Published on: | by

It was reported today in the Patriot Ledger that two white males allegedly robbed the Marylou’s coffee shop located at 1501 Bedford Street in Abington, Massachusetts at around 11:00 a.m. on Thursday. According to the district manager for the store, Sunisa Loring, these men used a weapon believed to be a gun or a knife after walking into Marylou’s at about 10:30. A witness described the two men as white and both were apparently wearing gray hooded sweatshirts. They demanded money from the cashier then fled in a blue Dodge Neon with the cash according to the police. The vehicle, which was reported stolen yesterday, was said to be heading south. No one was injured at the time and the police continue investigate the crime scene by dusting the shop for fingerprints.

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the legal definition of the crime of armed robbery is found in G.L. c. 265, § 17. To be convicted of armed robbery in Massachusetts, the prosecution must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, the defendant must have been armed with a dangerous weapon. Second, a threat must have been made by the defendant that put the alleged victim in a state of fear, or the defendant must have physically hurt or used force on the victim. Thirdly, the defendant must have taken the alleged victim’s possession intending to steal it. Fourth, the defendant must have taken the alleged victim’s possession out the victim’s control. The crime of armed robbery is a serious felony crime in Massachusetts. Punishment for conviction of the crime of armed robbery includes the a possibility of life in state prison or for any term of years and experienced criminal defense representation will be needed at once.

On the police investigation end, in a robbery such as this, time is of the essence. If the police find the stolen car and it is not torched, they will scour it for fingerprint or DNA evidence that could lead to identification potential suspects. Obviously, identification of the suspects is central to a successful prosecution of the case. The police will interview all witnesses at the coffee shop and will put together a photo array based upon the description that is given by the witnesses. They will pull from a pool of suspects fitting the description of the defendants, if any was able to be obtained in this case, since they were reported to be wearing hooded sweatshirts which may have totally or partially obscured their appearance. They will check to see if someone can make a positive identification. They will carefully review videotape evidence from the scene if they was a camera which is likely in this day and age. They will check adjacent businesses to see if they have a camera that may have picked up the perpetrators in another area with their hoods off of their heads that may provide for a better angle to identify them.

The police indicated that the car that the suspects were using was reported stolen at some point. They will canvas the area from where it was taken to see if any witnesses saw anything or anyone at that time. They will check with local businesses in the area to see if they had a video footage near or at the scene from where the car was taken or on the route that may have been used by the suspects. If the car was located at or near an MBTA station they will review videotape evidence and try to investigate whether the suspects used a Charlie card and try to obtain identifying information through the use of a bank subpoena. They will seek to question likely suspects. They will be looking for these potential suspects to make a mistake and talk with them and get them to confess. The police are highly trained to investigate suspects and solve crimes. They often use tactics that lull defendants into a false sense of security and then get them to talk after waiving their Miranda rights and without legal counsel present.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

On September 6, 2012, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth’s highest court, heard legal arguments on both sides of the issue of whether or not a judge should suppress the evidence seized from a defendant’s cellular telephone in circumstances where the phone was seized immediately from the defendant during a lawful arrest but searched about an hour later during the booking process at the police station without a search warrant.

The issue is one of first impression in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and one that other state courts and federal district courts have struggled with to find the proper balance between constitutionally protected privacy rights to significant information stored on a cell phone and allowing law enforcement to continue to do their jobs to further investigate crime. Neither the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts nor the Massachusetts Appeals Court have addressed the issue of whether or not a police officer is permitted to perform a warrantless search of a defendant’s cell phone content after the defendant has been arrested and the pending decision will have a significant impact on the search and seizure law in Massachusetts.

Attorney Patrick J. Murphy of the Boston based Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy presented oral argument before the seven justices of the Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of the Appellant, while Attorney Zachary Hillman presented the prosecution’s responsive argument.

