(910) 793-9000
(910) 793-9000
5725-F2 Oleander Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
 

Collins Law Firm :: Blog

Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Browsing Post with the Tag: News

Booze It & Lose It

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

On July 4, 2012, we will celebrate the 236th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.  Many Americans consume alcohol during this celebration.

While enjoying good times with friends and family we may not forget the tragic and sobering consequences that can result by driving while impaired.

To deter drunk drivers across the entire state and remove impaired drivers from the roads, local law enforcement agencies from across the state will join the Governor’s Highway Safety Program “Booze It & Lose It: Operation Firecracker” which began Friday, June 29, and continues through Sunday, July 8.  Law enforcement agencies will increase their presence at the beaches in Pender, New Hanover, and Brunswick Counties.  This will effect Surf City, Topsail Beach, Wrightsville Beach, Kure Beach, Carolina Beach, Holden Beach, Ocean Isle Beach, and Sunset Beach.

Collins Law Firm always urges people not to drive while impaired.  If you consume alcohol, we encourage you to have a designated driver or to take a taxi home.  However, if you are charged with a DWI/DUI, underage drinking, or any other crime in or around Wilmington, NC in New Hanover County, Brunswick County (Bolivia, NC), or Pender County (Burgaw, NC) and need a lawyer or attorney to represent you, call Collins Law Firm at: 910-793-9000910-793-9000 for a confidential consultation.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

Will Minor League Baseball Come to Wilmington?

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

As the first Opening Day in 33 years without a Kinston, N.C., franchise in the Carolina League approaches, another longtime league member may also be on the way out.

The Lynchburg Hillcats, based in Lynchburg Virginia, which have been a part of the Carolina League since 1966, may be moving to Wilmington, N.C.  The Lynchburg metro area had a population of around 245,000 in 2010, compared to Wilmington’s approximate 360,000.

The Hillcats’ owners have reached a tentative agreement to sell the franchise to a joint partnership with the Atlanta Braves and Mandalay Baseball Properties. It may be possible that the move could be completed for an opening game for the 2014 season.  The biggest hurdle for the deal to be completed is construction of a baseball stadium in New Hanover County. The sale is contingent on the new park being built, and at this point the city of Wilmington does not know where the park would be or how it will be financed.  Mandalay Baseball CEO Art Matin said that without significant public financing, the deal won’t happen.

In February, 2012, the Wilmington, NC, city council unanimously approved to study the proposal. Proponents believe that the proposed stadium will bring significant increases to our local tourism industry. They say that it would be the area’s largest attraction adding that fans will come from outside the county bringing with them their money to spend boosting the area economy.

Wilmington’s mayor Bill Saffo has said that a new ballpark would require support from local residents.  Opponents of public financing for the stadium have circulated a petition to require a referendum on using public money for the project.

As of May, 2012 support for minor league baseball in Wilmington has grown.  Jim Hundley, Jr. is president of the Wilmington Ballpark Coalition  which was recently formed and he says his groups’ membership has steadily grown. He recently said that they currently have more than 60 members, and that they are expecting to grow to over 100 members very soon.  Hundley has told members he believes the project will provide a big boost to future economic development, citing as an example Durham, NC which experienced  $900 million growth in private and public investments after their stadium was constructed in the late 90s.

The Wilmington Area Hospitality Association which represents hotels, restaurants, and other local businesses conducted an online survey regarding the proposed baseball stadium in downtown Wilmington, and they reported that over 95 percent of its members said they supported the project.

On Wednesday, May 9, the City of Wilmington held its second public information meeting about bringing minor league baseball to New Hanover County, and turnout by the public was low.

There were more city staff members and members of local media than citizens at the meeting.  The meeting was an opportunity for the public to give input about where to build the stadium and if there is support for a tax increase to help fund the project. Issues such as costs, infrastructure requirements, and operating costs were addressed. Maybe the lack of public attention indicates a waning of opposition of the project.  The opponents had been very vocal in the past.  There is supposed to be another survey on the issue released on Friday.  In June, the project’s management group plans to present a feasibility study to the city council on potential locations and financing options for the stadium.

