Rhoades and Miller, LLP - Criminal Defense

Rhoades&Miller, LLPDUI Defense - Criminal Defense About Us

About Us

Rhoades & Miller are dedicated to providing quality DUI and Criminal Defense to everyone at prices that won't force you into bankruptcy.

We understand that bad things sometimes happen to good people and we will fight to help you get your life back in order by getting you the best possible outcome for your case.

Call us to discuss your particular case. We offer free consultations and can offer payment plans when necessary. We provide our services throughout the entire metro Atlanta area.

The criminal justice system can be complicated and unfair to people without adequate representation. Don't wait to get an attorney working with you to protect your rights. The faster you get help, the more we can do for you!

Attorneys

Matthew F. Miller graduated magna cum laude from Georgia State University with a degree in Political Science. While at Georgia State, Mr. Miller was a member of Alpha Lambda Delta National Honor Society, Omicron Delta Kappa National Leadership Honor Society, and Golden Key National Honor Society.

Mr. Miller graduated from the Taylor College of Law at the University of Tennessee in 2005. Mr. Miller participated in a summer law program, in Salzburg Austria taught by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Mr. Miller was a founding member of the Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy. He also worked as a Graduate Assistant for the Office of Equity and Diversity at UT, working for employee rights.

Mr. Miller has experience protecting individual rights in both the Criminal and Civil arenas. Mr. Miller believes there is no case too big or too small when it comes to protecting your personal liberties and rights.

M Jason Rhoades graduated from West Georgia University in 2000 with a degree in Accounting. After 9/11, Jason joined the United States Air Force and served as an Electronic Warfare Officer on the AC-130 Gunship.

After an honorable discharge from the Air Force, Jason enrolled at the Georgetown University Law Center. During law school at Georgetown, Jason served as an officer for the Georgetown Equal Justice Foundation. Jason was also twice selected as a Global Teaching Fellow and was active as a Student Bar Association Representative. Jason received his Juris Doctor from Georgetown in 2008.

Following a period of employment as an associate with a global accounting firm, Jason decided it was time to really put his education and experience to work. Jason began representation of legal clients in 2009.

DUI FAQs

I have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI)...What should I do next?

You only have ten (10) days from the date of your arrest to contact the Department of Driver Services (DDS) office to schedule a hearing date to save your license and your driving privileges.

Your DUI / Drunk Driving arrest has resulted in two cases against you that are legally distinct and separate from each other:

1.Department of Driver Services (DDS) Hearing - This is a civil proceeding not a criminal. The DDS Hearing is important in order to keep your license from being suspended for one year or more. Please note that if you loose the DDS Hearing you are ineligible to receive a temporary driving permit unless you win your case in court. It is extremely important to have a lawyer representing you in this very important matter.

2.Court Case - Takes place in the Criminal Courts. If you are convicted of a DUI in Court, the Court will decide all the following: the amount of jail time, the number of months you will serve probation, the number of months for mandatory attendance at an alcohol/drug treatment programs, additional restriction to your license suspension and the amount of fines and penalties you will have to pay.

* Per Se DUI Definition (O.C.G.A. DUI Section 40-6-391, Subsections (a) 5 and 6). To be charged in Georgia with a per se DUI violation, you either must have an unlawful blood alcohol level (see below for limits) or any illegal drugs. Keep in mind that the prosecuting witness would not have to prove that you were a less safe driver. He would only have to prove that you had either an unlawful blood alcohol level or any amount of contraband drugs in your system.

* Less Safe Driver DUI Definition (O.C.G.A. DUI Section 40-6-391, Subsections (a) 1, 2, 3 and 4). In Georgia, if you are charged as a less safe driver, the prosecuting witness will have to prove that you are driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, drugs, glue or a combination of same to the extent that you are less safe to drive as a result of such consumption. The officer typically makes his DUI case by testifying as to any physical manifestation you exhibit (e.g. odor of alcohol, bloodshot glassy eyes, unsteady on your feet, slurred speech), or by any unsafe driving maneuver.

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL LIMITS OF ALCOHOL IN GEORGIA?

* A reading of 0.08 within three (3) hours of driving is considered DUI if you are twenty-one (21) or over.

* A reading of 0.02 within three (3) hours of driving is considered DUI if you are under twenty one (21).

* A reading of 0.04 within three (3) hours of driving is considered DUI if you are in a commercial vehicle.

* The less safe provision of Georgia DUI statutes says that the State must prove alcohol and/or other intoxicants caused the driver to be less safe. Being at/over the limit of 0.08 raises the presumption of intoxication.

* If you have a Commercial Drives License and tested at 0.04 or above and were in a commercial vehicle, you are subject to the ten (10) Day Rule and must file and appeal to request a special hearing within ten (10) days to contest the suspension of your drivers license.

