Commonwealth v. KP, Commonwealth v. KP and EM- Mitigation With Determination!

Commonwealth v. KP, Commonwealth v. KP and EM

KP was arrested after a radio call came in for a gunpoint robbery. As two officers rushed into the gas station with guns drawn, KP threw away a large packet and attempted to run outside. As he fled he began a brutal physical struggle with police. During the incident one of the officers was head-butted in the face and had to be taken to the hospital. P…olice tracked down the discarded packet and found a large amount of illegal pills. Furthermore, almost $5,000 was found on him. KP was charged with felony aggravated assault, possession with intent to distribute and numerous other related charges. KP’s judge immediately lodged a detainer. Mr. Shaffer filed to have the detainer lifted.
At the detainer hearing Mr. Shaffer was able to get KP released from custody pending the resolution of the case due to multiple issues with the underlying charges and KP’s strong family support. At the preliminary hearing Mr. Shaffer was able to get multiple charges thrown out, including the possession with intent to distribute which carried a minimum mandatory sentence due to the large amount of narcotics.
While awaiting trial on the remaining charges, KP picked up another charge with his friend EM. They were arrested near Temple University for allegedly breaking into an apartment building. Police came to the scene when neighbors called 911 reporting a burglary in progress. EM was outside when he saw the cops and bolted upstairs. During that pursuit, the door to the outside of the property was badly damaged. Once inside police arrested KP and EM who had ran upstairs into an apartment with a broken lock. KP’s family let Mr. Shaffer know about the arrest in advance, and he was able to get both KP and EM out at the preliminary arraignment without having to post bail. A detainer was lodged and despite having a second felony case, Mr. Shaffer was able to get the detainer lifted yet again.
Mr. Shaffer and Mr. Montoya were able to uncover extensive mitigating evidence for the defense in the second case and presented it to the prosecution. A deal was struck where KP and EM had to pay for the damage to the door and their case would be resolved via rule 546 withdrawal of prosecution. The charges were dropped for both KP and EM.
As for KP’s assault, Mr. Shaffer was able to negotiate the remaining felony charge out in exchange for a period of two years of probation only on misdemeanors. At the violation hearing the judge gave KP a new period of probation for his original case. His aggregate damage for both matters was essentially one year of additional probation.