Criminal Defense
Personal Injury
OUI Penalties
Criminal Defense
Attempted Murder/Aggravated Assault & Battery Assault and Battery Clerk Magistrate Hearings/Application for Criminal Complaint College Students Charged with Crimes Conspiracy Charges Credit Card Fraud Domestic Violence Drug Distribution / Possession Charges Drunk Driving/ DUI / OUI Embezzlement False Allegations Charges Felonies Grand Jury Proceedings Identity Theft Internet Sting Operations Juvenile Offenses Lewd Act Offenses Misdemeanors Motor Vehicle Crimes Operating Without a License Outstanding Warrants Prescription Drug Charges Probation Surrender Hearings Prostitution Restraining Orders Robbery/Burglary/Larceny Sealing Criminal Records /Motion to Seal or Expunge Search and Seizure Sex Offenses Shoplifting Stalking Traffic Violations Violent Crimes Weapons Charges/Gun Possession White Collar Crimes Resources
Personal Injury
Criminal Defense
Office Location
Steven J. Topazio Attorney at Law
10 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 1-617-422-5803
Fax: 617-422-5805 E-mail | Map & Directions
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 1-617-422-5803
Fax: 617-422-5805 E-mail | Map & Directions
Misdemeanors
Boston Misdemeanor Crimes Attorney
Contact Massachusetts Misdemeanors Attorney Steven J. Topazio
In Massachusetts, misdemeanors are crimes punishable by up to two and one-half years in jail and are usually tried in the District Court. Misdemeanor crimes are less serious than Felonies, but a conviction will still leave a mark on your permanent record and have a damaging effect on your future. If convicted of a misdemeanor, you might hinder your ability to find work, obtain financial aid for college, jeopardize your ability to obtain a license to carry a firearm, damage your reputation, and limit your housing, and financial opportunities. If you are not a United States citizen, a misdemeanor conviction could deny your ability to become a citizen, result in your deportation, or exclusion from this country. For these reasons, it’s in your best interest to hire an experienced and knowledgeable Boston misdemeanor crimes attorney to protect your rights and represent you in court.
Defense for Misdemeanors in Boston
Boston misdemeanor crimes lawyer Steven J. Topazio has defended countless clients against all types of misdemeanor offenses, including but not limited to:
- Larceny under $250.00
- Shoplifting and petty theft offenses
- Domestic Violence
- Malicious Destruction of Property
- Drug possession: marijuana, cocaine, heroin
- Disorderly Conduct
- Trespassing
- Drunk Driving/OUI, DUI
- Motor vehicle violations
- Gambling
- Prostitution
- Assault and battery
- A Minor in Possession of Alcohol
- Operating Without a License
Comprehensive Investigation and Case-Building
Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Topazio is prepared to investigate every aspect of the allegations and circumstances of your case, in order to identify the right strategy and build an aggressive defense on your behalf. Contact Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Topazio online or call 617-422-5803 to discuss your case.
RECENT CASE DECISIONS
January 04, 2012
Boston Municipal Court
Docket Intentionally Omitted
Resisting Arrest M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B
Disorderly Conduct M.G.L. 272 § 53
The client, a 24 year old college graduate who enlisted in the United States Army and was due to be deployed in February, was arrested after getting into a fight on New Year’s Eve. According to the police report, the police observed New Years revelers block an intersection during a fight, causing pedestrians not to be able to get through. The client, who was seen by police getting struck in the face, ran from police and struggled with them by stiffing his arms and refusing to be handcuffed. Attorney Topazio met with the prosecutor and pointed out that his client was disoriented after being struck and thought he was being attacked when he ran from individuals which he believed were his attackers and not police. Today at his client’s arraignment, Attorney Topazio argued that the charges would delay his client’s scheduled deployment to Ft. St. Houston, Texas, and was successful in convincing the Commonwealth and Court to dismiss all charges prior to arraignment, thus preserving his client’s unblemished CORI.
Result: Case dismissed prior to arraignment.
September 19, 2011
Boston Municipal Court
Docket No. 1101CR4884
Malicious Destruction of Property Over $250 c 266 § 127
Disorderly Conduct c 272 § 53
Resisting Arrest c 268 § 32B
The Client, a barber from Ireland on vacation in the United States, was arrested after he became intoxicated at a local pub and was thrown out by the bar manager. After being thrown out, the Client became violent, banging on the door then head butting the glass window to the pub causing it to shatter. When police arrived, the Client ran at the officers with his hands in a striking position, and was arrested. Attorney Topazio was informed that his client had a return ticket to Ireland and wanted to resolve the case before he left the country, but didn’t want a criminal record or to preclude his chances of returning to the United States in the future. Today, Attorney Topazio persuaded the prosecutor and the judge to place the Client on pre-trial probation for one year with restitution of $300.00, (to pay for the damage he caused to the pub). Placing the Client on pre trial probation means the Client does not admit to the charges or is found guilty by the Court. As long as the Client pays restitution and stays out of trouble for one year, all charges filed against him will be dismissed. The Client also avoids any adverse immigration consequences regarding readmission to the United States in the future.