Expunction of “Nonviolent Felonies”

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

Effective December 1, 2011, Article 5 of Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes was amended by adding a new section, G.S. 15A-145.4, pursuant to which nonviolent felonies for first offenders who were under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime can be expunged off their records as long as certain requirements are met.

Generally, the fact that one was charged with a crime remains on their record regardless of the disposition of the charge, unless it gets expunged.

Expungement is a process by which criminal charges can be removed from ones official criminal record.

Regardless of ones age, cases in which the criminal charges were dismissed or a finding of not guilty was returned can be expunged pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A-146.  In this case, offenses can be either a misdemeanor, a felony, or an infraction under G.S. 18B-302(i). However, one must not have any previous convictions of any felonies or misdemeanors other than traffic violations.

First offenders not over the age of 21 at the time of the offense, can also pursue an expungement if:

1.    They were charged with certain drug offenses which were dismissed based on a Deferred Prosecution Agreement pursuant to N.C.G.S. 90-96(a).  (See N.C.G.S. 15A-145.2)

2.    They were charged with certain toxic vapors offenses which were dismissed based on a Deferred Prosecution Agreement pursuant to N.C.G.S. 90-113.14(a) or (a1).  (see N.C.G.S. 15A-145.3)

First offenders under the age of 18 at the time of the offense however can even get charges expunged of their record of which they were convicted.  Until the amendment of the North Carolina expungement laws enacted by The General Assembly of North Carolina went in effect on December 1, 2011, the list of eligible convictions were exclusive of felony charges other than Class H felonies under Article 13A of Chapter 14 or enhanced charges under N.C.G.S. 14-50.22 (certain gang offenses).  However, now one can even get “nonviolent felony” charges expunged. “Nonviolent Felony” means for purposes of this section any felony except the following:

1.    A Class A through G felony.
2.    A felony that includes assault as an essential element of the offense.
3.    A felony that is an offense for which the convicted offender must register under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.
4.    A felony that is an offense that did not require registration under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes at the time of the commission of the offense but does require registration on the date the petition to expunge the offense would be filed.
5.     A felony charged for any of the following sex-related or stalking offenses: G.S. 14-27.7A(b), 14-190.6, 14-190.7, 14-190.8, 14-202, 14-208.11A, 14-208.18, 14-277.3A, 14-321.1.
6.    Any felony offense charged pursuant to Chapter 90 of the General Statutes where the offense involves methamphetamines, heroin, or possession with intent to sell or deliver or sell and deliver cocaine.
7.    A felony offense charged pursuant to G.S. 14-12.12(b), 14-12.13, or 14-12.14, or any offense charged as a felony pursuant to G.S. 14-3(c).
8.    A felony offense charged pursuant to G.S. 14-401.16.
9.    A felony offense in which a commercial motor vehicle was used in the commission of the offense.

If you feel you may be eligible to pursue an expungement in New Hanover, Pender, or Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, call Collins Law Firm for a consultation at (910) 793-9000.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

Teen Drivers – Immediate 30 Day Civil License Revocation for Certain Offenses

Friday, April 20th, 2012

Effective January 1, 2012, Article 2 of Chapter 20 of the North Carolina General Statutes was amended by adding a new section introducing an immediate 30 day civil license revocation for provisional licensees.  Pursuant to General Statute 20-13.3(a)(4) a provisional licensee is defined as a person under the age of 18 who has a limited learner’s permit, a limited provisional license, or a full provisional license issued pursuant to G.S. 20-11.

Pursuant to this new law, a license revocation can be triggered by common offenses such as Speeding more than 15 mph over the limit or more than 80 mph in a 70 mph zone, Reckless Driving, Speeding to Elude Arrest, Aggressive Driving, Failing to move over for law enforcement or emergency vehicles giving a warning signal.  A complete list of criminal moving violations subjecting a provisional licensee’s permit or license to revocation can be found on page two of the affidavit and revocation report newly issued by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts to be used for law enforcement officers (new AOC-CVR-12).

