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

Juvenile defendants have constitutional rights that protect them from unfair prosecutions, including the right to due process and proper notice of the charges against them. When these rights are violated, it can lead to wrongful adjudications and unfair sentences. Fortunately, Florida provides recourse for juveniles who have been improperly convicted, as demonstrated in a recent Florida opinion in which they overturned a conviction due to procedural errors. If you or a loved one is facing delinquency charges, it is crucial to consult an experienced Sarasota juvenile crime defense attorney to protect your interests.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the juvenile and another individual approached the victim in a public park, demanding the return of a bicycle they claimed belonged to them. Reportedly, both individuals were wearing ski masks and brandished knives as they advanced toward the victim. The victim allegedly responded with a defensive gesture, at which point the individuals fled the scene before being apprehended by law enforcement.

It is reported that the State charged the juvenile with attempted robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon. However, at trial, the court found that the State failed to prove the requisite intent for robbery, as evidence suggested that the juvenile believed he was reclaiming his own property. Allegedly, despite this failure, the trial court convicted the juvenile of aggravated assault, a lesser-included offense of the original charge.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In federal criminal cases, motions for compassionate release require courts to assess whether extraordinary and compelling reasons justify modifying a defendant’s sentence. These motions are governed by a narrow legal framework, and defendants bear the burden of proving their eligibility. Recently, a Florida court examined these principles in a case where the defendant sought compassionate release based on health conditions and changes in sentencing law. If you are navigating federal sentencing issues or seeking post-conviction relief, consulting an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney is crucial to understanding your options.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged in 2017 with multiple offenses, including seven counts of controlled substance distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), as well as possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The defendant pleaded guilty to the drug charges but proceeded to trial on the firearm offenses, where a jury found him guilty.

Reportedly, during sentencing, the court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report’s conclusion that the defendant qualified as both an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Based on these designations and other factors, the court imposed a sentence of 210 months.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under Florida law, theft charges carry significant legal consequences, particularly when the value of the property allegedly stolen elevates the crime to grand theft. In such cases, the prosecution must prove each element of the offense, including the market value of the stolen items, beyond a reasonable doubt. A recent Florida decision highlights the importance of this requirement, as the court vacated a defendant’s grand theft conviction due to insufficient evidence of property value. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is in your best interest to talk to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney regarding your potential defenses as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant was charged with grand theft from a dwelling in a Florida court. Allegedly, during the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant stole property from a residence, claiming that the value of the stolen items exceeded $100. The trial court found the defendant guilty of grand theft. However, it is alleged that the defense argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish the market value of the stolen items, a necessary element to uphold the grand theft conviction. The defendant subsequently appealed the conviction, asserting that the trial court erred in finding the value of the stolen property exceeded the statutory threshold for grand theft.

Elements of Theft Offenses

On appeal, the court reviewed the case and the trial record, focusing on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grand theft conviction. It is reported that the State conceded that it failed to present adequate evidence to prove that the market value of the stolen items exceeded $100, a requirement for a grand theft conviction under Florida law.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In Florida criminal cases, courts often grapple with the balance between ensuring justice and protecting a defendant’s rights, particularly concerning the admission of evidence. Recently, in a high-profile Florida case, the court addressed the admissibility of prior bad acts under the Williams Rule and its implications on a fair trial. If you are charged with a serious crime, it is essential to consult a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney to safeguard your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with attempted felony murder and attempted premeditated murder arising from a single criminal episode. The charges stemmed from a November 2013 incident in which the victim, while riding his bicycle late at night, was approached by an assailant demanding money. Reportedly, the assailant shot the victim multiple times before fleeing when alerted by a neighbor. The victim survived but required extensive hospitalization.

