On July 9, 2025, I successfully argued a motion to allow my client to withdraw his stipulation to a probation violation. The client was alleged to have violated his probation and, under the advice of counsel, stipulated to the violation and a sentence of five to seven years in state prison. Days later, he began to question whether he received good advice. After being retained, I discovered that the client was improperly advised by the prosecutor that he faced a five year mandatory minimum when in fact he faced no such minimum sentence. We successfully filed a motion to withdraw the petition on the grounds that the client was unable to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a hearing when he was misinformed about the mandatory minimum. The trial court allowed him to withdraw the petition so Mr. Postell could contest the violation of probation and get his day in court.

Case: Commonwealth v. Jerry Postell, Bristol County Superior Court docket 2373PT00238

The defendant was accused of operating under the influence of alcohol. The arresting officer claimed that the defendant was heavily intoxicated, though the Commonwealth presented no evidence of field sobriety tests. The defendant was convicted, and KPDM Law LLC was retained to review the case for appeal.

After a thorough review of the transcript, and conducting an eyewitness interview, it was discovered that trial counsel had neglected to thoroughly interview a key witness who was present at the scene of the arrest. Although trial counsel did speak to the witness, she stopped asking the witness questions after the witness confessed that she did not witness the field sobriety tests. Had trial counsel inquired further, she would have discovered that the eyewitness spoke to the defendant at the scene of the arrest and could have disputed the officer’s testimony that the defendant was intoxicated.

In a Motion for New Trial, we argued that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly conduct the witness interview. We argued that trial counsel’s failure was not strategic or tactical, but rather a failure to properly investigate the case that deprived the defendant of effective representation. The trial court agreed and allowed our Motion for New Trial.