Attorney Murphy stressed to the high court that the legal analysis must first begin by recognizing that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights guarantees all people protection from unreasonable searches of their possessions and any warrantless search by the police is per se unreasonable and evidence gained therefrom should be suppressed. Additionally, Attorney Murphy argued that although there is a search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, that exception only applies in circumstances where the officers are searching for weapons or in a situation where there is a danger of the loss or destruction of evidence.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

It was recently reported on August 2, 2012, that Governor Deval Patrick signed new Massachusetts criminal law legislation that imposes harsh penalties for repeat violent criminal law offenders convicted in the Commonwealth. In doing so, Massachusetts now reportedly joins twenty-six additional states that have imposed strong habitual criminal offender laws. The new law takes away judicial discretion with respect to sentencing of repeat violent criminal offenders who have suffered convictions three times for certain enumerated violent crimes and makes these offenders ineligible for parole. In other words, repeat violent offenders now have to serve the full or maximum sentence with absolutely no chance for parole, probation, work release, furlough or reduction of sentence for good conduct while incarcerated.

The two previous convictions of a criminal defendant to be subject to the penalties imposed under the Massachusetts three-strikes law must have arisen out of distinct and separate incidents that must have occurred at different times. Also, these previous convictions must have carried sentences of at least three years each for the law to be applicable.

This law was sought by the father of Melissa Gosule, who was murdered by a convicted criminal who had been released early only after serving a two-year portion of a prison sentence and reportedly involved a history of twenty-seven prior felonies on his criminal record. Authorities argue that a tough three-strikes law may have avoided this and other similar, tragic losses of life.

In order to get that law passed there were certain concessions incorporated that actually decrease the mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes for trafficking, distribution, manufacturing or possession with intent to distribute drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, morphine or opium. In some cases involving trafficking in cocaine or phenmetrazine, mandatory minimum sentences have been reduced by three years. Also, the weight requirements of certain narcotics to support a conviction for trafficking have actually increased making it more difficult for prosecutors to convict for trafficking cases.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and outlines the protection of the people’s right to keep and bear Arms. Over the years, the rate of gun possession and ownership has greatly increased due to increasing crime rates, expanding population, and people’s own desire to protect themselves and their property from foreign and domestic enemies. Today, not only police officers but virtually all Americans may possess a handgun for home protection. The simple fact that more people are carrying firearms has lead to the wide variety of laws and provisions outlining and policing guns. In Massachusetts, laws exist to require individuals to obtain a license before purchasing firearms and ammunition. In order to apply for a license, an applicant must first have passed a State approved firearm safety course. Even licensed firearm owners still have to be careful when carrying their weapon, as the tightly worded and strictly adhered to laws regarding guns have led to the increase in arrests for offenses such as improper storage of a gun, threatening another by displaying your gun- assault with a dangerous weapon, and other related crimes. Even with a valid license, many places restrict the carrying of firearms such as state and federal building, post offices, nightclubs, and sports stadiums.

For instance, a Quincy man was arrested June 27, 2012 after he stashed his firearm in the bushes outside a nightclub. The police arrested him for Improper Firearm Storage (Chapter 140, section 131L) and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated (Chapter 269, section 10H). A few months earlier in March, a Connecticut man was arrested and charged with Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm, Carrying a Firearm under the Influence, Interfering with an Officer, and Second degree breach of peace after he fired a gun in his yard. On July 8th, a Natick man was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of drugs, resisting arrest, carrying a dangerous weapon (spring-loaded knife), improper use of a vehicle and possession of a Class E substance. To evidence the extent to which gun laws are enforced, an off duty police officer was arrested and charged with murder, as well as gun and great bodily injury charges. Sheriff’s Deputy Dayle Long, a 10-year veteran, is awaiting arraignment after allegedly shooting a patron in a bar.