It is reported that the case remained unsolved for years until forensic analysis linked the firearm used in the shooting to two other crimes. Based on these findings, the State sought to introduce evidence of the collateral crimes to establish the defendant’s identity. The trial court allowed the evidence under the Williams Rule, which permits the use of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove issues such as identity or intent. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant on both counts, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence improperly became the focus of the trial and that his dual convictions violated double jeopardy principles.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Since the dawn of social media, law enforcement agents will often seek evidence from criminal suspects’ social media accounts when investigating crimes. They generally cannot do so without a warrant, however, and if they do, any evidence obtained may be deemed inadmissible, as discussed in a recent Florida murder case. If you are accused of committing a violent crime, it is critical to understand your potential defenses, and you should contact a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney promptly to discuss your charges.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter following the shooting death of a young girl who was killed by a stray bullet during an altercation. The altercation occurred between the defendant’s girlfriend and her aunt, during which the girlfriend made threats, stating she would have her “baby daddy” come and shoot them. Shortly afterward, the defendant arrived, and gunfire ensued. A stray bullet struck and killed the young girl as she sat in a car with her parents.

It is alleged that the defendant denied being involved in the shooting, testifying that he left the scene because he had children in his car and was not the person referenced by his girlfriend as the “baby daddy.” Both the defendant and his girlfriend were charged with first-degree murder, among other offenses. During the investigation, law enforcement obtained evidence from the defendant’s Facebook account without securing a warrant specific to the shooting. The trial court admitted this evidence under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, leading to the defendant’s conviction. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The defendant subsequently appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Battery and other crimes involving violent acts often carry substantial penalties, especially if the person charged has one or more prior convictions. As discussed in a recent Florida opinion, though, the courts generally cannot impose habitual offender penalties under multiple statutes to run concurrently. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is wise to confer with a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney about your case.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant was convicted of felony battery, a third-degree felony, and sentenced to ten years in prison by the trial court. The sentence was structured so that the defendant would serve five years as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), followed by another five years as a habitual felony offender (HFO). The defendant challenged the legality of this sentence on two grounds. First, he argued that the trial court could not impose equal sentences under both the PRR and HFO statutes. Second, he contended that the two consecutive five-year sentences exceeded the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony, which is typically five years.

It is reported that the defendant submitted the written judgment and sentence to support his claim, but he did not include the sentencing transcript. The postconviction court denied both claims. It acknowledged that an equal HFO sentence running concurrently with a PRR sentence would be illegal but dismissed the first claim because the trial court had imposed the sentences consecutively. As for the second claim, the postconviction court ruled that the HFO statute allowed for an extended sentence of up to ten years for a third-degree felony. The defendant then appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In a DUI case, the State will often rely on a defendant’s BAC to establish guilt. The prosecution must support any assertions of a BAC with competent evidence; otherwise, statements regarding the defendant’s BAC level may be deemed inadmissible. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling, though, even if such statements are admitted, it may not be sufficient to demonstrate a mistrial. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak with a Sarasota DUI crime defense lawyer regarding what evidence the State may try to use against you.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that this case arose out of a collision that resulted in multiple injuries and one fatality. The defendant, driving a pickup truck, attempted to pass a rental van carrying fifteen family members returning from a spring training baseball game. The collision caused the van to veer off the road, flip, and roll over, ejecting several passengers. Witnesses reported the defendant’s erratic driving before the crash, noting that he appeared to be focused on a phone. A traffic homicide investigation revealed that the defendant’s truck had been traveling at an average speed of 86 miles per hour.

Allegedly, two bottles of rum, one partially empty, were found in the truck, and the defendant admitted to driving. The defendant was charged with multiple DUI crimes. The State provided substantial evidence of the injuries sustained by the fourteen surviving van occupants. During the trial, the prosecution initially claimed that the defendant’s BAC was 0.17 at the time of the crash, but the expert witness refused to conduct a retrograde extrapolation to confirm this figure. The defendant was ultimately convicted of DUI manslaughter and multiple counts of DUI-related injuries and property damage. He was sentenced to 396.6 months in prison, followed by one year of probation. The defendant moved for a mistrial, but his motion was denied. He then appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Although white-collar crimes are not implicitly violent, they are often harshly penalized due to the financial losses they frequently cause. It is not uncommon for convictions for such offenses to result in years of imprisonment, as demonstrated in a recent Florida Medicaid theft case in which the court ultimately rejected the defendant’s challenge to his sentence. If you are accused of theft, it is prudent to talk to a Sarasota theft crime defense lawyer about your options for seeking a positive outcome.

