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

In Florida, when sentencing a person convicted of a crime, the courts will generally rely on statutory guidelines. The courts have the discretion to deviate from the guidelines, however, if the party seeking an upward or downward sentence demonstrates that a departure is warranted. In a recent opinion issued in a Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of multiple crimes following a deadly accident, the court discussed when a downward departure sentence is appropriate. If you are charged with manslaughter or any other crime following an accident, it is in your best interest to talk to a Sarasota criminal defense attorney about your rights.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with manslaughter and numerous other crimes after she was involved in a fatal car accident. A jury ultimately found her guilty of driving without a license causing serious bodily injury or death. She moved for a downward departure sentence, arguing that she was not the proximate cause of death as the other driver caused the accident. The trial court denied her motion, however, stating that it did not have the discretion to issue a downward departure sentence based on comparative liability for the injuries. Consequently, the defendant was sentenced to the minimum scoresheet of approximately 15 years in prison. She appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that it was prohibited from considering her comparative fault as a potential basis for a downward departure sentence.

Determining Whether a Downward Departure Sentence is Appropriate

The court explains that determining the appropriateness of a downward departure sentence involves a two-step process. First, the court must ascertain whether there is a valid legal ground for the departure, as set forth in a statute or case law, and supported by facts proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Second, if a valid legal ground exists, the court must determine whether the departure is the best sentencing option by evaluating the totality of the circumstances.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under state and federal law, it is illegal to transport a minor child for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. Traveling with a minor for other purposes may be permissible, however, depending on the circumstances. As such, the prosecution must establish that the defendant had an illicit motive to prove their guilt. In a recent ruling issued in a Florida case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for numerous sex crimes, including transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. If you are accused of a sex offense, it is smart to meet with a Sarasota sex crime defense attorney to assess your options for protecting your interest.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes, including transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. He was convicted as charged and appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Establishing Guilt for Transporting a Minor with the Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity

On appeal, the defendant presented two arguments regarding the adequacy of the evidence against him. Firstly, he contends that the transportation did not primarily serve the purpose of engaging in sexual activity because the victim also intended to visit the United States for her brother’s honeymoon. Secondly, he argues that the victim’s trip from the Bahamas to Miami, which he financed, was an innocent return journey to the United States for her brother’s honeymoon.

 

Continue Reading ›

| by

Typically, when a person faces numerous charges arising out of a single incident, they will be tried for all of the offenses in one trial. In some instances, though, a defendant may be able to successfully demonstrate that certain charges should be severed, as a trial on all charges at once would be prejudicial. In a recent ruling, a Florida court discussed what evidence a defendant must offer to show severance is warranted in a case in which the defendant was found guilty of possessing a firearm as a violent career criminal. If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is advisable to speak to a Sarasota weapons crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant had an altercation with the victim, who was his girlfriend, at the victim’s house. The altercation became physical, and the defendant brandished a gun and fired multiple shots into the air. He was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, burglary with battery, assault, and possession of a firearm as a violent career criminal.

Allegedly, the defendant moved to sever the gun possession charge from the other offenses, arguing that severance was necessary for a fair trial. The court denied his motion but bifurcated the hearing; during the first phase, the jury found that the defendant possessed a firearm, and during the second, it found that he qualified as a violent career criminal. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison, and he appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution offers people protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Broadly speaking, this means that law enforcement officials must have a warrant to conduct a search. Fourth Amendment protections are critical to safeguarding individual privacy and preventing government abuse of power. There are exceptions to the general rule, however, such as when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is committing a crime. Recently, a Florida court addressed what constitutes adequate suspicion of a crime to conduct a warrantless search in a case in which a juvenile appealed his firearms offense convictions. If you are a juvenile charged with a criminal offense, it is in your best interest to talk to a  Sarasota juvenile crime defense attorney about your rights.

The Stop and Arrest

It is reported that a police officer stopped the defendant because he was riding a bicycle at night without lights on. The defendant had a jacket over his left shoulder, and the officer believed that his nervousness and shakiness gave him the impression that there was possibly a weapon in his waistband.

