Sentencing and Post-Convictions
Federal Sentencing Guidelines
There are ways a criminal attorney can make difference even after a trial is complete and a sentence has been handed down. Sentencing, particularly federal sentencing, is complicated and demands the skills of an experienced attorney. Locke Clifford has been a successful advocate for his clients in federal courts for more than 35 years. He has worked with consultants in the complicated area of federal sentencing to achieve the best possible sentences for his clients. His familiarity with all of the ways to reduce sentences is critical to the best possible outcome.
Post-Convictions
Examples of post-conviction work where an experienced criminal defense attorney can make a difference include:
- Appeals
- Motions for appropriate relief
- Parole and probation violations
- Re-sentencing when the guidelines or laws change
- Re-sentencing when there has been substantial assistance provided
Other issues that can be discussed with an experienced criminal defense attorney are pardons, clemency, and restoration of rights. The sooner you retain an experienced criminal defense attorney, the better chance of a successful outcome.
Locke T. Clifford Reported Cases
Information Fabricated by Law Enforcement Officer
State v. Watkins. 120 N.C. App. 804, 463 S.E.2d 802 (1995). An officer stopped a vehicle for impaired driving. A prior appeal of this case determined that anonymous information and the officer’s observations provided reasonable suspicion for the stop; see State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 446 S.E. 2d 67 (1994). In later proceedings, the defendant then filed a supplemental suppression motion based on the newly discovered evidence that the anonymous information had been supplied to the stopping officer by another officer who had fabricated the information (there was not evidence that the stopping officer knew the information to be fabricated). The court ruled that reasonable suspicion that is based on information fabricated by a law enforcement officer and supplied to another law enforcement officer may not serve as a basis for a stop, even though the stopping officer did not know the information was fabricated.