Result: Case Dismissed.
April 08, 2011
Framingham District Court
1087CR0723
Shoplifting by Asportation, M.G.L. c. 266 § 30A
Receiving Stolen Property over $250, M.G.L. c. 266 § 60
The defendant, while at J.C. Penny in the Natick Collection, was arrested for shoplifting when she left the store without paying for several items of clothing. A subsequent search of her motor vehicle by police resulted in the disclosure of other items of clothing from Macys. When the defendant could not produce a receipt for the clothing discovered in her vehicle, she was arrested, hired Attorney Topazio to represent her. Attorney Topazio filed discovery motions for copies of store surveillance videos and tapes of transmissions with the police. Attorney Topazio filed a motion to suppress the evidence discovered in his client’s car alleging the search of the car was illegal and without probable cause or consent and all evidence obtained by the police was the fruit of this wrongful search. Today, prior to an evidentiary hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced the district attorney to dismiss the shoplifting charge on court costs and to reduce the felony receiving stolen property court to the misdemeanor offense of receiving stolen property under $250 in violation of M.G.L. c. 266 § 30, and the court agreed, continuing the mater without a finding for six months.
Result: Shoplifting charge dismissed and felony charge of receiving stolen property reduced to a misdemeanor and continued without a finding for six months.
February 22, 2011
Boston Municipal Court
1101CR0413
Disorderly Conduct M.G.L. c. 272 § 53
The defendant, a student attending college in Boston, was denied entrance to a local club due to his intoxication and was asked to leave the area, but refused. When the defendant started to scream profanity at random, a Boston Police Officer told him to leave but instead the defendant demanded to be arrested. Unfortunately for the defendant, the officer obliged. After the defendant was arrested and booked for disorderly conduct, he hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Attorney Topazio met with the prosecuting attorney and negotiated that his client complete 20 hours of community service in exchange for the charge being dismissed and the Commonwealth agreed. In lieu of being arraigned on the case, which would have resulted in the formation of a criminal record, Attorney Topazio requested that his client’s case be continued for further arraignment to give the client time to complete the community service hours. Today, after submitting proof that his client completed the requested community service hours, Attorney Topazio convinced the court to dismiss his client’s case prior to arraignment.
Result: Case dismissed prior to arraignment thus preventing any entry on his client’s criminal record.
January 24, 2011
Chelsea District Court
1014 CR 1448
Disorderly Conduct, M.G.L. c. 272 § 53
Resisting Arrest, M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B
Possession of Class B, M.G.L. c. 94C § 34
The defendant, a chef from Boston, hired Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio to represent him after he was arrested for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and possession of cocaine. Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio attacked the sufficiency of the complaint filed against his client and filed a motion to dismiss with the court. The defendant was arrested when police responded to a bar called Las Pupusas in Chelsea for a fight in the bar. When the police arrived they observed no one fighting but were informed by the bartender that the defendant, who was seated at the bar, was cut off and asked to leave. The police report stated that the police officer told the defendant to leave the bar and grabbed him by the arm to escort him out of the establishment but when the defendant pulled his arm away from the officer he was taken to the ground. After being arrested, cocaine was found in the defendant’s wallet.
Courts generally do not inquire into the competency or sufficiency of the evidence in support of a criminal complaint. However, despite this general rule, a court may properly review the evidence presented to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause for the defendant’s arrest, or to determine whether the acts which the defendant is alleged to have done constitute a crime. In the Municipal and District Courts, the charging document is the complaint, rather than the grand jury indictment, but a determination of probable cause is similar. Once a complaint issues, a motion to dismiss is the appropriate and only way to challenge a finding of probable cause.
Today, Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio argued that the charges against his client should be dismissed because the police report did not establish probable cause to believe his client committed those offenses. Attorney Topazio argued that according to statute, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew that the officer was attempting to arrest him to be charged with resisting instead of only trying to escort the defendant out of the restaurant, (which was empty), which also did not establish that defendant disturbed the public tranquility, or alarmed or provoked others, so as to be charged with disorderly conduct. Despite the Commonwealth’s opposition, the court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss.
Courts generally do not inquire into the competency or sufficiency of the evidence in support of a criminal complaint. However, despite this general rule, a court may properly review the evidence presented to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause for the defendant’s arrest, or to determine whether the acts which the defendant is alleged to have done constitute a crime. In the Municipal and District Courts, the charging document is the complaint, rather than the grand jury indictment, but a determination of probable cause is similar. Once a complaint issues, a motion to dismiss is the appropriate and only way to challenge a finding of probable cause.