One of the common themes of these arrests has been the crime of Carrying a Firearm Under the Influence. In an effort to ensure safety of gun owners and the community at large, the Commonwealth makes it is a crime to carry a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(h). This law applies whether you are an ordinary citizen or a police officer, and even if you are licensed to carry the weapon. This provision, however, does not prohibit a licensed individual under the influence from transporting an unloaded firearm in the locked trunk of his or her motor vehicle, unless the individual is over the legal limit of 0.08%, in which case it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle with or without the existence of a firearm. Unlike the law regarding operating under the influence (OUI), this charge does not define what constitutes being “under the influence.” Regardless, this criminal offense is a felony and a conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2.5 years, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In Massachusetts, the crimes of operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a very serious criminal offense, for which a conviction can severely impact your future. The official charge is Massachusetts is known as Operating Under the Influence (OUI), and any individual found to be operating a vehicle after having ingested any alcoholic beverage or chemical substance that impairs their ability to drive safely may be charged. In order to establish the requisite probable cause necessary to make an arrest, police officers use field sobriety tests, breath tests, blood tests and other tests to determine whether a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The use of Field Sobriety Tests has become an increasingly regular routine in the United States, as they allow police officers to make roadside determinations of intoxication. In the event that you refused field sobriety tests, a talented Boston, Massachusetts OUI attorney will be able to file what is known as a Motion in Limine to prohibit the introduction of a defendant’s refusal of field sobriety tests. With the help of your attorney, your refusal of field sobriety tests will be blocked from trial, poking a huge hole in the prosecution’s strongest piece of evidence. Under the current case law in this area, the refusal to submit to field sobriety testing is not admissible as evidence against the defendant. Commonwealth v. McGrail, Commonwealth v. Ranieri.

WHAT IS A MOTION IN LIMINE?

A motion in limine is a legal written request filed by an attorney at a pre-trial hearing requesting that the judge rule that certain testimony regarding evidence or information may be excluded from the trial. A Motion in Limine means that the admissibility determination will be held away from the eyes and ears of the jury in a private meeting before the judge. This distinction prevents the jury from being prejudiced against the defendant due to evidence of the test result. In OUI cases, the prosecution must prove that (1) the car was operated, (2) on a public way or area members of the public have a right of access to, and (3) the operator of the vehicle was under the influence of some intoxicant. Thus, without the evidence of a refusal to take a field sobriety test, the remaining evidence may generally fall short in proving that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Similar to this motion is what is known as a Pierre Motion, which works to suppress the results of a breath test in OUI cases. In Commonwealth v. Pierre, the Court held that a breath test result is considered to be inadmissible at trial unless and until the Commonwealth proves the result’s admissibility by establishing compliance with breath test regulations. In the event that the administration of the test was not in compliance with State standards, the breath test result is not considered reliable evidence and therefore the test result will be barred from entered as evidence. Especially in OUI cases, having a smart and strategic OUI defense lawyer on your side can be hugely beneficial to the outcome of your case.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In Massachusetts, the crimes of OUI, DUI, and DWI are very serious criminal offenses, for which a conviction can severely impact your future. The official charge is Massachusetts is known as Operating Under the Influence (OUI), and any individual found to be operating a vehicle after having ingested any alcoholic beverage or chemical substance that impairs their ability to drive safely may be charged. In order to establish the requisite probable cause necessary to make an arrest, police officers use field sobriety tests, breath tests, blood tests and other tests to determine whether a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The use of Field Sobriety Tests has become an increasingly regular routine in the United States, as they allow police officers to make roadside determinations of intoxication. In the event that you refused field sobriety tests, a talented Boston, Massachusetts OUI attorney will be able to file what is known as a Motion in Limine to prohibit the introduction of a defendant’s refusal of field sobriety tests. With the help of your attorney, your refusal of field sobriety tests will be blocked from trial, poking a huge hole in the prosecution’s strongest piece of evidence. Under the current case law in this area, the refusal to submit to field sobriety testing is not admissible as evidence against the defendant. Commonwealth v. McGrail, Commonwealth v. Ranieri.

