Charged with DUI from Cannabis and this Ends up on the Report

Charged with DUI from Cannabis and this Ends up on the Report

So you got pulled over and charged with DUI from Cannabis use and this ends up on the report 11-Nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-COOH-THC or THC-COOH) as part of the test results. What is it??

Here’s what they say

11-Nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-COOH-THC or THC-COOH), often referred to as 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC or THC-11-oic acid, is the main secondary metabolite of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is formed in the body after cannabis is consumed.

11-COOH-THC is formed in the body by oxidation of the active metabolite 11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC) by liver enzymes. It is then metabolized further by conjugation with glucuronide, forming a water-soluble congener which can be more easily excreted by the body.

11-COOH-THC has a long half-life in the body of up to several days (or even weeks in very heavy users), making it the main metabolite tested for blood or urine testing for cannabis use.

Fight your DUI case and move on – Call Komorn Law 248-357-2550 – For all driving cases.

Some jurisdictions where cannabis use is decriminalized or permitted under some circumstances use such tests when determining whether drivers were legally intoxicated and therefore unfit to drive, with the comparative levels of THC, 11-OH-THC and 11-COOH-THC being used to derive a “blood cannabis level” analogous to the blood alcohol level used in prosecuting impaired drivers.

While 11-COOH-THC does not have any psychoactive effects in its own right, it may still have a role in the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of cannabis, and has also been shown to moderate the effects of THC itself which may help explain the difference in subjective effects seen between occasional and regular users of cannabis.

Learn More Here

Anything you say will be used against you!
Call our office before you say anything.
Komorn Law 248-357-2550

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

Blog Cannabis Science Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Driving DUI Federal Laws Forfeiture Health Benefits of Marijuana Hemp Know Your Rights Komorn Law Blog LARA-MMFLA Info Legalization Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan Laws Michigan Medical Marhuana Regulation Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan News Michigan Rules of Evidence News Planet Green Trees Radio Recent Victories Uncategorized USA news Victories Project Your Rights

DISCLAIMER
This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.

Judge blocks media access to Michigan marijuana hearings

Judge blocks media access to Michigan marijuana hearings

Michigan’s largest-ever marijuana recall is at the center of a court matter that the public is forbidden from attending.

The case focuses on Cannabis Regulatory Agency accusations that Viridis Laboratories, one of the largest marijuana safety testing labs in the state, produced inaccurate test results related to potentially harmful contaminants, and inflated THC potency data. Viridis has denied the claims and filed its own lawsuit against the CRA, accusing the regulator of abusing its power and unfairly targeting the safety lab.

“Without having the proceedings being published, it’s possible a lot of things may remain hidden from public view and I don’t think that’s democracy,” said marijuana insider Rick Thompson, who is the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) of Michigan,

Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office is representing the CRA.

Read the rest here at MLive

‘I don’t think that’s democracy.’ Judge blocks media access to Michigan marijuana hearings

The Marijuana Industry Paid an Extra $1.8 Billion in Federal Taxes Because of the 280E Tax Code

The Marijuana Industry Paid an Extra $1.8 Billion in Federal Taxes Because of the 280E Tax Code

News from the internet

Why legalize cannabis when 280E is the gift that keeps on giving to the Federal government?

Whitney Economics, a cannabis research firm, recently conducted a comprehensive analysis of the impact of federal taxes on the cannabis industry. The findings revealed that in 2022, cannabis operators incurred an astonishing $1.8 billion in additional taxes compared to conventional businesses. Looking ahead, it is projected that this excess burden will rise even further to reach $2.1 billion in 2023.

The Reason Behind The Higher Tax Burden for Cannabis Operators

Despite the growing number of states that have legalized medicinal or adult-use cannabis operations, cannabis’ classification as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) remains unchanged.

Under this classification, cannabis businesses that operate per state law are deemed criminal enterprises engaged in the trafficking of a controlled substance under federal law. This label treats law-abiding business owners and operators as drug dealers peddling substances as harmful as cocaine and heroin. As such, these businesses are subjected to Section 280E.

