Steven J. Topazio - Attorney At Law

The defendant, who lost his license for three (3) years for a drug related offense hired Attorney Topazio to get his driving privileges back. Today, Attorney Topazio convinced the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Polices and Bonds to restore his client's driving privileges with a restricted or so called "Cinderella License".

The defendant, who went to Suffolk Superior Court to support the family of an individual who pled guilty to kidnapping and received a committed sentence, was charged with the felony offense of witness intimidation after police, who were escorting the victim from Superior Court, observed the defendant yelling at the victim who had just testified. Attorney Topazio challenged the charge in District Court by filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 319, 764 N.E. 2d 338 (2002); alleging that his client’s conduct consisting as it did merely of language which was overheard and then described as intimidation, falls outside of the purview of §13B because it occurred after the criminal proceeding at which the victim testified had ended. Attorney Topazio argued that the Commonwealth could not prove that the defendant had the specific intent to impede any criminal proceeding as required by statute arguing that the commitment of the defendant in Superior Court at his sentencing, where there are no rights of appeal, in fact, and in law, mark the end of the criminal proceedings. Although unsuccessful on the Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Topazio moved for trial. Today at trial, Attorney Topazio renewed his request to dismiss the charges arguing again that the Commonwealth could not prove its case. Attorney Topazio focused on the fact that the Commonwealth could not prove that his client intended to impede, obstruct, delay, harm, or punish any criminal proceeding as required by statute as the proceeding in question had ended. Attorney Topazio was successful in convincing the Commonwealth to reduce the felony charge of witness intimidation to the misdemeanor charge of threats where his client accepted a CWOF (continuance without a finding) and thus avoided trial.

The defendant was arrested after being observed by undercover police leaving a known drug house. After stopping the defendant, he was arrested after officers observed in plain view a bag of marijuana. The defendant was also in possession of a large sum of money and two cell phones. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio to defend him. Attorney Topazio met with the prosecuting attorney and through intense negotiations, convinced the Commonwealth to reduce the possession with intent to distribute class D charge to straight possession of class D, and since the amount of marijuana was not over one (1) ounce, moved to decriminalize the charge pursuant to M.G.L. c.94C § 32L whereupon the court fined the defendant $100.00.

The defendant who was on probation, was arrested when his probation officer and Boston Police made a home visit to effectuate a probation warrant and observed in plain view a plastic bag filled with marijuana. The defendant who was placed under arrest for the probation warrant gave written consent to the police to search his bedroom. In addition to the marijuana the officers recovered a digital scale, numerous plastic baggies, 2 cellular phones, a passport and United States Currency. The defendant who was additionally charged with possession with intent to distribute class D in a school zone, and faced a mandatory 2 year sentence on the school zone violation if convicted, was represented by different counsel. After being committed on a probation violation for eleven (11) months, the client fired his attorney after being advised to plea to the possession with intent charge and receive a split sentence with an additional three (3) years probation, and hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Today, Attorney Topazio convinced the District Attorney to dismiss the school zone charge as well as to reduce the possession with intent charge to straight possession on the condition that his client receive a three (3) month committed sentence concurrent with the sentence he is now serving so as not to interfere with his client’s parole date.

The defendant, a professional person, was accused of larceny by check and charged. The defendant, who was successful in getting his case remanded to a clerk’s hearing, hired counsel to represent him at the clerk’s hearing, but was unsuccessful in resolving the case and had the charges reissued. The defendant fired his attorney and hired Attorney Topazio. Today, Attorney Topazio worked out a settlement with the complainant and her attorney and had the parties sign an accord and satisfaction. Attorney Topazio further had the Court, with the District Attorney’s consent continue the arraignment to a future date so as to give his client time to pay pursuant to the agreement and to avoid an entry on his client’s board of probation record with the agreement to dismiss the case prior to arraignment if his client pays in full prior to the next court date. An entry on a board of probation record would only be made after arraignment.