WHAT IS A MOTION IN LIMINE?
A motion in limine is a legal written request filed by an attorney at a pre-trial hearing requesting that the judge rule that certain testimony regarding evidence or information may be excluded from the trial. A Motion in Limine means that the admissibility determination will be held away from the eyes and ears of the jury in a private meeting before the judge. This distinction prevents the jury from being prejudiced against the defendant due to evidence of the test result. In OUI cases, the prosecution must prove that (1) the car was operated, (2) on a public way or area members of the public have a right of access to, and (3) the operator of the vehicle was under the influence of some intoxicant. Thus, without the evidence of a refusal to take a field sobriety test, the remaining evidence will generally fall short in proving that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Similar to this motion is what is known as a Pierre Motion, which works to suppress the results of a breath test in OUI cases. In Commonwealth v. Pierre, the Court held that a breath test result is considered to be inadmissible at trial unless and until the Commonwealth proves the result’s admissibility by establishing compliance with breath test regulations. In the event that the administration of the test was not in compliance with State standards, the breath test result is not considered reliable evidence and therefore the test result will be barred from entered as evidence. Especially in OUI cases, having a smart and strategic OUI defense lawyer on your side can be hugely beneficial to the outcome of your case.

The most common field sobriety tests utilized by police officers are the walk-and-turn test, the one-leg stand test, alcohol breath test, and horizontal gaze nystagmus test. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration permits field sobriety tests to be administered because they have found the results of these tests to be reliable indicators for distinguishing blood alcohol content beyond the legal limit for driving, assuming that the tests were administered in a standardized manner by a properly trained police officer. Thus, a motion in limine can be an extremely beneficial tool to suppress evidence that the defendant refused to take field sobriety tests. Tests such as these are usually the crucial piece of evidence in an OUI case, as without it, extraneous factors such as blood-shot eyes, swerving while driving, or even slurred words can be explained in many other ways.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Recent arrests in Massachusetts prove that people from all walks of life commit crimes and the advantageous sector of welfare benefits provides ample opportunities for those looking to make a quick buck. The Huffington Post reports that two Massachusetts lottery winners have been accused of collecting welfare benefits. James Casey Jr. of Waltham and Frank Basile of Belmont face charges of larceny and fraud as of May 2012. After a full investigation, the Boston Globe reports that James T. Casey Jr. allegedly collected $12,157 in MassHealth benefits and $1,553 in food stamps since allegedly winning more than $700,000 from the state lottery in Massachusetts. In addition, Frank Basile allegedly collected $17,500 in MassHealth benefits despite having allegedly cashed in more than $316,000 in winning lottery tickets over four years. The two reportedly failed to report their lottery winning in order to claim the public health benefits. Welfare fraud is a serious criminal offense resulting in both civil and criminal penalties for those convicted. Welfare fraud takes place when people make false statements or fail to report important information when applying for these types of public programs in order to receive benefits to which they are not otherwise entitled. If convicted, Casey and Basile could potentially face incarceration for up to five years in prison and fines of up to $25,000. If you are suspected of welfare fraud, you should contact a well-educated welfare fraud defense attorney as soon as possible to maximize your chances of avoiding conviction. In some instances, early intervention by a lawyer may prevent the loss of welfare benefits or the filing of criminal charges.

Instances of welfare fraud have become more prevalent in recent years, as the economy continues to produce negative results and Americans feel the pressure of unemployment and lay offs. The Boston Herald reports that nearly $2 million in taxpayer-funded Massachusetts welfare has been fraudulently claimed since the beginning of 2012. In Massachusetts, the Bureau of Special Investigations (BSI), part of the State Auditor’s Office, is in charge of fraud prevention for public assistance programs. The Bureau of Special Investigations has identified many people who took advantage of welfare, food stamps, health care, housing, and childcare services. While welfare fraud remains a detrimental and growing problem, detecting instances of this practice are difficult because the current law does not require the lottery to disclose its list of winners to MassHealth. State officials have worked to change this so that they may combat the rising costs of the crime and Alec Loftus, spokesman for the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, says that as of 2014 MassHealth will have access to tax records.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