Pursuant to G.S. 20-13.3(d) the provisional licensee must be given  a copy of the revocation order (new AOC-CVR-13) by the he judicial official which must state the date on which the provisional licensee’s permit or license becomes valid again.  The provisional licensee keeps their license or permit, however, they are not authorized to drive during the revocation period.

Pursuant to G.S. 20-13.3(f), a  provisional licensee who is subject to a civil license revocation under this new law is not eligible for a limited driving privilege.

At the conclusion of the revocation period the person’s permit or license becomes valid by operation of law—payment of a fee is not required.

Pursuant to G.S. 20-13.3(h) no driver’s license or insurance surcharge may be assessed for a provisional licensee revocation pursuant to the this new law.

A provisional licensee who drives a motor vehicle on a highway during the period of revocation under G.S. 20-13.3 commits the offense of driving while license revoked under G.S. 20-28.

Collins Law Firm has been representing people charged with traffic citations, speeding tickets, and other criminal charges in Southeast North Carolina for over ten years and we will be happy to discuss your situation with you. Feel free to call for a consultation regarding any legal matters for which you need legal representation at (910) 793-9000.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

The Value of Companionship

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

How much is a companion pet worth? This is the question that is being asked in regards to the death of Laci, a Jack Russel Terrier of a Wilmington couple. Laci died in 2007 after veterinarians at NC State inserted a feeding tube in her trachea instead of her esophagus, causing Laci to drown over several hours. The Sheras filed a complaint in 2009 against the NC State Veterinary School, two veterinary residents and an intern who treated Laci. The couple accused them of malpractice. In their lawsuit the Sheras question whether the residents had the proper supervision while working in the intensive care unit.

The Sheras, Laci’s owners, are fighting a legal battle with the state over how much they are entitled from Laci’s death. The value of a companion animal is being calculated at the fair market value of replacing the animal which is not in line with the value that Americans place onto pets. Many state laws view animals as being a piece of property instead of another member of the family. There is an argument against this view based upon the legal system’s valuation of a companion animal not being in line with what an average pet owner is willing to spend in veterinary bills.

The Sheras have been fighting this view of compensation and the rights of animal owners over the loss or injury of an animal caused by another. The State estimates the cost of replacing Laci is only $350 based upon market value. The Sheras’ attorney argues that they are entitled to more than $350, that they should be compensated for more than $28,000, which was the cost of Laci’s cancer treatments at NC State.

The Sheras have made statements about this lawsuit not being about the money, but rather about this being justice for Laci and trying to change the system. They are hoping to change the law so that no other family or pet has to go through what they have been through.

On January 23rd, 2012, the Sheras’ case made it to the North Carolina state Court of Appeals but the decision is not expected for at least a few months. The Sheras’ case is just one of the recent court cases that essentially treat animals as human under the law. The United States Courts are deciding against centuries of legal decisions that have defined animals as property. In recent years Judges in 25 states have administered financial trusts set up in pets’ names as well as courts in New York, Maryland and Texas resolving custody disputes involving pets by deciding what’s best for the pet. The Courts have begun to take claims of veterinary malpractice seriously as well. Courts in Kentucky and California have awarded damages to pet owners for the loss of companionship, emotional distress and other factors that go beyond the assessed animal’s worth based upon their market value.

By Samantha Barringer, Intern at Collins Law Firm

Cruise Tragedy – The Legal Battle Begins

Friday, January 27th, 2012

On the evening of Friday, January 13, 2012, there were scenes of panic near the island of Giglio, Italy—the Costa Concordia, a luxury cruise ship, hit a sandbar causing a 165 feet gash across the ships left side.  The ship started taking on water forcing some 4,200 people aboard to evacuate.  Most people managed to reach the nearby island by lifeboats, others swam ashore, and some 50 people who were trapped on the badly listed ship were plucked to safety by helicopters.

Unfortunately, this accident claimed the lives of at least 16 people—21 more people remain listed as missing.

In addition, experts fear fuel could leak from the capsized cruise liner into the sea off the Italian coast.  After an unidentified liquid was found escaping from the holed cruise liner, Italy’s government declared a state of emergency.