Allegedly, the officer asked to conduct a pat down, and the defendant declined. The officer ultimately found a firearm in the defendant’s groin area. The defendant was charged with multiple firearm defenses. Prior to his hearing, he moved to suppress any evidence found during the stop on the grounds that the officer lacked the necessary suspicion to conduct a weapons pat down. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant was adjudicated delinquent. He appealed.

Reasonable Suspicion to Conduct a Weapons Pat Down

In reviewing the denial of the motion to suppress, the court determined whether competent and substantial evidence supported the trial court’s factual findings and reviewed the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. Ultimately, the court found that the issuance of a citation for failing to have a bicycle light would not ordinarily validate a weapons frisk. As such, the officer must have some information indicating that the detainee poses a threat to the officer’s safety or to the safety of others.

In other words, for a weapons pat-down search to be valid, the officer must identify objective facts indicating that the person detained is armed and dangerous. The court noted that while the combination of the defendant’s nervousness and the officer’s observation of a bulge in the defendant’s clothing could justify a weapons pat-down, the arresting officer’s testimony did not support a reasonable suspicion of danger in the subject case.

Specifically, the officer did not observe a weapon or see a bulge in the defendant’s pants. Additionally, the arresting officer had no idea whether the firearm had been in the defendant’s groin area the whole time. Thus, the court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress, as the arresting officer lacked the necessary suspicion to conduct a weapons pat down, and reversed the trial court order.

Confer with a Skilled Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

A juvenile conviction for a weapons offense can negatively impact a person’s life long after the sentence imposed is complete. If you are a minor charged with a gun crime or any other offense, it is wise to confer with an attorney about your potential defenses as soon as possible. The skilled Sarasota criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law have ample experience helping minors protect their rights in juvenile proceedings, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law through the online form or by calling 941-462-1789 to set up a conference.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Laws pertaining to the medical and recreational use of marijuana continue to change in Florida and throughout the country. As such, many acts that were once criminal are now legal. A prior conviction for a marijuana-related offense can still adversely impact a defendant’s presentence investigation report, however, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in which the court affirmed the defendant’s sentence for possessing a handgun as a felon. If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is important to speak to a Sarasota gun crime defense attorney about your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that police officers arrested the defendant for aggravated assault with a weapon. When they searched the defendant at the time of the arrest they found a loaded gun in his pocket; it was later revealed that the gun had been stolen two years prior. The defendant had numerous prior felony convictions, including convictions for the possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with the intent to sell.

It is alleged, therefore, that the defendant was indicted for being a felon in possession of a handgun. He entered a guilty plea without a plea agreement. The probation office drafted a presentence investigation report which used a base offense level of 20 due to the defendant’s prior felony controlled substance offense. The defendant objected, arguing that he should not have been assigned a base offense level of 20 because marijuana was not a controlled substance under the sentencing guidelines. The court overruled his objection and sentenced him to 63 months’ imprisonment. He appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The Florida legislature enacted statutory guidelines that the courts use when sentencing people convicted of violating state law. Sentencing courts have discretion, however, and can deliver downward departure sentences if they believe they are warranted under the circumstances. Recently, a Florida court examined when a downward departure sentence is appropriate in a burglary case in which it ultimately reversed a downward departure sentence on the grounds that it was not supported by competent evidence. If you were charged with burglary or any other theft offense, it is wise to talk to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney about your possible defenses.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that he was charged with grand theft and burglary of an occupied dwelling in 2019 following an incident in which he drove a co-defendant to a residence, waited while the codefendant broke a window and entered the home, and then drove the co-defendant away. They were later stopped with $15,000 worth of jewelry that had been taken from the home.

Reportedly, while the defendant was awaiting trial for the subject charges, he was convicted of other charges of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. The defendant then moved for a downward departure in the subject case, arguing that the offenses were committed in an unsophisticated manner and were isolated incidents. The court granted the defendant’s motion over the State’s objection, and the State appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

There are numerous measures in place at the state and federal levels that aim to protect people from unjust convictions. Among other things, people convicted of crimes have the right to file an appeal if they believe they were improperly convicted. If they fail to raise an argument on appeal, however, they cannot attempt to do so via a collateral challenge, as discussed in a recent opinion issued in a Florida case in which the defendant sought to overturn his conviction for drug trafficking and other offenses. If you are accused of committing a drug crime, it is smart to meet with a Sarasota drug crime defense attorney to assess your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon, using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possessing 50 or more grams of methamphetamine in violation of federal law. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and was sentenced to 160 months in prison. He did not appeal his conviction or sentence. He then moved to vacate his conviction for using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in light of a recent ruling that invalidated the relevant statute’s residual clause pertaining to crimes of violence.

