Case Results
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – Taunton District Court
CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FOR THREE-COUNTS OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST REGISTERED NURSE DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
The client is a registered nurse. She has no criminal record. She has a valid license to carry firearms. The police were dispatched to her home for a wellness check on her boyfriend. When the police entered the home, they observed three firearms, which were not stored in a securely locked container or affixed with a trigger lock. The client was charged with three-counts of Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). This offense is very easy to prove. The Commonwealth need only prove that there was a working firearm that was not properly secured in either a locked container or affixed with a tamper-resistant lock or other safety device. Here, there was no doubt that the client committed the offenses charged. As a licensed nurse, any criminal offenses on her record would result in a suspension of her nursing license and termination from employment. At the clerk-magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the clerk to dismiss the complaints after one year, so long as the client does not get into any trouble, which shouldn’t be any trouble for this client, who is a stellar person.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Brockton District Court
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CHARGES DISMISSED DESPITE VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWING THE DEFENDANT SMASHING THE PROPERTY.
The client was a longtime employee of a paving company. After many years of service, his employer informed the Defendant that he would no longer be employed for the company. Upset at his termination, Defendant went out into the parking lot and smashed the front windshield of a company work-truck. Surveillance video captured the Defendant smashing the windshield. Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Malicious Destruction of Property over $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127. Defendant hired Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. This was a losing case because the Defendant was captured on video committing the crime. Although the employer was very upset by the property damage, Attorney Noonan was able to secure an agreement wherein the criminal charge would be dismissed upon the payment of restitution. In particular, the parties executed an Accord and Satisfaction Agreement where, in exchange for payment of the property damage, the criminal offense would be dismissed.
Commissioner of Probation
VARIOUS RECORD SEALING CASES.
Attorney Patrick J. Noonan also specializes in the expungement and sealing of criminal records. Throughout the past several months, Attorney Noonan has represented several clients and has successfully sealed all criminal charges from their records. The following are criminal charges that have been sealed from the records of several clients. For one client, Attorney Noonan was able to seal the charge of Shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, §30A). For another client, Attorney Noonan was able to seal all drug charges, including five-counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute (G.L. c. 94C, §32), the aggravated offense of Possession with Intent to Distribute as a subsequent offense, Drug Distribution in a School Zone (G.L. c. 94C, §32J), and five-counts of simple Possession of Class B Substance (G.L. c. 94C, §32A).
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Lawrence District Court
FELONY CONVICTION FOR CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON VACATED. CASE DISMISSED.
In 1988, the Defendant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted of Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 269, §10(b)). The Defendant, now in his 60s, attempted to purchase a firearm in his home state of New Hampshire, but was denied after a federal background check showing this felony conviction. A felony conviction made him a federal prohibited person. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion for new trial arguing that the defendant’s guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, as he was under the impression that his case was dismissed upon the payment of a fine. He didn’t realize that his case resulted in a conviction until several decades later. Attorney Noonan also argued that this conviction was unlawful because it was not a crime for him to possess a “machete,” the dangerous weapon alleged. The court allowed the motion for a new trial. The Commonwealth decided not to prosecute. The case was dismissed.