Badge - Avvo Rating 10, Superb
Badge - Natitonal Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Expertise badge
Badge - Avvo Rating, Top Attorney
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100

| by

Postconviction challenges based on juror misconduct strike at the core of a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury, yet Florida law places strict limits on when those claims may be raised. When allegations surface years after a verdict, courts closely scrutinize whether the information qualifies as newly discovered evidence or could have been uncovered through a timely investigation. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how narrowly courts interpret the due diligence requirement and why even serious claims of juror nondisclosure may be barred if raised too late. If you are accused of a violent crime, you should talk to a Sarasota criminal defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon and received life sentences on both counts following a jury trial in circuit court. The convictions became final after the appellate court affirmed them by mandate more than a decade earlier.

Reportedly, years after the judgment became final, the defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion alleged juror misconduct based on a juror’s failure to disclose information during voir dire, including the criminal histories of close family members and the juror’s proximity to the crime scene. Continue Reading ›

| by

Jury instructions play a central role in ensuring that criminal convictions rest on properly charged offenses and legally sound theories of guilt. When instructions stray beyond the charging document, defendants often argue that such errors undermine the fairness of the trial and require reversal. A recent Florida decision illustrates the limits of that argument and clarifies when instructional mistakes rise to the level of fundamental error. If you are facing criminal charges or considering an appeal, consulting with an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help you assess whether instructional errors affected the outcome of your case.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the State charged the defendant by information with solicitation to commit prostitution in violation of section 796.07(2)(f), Florida Statutes. The charge alleged that the defendant solicited another person to engage in prostitution by sexual intercourse.

Reportedly, the case proceeded to trial in county court, where the trial judge provided the jury with instructions addressing the charged offense. The instructions also referenced solicitation to commit lewdness and assignation, which were not separately charged in the information. Continue Reading ›

| by

Evidentiary rulings frequently shape the trajectory of serious felony cases by influencing what jurors learn about motive, credibility, and the sequence of events. A recent decision issued by a Florida court in a murder case demonstrates how courts review such rulings in cases involving competing theories of culpability and disputes over third-party motive evidence. If you are charged with murder or any other violent offense, it is smart to consult a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney who can help you protect your interests.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant, the victim, and the girlfriend lived together as roommates. The girlfriend previously dated the defendant, but during his incarceration, she began a relationship with the victim. Two days after the defendant returned home following his release, he found the victim and the girlfriend together in bed and killed the victim.

Reportedly, the defendant and the girlfriend attempted to conceal the homicide by disposing of the body and cleaning the residence. Investigators located the victim’s body in a dumpster, recovered portions of a blood-soaked mattress, and found gloves and other items containing DNA from the defendant, the victim, and the girlfriend. Cell site data showed the defendant’s and the girlfriend’s movements matched the disposal route described by investigators.

Continue Reading ›

| by

When a person is charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, evidentiary disputes often determine what information a jury will hear at trial. Motions in limine, requests made before trial to admit or exclude evidence, can significantly shape the outcome of the case. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how federal courts apply the rules of evidence in firearm prosecutions. If you are facing federal firearm charges, it is critical to have a Sarasota criminal defense attorney who understands how evidentiary rulings can impact your case and protect your rights before trial.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the defendant was stopped by law enforcement while driving a vehicle. During the stop, officers discovered a firearm in the car. It is reported that the defendant, who had multiple prior felony convictions, including armed robbery and burglary, was charged with possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of federal law. The case was set for trial, and before the proceedings began, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude several categories of evidence that he argued would unfairly prejudice the jury.

It is alleged that the defendant requested the court to prohibit the government from referencing six main types of evidence: (1) a prior case connected to the vehicle’s license plate, (2) a black duffel bag and its contents, (3) a red bookbag found in the vehicle, (4) the criminal history and drug charges of a passenger, (5) an observation of a bulge in the defendant’s waistband before the stop, and (6) the defendant’s probationary status and broader criminal history. The prosecution agreed not to introduce some categories of evidence but opposed the exclusion of others that it believed were relevant to the firearm charge.

Continue Reading ›

| by
When someone is convicted of a sex crime in Florida, the consequences are often devastating. But a conviction at trial does not always mark the end of the road. Defendants have the right to appeal, and appellate courts serve as a critical safeguard against trial errors, unfair evidentiary rulings, and convictions not supported by the evidence. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights how appellate review can provide meaningful relief when the trial process falls short. If you are charged with a sex crime, it is smart to speak to a Sarasota sex crime defense attorney as soon as possible to discuss what you can do to protect your interests.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation involving his daughter. The State claimed the conduct began when the child was under twelve and continued into her teenage years. The charges included sexual battery by various means, lewd touching of the child’s genitals and breasts, and transmission of an image harmful to a minor. The State further alleged that the defendant groomed the child through repeated abuse over several years.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Criminal defendants in federal court are protected both by the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. These protections require that the government bring charges and proceed to trial within specified time limits, unless continuances are properly justified and granted. When defendants believe their rights have been violated, they may move to dismiss the indictment or argue on appeal that delays undermined the fairness of the proceedings. A recent Florida decision issued in a robbery case illustrates the limits of such arguments, affirming that not all delays are attributable to the government and that defendants cannot obtain dismissal without showing actual prejudice. If you are charged with a theft crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested on state charges before being transferred to federal custody, at which point he was indicted for six counts of Hobbs Act robbery. Reportedly, the defendant’s trial began approximately fourteen months after his federal arrest and ten months after his indictment.

