Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Serious charges nolle prossed

Judge Prather must have gotten up on the right side of the bed this morning. And the public defender swung a good deal for a defendant in a 402 Conference in Case No. 11CF000836.

Back on August 21, Joshua Velmont was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, misdemeanor possession of cannabis, and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.

A reader contacted me and complained that Josh just had a prescribed medication with him that was not in its container and he really wasn't guilty of the felony.

In court today the attorneys and the judge met in a 402 Conference and the deal was that the felony would be dropped and the misdemeanor cannabis possession charge would be dropped. Well, not quite "dropped"; the legal term is nolle prosequi or nolle prossed, which means "not prosecuted".

And he was fined $1,304 in fines, court costs and fees, plus sentenced to probation, one-year supervision and conditional discharge. Which means that, if he keeps his nose clean for a year, the charges are dismissed. Then he could file to have the charges expunged, which might or might not fly. But he won't get his $1,304 back.

I've never been able to satisfy myself that it's fair to drop charges but keep the money.

So, if Josh, whom I don't know, had a prescribed medication with him but out of the container, why did the cop in Wonder Lake charge him with felony possession? And why did the State's Attorney's Office allow the felony charge? Just because he could? I think cops don't understand what it means to charge somebody with a crime and not be able to have the proof to get a conviction. So now this court record of a felony charge is there for any employer to see.

What would it have cost to go to trial and fight the felony? Was he absolutely certain he was innocent? Would a finding of Not Guilty be better than nolle prossed? Of course, you can never be certain of an outcome in court, which is why so many defendants accept "deals".

3 comments:

Gus said...

I had noticed a conflicting entry in court records about the length of Velmont's supervision and inquired of the Clerk of the Court. Turns out I beat them to the QA check.

The correct length of supervision is 18 months, and it ends April 19, 2013.

I don't know whether young Velmont is involved in drugs or not. With paraphernalia and cannabis, what would be my guess?

He'd better clean up his act and get straight, or he'll end up far down the wrong road.

Danielle said...

That's great, Gus. Kick him while he's down. It's not enough to spread slander and BS about his missing mother's friends, but now you have to go after him, too? What is wrong with you?!
How would you like it if someone found all YOUR son's records and put them all over and questioned him? And don't lie... I know your son and I know he has a record. So do his little friends. So maybe I, or someone else, should make our own blog and spread YOUR son's information all over? How would that make you feel?

Gus said...

So, Danielle, please identify the slander. Please identify the BS.