Section 280E is a provision that punishes those involved in the trafficking of Schedule I or II drugs by prohibiting the deduction of “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. This includes below-the-line deductions, even after reducing gross receipts by the cost of goods sold (COGS). This results in federal income tax liability being calculated based on gross income rather than net income.

Read the rest of the article here

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime or DUI.
Call Komorn Law and turn the odds in your favor.
Call Now 248-357-2550

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

Blog Cannabis Science Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Driving DUI Federal Laws Forfeiture Health Benefits of Marijuana Hemp Know Your Rights Komorn Law Blog LARA-MMFLA Info Legalization Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan Laws Michigan Medical Marhuana Regulation Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan News Michigan Rules of Evidence News Planet Green Trees Radio Recent Victories Uncategorized USA news Victories Project Your Rights

DISCLAIMER
This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.

Cannabis Possession – From a Possible Life Sentence to 2 Years Probation

Cannabis Possession – From a Possible Life Sentence to 2 Years Probation

We defended our client Michael Thue who was facing a possible life sentence for the following charges in Grand Traverse Court.

1. CONTROL SUBSTANCEDEL/MANU 5-45 KILGRAM
2.  POSSESSION SCHEDULE 5 AND LSD 02/14/2023
3.  HABITUAL OFFEN-SUP WAR/4 CONV 02/14/2023
4.  CONT SUBSTANCE-POSS OF MARIJUANA 02/14/2023

Case Summary

After a SWAT style raid on Thue’s place by law enforcement where they burned his plants and removed several other items Thue retained Komorn Law and lead trial Attorney Michael Komorn jumped in the trench next to his client and started gathering information to aggressively defend him as he does for all his clients.

This was Thue’s 4th strike which means he could have been sentenced under the Michigan Habitual Offenders Sentencing Laws.

This could have been a life sentence (more detail below).

The Judge, who was familiar with Thue, eluded to the fact that Thue being charged with a life defense and now reduced to a misdemeanor indicates the laws in this area are a mess. The judge also said that smaller cannabis entities are being put out of business by larger corporations and couldn’t believe he had to pass sentence stating he was protecting the revenues of the State of Michigan. The judge insisted that Thue had to plea to something in order to be a conviction which ended up being growing more plants than allowed.

The conditions of the 2 year probation sentence were to comply with MMMA laws and MRTMA laws plus costs $800.

State or Federal Cases

CHARGED WITH DUI OR A CANNABIS RELATED CRIME?

Hire a Lawyer that has specialized in fighting for those that want to take a stand against the “justice system”

FREE CASE EVALUATION

Michigan Habitual Offenders

Criminal Proceedings Benchbook, Vol. 2 (michigan.gov)

4.4 Maximum Sentences for Habitual Offenders

“‘A trial court, when sentencing a defendant as an habitual offender, must exercise its discretion in setting the maximum sentence, that is, it is not required by law to increase the maximum sentence.’” People v Bonilla-Machado, 489 Mich 412, 429-430 (2011), quoting People v Turski, 436 Mich 878, 878 (1990) (remand was appropriate where the trial court “erroneously asserted that it was bound by law to enhance the maximum sentences”).

A.Second Habitual Offender Status (HO2)

This discussion presumes the prosecutor is seeking an enhanced sentence under MCL 769.13. See Section 4.2 for more information on the prosecutor’s right to seek an enhanced sentence.

A person is a second habitual offender if he or she is convicted of a felony or attempted felony and has been previously convicted of a felony or attempted felony in Michigan or in another state if the violation would have been a felony violation in Michigan. See MCL 769.10(1). A second habitual offender is subject to the following penalties, except as otherwise provided in MCL 769.10 and MCL 771.1:

•If the subsequent felony is punishable on first conviction by a term less than life imprisonment, the court “may place the person on probation[1] or sentence the person to imprisonment for a maximum term that is not more than 1-1/2 times the longest term prescribed for a first conviction of that offense or for a lesser term.” MCL 769.10(1)(a).

•If the subsequent felony is punishable on first conviction by life imprisonment, the court “may place the person on probation[2] or sentence the person to imprisonment for life or for a lesser term.” MCL 769.10(1)(b).

