Sentence.

Nathan Shelly was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on a manslaughter conviction in 2009. He was placed in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“the Department”). Prior to March 9, 2012, Shelly was classified as a “Class I Prisoner” and earned a deduction of 75 days for every 30 days he served. In March 2012, the Department determined based on an opinion of the Alabama Attorney General, that inmates convicted of manslaughter could be considered only “Class II Prisoners” and thus could earn good time at a rate of no more than 40 days for every 30 days served. Shelly’s rate of earning good time was changed and his good-time balance dropped. Shelly filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Shelly appealed. Reversed. Ala. Code 1975, § 14-9-41 (“the Act”), sets forth the standards for good time credit. It states that “No person may be placed in Class I if he or she has been convicted of an assault where the victims of the assault suffered the permanent loss or use or permanent partial loss or use of any bodily organ or appendage.” In a 1997 opinion, the Office of the Attorney General opined that any person convicted of manslaughter has committed an assault resulting in the permanent loss or use of the victim’s bodily organs or appendages.

In the Circuit of Jefferson County, Alabama

Case No: CC-11-2039; CC-11-2040

Summary: Client was charged with Burglary 1^st,   13A-7-6, Code of Alabama (1975), a Class “A” felony, which carries a sentencing range of 10 years to life.  The case was reduced to Burglary 3^rddegree, client received 5 years probation.

Disposition: Probation

State of Alabama v. Javan Edward Reno
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama
Case No: 2011-4855; 2011-4856

Summary: Client was charged with Theft of Property Second Degree 13A-8-4 and Unlawful Possession of Controlled Substance and Drug Paraphernalia, 13A-12-12 and 13A-12-260(c). 

Disposition:  Cases Dismissed 

Mr. Joseph A. Ingram, of Bradford Ingram & Ladner, LLP, has been retained to represent Mr. J.D. Simmons in the Northern District of Alabama for allegedly receiving or distribution of child pornography under Title 18. U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), and Title 18 U.S.C. 2252A(5)(a), possession of any other image that contains an image of child pornography.   

Question of whether or not the Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it concluded that Defendant’s motion for sentence modification was not properly before the court because it was not a claim in the Rule 32 motion, but was made in a separate motion.

In 1987, the Defendant was convicted of 1st degree theft of property and sentenced to life as a habitual offender. In 2010, Defendant filed his 2nd petition of post-conviction relief under Rule 32. Defendant stated that the state failed to provide notice that it intended to proceed under the Habitual Felony Offender Act. State filed motion to dismiss. Defendant filed a motion to amend the Rule 32 petition and motion for sentence modification. Trial Court denied Rule 32 and motion for sentence modification. Defendant appealed and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the claim was not proper for appellate review.

Reversed.

Case No.: 10-267-RDP-JEO

Summary: Client was charged with 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), which is a felon in possession of a firearm. The government agents received information from a confidential informant regarding my client possessing a firearm that was located in his vehicle. The firearm was located during the course of a traffic stop. After much discovery and requesting the name of the informant as it related to the client’s defense, the government was unable to provide the name of the informant. Therefore, the case was dismissed. My client was facing a potential federal sentence of (10) years in federal prison.

Disposition: Case dismissed.

Case No.: 2009-480

Prosecutor: United States Attorney

Summary: Client originally pled guilty in 2009 to theft of property third degree. Upon review of the case, I filed a Rule 32 Petition and had the conviction set aside. The Petition raised the issue that she was not aware of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea as it relates to deportation. The Petitioner was not aware of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473(2010)

Disposition: Count Case Dismissed; nol Prossed

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Case No: CR-07-66-RDP-TMP
Prosecutor: United States Attorney

Summary: My client was Russian Armenian. Mikayelyan and two co-defendants were charged by the Grand Jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama with a four count Indictment which charged the following: Count One, Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 371; Count Two, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices, 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(3); Count Three, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices, 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(4) and Count Four, Forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(2)(B). The first trial began on May 14, 2007. After a week long trial, the trial ended in a hung jury on all counts for my client. Prior to trial, one of the co-defendants entered a guilty plea to all counts and received four years. The second trial began in August of 2007 and my client was found guilty.

Disposition: November of 2007, Mikayelyan was sentenced to a minimum term of 18 months as to each of Counts One through Three, to be served concurrently, which was a better result than his co-defendants.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Case No.: CR-10-448-SLB-TMP

Prosecutor: United States Attorney

Summary: My client was charged by the Grand Jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama with a four count Indictment which charged the following: Count One, 18 U.S.C. §656 Theft, Embezzlement by a Bank Officer; Count Two, 18 U.S.C. §1344, Bank Fraud; Count Three, 18 U.S.C. §1028A, Aggravated Identity Theft; Count Four, 18 U.S.C. §982 Criminal forfeiture.

Aggravated Identity Theft, by statute, carries a mandatory sentence of 2 years which must be served consecutive to any other sentence.

Disposition: Count Two, the most serious charge, was dismissed, which carried a mandatory 2 year consecutive sentence. Client pled to theft and

Disposition: Count Two, the most serious charge, was dismissed, which carried a mandatory 2 year consecutive sentence. Client pled to theft and bank fraud, sentencing pending.

Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama
Case No: CC-05-3172, 3173

Summary: Ms. Bryan was charged with resisting arrest and obstruction of justice from a traffic stop. After the first trial resulted in a hung jury, the second trial found Ms. Bryan not guilty of resisting arrest and obstruction of justice.

Disposition: Not Guilty on all counts.