 

History of the Case

 

Allegedly, the defendant worked for a company that provided medical billing and credentialing services, giving him access to financial, medical provider, and patient information. He was tasked with submitting claims to Florida Medicaid for services rendered by a specific physician. Between February 2017 and October 2018, the defendant allegedly submitted around 1,700 fraudulent claims, resulting in a payment of over $2.25 million. The defendant did not report or underreported these fraudulent earnings to the IRS, leading to a total tax loss of close to $800,000 over the tax years 2017-2019. Additionally, from April 2019 to September 2019, the defendant worked for another company, diverting over $55,000 into his personal account and underreporting this income on his 2019 tax return.

 

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to multiple counts of defrauding a healthcare benefits program, aggravated identity theft, and failing to file an income tax return, as well as a count of filing a fraudulent tax return. A presentence investigation report grouped his offenses into two main categories: healthcare fraud and tax offenses, with separate adjustments for each group’s offense level. The district court sentenced the defendant to a total of 65 months’ imprisonment, with a three-year term of supervised release and a set of standard conditions for supervised release, including Standard Condition 12, which the defendant did not object to initially. The defendant then appealed his sentence.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under the Florida and United States Constitution, people cannot be convicted more than once for the same crime. As such, if a defendant is found guilty of committing numerous offenses that all stem from the same incident and require the same proof, it may violate their double jeopardy rights, as demonstrated in a recent Florida battery case. If you are charged with a violent offense, including battery, it is wise to meet with a Sarasota violent crime defense lawyer to assess your rights.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant, while incarcerated in a county jail, punched another inmate, fracturing his jaw. As a result, he faced two charges: detainee battery and felony battery. Following a trial, the jury found him guilty of detainee battery but acquitted him of felony battery based on causing great bodily harm, instead finding him guilty of the lesser offense of simple battery.

Allegedly, the State subsequently presented evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions, leading the jury to convict him of felony battery based on a previous conviction. The trial court sentenced him to the maximum of five years in prison for each count, to run consecutively. The defendant then appealed his convictions, arguing that the sentences for both convictions constituted double jeopardy.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under federal law, people convicted of certain crimes lose privileges granted to most citizens. For example, people convicted of felonies constituting crimes of violence typically cannot lawfully carry or own firearms. As such, if a law enforcement agent stops a convicted felon and finds a gun in their possession, it could result in criminal charges. As discussed in a recent Florida case, the sentence for gun crime depends, in part, on the seriousness of the defendant’s prior convictions. If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is sensible to speak to a Sarasota gun crime defense lawyer to evaluate your options for protecting your interests.

Case Setting

Reportedly, in September 2019, the defendant was arrested for domestic violence battery, during which law enforcement discovered a loaded pistol in his possession. He was indicted for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, to which he entered guilty pleas. The presentence investigation report revealed the defendant’s two previous convictions for Florida felonies that were considered crimes of violence: aggravated assault in 2014 and felony battery in 2011.

It is alleged that in the felony battery case, the defendant was initially charged with several offenses, including possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but eventually pleaded no contest to felony battery. The report of the defendant’s arrest detailed an altercation where the defendant allegedly strangled their partner. In the aggravated assault case, the defendant briefly left an argument to retrieve a handgun from their vehicle and returned to frighten the roommate of an acquaintance. The defendant contested the classification of these convictions as crimes of violence during sentencing.

Continue Reading ›