The Right to Appeal Criminal Convictions

The court denied the defendant’s request for relief on the grounds that his argument lacked merit and was procedurally defaulted. The court explained that collateral challenges could not do the work of an appeal. In other words, once a defendant has exhausted or waived the change to appeal, the courts are entitled to presume that the defendant’s conviction is fair and final. As such, claims that the defendant could avail themselves of but did not raise in a previous proceeding are procedurally defaulted and typically are barred from consideration on collateral review.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The Florida courts take allegations of domestic violence seriously and will order injunctions for protection in matters in which they believe the petitioners present credible evidence of acts that constitute domestic violence. People that subsequently violate such injunctions may be subject to criminal penalties. The prosecution must establish each element of the crime of violating an injunction for protection in order to obtain a conviction; however, if it cannot, the defendant should be found not guilty. Recently, a Florida court vacated a defendant’s conviction for violating a protection order on the grounds the prosecution failed to establish each element of the crime. If you are charged with a domestic violence crime, you should speak to a Sarasota domestic violence defense attorney to determine what defenses you may be able to set forth.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the state charged the defendant by information with stalking and violating an injunction for protection against repeat violence. During the trial, the state presented evidence that the alleged victim had sought and obtained an injunction against stalking against the defendant. The state did not present evidence of any other injunctions.

It is alleged that the defendant then moved for acquittal on the grounds that the state failed to establish the issuance of either an injunction against repeat violence or an injunction for protection against domestic violence. The trial court denied his motion, and he was found guilty as charged. The defendant then appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under Florida law, certain acts that are sexual in nature constitute crimes. While many sex offenses require the state to establish a specific intent, others merely demand that the state show the defendant committed the acts that constitute the crime. Recently, a Florida court clarified that the crime of sexual battery is a general intent offense in a matter in which the defendant appealed his conviction. If you are accused of a sex crime, it is in your best interest to talk to a Sarasota sex crime defense attorney to discuss what evidence the state must offer to demonstrate your guilt.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant met a man at a bar, after which she agreed to go to his apartment. They then walked to a store where they encountered the defendant, who was the man’s roommate, the defendant’s brother, and another individual. Their accounts differed as to the nature of their interaction; the defendant stated the victim was flirtatious and repeatedly touched him while she denied speaking to or engaging in contact with him.

Reportedly, the victim returned to the man’s apartment and engaged in consensual intercourse with him, after which the defendant entered the bedroom and began engaging in intercourse with the victim. The victim testified that the defendant did not speak to her, and she did not know he was not the other man until after the act was complete. The defendant was subsequently charged with and convicted of sexual battery. He appealed, arguing that he believed the victim consented to the act and, therefore, he lacked the specific intent to commit the charged offense.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The state staunchly prosecutes violent crimes, and people convicted of such offenses are often sentenced to lengthy prison terms. There are statutory limits pertaining to sentences for violent crimes, however, and if a sentence imposed by a court exceeds the statutory guidelines, it may be illegal. Recently, a Florida court discussed what constitutes an illegal sentence in a case in which the defendant sought to correct a sentence imposed for aggravated assault. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is smart to consult a Sarasota criminal defense attorney to assess your options for pursuing a good outcome.

Procedural Background

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault. A jury convicted him following a trial, and the jury explicitly found that he discharged a gun when he committed the crimes. The trial court then issued a sentence of twenty years in prison for the aggravated assault count and thirty years for the manslaughter count, which were the statutory minimums. The court relied on the jury’s findings in issuing the sentences.

It is reported that the defendant then appealed, arguing that the sentence for his aggravated assault conviction was illegal. He also filed a motion arguing that because a firearm was an essential element of both crimes, his convictions were improperly reclassified, and therefore, his sentences exceeded the statutory limit. Continue Reading ›