The Boston Globe reports that at 12:51 a.m. on Saturday July 21, 2012 an off-duty Massachusetts state trooper was relieved of his active duty after being arrested for operating under the influence (OUI). The trooper, 46-year-old Daniel Sheehan, was arrested in Enfield, Connecticut after a patrolman came upon him sleeping or passed out behind the wheel of a Cadillac Escalade parked alongside the road. The arresting officer said there was no damage to the vehicle, no signs of a crash, and Sheehan was uninjured. However, upon the results of field sobriety tests, the officers determined Sheehan was definitely impaired and arrested him. Daniel Sheehan is a veteran police officer, having graduated from the State Police Academy in 2002. Sheehan was currently assigned to the Russell Barracks, located along the Westfield Road in Russell, MA. Arraignment of the State trooper is set for Monday July 30th and a hearing to decide his duty status will be held this week.

In Massachusetts, the terms operating under the influence (OUI), driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated (DWI) are synonymous. The official charge is Massachusetts is known as Operating Under the Influence (OUI). The laws pertaining to OUI in Massachusetts are very strict and impose harsh penalties on those found in violation of them. The prosecution often seeks maximum sentencing when dealing with OUI offenders in an attempt to draw awareness to the dangerousness posed to the public by drunk drivers. When the offender happens to be a dedicated member of the State Police force, matters become even more intense. When a person who is sworn to uphold and enforce the law puts the community at large in danger by getting behind the wheel of a vehicle after consuming alcohol, the case gains a heightened level of attention and comes under a higher level of scrutiny. The public and the press will follow the matter closely to determine if the accused is treated differently than anyone else accused of such a crime.

The impact of this arrest represents the nationwide crackdown on alcohol-impaired drivers. Massachusetts OUI lawyers know such enforcement efforts increase the risk of marginal and unfair arrests. A person who faces a first-time offense with no prior criminal history can be subjected to major sanctions, including jail time, a one year driver’s license suspension, fines and fees, possible alcohol education program and the possibility of probation in lieu of, or in addition to, jail time. Those are severe penalties for a first time mistake. That’s why it is important to contact an experienced Massachusetts OUI attorney to inform you of the consequences you face and to explore all the possible avenues of defense.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

On Monday July 9, 2012 a combined effort by Boston police officers and FBI agents dismantled an alleged illegal drug ring, arresting fourteen people spanning twelve locations across Boston, Milton, and Canton. The Boston Globe reports that the enterprise was brought to an end as a result of the largest drug investigation to hit Boston in at least a decade. The investigation, nicknamed Operation Rodeo, lasted thirteen months and involved agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; Department of Homeland Security; Internal Revenue Service; and the Boston Police Department. The federal Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, formed to combat drug activity in and around Boston, purportedly collected thousands of hours of physical surveillance, forensic accounting, translation services, GPS tracking, confidential sources, and a supposed “tremendous” amount of electronic surveillance. Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said that eleven people have been arrested and charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine, as a result of those warrants and seizures. With three more people having been charged with related gun and drug offenses and additional complaints to follow, the police believe that cocaine trafficking business has taken a brutal blow.

The law enforcement authorities claim that the alleged trafficking operation was headed by Juan “White Boy” Guzman, formerly of Hyde Park, who is currently serving a jail sentence for gun and drug convictions. Guzman and his associates have allegedly been trafficking shipments of as much as 40 kilograms of cocaine at a time from Mexico to Boston. Authorities handling Operation Rodeo have seized assets including $500,000, four vehicles, nine bank accounts, and a safety­deposit box allegedly used by the drug ring. Some of those involved are said to also be under investigation for crimes of violence, murder, assault, and in particular, a 2010 triple-homicide at a Centre Street pizzeria in Jamaica Plain. Aside from Guzman, Numitor Vallejo, 31; ­; Thomas ­Lugo, Jr., 25; Caesar Aguasvivas, 32; and Jonathan Tejeda, 30. were arrested in relation to the cocaine trafficking, and Manuel Martinez, 24, faces gun and assault charges stemming from his involvement in the organization. Not guilty pleas have been entered for all individuals charged and all are presumed innocent of any crime alleged.