•If the subsequent felony is a major controlled substance offense,3 the court must sentence the person as provided by MCL 333.7401 to MCL 333.7461MCL 769.10(1)(c).

Any term of years sentence must be indeterminate, meaning it must have a minimum and maximum sentence “in terms of years or a fraction of a year[.]” MCL 769.10(2). The maximum sentence must not be “less than the maximum term for a first conviction.” Id.

B.Third Habitual Offender Status (HO3)

This discussion presumes the prosecutor is seeking an enhanced sentence under MCL 769.13. See Section 4.2 for more information on the prosecutor’s right to seek an enhanced sentence.

A person is a third habitual offender if he or she is convicted of a felony or attempted felony and has been previously convicted of any combination of two or more felonies or attempted felonies in Michigan or in another state if the violations would have been felony violations in Michigan. A third habitual offender is subject to the following penalties, except as otherwise provided in MCL 769.11 and MCL 771.1:

•If the subsequent felony is punishable on first conviction by a term less than life imprisonment, the court “may sentence the person to imprisonment for a maximum term that is not more than twice the longest term prescribed by law for a first conviction of that offense or for a lesser term.” MCL 769.11(1)(a).

•If the subsequent felony is punishable on first conviction by life imprisonment, the court “may sentence the person to imprisonment for life or for a lesser term.” MCL 769.11(1)(b).

•If the subsequent felony is a major controlled substance offense,4 the court must sentence the person as provided by MCL 333.7401 to MCL 333.7461MCL 769.11(1)(c).

Any term of years sentence must be indeterminate, meaning it must have a minimum and maximum sentence “in terms of years or a fraction of a year[.]” MCL 769.11(2). The maximum sentence must not be “less than the maximum term for a first conviction.” Id.

C.Fourth Habitual Offender Status (HO4)

This discussion presumes the prosecutor is seeking an enhanced sentence under MCL 769.13. See Section 4.2 for more information on the prosecutor’s right to seek an enhanced sentence.

A person is a fourth habitual offender if he or she is convicted of a felony or attempted felony and has been previously convicted of any combination of three or more felonies or attempted felonies in Michigan or in another state if the violations would have been felony violations in Michigan. A fourth habitual offender is subject to the following penalties:

•“If the subsequent felony is punishable upon a first conviction by imprisonment for a maximum term of 5 years or more or for life, the court, except as otherwise provided in this section or [MCL 771.1], may sentence the person to imprisonment for life or for a lesser term.” MCL 769.12(1)(b).

•“If the subsequent felony is punishable upon a first conviction by imprisonment for a maximum term that is less than 5 years, the court, except as otherwise provided in this section or [MCL 771.1], may sentence the person to imprisonment for a maximum term of not more than 15 years.” MCL 769.12(1)(c).

•If the subsequent felony is a major controlled substance offense,5 the court must sentence the person as provided by MCL 333.7401 to MCL 333.7461MCL 769.12(1)(d).

In addition to the general maximum sentence enhancement provisions set out in MCL 769.12 for fourth habitual offenders, MCL 769.12(1)(a) provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for certain violent offenders. The sentencing court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for not less than 25 years if:

•the offender has been convicted of three or more prior felonies or felony attempts, including at least one listed prior felony,6 and

•the subsequent felony that the offender is convicted of committing or conspiring to commit is a serious crimeMCL 769.12(1)(a).

For purposes of MCL 769.12(1)(a) only, “[n]ot more than [one] conviction arising out of the same transaction shall be considered a prior felony conviction[.]” MCL 769.12(1)(a).

