News (Media Awareness Project) - US FL: Disabled Man Appeals Drug Trafficking Conviction To Supreme Court |
Title: | US FL: Disabled Man Appeals Drug Trafficking Conviction To Supreme Court |
Published On: | 2007-01-19 |
Source: | Bradenton Herald (FL) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-12 17:16:39 |
DISABLED MAN APPEALS DRUG TRAFFICKING CONVICTION TO SUPREME COURT
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - A wheelchair-bound man who obtained large amounts
of prescription drugs to control severe pain should not have been
convicted of being a drug trafficker, his lawyers argued in papers
filed Friday with the Florida Supreme Court.
They contend prosecutors and two lower courts misapplied the state's
drug trafficking law to Richard Paey, now serving a 25-year mandatory
minimum prison sentence, although there was no evidence he sold or
distributed the painkillers.
The state has 20 days to respond to Paey's request that the Supreme
Court accept his appeal of a 2-1 ruling by the 2nd District Court of
Appeal. The appellate judges sustained his conviction and sentence in
December but expressed sympathy for Paey, suggesting he seek clemency
from the governor.
The Pasco County man's case has had a high profile since being
featured on "60 Minutes" and in other national media last year.
Florida law classifies the possession of large amounts of controlled
substances as trafficking regardless of whether there's evidence it
was sold or distributed.
Paey's lawyers wrote that the justices have jurisdiction in part
because the 2nd District misconstrued a 1981 Supreme Court ruling
that upheld the law. In that case, the high court wrote the minimum
mandatory penalty should apply "from the importer-organizer down to
the pusher on the street."
The appellate court made no distinction between drugs that might
arguably be sold on the street and those possessed exclusively for
medical use, wrote Paey's lawyers, Robert W. Attridge Jr. and John P.
Flannery II.
They quoted dissenting District Judge James H. Seals who wrote that
applying the trafficking law to Paey was "beyond logical limits" of
the statute and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying a state cannot
punish someone "for being addicted to narcotics."
"In this case, if this statute is valid, then the state may punish a
person for being a chronic pain patient, that is, for having a
disease, and for possessing and using the medication necessary for
his treatment," the lawyers wrote.
Paey, a former lawyer and father of three, injured his back in a 1985
car crash and suffers from multiple sclerosis. He said only large
amounts of strong narcotics quelled his pain.
Prosecutors argued he forged prescriptions to get so many pills that
he had to be selling them. Paey said he got undated prescription
forms from a New Jersey doctor because Florida physicians were
reluctant to prescribe drugs in the amounts he required.
State Attorney Bernie McCabe said Paey had only himself to blame
because he could have avoided prison by taking one of several plea
deals prosecutors had offered.
In the Supreme Court filing, his lawyers noted Seals wrote the plea
offers compounded the absurdity of charging Paey with trafficking.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - A wheelchair-bound man who obtained large amounts
of prescription drugs to control severe pain should not have been
convicted of being a drug trafficker, his lawyers argued in papers
filed Friday with the Florida Supreme Court.
They contend prosecutors and two lower courts misapplied the state's
drug trafficking law to Richard Paey, now serving a 25-year mandatory
minimum prison sentence, although there was no evidence he sold or
distributed the painkillers.
The state has 20 days to respond to Paey's request that the Supreme
Court accept his appeal of a 2-1 ruling by the 2nd District Court of
Appeal. The appellate judges sustained his conviction and sentence in
December but expressed sympathy for Paey, suggesting he seek clemency
from the governor.
The Pasco County man's case has had a high profile since being
featured on "60 Minutes" and in other national media last year.
Florida law classifies the possession of large amounts of controlled
substances as trafficking regardless of whether there's evidence it
was sold or distributed.
Paey's lawyers wrote that the justices have jurisdiction in part
because the 2nd District misconstrued a 1981 Supreme Court ruling
that upheld the law. In that case, the high court wrote the minimum
mandatory penalty should apply "from the importer-organizer down to
the pusher on the street."
The appellate court made no distinction between drugs that might
arguably be sold on the street and those possessed exclusively for
medical use, wrote Paey's lawyers, Robert W. Attridge Jr. and John P.
Flannery II.
They quoted dissenting District Judge James H. Seals who wrote that
applying the trafficking law to Paey was "beyond logical limits" of
the statute and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying a state cannot
punish someone "for being addicted to narcotics."
"In this case, if this statute is valid, then the state may punish a
person for being a chronic pain patient, that is, for having a
disease, and for possessing and using the medication necessary for
his treatment," the lawyers wrote.
Paey, a former lawyer and father of three, injured his back in a 1985
car crash and suffers from multiple sclerosis. He said only large
amounts of strong narcotics quelled his pain.
Prosecutors argued he forged prescriptions to get so many pills that
he had to be selling them. Paey said he got undated prescription
forms from a New Jersey doctor because Florida physicians were
reluctant to prescribe drugs in the amounts he required.
State Attorney Bernie McCabe said Paey had only himself to blame
because he could have avoided prison by taking one of several plea
deals prosecutors had offered.
In the Supreme Court filing, his lawyers noted Seals wrote the plea
offers compounded the absurdity of charging Paey with trafficking.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...