The man accused of causing this disaster by steering the ship too close to the island’s shore and later abandoning the ship before evacuation was completed, Francesco Schettino, the captain of the ship, is under house arrest.

Costa Cruises, a daughter of the US Carnival Cruises, offered today in addition to a refund of the full costs of their cruise, travel expenses and any medical expenses sustained after the grounding a €11,000 (~$14,500) settlement to each passenger, whether child or adult, who suffered no physical injuries—injured passengers will be dealt with individually.

However, Codacons, an associations for the protection of the environment and the rights of users and consumers, did not participate in the negotiations, and is collecting names for a class action suit to be filed in Miami, Florida requesting €125,000 (~165,000) for each passenger.  Codacons’ president Carlo Rienzi even urges passengers to see a doctor to check whether they had suffered psychological trauma.

American advocates however argue that each passenger has different damages and needs to be dealt with individually.  Therefore, they do not see a class action to be the right tool and instead suggest for passengers to file individual lawsuits.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

NHSO – Largest Heroin Bust in History

Tuesday, January 10th, 2012

On Friday, January 6, 2012 after a months long investigation by the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter NHSO), Vice and Narcotics Detectives seized the largest amount of heroin in NHSO history, and arrested Tierre Henderson.

The raid lead to the discovery of 300 small paper bags of heroin stamped “Breaking Dawn” and “Dream Catcher” which have a street value of more than $9,000, and diverse drug paraphernalia.

The  accused drug trafficker Tierre Henderson is now held in New Hanover County Detention Facility for four counts of possession with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver heroin, two counts of sale or delivery of heroin, two counts of conspiracy to trafficking in opium/heroin, four counts of  maintaining a dwelling, vehicle, or other place for the use, storage, or sale of a controlled substance, manufacture of heroin, four counts of trafficking in opium/heroin, and five counts of possession of drug paraphernalia.  He is held under a $2.5 million bond.  His next court appearance is schedule in New Hanover County District Court in Wilmington, North Carolina on January 19, 2012.

The investigation of Tierre Henderson also lead the Vice and Narcotics Detectives to Chrissy Joy Sinclair in her residence in Holly Ridge, where—with the assistance of the Holly Ridge Police Department—5.5 ounces of pure uncut heroin was seized which would produce over 15,000 bags of heroin on the streets of New Hanover County, along with drug paraphernalia, and $60,000 cash.

Chrissy Joy Sinclair is being held in the New Hanover County Detention Facility under a $1 million bond.  She is charged with five counts of conspiracy to trafficking in opium/heroin, two counts of maintaining a dwelling, vehicle, or other place for the use, storage, or sale of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  Her next court appearance is schedule in New Hanover County District Court in Wilmington, North Carolina on January 26, 2012.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

Blagojevich Conviction

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

On Wednesday, December 7, 2011 Rod Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years in prison for18 corruption charges, including the scheme to peddle the vacated Senate seat of Barack Obama.  He will have to report for prison on February 16, 2012 to a facility to be named later.  In addition, he was ordered to pay a $20,000 fine.

Blagojevich was a democratic State Representative before being elected to the United States House of Representatives representing parts of Chicago, and he served as the 40th Governor of Illinois from 2003 to 2009.

Blagojevich was arrested on December 9, 2008 on federal corruption charges including conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery.  As a result thereof, he was impeached for corruption and misconduct in office by the Illinois House of Representatives on January 9, 2009 by a 114–1 vote.

With this sentence Blagojevich will join George Ryan, a Republican who was governor from 1999 to 2003, who is serving a prison sentence.  Ryan was convicted of corruption in 2006 after a scandal involving the illegal sale of government licenses, contracts and leases by state employees.

Two other former Illinois governors have been sent to prison, and several others have gotten in trouble with the law:  Otto Kerner Jr., a Democrat who was governor from 1961 to 1968, was convicted in 1973 on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury and related charges, and Dan Walker, a Democrat who was governor from 1973 to 1977, pleaded guilty to bank fraud, misapplication of funds and perjury in 1987and was sentenced to seven years in prison.