The crime of conspiracy to traffic cocaine is a felony in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and is punishable by up to 15 years in state prison and/or a fine of up to $25,000. In recent decades, the trafficking of drugs has become a worldwide phenomenon, as drugs remain a major commodity in the global black market. Drug trafficking involves the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of controlled substances and is prosecuted vigorously by State and Federal authorities, as the US attempts to make headway on its ‘War On Drugs’ campaign. Law enforcement officials remain concerned because they believe that the business of drug trafficking is usually surrounded with other violent crimes, including murder, human trafficking, slavery, racketeering, and extortion. Cocaine is the most lucrative of these illegal drugs. The United Nations estimates that sales of the drug net $88 billion a year in the retail market alone. Unfortunately, cocaine trafficking and abuse continue to threaten the health and safety of American citizens.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

The use of Breathalyzer test instruments has become an increasingly regular routine in the United States, as they allow police officers to make roadside determinations of intoxication. The results from roadside administered breath testing machines provides evidence of the accused’s blood alcohol content, which is enough to constitute an arrest for Operating Under the Influence (OUI) in Massachusetts under General Laws c. 90 s. 24. However, the use of breath testing machines, more commonly known as breathalyzers, in OUI cases is often contested due to the inefficiency and inaccuracy of the machine’s readings. The problem with the testing machines arises when the breath testing instruments give an incorrect read, face problems of inaccuracy, or a police officer makes a mistake administering the test or during the aftermath of the arrest. Because breath testing involves the analysis of microscopic amounts of alcohol it is critical that everything involving the breath test be done with precision and pursuant to established procedures–small variances in procedures can result in huge variances in results. In the event that the breath testing machine has given a false or inaccurate read, an experienced Boston, Massachusetts OUI attorney will be able to file what is known as a Pierre Motion, or a Motion in Limine to have the results of the breath test suppressed.

WHAT IS A PIERRE MOTION?
Established in 2008 in Commonwealth v. Pierre, the Court held that the Commonwealth must prove the admissibility of a breath test result before admitting said result into evidence at trial. A breath test result is considered to be inadmissible at trial unless and until the Commonwealth proves the result’s admissibility by establishing compliance with breath test regulations. Massachusetts requires a breath test to be administered in accordance with M.G.L. c. 90, §24K and 501 CMR 2.00. Both this law and regulation set forth the proper method for administering a breath test, and require the certification of breath testing machines and completed training courses for officers who wish to operate the devices.

According to 501 CMR 2.14, proper administration of a breath test requires four parts: (1) The arrestee’s consent to a breath test shall be documented by the arresting officer or the Breath Test Officer (BTO), 
(2) The breath test shall be administered by a certified BTO on a certified breath test device, 
(3) The breath test shall consist of a multipart sequence consisting of: (a) one adequate breath sample analysis; 
(b) one calibration standard analysis; and 
(c) a second adequate breath sample analysis, and (4) If the sequence does not result in breath samples that are within 0.02% blood alcohol content, the officer must re-administer a new testing sequence. A Pierre Motion is a preliminary motion that will determine whether the testing was appropriately administered. In the event that the administration of the test was not in compliance with M.G.L. c. 90, §24K and 501 CMR 2.00, the test result is not considered reliable evidence and therefore the test result will be barred from entered as evidence. The Pierre Motion is a Motion in Limine, which means that the admissibility determination will be held away from the eyes and ears of the jury in a private meeting before the judge. This distinction prevents the jury from being prejudiced against the defendant due to evidence of the test result.
Continue reading

Contact Information
90 Canal St 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: 617-367-0450Fax: 781-523-5454

We accept the following credit cards

Credit cards

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design