Contract Services for Attorneys
Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C. provides services for attorneys on a contract basis for both federal and state criminal matters. Our services can be as minimal or as complex as your case requires and are available nationwide. You provide us with the information and we will prepare the motions, briefs, etc. that you need. Some of our services include:
- Pre‑indictment calculations to assist you in predicting your client’s sentencing exposure.
- Pre‑plea advisement regarding possible sentencing ramifications, immigration issues and indictment alternatives.
- Preparation of pre‑trial motions including motions to dismiss and motions to suppress.
- Review of Presentence Reports (PSR) for accuracy, potential objections, and downward departures and mitigation factors.
- Preparation of Objections to PSR and Objections and Responses to Addendums to the PSR.
- Preparations of Motions for Downward Departure and/or Sentencing Memoranda to provide the sentencing Court with the full picture of your client, his offense, and any mitigating factors that are available.
- Coordination of character letters and preparation of summaries for the Court’s reading ease.
- Assistance in prison designation, including motions requesting boot camp and the residential drug treatment program.
- Assistance in dealing with Bureau of Prisons rules and regulations, including researching your client’s specific issues and questions about prison life and the facility to which he has been designated.
- Post‑conviction assistance including review of trial and sentencing transcripts to determine possible issues for appeal.
- Preparation of appellate briefs, and preparation of § 2241, 2254 and 2255 motions.
- General research on any criminal topic.
The following are just a few of the success stories where we have assisted defense counsel*:
* Past results achieved are not a guarantee of future results. Each case is unique and reference must be made to the specific legal and factual circumstances presented.
- Northern District of Texas ‑ Motion for Downward Departure based on diminished capacity was granted, reducing the Defendant’s guideline range from 41 to 51 months, to a final sentence of 30 months.
- Northern District of Texas ‑ Objection to the Presentence Report based on application of gun enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 was granted, reducing the defendant’s offense level by 2 points. The Defendant received a sentence of five‑years probation after receiving the reduction and a substantial assistance departure.
- Northern District of Texas ‑ Objection to the Presentence Report based on erroneous application of Criminal History Category guidelines was granted, reducing the Defendant’s Criminal History Category by 1 level, saving 20 months of sentencing exposure.
- Eastern District of Oklahoma ‑ Motion to Suppress evidence was granted, suppressing evidence of methamphetamine seized in a pick‑up truck parked in a motel parking lot.
- Northern District of Texas ‑ Indictment was dismissed in fraud case through negotiation with the AUSA who allowed the defendant to apply for Pre‑Trial Diversion after paying full restitution.
- Arkansas State District Court – Motion to Suppress evidence was granted based on lack of probable cause to search the defendant’s home. The evidence was suppressed and the charges were dismissed.
- Oklahoma State District Court – Motion to Suppress was granted, suppressing evidence seized during an improper police roadblock. The charges were dismissed.
- Oklahoma State District Court – Motion to Suppress was granted based on unconstitutional arrest and subsequent unconstitutional search because vehicle was on Cherokee Nation property, which was outside the arresting officer’s jurisdiction. The charges were dismissed.
- Eastern District of Texas – review of PSR found that probation officer had used the incorrect base offense level, reducing the base offense level from 26 to 20, and reducing the sentence exposure from 63 – 78 months to 33 – 41 months.
- Eastern District of Oklahoma – where defendant was found guilty on two drug counts and two counts of possession of firearms, a review of PSR and other documents found that the Indictment and verdict violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and the second firearm charge was dismissed, thus saving the defendant from the mandatory, 25-year consecutive sentence.