It is reported that the defendant attempted to preserve a claim under the Speedy Trial Act by filing a pro se motion to dismiss, even though he was represented by appointed counsel at the time. Under the Southern District of Florida’s local rules, defendants represented by counsel are not permitted to file pro se motions, and the district court later replaced the public defender with private counsel. However, the new attorney did not renew the motion to dismiss.

It is alleged that the delays in the case were due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicated grand jury proceedings and halted jury trials in the district court for a period. It is further reported that the defendant himself requested three continuances, which accounted for approximately seven months of the total delay. The jury convicted the defendant, after which he appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In the federal criminal justice system, defendants are entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against them, the legality of their indictment, and the procedural and substantive fairness of their sentence. However, these challenges must meet stringent standards, especially on appeal. A recent decision from a Florida federal court highlights the importance of preserving arguments at trial and illustrates the rigorous legal framework governing charges for assaulting federal officers. If you are facing violent crime charges, an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help ensure your rights are preserved at every stage of your case.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant, who was an inmate at the time of the offense, was convicted in the Middle District of Florida of assaulting two federal correctional officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b), as well as possessing a weapon while incarcerated. The defendant was sentenced to 137 months in prison. During a confrontation, the defendant physically assaulted one officer, then used a weapon to inflict bodily harm on a second officer. Multiple witnesses testified that the defendant attacked the officers on separate occasions and that video surveillance corroborated their testimony.

Allegedly, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish he was the person who committed the assaults. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant subsequently testified in his own defense. The defendant appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In federal sentencing, defendants with certain prior felony convictions face enhanced penalties under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. When a defendant qualifies as a “career offender,” the resulting guideline range can substantially increase. Whether a prior offense qualifies as a predicate “crime of violence” is a critical legal issue that may shape a defendant’s sentence. Recently, a Florida court addressed this question in the context of a Florida statute criminalizing the act of resisting an officer with violence. If you are charged with a serious federal offense and have prior convictions, a knowledgeable Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help you evaluate whether enhancements may apply and advocate for a fair sentence.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) and sentenced to 144 months in prison. At sentencing, the district court applied the “career offender” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, citing the defendant’s two prior convictions for crimes of violence. One of those convictions was for resisting an officer with violence under Florida Statutes § 843.01.

Allegedly, the defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that his prior Florida conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. He asserted that the statute could be violated in ways that do not necessarily involve the use of violent physical force. The defendant contended that because the offense might be committed with a reckless mental state, it should not qualify under the “elements clause” of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, which requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In federal criminal sentencing, enhancements under the United States Sentencing Guidelines can significantly increase a defendant’s prison term, especially when firearms are involved in drug-related offenses. For example, courts may impose an enhancement if they find a defendant possessed a firearm “in connection with” another felony offense. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling, this guideline provision is not ambiguous and does not require courts to defer to agency commentary unless specific criteria are met. If you are facing federal charges involving firearms or drugs, a knowledgeable Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help you understand what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The conviction stemmed from an August 2022 incident in Fort Myers, Florida, where detectives observed the defendant engaging in suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions while wearing a cross-body bag. After following the vehicle he entered, officers conducted a traffic stop and searched the car.

It is alleged that during the search, law enforcement officers discovered a firearm and ammunition inside the cross-body bag the defendant had been seen wearing. They also recovered a separate bag in the backseat containing approximately 15 grams of fentanyl and other controlled substances. A presentence investigation report (PSI) recommended a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), asserting that the firearm was possessed “in connection with” a drug trafficking offense.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Federal white-collar crime cases often do not end with a conviction and prison sentence. Many defendants are subject to supervised release following incarceration, and violations of these terms can result in significant consequences, including additional imprisonment. A recent opinion issued by a Florida court in a white-collar crime case demonstrates that federal courts retain jurisdiction over unresolved violations of supervised release, even after initially revoking supervision and imposing a sentence. If you are accused of violating the conditions of your release, it is critical to speak with a Sarasota white-collar crime defense attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights and freedom.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of multiple white-collar crimes, including bank fraud and identity theft. He was sentenced to 24 months and one day of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. After completing his custodial sentence, the defendant was released under supervision. During the term of supervised release, the government filed a petition alleging seven violations. These included unauthorized travel, failure to provide truthful reports, lying to a probation officer, associating with individuals involved in criminal conduct, and new charges involving identity theft and unlawful possession of ammunition.

It is alleged that at a revocation hearing, the defendant admitted to three of the violations. The court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to five months in prison, followed by 54 months of renewed supervision. The remaining violations were not dismissed, however. Instead, the district court agreed to hold them in abeyance while the government conducted further investigation. On the date the defendant completed the five-month sentence, the district court reconvened to address the remaining allegations. The court found that the defendant had unlawfully possessed ammunition, imposed an additional four months in prison, and ordered a new term of 48 months of supervised release. The defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›