Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceIt has been nearly 27 months since former medical marijuana dispensary owner and operator Charles Jeffrey Restivo was arrested for alleged cultivation and possession of cannabis for sale. Now, after many months of legal jockeying and the resolution of a somewhat related and higher profile medical marijuana case (i.e., former Hortipharm owner Josh Braun), Restivo has accepted a plea deal from the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office. Thursday afternoon, in Judge George Eskin’s courtroom, Restivo pleaded “no contest” to one felony count of possession of concentrated cannabis.
As a result of his plea, Restivo, who used to be the owner and operator at Pacific Coast Collective on Milpas Street, will receive three years of felony probation, two days in County Jail (which he has already served), and forfeits roughly half of the $15,250 seized from him at the time of his arrest in February 2010 during a multi-agency raid on several South Coast clubs and grow houses. Also, as per the deal brokered between Restivo’s lawyer Allison Margolin and Deputy DA Brian Cota, Restivo has the opportunity to apply to the courts for a reduction of his charge — known as a “wobbler” — so it could be reduced to a misdemeanor possession charge in the weeks ahead. Additionally, Restivo, who is a medical marijuana patient himself, will, pending approval from his probation officer, be allowed to use and possess the illicit herb for personal use.
Also in Eskin’s courtroom on Thursday, three other defendants charged with medical marijuana-related crimes — Brandon Fox, the former owner of a now shuttered medical cannabis club on Bond Avenue called Humanity, and husband and wife Timothy and Caroline Kurriss — all rejected plea deals similar to Restivo’s. The trio, who were among those arrested and charged during a sweep associated with Humanity’s alleged criminal activity in January 2010, are all facing felony marijuana possession and sales charges. Their cases were being heard concurrently with the Restivo matter.
Had the threesome accepted the terms of their individual deals, all charges against Caroline Kurriss would have been dismissed while Fox and Timothy Kurriss would have each pleaded to one count of felony concentrated cannabis charges with the “wobbler” condition. At one point during the deliberations, Fox’s attorney, Margolin, could be overheard telling her client that she advised him to take the deal.
The Restivo case will be back in Eskin’s court late next week for the debate on whether or not his felony will be reduced, while Fox and the Kurrisses will proceed to trial in late July.
Related Links
- Dispensary Owner to Face Trial [ September 13, 2010 ]
Previous Month
Comments
Stand up for what you believe in. If what you believe in happens to be marijuana, so be it. Plead NOT Guilty.
Any attorney worth his salt would NOT want you to plead guilty in a medical marijuana case. A jury trial costs the county a pretty penny and most likely charges would be dismissed.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA.
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2012 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what a joke our country and justice system is. From the supreme down to the local & president too, plenty of criminals to prosecute that are not related mary jane. Maybe if they had jailed some bankers and politicians in the last 3 years.... Maybe an oil exec, remember the gulf, remember exxon Valdez "we see administrations come and go..." the real leader of the 'free' world? King Exxon ?
spacey (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2012 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the war on drugs appears to be,and for quite some time now, a shamefully horrific waste of money.
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2012 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AG Bill Lockyer opinion No 03-411, Oct. 21, 2003:
"Although section 11362.5 does not define the term “marijuana,” the statute is part of the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (§§ 11000-11651; “Act”), which
contains the following definition of marijuana in section 11018:
“ ‘Marijuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.
We conclude that concentrated cannabis or hashish is included within the meaning of “marijuana” as that term is used in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996."
14noscams (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)