Armed Robbery

March 27, 2019

Florida Court Rules Dual Carjacking and Grand Theft Auto Convictions Violate Double Jeopardy

While many people are aware of the protection afforded under the right against double jeopardy it is not always clear when double jeopardy applies and defendants are often convicted of more than one crime arising out of the same alleged act, in violation of double jeopardy. Recently, a Florida appellate court overturned a defendant’s conviction for grand theft auto, finding that it was precluded under double jeopardy due to his carjacking conviction. If you live in Tampa and are charged with grand theft or any other theft crime, it is important to protect your rights by retaining an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney who will present a tenacious defense on your behalf.

The Alleged Carjacking and Grand Theft Auto

Allegedly, in August of 2015, a man went up to a woman approaching her car and pointed a gun at her, telling her if she screamed, he would shoot her. The man took the woman’s phone and purse and then used her keys to steal her car. The woman reported the car as stolen, and the police spotted the car with a license plate reader. The police pursued the car with lights and sirens activated, but the vehicle did not stop until it crashed. The defendant exited the vehicle after the crash and fled on foot. After a pursuit he was detained and arrested.

February 27, 2018

BB Gun or Handgun? Florida Supreme Court Weighs in on Armed Robbery Case

by Hanlon Law, PA

Florida criminal laws include quite a considerable number of lesser offenses when it comes to being charged with a crime. Getting a charge knocked down to a lesser offense can mean the difference between years behind bars and months in jail or simple probation, in some cases. The state Supreme Court recently took up a Florida robbery case that illustrates just how nuanced the legal arguments can be in determining whether a person convicted of a crime should be sentenced for a lesser offense.A defendant (D.D.) was convicted of two charges of robbery with a deadly weapon, which is a first-degree felony that can come with as much as 30 years behind bars, for his role in two alleged robberies in Florida. A state appeals court eventually ordered the trial judge to reduce the convictions to robbery with a weapon. The court explained that the evidence presented at trial showed only that one weapon was used in the robbery: a handgun or a BB gun that looked a lot like the real thing.

Affirming the decision on further appeal, the Florida Supreme Court first noted that D.D. had never actually been charged with robbery with a deadly weapon. Instead, the court said that he had originally been charged with robbery with a firearm. Since it was unclear whether the weapon involved was an actual handgun or a BB gun, the court held that the trial judge should have knocked the charge down to robbery with a weapon.

February 20, 2018

The Right to a Lawyer in Florida Assault Cases

by Hanlon Law, PA

The right to an attorney is a crucial part of the American criminal justice system. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the groundbreaking Miranda case, made clear that criminal suspects have the right not to talk to cops without a lawyer by their side. As Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently explained, police officers can’t try to get a person to change their mind once the person has invoked his or her Miranda rights.A defendant was charged with three counts of armed robbery and one count of assault while he was already in jail on unrelated crimes. An investigating officer approached him, looking for information about an armed robbery in Broward County. Two weeks later, the defendant and another man were transferred to the Broward Country Sheriff’s Office for questioning as suspects in the armed robbery. An officer tried to go over a form with the defendant, waiving his Miranda rights, when the defendant asked: “They sending me a lawyer?” The officer said the defendant could stop the interview at any time. He also showed him photos of other suspects in the case. “They’re talking,” the officer said. “First one talks, deals.”

The defendant was left in the interrogation room for several hours. He was forced to urinate in the room after asking unsuccessfully to use the bathroom. When a police officer brought the defendant food, he told him: “I know you asked for your attorney; I’m not going to talk to you, but I’m going to let you know that you are being charged with armed robbery.” When the defendant later asked if he was in fact being charged with the crime, the officer said repeatedly “You want to talk to me?” until the defendant nodded his head. The officer went over the Miranda form with the defendant, during which he said he agreed to talk to the officer but also said “yeah” when asked whether he had previously requested an attorney. “You have. But you still want to make a statement with me, right?” the detective said. The defendant responded: “Yeah.” The defendant eventually admitted to participating in the robbery. He was convicted on all four counts.