentences for repeat drug offenders often increase with each subsequent drug possession or drug distribution charge. A knowledgeable North Carolina criminal attorney can help you fight against drug charges if you are charged repeatedly with drug offenses.

Source: The Times-Picayune "Fourth Marijuana Conviction Gets Slidell Man Life in Prison," Ramon Vargas, 5/9/2011

4 Comments

In the "war on drugs", the presumption of innocence is not collateral damage. It is a deliberate target: if other people plant drugs on you (e.g. to avoid being busted themselves), you must prove that the drugs were planted (which you can't). This situation is manifestly INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RULE OF LAW, because the power to convict -- the most fearsome of all powers -- is effectively taken from the courts and given to those who are willing to plant evidence. There is no clearer case of a "government of laws" being usurped by a "government of men".

The purported reversal of the onus of proof, being contrary to the rule of law, is unconstitutional for three reasons:

FIRST, the mere existence of a constitution, written or unwritten, presupposes the rule of law and therefore invalidates any legislation or judicial precedent incompatible with the rule of law.

SECOND, the mere existence of a court presupposes the rule of law and therefore precludes the court from entertaining any proposition incompatible with the rule of law.

THIRD, the legislative power is limited to the making of law, which by definition must be compatible with the rule of law. Legislative provisions purporting to reverse the onus of proof, being incompatible with the rule of law, are not law and are therefore beyond the legislative power.

(Wherever there is an overriding prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, there is a FOURTH reason, namely that the reversal of the onus of proof foreseeably leads to punishment of innocent people, such punishment being cruel and unusual by reason of their innocence.)

Therefore, if you are on the jury in the trial of a person charged with possession of a prohibited drug -- especially if that possession is construed as trafficking -- and if you are told that the "law" requires the defendant to prove that the possession was unwitting, it is your civic duty to uphold the REAL law: put the onus of proof back where it belongs (on the prosecution), raise it to the proper standard (beyond reasonable doubt), and hand down a verdict on that basis. If the verdict is "Not Guilty", the acquittal is binding and no further action can be taken against the defendant (or the jurors).

Defenders of the status quo will object that when drugs are found in homes, vehicles, baggage, or outer clothing, the possibility of innocent possession is always there. From this they conclude that the accused must always be convicted. The correct conclusion is that the accused must always be acquitted. Defenders of the status quo take the position that if the State can't get the outcome it wants without reversing the onus of proof, then the onus of proof must be reversed. The correct position is that if the State can't get the outcome it wants without reversing the onus of proof, then the State must not get the outcome it wants.

How then shall the drug pushers be defeated? Not by starving their business model, but by constipating it.

To discourage USE of drugs, we need retail ("street") prices to be as HIGH as possible. To discourage TRAFFICKING in drugs, we need upstream ("wholesale") prices to be as LOW as possible, so that concealable quantities are not valuable enough to be worth trafficking. A bottleneck in the supply chain -- e.g. due to law enforcement -- raises prices downstream and lowers prices upstream. Therefore law enforcement should be concentrated on the retailers.

To avoid sending the wrong price signals, enforcement further upstream in the supply chain should be just strong enough to maintain the need for concealment: the risk of confiscation, or of prosecution if caught in the act of selling, is enough; the risk of prosecution for mere possession is too much. To encourage the retail customers (junkies) to inform on the retailers, the customers must not be at risk of prosecution for possession or purchase.

To meet these requirements, the SUPPLY of prohibited drugs should remain a felony, but POSSESSION or PURCHASE of any quantity should be a summary offense punishable solely by confiscation of the contraband, with no conviction recorded (so that prosecution would be possible in theory but pointless in practice).

The same arrangement would neatly solve the problem of unwitting possession. If the drugs are yours, confiscation involves a loss. If they're not, it doesn't. Either way, justice is done. And notice that the solution does NOT amount to legalization or an end of prohibition.

The legislators could further increase the pressure on retailers by creating an offense of being a "habitual" supplier of drugs, so that a seller could be convicted on the evidence of a large number of buyers, each of whom was the sole witness to a sale, without the need for two witnesses to any particular sale.

Thus it is not helpful to prosecute people for possession, let alone to reverse the onus of proof.

But of course the powers that be won't see it that way -- not least because they don't want to pay compensation to people who have been unconstitutionally "convicted".

So, if you are charged with possession, and if the prosecution can't prove that your possession was voluntary and you can't prove that it wasn't, you should invoke the "rule of law" defenses (and, if applicable, the "cruel and unusual punishment" defense). As the prosecution won't want those points of law to be tested in court, threatening to test them might persuade the prosecution to back off.