Today, Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio argued that the charges against his client should be dismissed because the police report did not establish probable cause to believe his client committed those offenses. Attorney Topazio argued that according to statute, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew that the officer was attempting to arrest him to be charged with resisting instead of only trying to escort the defendant out of the restaurant, (which was empty), which also did not establish that defendant disturbed the public tranquility, or alarmed or provoked others, so as to be charged with disorderly conduct. Despite the Commonwealth’s opposition, the court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss.
Result: Motion to Dismiss allowed. Case dismissed.
August 16, 2010
Chelsea District Court
1014CR2197
Affray (common law) M.G.L. c. 277 §39
The defendant was arrested by police after being seen fighting with another individual in the vicinity of a public park, and charged with the crime of affray. The elements of affray are (1) fighting together of two or more persons (2) in a public place, and (3) to the terror of the persons lawfully there. Attorney Topazio, who represented the defendant, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging the magistrate who issued the complaint did not have probable cause to issue the complaint against his client. Attorney Topazio pointed out that in the narrative of the police report, the officer described the park as crowded with many children present. The Officer stated that due to the presence of these onlookers he arrested the defendant and the other mutual combatant. Today Attorney Topazio argued his Motion to Dismiss before the Court. Attorney Topazio pointed out that under the probable cause requirement, a complaint shall not issue unless the information presented by the complainant establishes probable cause to believe that the person against whom the complaint is sought committed an offense. Attorney Topazio argued that the evidence used to establish probable cause for the charge of affray in violation of M.G.L. c. 277 §39, relied upon by the clerk-magistrate, was insufficient as the report did not establish that any person lawfully there was put in terror. The application for complaint was based upon the report, which documents the officer’s observations. The report merely stated that the park where this happened was crowded with many people, including children, and that there were “onlookers”. Attorney Topazio argued that what is important for purposes of this charge, however, is whether the response of the “onlookers” rose not just to the level of interest (as the term “onlooker” implies) but the level of “terror”. Attorney Topazio argued that there was no indication that the officer observed anyone to be in terror or any indication in the report or application for complaint that any person was in terror. Over the commonwealth’s objection, the Court agreed with Attorney Topazio and allowed his Motion to dismiss.
Result: After hearing, Motion to Dismiss allowed and case dismissed.
February 24, 2010
Roxbury District Court
0902CR5143
Trespass M.G.L. c. 266 § 120
Resist Arrest M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B
Officers of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Police Department which were dispatched to the emergency department to remove the defendant who was verbally trespassed earlier in the night for verbally threatening staff because he believed his friend was not being treated quickly enough, was arrested. The defendant, a Marine who recently returned from a tour in Iraq, hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney met with the prosecuting attorney in an attempt to resolve his client’s case short of trial and to preserve his record. Following several court appearances, Attorney Topazio convinced the district Attorney to dismiss his client’s case provided his client voluntarily submit to psychotherapy treatment, and the court agreed.
Result: Case dismissed.
December 02, 2009
East Boston District Court
0905 CR 1936
Unlicensed Operation M.G.L. c. 90, § 10
Logan-Speeding over posted limit 740 CMR § 21.51
Seat Belt, Fail Wear M.G.L. c. 90, § 13A
The defendant, who resides in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, was visiting Massachusetts for a convention and received a criminal citation after getting lost at Logan International Airport trying to find the Ted Williams Tunnel, hired Attorney Topazio after receiving a summons to appear in court. The client informed Attorney Topazio that due to extenuating circumstances, she preferred not to return to Massachusetts and wanted him to waive her presence in court and to resolve her case in her absence. According to the Criminal Rules of Procedure, Rule 7(b), Attorney Topazio filed his appearance in court, advanced his client's case and waived her appearance at her arraignment. Attorney Topazio represented to the court that he had his client's authority to resolve her case in her absence, provided the court would allow; which it did. After conferencing the case with the District Attorney and the judge, Attorney Topazio caused his client to be found not responsible on both the civil infractions and represented to court, that if the remaining criminal charge were dismissed, that his client would pay $150.00 in court costs in lieu of returning to Massachusetts to fight the charge; and the court agreed. Today, Attorney Topazio convinced the court, with the District Attorney's consent, to give his client until December 30, 2009 to pay $150.00 before dismissing the case.
Result: Defendant found not responsible on civil infractions and criminal charge to be dismissed upon payment of court costs.
September 17, 2009
Lowell District Court
0911CR4955
Disorderly Conduct MGL c. 272 § 53
The defendant, who was on probation in Lowell on a different matter, was arrested for Disorderly conduct after becoming loud, yelling profanities and making derogative remarks to the Chelmsford Police and those associated with the police, with the purpose of annoying and harassing them. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio attacked the basis of the charge arguing that his client did not have the purpose to cause a public inconvenience as required by statute. Today Attorney Topazio convinced the Commonwealth to dismiss the charge against his client, and the Court agreed.
Result: Case dismissed.