The 25-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed by MCL 769.12(1)(a) does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment under the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 16.7 People v Burkett, 337 Mich App 631, 635-642 (2021) (rejecting what it characterized as a facial challenge to MCL 769.12(1)(a)). “Under the Michigan Constitution, the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment includes a prohibition on grossly disproportionate sentences.” Burkett, 337 Mich App at 636 (cleaned up). “Legislatively mandated sentences are presumptively proportional and presumptively valid,” and “to overcome the presumption that the sentence is proportionate, a defendant must present unusual circumstances that would render the presumptively proportionate sentence disproportionate.” Id. at 637 (quotation marks and citations omitted). A three-part test is used to determine whether a punishment is cruel or unusual: “(1) the severity of the sentence imposed and the gravity of the offense, (2) a comparison of the penalty to penalties for other crimes under Michigan law, and (3) a comparison between Michigan’s penalty and penalties imposed for the same offense in other states.” Id. at 636-637 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Consideration of the three-part test leads to the conclusion that the minimum sentence mandated by MCL 769.12(1)(a) is neither cruel nor unusual” because the statute “only applies to individuals convicted of a serious felony who have previously been convicted of three or more felonies, at least one of which is a listed prior felony,” and it “reflects a rational legislative judgment, entitled to deference, that offenders who have committed serious or violent felonies and who continue to commit felonies must be incapacitated.” Burkett, 337 Mich App at 642 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Any term of years sentence must be indeterminate, meaning it must have a minimum and maximum sentence “in terms of years or a fraction of a year[.]” MCL 769.12(2). The maximum sentence must not be “less than the maximum term for a first conviction.” Id.

1    See Section 9.2 for more information about probation.

2    See Section 9.2 for more information about probation.

3    Sentences for subsequent major controlled substance offenses are discussed in Section 4.5.

4    Sentences for subsequent major controlled substance offenses are discussed in Section 4.5.

5    Sentences for subsequent major controlled substance offenses are discussed in Section 4.5.

6   Only convictions under the specific Michigan statutes listed in MCL 769.12(6)(a) constitute listed prior felonies for purposes of MCL 769.12(1)(a); a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense comparable to a listed offense does not constitute a listed prior felony for purposes of the mandatory 25-year minimum sentence under MCL 769.12(1)(a)People v Pointer-Bey, 321 Mich App 609, 622-623 (2017) (noting that, unlike the general rule of MCL 769.12(1) that comparable out-of-state convictions are considered when determining fourth-habitual offender status, “MCL 769.12(6)(a) contains no indication that convictions under comparable statutes from other jurisdictions should be considered ‘listed prior felonies’ for purposes of MCL 769.12(1)(a),” and holding that the defendant’s conviction under a federal statute comparable to a Michigan statute listed in MCL 769.12(6)(a) could not be considered for purposes of MCL 769.12(1)(a)).

7   “If a punishment passes muster under the state constitution, then it necessarily passes muster under the federal constitution.” People v Burkett, 337 Mich App 631, 636 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Cannabis companies will progress despite surge in receiverships

Cannabis companies will progress despite surge in receiverships

Marijuana sales in Michigan hit record highs last year, with organizations profiting more than $221 million in the period of December 2022 alone as per a state report. Yet, as the developing industry keeps on evolving, a few organizations are starting to fall behind.

Last week, Skymint, one of the top marijuana producers in the state went into receivership in the wake of defaulting on a $127 million credit.

Receivership is an interaction where a court-selected official assumes control over a business to assist an organization with keeping away from liquidation.

“It’s just what happens sometimes in business. It’s a continuing evolution, It’s survivable. We have a case we have been working with that has gone into receivership and it is turning a corner and moving forward” said Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law.

“There are a lot of roadblocks in the system such as banking, marketing, insurance, credit, landlords, etc. The fact that it is still a controlled substance is absurd. The state and feds are in control of both sides of the bridge. It will work itself out and the smart and strong will survive” Komorn stated.

Komorn Law specializes in cannabis business services as well as legal defense.

If you have been accused of a crime that’s a very serious situation.
Hire an attorney who takes that seriously!
CALL NOW – Komorn Law 248-357-2550

Cannabis Regulatory Agency Report Links

Adult-Use Marijuana Licensing Reports

Medical Marijuana Licensing Reports

Monthly and Quarterly Statistical Reports

LARA Legislative Reports

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

2020 2021 BMMR cannabis CBD corruption. prosecutors dispensary Driving DUI forfeiture gun rights hemp komornlaw lara law enforcement abuse laws Legalization marijuana Medical Marijuana Michigan michigan laws michigan news MMFLA MRA news police politics Recreational Cannabis science usa news

DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.