On 12/4/08, the defendant’s motor vehicle was stopped by State Police after several civilians radioed police that the defendant’s vehicle was operating erratically. After stopping the defendant, the officers detected an overwhelming odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the defendant, ordered her out of her vehicle and asked her to submit to field sobriety tests. The defendant who had difficulty exiting her vehicle could not complete the tests, used her car for balance and eventually sat on the ground. The officer arrested the defendant for OUI based on their observation that the defendant had slurred speech, engaged in uncoordinated behavior, and had an inability to focus on questions and instructions. After the defendant was placed in handcuffs, she refused to get into the police cruiser, and kicked the officer in the legs. The defendant’s motor vehicle was inventoried and an open vodka bottle was found as well as a container of Chemical Mace, for which the defendant had no license. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio to defend her. Attorney Topazio was aware that his client, who was a professional and licensed by the Commonwealth, would be at risk of losing her license if convicted of A&B on a Police Officer. Attorney Topazio contacted the prosecuting police officer and worked out an agreed plea whereby all counts against his client would be dismissed upon his client admitting to sufficient facts and receive a CWOF to the OUI and resisting arrest. A CWOF is a continuance without a finding and is not a conviction under state law.

The defendant, a resident of Florida, with a summer home in Maine, had flown to Boston and was proceeding to Maine when he received a citation for speeding. The citation indicated that the defendant was allegedly caught on Lidar traveling 92 mph in a 65 mph zone. The client hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio continued the hearing from its scheduled date to accommodate his client’s traveling schedule. Today after a Clerk’s hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced a Clerk Magistrate to find his client not responsible.

On 04/30/09, the defendant, a college student with no criminal record, was operating a BMW owned by his father from California, made an improper lane change while on Charles Street in Boston and struck a parked Taxi. The defendant was cited for marked lanes violation and suspended registration, (a criminal violation). Following the accident the defendant, who returned to California, hired Attorney Topazio. Today Attorney Topazio appeared in the Boston Municipal Court at a Magistrate Hearing and was successful in persuading the court to deny the criminal charge of a suspended registration upon the condition that his client agree that he be found responsible of the civil infraction of marked lanes violation pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 89 §4A. The Court agreed with this compromise; denied the criminal complaint, found the defendant responsible of the civil infraction only, assessed a civil fine, and continued the case for payment.

On 12/14/06, the defendant’s motor vehicle was observed by Boston Police for (1) failing to stop for a police officer, (2) speeding and (3) operating a motor vehicle negligently. On 12/14/06 a motor vehicle citation (citation #1) alleging (1) failure to stop, (2) operating to endanger and (3) speeding was written but not mailed or given to the defendant. The original citation (citation #1) was filed with the Court. The defendant who was not arrested nevertheless received in the mail motor vehicle citation (citation #2) on or about 12/28/06 only alleging non-criminal motor vehicle violation of Failure to Stop which he paid $100.00 to the Registry of Motor vehicles on 02/02/07. Both Citations were issued purporting to be in compliance with the requirement of G.L. c. 90C, §2, but only (citation #2) issued on or about 12/28/06 was mailed to the defendant. Since the defendant never answered on (citation #1) he was defaulted by the court. After the defendant was arraigned on the criminal charges, Attorney Topazio was hired. Attorney Topazio attacked the pending criminal charges by filing a Motion to Dismiss the complaint pursuant to G.L. c. 90C, § 2, which section of the General Laws allows a Court to dismiss the pending criminal charges when a defendant is not giving a copy of the citation at the time and place of the violation which according to statute “shall constitute a defense at any court proceeding for such violation…” Today, Attorney Topazio over the Commonwealth’s objection convinced the Court to dismiss all charges against his client pursuant to G.L. c. 90C, § 2 the so called “No-Fix” statute.

The defendant, a High School Senior, was suspended for fighting with a fellow classmate, then criminally charged for allegedly harassing and threatening that classmate and another while at a school sponsored sporting event. As a condition of release, the client was ordered to have no contact with the alleged victims, a difficult task since all parties attended the same High School. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio met with his client and contacted school officials to see if they would be willing to mediate the situation if the parties consented. After speaking with Director of Student Affairs and then meeting with the Principal of the High School, Attorney Topazio filed a motion with the court amending his client’s conditions of release to allow supervised contact with the complainants only in a structured setting of the High School and in the presence of each party’s parents and High School Officials. Attorney Topazio arranged for his client and his client’s parents along with the complainants and their parents to engage in a voluntary mediation with the Principal and Director of Student Affairs from the High School. Mediation was a success as all parties were in agreement in resolving the situation. Today, Attorney Topazio with the consent of the District Attorney caused his client’s case to be dismissed.