In the "war on drugs", the presumption of innocence is not collateral damage. It is a deliberate target: if other people plant drugs on you (e.g. to avoid being busted themselves), you must prove that the drugs were planted (which you can't). This situation is manifestly INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RULE OF LAW, because the power to convict -- the most fearsome of all powers -- is effectively taken from the courts and given to those who are willing to plant evidence. There is no clearer case of a "government of laws" being usurped by a "government of men".

The purported reversal of the onus of proof, being contrary to the rule of law, is unconstitutional for three reasons:

FIRST, the mere existence of a constitution, written or unwritten, presupposes the rule of law and therefore invalidates any legislation or judicial precedent incompatible with the rule of law.

SECOND, the mere existence of a court presupposes the rule of law and therefore precludes the court from entertaining any proposition incompatible with the rule of law.

THIRD, the legislative power is limited to the making of law, which by definition must be compatible with the rule of law. Legislative provisions purporting to reverse the onus of proof, being incompatible with the rule of law, are not law and are therefore beyond the legislative power.

(Wherever there is an overriding prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, there is a FOURTH reason, namely that the reversal of the onus of proof foreseeably leads to punishment of innocent people, such punishment being cruel and unusual by reason of their innocence.)

Therefore, if you are on the jury in the trial of a person charged with possession of a prohibited drug -- especially if that possession is construed as trafficking -- and if you are told that the "law" requires the defendant to prove that the possession was unwitting, it is your civic duty to uphold the REAL law: put the onus of proof back where it belongs (on the prosecution), raise it to the proper standard (beyond reasonable doubt), and hand down a verdict on that basis. If the verdict is "Not Guilty", the acquittal is binding and no further action can be taken against the defendant (or the jurors).

Defenders of the status quo will object that when drugs are found in homes, vehicles, baggage, or outer clothing, the possibility of innocent possession is always there. From this they conclude that the accused must always be convicted. The correct conclusion is that the accused must always be acquitted. Defenders of the status quo take the position that if the State can't get the outcome it wants without reversing the onus of proof, then the onus of proof must be reversed. The correct position is that if the State can't get the outcome it wants without reversing the onus of proof, then the State must not get the outcome it wants.

How then shall the drug pushers be defeated? Not by starving their business model, but by constipating it.

To discourage USE of drugs, we need retail ("street") prices to be as HIGH as possible. To discourage TRAFFICKING in drugs, we need upstream ("wholesale") prices to be as LOW as possible, so that concealable quantities are not valuable enough to be worth trafficking. A bottleneck in the supply chain -- e.g. due to law enforcement -- raises prices downstream and lowers prices upstream. Therefore law enforcement should be concentrated on the retailers.

To avoid sending the wrong price signals, enforcement further upstream in the supply chain should be just strong enough to maintain the need for concealment: the risk of confiscation, or of prosecution if caught in the act of selling, is enough; the risk of prosecution for mere possession is too much. To encourage the retail customers (junkies) to inform on the retailers, the customers must not be at risk of prosecution for possession or purchase.

To meet these requirements, the SUPPLY of prohibited drugs should remain a felony, but POSSESSION or PURCHASE of any quantity should be a summary offense punishable solely by confiscation of the contraband, with no conviction recorded (so that prosecution would be possible in theory but pointless in practice).

The same arrangement would neatly solve the problem of unwitting possession. If the drugs are yours, confiscation involves a loss. If they're not, it doesn't. Either way, justice is done. And notice that the solution does NOT amount to legalization or an end of prohibition.

The legislators could further increase the pressure on retailers by creating an offense of being a "habitual" supplier of drugs, so that a seller could be convicted on the evidence of a large number of buyers, each of whom was the sole witness to a sale, without the need for two witnesses to any particular sale.

Thus it is not helpful to prosecute people for possession, let alone to reverse the onus of proof.

But of course the powers that be won't see it that way -- not least because they don't want to pay compensation to people who have been unconstitutionally "convicted".

So, if you are charged with possession, and if the prosecution can't prove that your possession was voluntary and you can't prove that it wasn't, you should invoke the "rule of law" defenses (and, if applicable, the "cruel and unusual punishment" defense). As the prosecution won't want those points of law to be tested in court, threatening to test them might persuade the prosecution to back off.

Take The Next Step. Start Your Free Consultation Today.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Follow us on Twitter