Contact Us

Address:

5717 Cumming Highway

Sugar Hill, GA 30518

Tel:

770-904-7109

Fax:

770-904-7110

M. Jason Rhoades:

jason_mjrlawoffice.com

Matthew F. Miller:

matt_mfmlawoffice.com

Past Cases add-page01

Just a few expamples of Past Cases

State v. P. Y. - Charge: Driving Under the Influence of AlcoholFacts: Defendant was leaving a bar at 2:32 AM and was involved in a single car accident. The officer observed the defendant with slurred speech, a strong odor of alcohol, and empty open containers in and around the Defendants vehicle. The Defendant admitted to the officer he had consumed alcohol and the initial breath test came back positive for the presence of alcohol. Defendant was charged with a DUI.Results: After questioning the officers tactics and the facts of the case, Rhoades & Miller were able to get a plea to a lesser charge and the DUI was dismissed by the State.State v. B. K. - Charge: Driving Under the Influence of AlcoholFacts: Defendant was leaving a party that lasted all night. At 7:27 AM, the defendant was involved in a two car accident. The driver of the second vehicle saw the defendant driving and saw the defendant ejected from the vehicle. When EMTs arrived on the scene, a strong odor of alcohol was noticed coming from the Defendant. A blood test was performed on the Defendant, which came back at a .205. The Defendant was charged with a DUI. The State filed a similar transactions motion against the Defendant as this was his sixth lifetime DUI.Results: After a three day jury trial, the jury was unable to reach a decision on the case. Rhoades & Miller were then able to work out a reduced plea with the State.State v. C.R. - Charges: Simple Battery under the Family Violence Act, Two Counts of Cruelty to Children in the Third Degree, and Obstruction of a Law Enforcement OfficerFacts: Defendant was involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. The victim in the case testified that the Defendant pushed her and threw kitchen plates at her, breaking against her back. Following the dispute, the Defendant retrieved his gun and stayed in his house. The SWAT Team was called to the residence and following a standoff, the Defendant was arrested and charged with four counts.Results: After a jury trial on the case, the Defendant was found not guilty on all counts. State v. A.L. - Charges: Two Counts of Furnishing Alcohol to MinorsFacts: Defendant was a clerk in a convenience store. The Sherriff's Department set-up a sting operation in which they sent in two mature looking female employees of the Sherriffs Department who both under the age of 21 to purchase a six pack of beer. The Defendant unknowingly sold alcohol to minors and was subsequently arrested in the sting operation.Results: After a trial on the case, the Defendant was found not guilty on all counts.State v. J.C. - Charge: Theft by ShopliftingFacts: Defendant was caught shoplifting at a department store. The store attendants followed the Defendant who was caught putting various items in her pursue in an attempt to conceal them. The various items totaled approximately $200.00. The State filed a similar transactions motion against the Defendant as this was her ninth lifetime theft crime.Results: After many discussions with the State regarding the facts of the case, Rhoades & Miller were able to get the charges dropped. State v. G.G. - Charges: Following to Close, Hit and Run, Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Drug Related Materials, and Obstruction of Law Enforcement OfficerFacts: Defendant was involved in an accident at a stoplight in which she rear-ended another vehicle. The Defendant then fled the scene and was chased by police. The Defendant was cornered into a bank parking lot and she attempted to flee over a curb. Once the Defendants vehicle sustained a flat tire, the defendant turned herself over to the police. A search of the Defendants vehicle found various drugs and drug related materials inside. The Defendant was charged with five counts.Results: After intense negotiations with the State regarding the facts of the case, Rhoades & Miller were able to get the charges dropped. State vs. M.A. - Charges: Possession of Marijuana with the Intent to DistributeFacts: Police called to Defendant's home for domestic disturbance. Police find 93 marijuana plants growing in the basement. Results: After negotiations, Defendant allowed to plead under First Offender Act and receives straight probation - no jail time.State vs. T.A. - Charge: Theft by ConversionFacts: Defendant accused of re-selling $90,000 worth of his employer's inventory.Results: After negotiations, Defendant allowed to plead under First Offender Act and sentenced to one year of Work Release instead of jail time.State vs. K.B. - Charge: Possession of Cacaine with Intent to DistributeFacts: Defendant arrested and charged after drug dog "hit on" Defendant's car and cocaine was found inside.Results: After filing a Motion to Suppress the evidence found, prosecutors dropped the case.

About Us

Attorneys

DUI FAQs

Contact Us

Past Cases

Call or stop by today! 5717 Cumming Highway Sugar Hill, Georgia 30518 Tel: 770-904-7109 Fax: 770-904-7110