Case Results
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Brockton District Court
CRIMINAL CHARGES OF FAILURE TO STOP FOR POLICE AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION TO BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT UPON THE CLIENT’S COMPLETION OF PRETRIAL PROBATION AND SAFE-DRIVING COURSE.
Client is a 20 year-old college student with no criminal record. He works in the manufacturing department, cutting leather, for a local leather production company, while attending college. He is in the process of obtaining his helicopter’s license. On this occasion, Defendant passed by a police cruiser, while operating his motorcycle, at a high rate of speed, estimated to be 100 M.P.H. When the officer attempted to pull him over, the Defendant fled, continued to travel at a high-rate of speed, and never pulled over. The officer was able to obtain the client’s license plate. The officer went to the client’s home where he admitted to seeing the officer and admitted to not pulling over and fleeing from the officer. Client was charged with Failure to Stop for Police (G.L. c. 90, §25), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), and civil infractions for speeding, passing violation, and marked lanes violation. Concerned that a conviction, or an admission to sufficient facts, would affect his ability to become a helicopter pilot, the client hired the Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan, who ensured that all charges would be dismissed outright, so long as the client completes a safe-driving course.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
New Bedford District Court
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ELECTRICIAN FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.
Defendant, an electrician, was operating his vehicle when he was involved in a single-car accident in which his vehicle struck a curb and striking a street light, knocking over the street light. The officer believed that the client was operating at a high rate of speed and lost control over his vehicle. The officer found that the road conditions did not contribute to the accident. At the scene, the client could not recall how the accident happened. The client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The client’s case was scheduled for an arraignment. With an arraignment, the criminal charge would be entered onto the client’s criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, saving him from having a criminal record.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR LARCENY CHARGES DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.
The client is a 26 year-old woman with no criminal record. It was alleged that she had taken three American Eagle packages that were delivered to an apartment complex, addressed to another resident of the apartment building. Upon investigation, the client admitted to the police that she had stolen the packages. The client was charged with the felony offense of Larceny from Building (G.L. c. 266, §20) and misdemeanor Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30).Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to convince the prosecutor’s office to grant his client Pretrial Diversion, something the Commonwealth will only do in special circumstances. With Pretrial Diversion, the Defendant is not arraigned on the offenses. With an arraignment, the charges are entered onto the client’s criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in postponing the arraignment and, if the client satisfied certain terms and conditions, the prosecutor’s office would dismiss the charges prior to arraignment. The client fulfilled all the terms and conditions, and the charges were dismissed prior to arraignment. Therefore, this 26 year-old, new mother, health-care worker, and person with no prior criminal record, will not have any criminal charges on her record.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Taunton District Court
FIREFIGHTER PLEADS GUILTY TO ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT MADE INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY.
In 2018, Defendant pled guilty to two-counts of Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M. As a result of his guilty plea, the Defendant lost his job as a firefighter. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan for the purpose of withdrawing his plea, vacating his conviction, and awarding him a trial. Attorney Noonan interviewed the Defendant regarding his decision to plead guilty, and obtained a transcript of the plea hearing. Whenever a Defendant enters a plea of guilty, the judge is required to follow certain rules to ensure that the Defendant’s plea is made intelligently and voluntarily. After thoroughly reviewing the transcript of the plea hearing, Attorney Noonan believed that the judge did not follow the proper procedure in conducting the plea. The prosecution argued that the plea hearing was properly conducted. After a hearing, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the plea hearing was not conducted properly, and the court vacated the convictions. The Defendant is now entitled to a trial.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Plymouth Superior Court
CLIENT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL OF RAPE AND INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at a trial in the Plymouth Superior Court on indictments charging him with Rape of Child and Indecent Assault & Battery. The jury found the Defendant guilty on all charges. One-week after the guilty verdict, Attorney Noonan came into possession of newly discovered evidence and immediately filed a Motion for New Trial. Attorney Noonan argued that the newly discovered evidence casts serious doubt on the justice of the conviction and this newly discovered evidence would have played a real factor in the jury’s deliberations. After a hearing, the trial judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and granted the Defendant a new trial. Attorney Noonan was able to secure his client’s release pending his new trial.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Commissioner of Probation
CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL CONDUCT FOR A FEE IS SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.
In 2009, the client pled guilty to the offense of Sex for a Fee (G.L. c. 272, §53A). The client was placed on probation for one-year. The client contacted the Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan to have this criminal conviction sealed from his record. Our office was successful in sealing this criminal conviction from our client’s record.
Commonwealth v. C.M.
Mass. Appeals Court
Docket No.: 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2023)
Commonwealth v. C.M.
APPEALS COURT AGREES WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN THAT A NEW HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE.
Defendant, represented by prior counsel, was charged with two-counts of Assault & Battery stemming from two separate incidents in which his ex-wife accused of him physically assaulting her. The case was scheduled for trial. On the advice of his prior attorney, Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to two years of probation with the condition to complete the batterer’s program. Defendant instantly regretted pleading guilty and admitting to the allegations that he physically assaulted his ex-wife. While represented by new counsel, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, Defendant alleged that his prior attorney made certain representations to him, which caused him to plead guilty. The issue was whether the prior attorney’s representation to the Defendant amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, which would invalidate the Defendant’s plea. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Pleas and requested a new trial, which was denied by the plea judge. Attorney Noonan appealed the plea judge’s decision to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, who found that it was error to deny the Defendant’s motion. The Appeals Court vacated the denial of the Defendant’s motion and ordered a new hearing in the District Court to determine whether prior counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. It is important to note that the Defendant has not yet proven that prior counsel was ineffective, but the Appeals Court found that the Defendant raised enough of an argument to mandate an evidentiary hearing, with testimony, to determine whether prior counsel was, in fact, ineffective..
Plaintiff v. Brockton Police
Brockton District Court
CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION AND HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN ISSUED AN LTC.
The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms. The police department denied the application because the client was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from a domestic violence incident. On appeal, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim of the domestic violence incident recanted and changed the story she provided to the police. Further, the alleged victim submitted an Affidavit in support of the client’s application for an LTC. The criminal charges were later dismissed. The police department never interviewed the alleged victim. After a hearing in which the Firearm Licensing Officer and the Client testified, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the decision to deny the application was arbitrary and without reasonable ground and the court issued an order for the Police Department to issue his client a License to Carry Firearms.
Department of Children & Families
Department of Children & Families
Fair Hearing
THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) FOUND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT SEXUALLY ABUSED A CHILD UNDER HIS CARE. ON APPEAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES DCF TO REVERSE ITS DECISION.
A mandated reporter made a report to the Department of Children and Families accusing the Defendant of sexually abusing a child under his care. After conducting an investigation, DCF found that the allegations of sexual abuse were supported. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision by DCF. At DCF the hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of sexual abuse. After presenting his evidence at the hearing, DCF agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that there was insufficient evidence of sexual abuse and reversed its decision.