However, with this 14 years sentence, Blagojevich received one of the stiffest penalties imposed for corruption in a state with a history of crooked politics.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

Court Costs – New Impaired Driving Fee

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

Effective for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011 the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina has enacted a new, additional court cost specific to impaired driving offenses, which took effect on December 1, 2011.

Unlike most changes to court costs which were enacted during the past years and which typically took effect for costs assessed or collected on or after the effective date of the enacting legislation, this cost applies only to convictions for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011. The fee may not be assessed for offenses committed prior to that date.

The new fee of $100 is to be assessed in addition to all other costs applicable to the case; it does not replace any other costs. E.g., it is assessed in addition to the Chapter 20 fee of G.S. 7A-304(a)(4b), not in lieu of it. The cost is to be assessed only upon conviction, so the fee should not be assessed unless the defendant is convicted of one of the following offenses:  Impaired driving, G.S. 20-138.1; Impaired driving in commercial vehicle, G.S. 20-138.2; Operating a commercial vehicle after consuming alcohol (second or subsequent convictions, only), G.S. 20-138.2A; and Operating a school bus, activity bus, or child care vehicle after consuming alcohol (second or subsequent convictions, only), G.S. 20-138.2B.

Because it is a court cost under G.S. 7A-304, waiver of this fee requires that the court make a finding of just cause for the waiver, pursuant to G.S 7A-304(a).

Collins Law Firm regularly represents people charged with impaired driving offenses with court appearances in New Hanover, Pender, and Brunswick County.  If you were charged, you should contact a lawyer or attorney at Collins Law Firm at 910-793-9000 for a consultation.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

3rd Street Improvement Project

Monday, November 21st, 2011

The road construction around Wilmington, North Carolina is supposed to ease traffic and pedestrian flow while improving the infrastructures of the city.  In the mean time the road closures and construction zones have been causing delays and traffic congestion.  In particular the construction on 3rd Street in downtown Wilmington has been causing delays for those traveling into and out of downtown.

The construction and improvement project on 3rd street in downtown Wilmington began in August and the project duration is expected to last for 13 months.  The project budget is $9.4 million, which was funded through a 2006 bond referendum.  The project is located from the stretch of road from Market Street to Davis Street and reflects the similar improvement projects on Front Street.  There are expected delays and slow downs due to the construction and renovation improvements.  There has already been one delay with the improvement project within the first few weeks of the project.  The delay is due to the discovery of an underground shelter with four storage tanks that are in the way of the new water and sewer lines that are being installed.  The old tanks contain liquids such as gas and oil, which require an environmental engineer to remove them which will cost $15,000 each to remove.  The money to remove the old tanks will come out of the project’s contingency fund and while the discovery of the tanks has delayed the project there is an expectation for it to be completed by September 2012.

The reason for this project is due to the aging water and sewer pipes that run underneath 3rd street and to convert overhead utilities to run underground.  The above ground construction is to renovate the streetscape during the underground construction in order to minimize the disruption that will be caused during the construction period.

These renovations and updates are necessary due to various reasons.  The overhead utilities are being moved underground to reduce the potential for damage and to improve the aesthetics of the downtown cityscape.  The water and sewer pumps that run under 3rd street are up to 100 years old in certain areas.  The traffic flow is planned to be improved through making downtown more accessible and pedestrian-friendly through improving the road which is considered a major gateway into the city.

Work hours expected for this project are 7 am until 6 pm, Mondays through Fridays with some construction on nights and weekends as deemed necessary.  Expect delays from lane closures on the west side of 3rd street that have been extended to the Grace street intersection with no parking zones having been extended to the north of the Walnut Street intersection.  There are no left turns allowed off of 3rd Street at Princess, Chestnut and Grace Streets with a detour for motorists to use 5th Avenue.  Intersections along 3rd Street may be closed as necessary.  Pedestrian access and walkways will be moved from in front of buildings as necessary with some temporary structures.

Written by Samantha Barringer – Intern with Collins Law Firm