Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

Florida Court Explains Grounds for Finding a Punishment is Cruel

Posted In: June 29, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

When sentencing a defendant following a conviction, the Florida courts will look at mitigating and aggravating factors to determine what constitutes an appropriate penalty. Typically, such analysis and sentencing occur shortly after a conviction. Merely because a significant amount of time has passed between a conviction and sentencing, however, does not mean that the sentence is patently cruel and unusual, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant appealed his sentence for murder and other crimes, which was delivered thirty years after his conviction. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is crucial to retain a Tampa violent crime defense attorney to assist you in fighting to protect your liberties.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant went to a substance abuse rehabilitation facility, where he provided the staff with a motel room number. The victim, a nurse the defendant knew, was subsequently found dead in the motel room. The defendant was charged and convicted of first-degree murder. The trial court imposed the death penalty in accordance with the jury’s recommendation. The trial court’s decision was affirmed in 1996.

It is reported that the defendant was granted two additional sentencing proceedings. In the first new sentencing proceeding, in 2005, it was found that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, but the death sentence was affirmed. In the second sentencing proceeding, the defendant waived the right to a penalty-phase jury and the right to present mitigating evidence. The trial court imposed a death sentence after considering the aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Florida Court Explains Determining if a Conviction Violates Double Jeopardy

Posted In: June 23, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

Under Florida law, people can be charged with multiple distinct crimes stemming from a single criminal incident. They cannot be convicted of the same offense more than once, however, as it violates double jeopardy. While in some cases, it is clear that a conviction violates a defendant’s double jeopardy rights, in others, it is less evident. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion in a car theft case in which it discussed the process of determining whether a conviction violates double jeopardy. If you are accused of a theft offense, it is smart to consult a Tampa theft crime defense attorney to discuss your possible defenses.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant agreed to repair a car for his friend and subsequently borrowed tools from his friend’s sister. He drove off with the car and the tools and did not return the car for a week; he never returned the tools. The state charged him with grand theft of a car and theft of tools. He was found guilty of both crimes, after which he appealed.

Determining if a Conviction Violates Double Jeopardy

On appeal, the defendant argued that his convictions violated double jeopardy. The court disagreed and denied his appeal. In doing so, it explained that double jeopardy bars a person from being prosecuted, convicted, or punished for the same crime more than once. In cases of theft convictions where the crimes are merely different degrees of the core offense of theft, multiple convictions arising out of the same core offense violate double jeopardy.

Florida Court Explains Predicate Offenses for Career Offender Status

Posted In: May 31, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

Under federal sentencing guidelines, the courts have the authority to impose increased penalties on people deemed career offenders. Only certain offenses qualify for the purposes of determining whether a person is a career offender, though. In a recent drug trafficking case arising in a Florida district court, the court clarified the criteria for a career offender. If you are charged with a drug crime in Tampa, it is in your best interest to speak to a Tampa drug crime defense attorney about your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and convicted of conspiracy to manufacture, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of crack cocaine, as well as possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The trial court imposed an enhanced sentence on the defendant due to the fact that he was considered a career offender based on previous felony convictions for crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses.

Allegedly, the defendant appealed, arguing that the court failed to consider the impact of United States v. Dupree on his sentence. The government was directed to respond, and the defendant had the opportunity to reply. The government filed a Response in Opposition, but the defendant did not file a reply within the given time. Continue Reading ›

Florida Court Holds Consent to Field Sobriety Exercises is Not Required in DUI Cases

Posted In: May 26, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

In Florida, most DUI arrests arise out of traffic stops. While the police are permitted to investigate DUI crimes, they can only do so if they have reasonable suspicion that such crimes are being committed. They do not need to obtain consent from a DUI suspect to conduct field sobriety exercises, though, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the court rejected the defendant’s argument that evidence obtained during his traffic stop should be suppressed. If you are accused of a DUI offense in Tampa, it is wise to speak to a Tampa DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that, during a traffic stop, the officers suspected the defendant of DUI and directed him to perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant complied with their request but later moved to suppress the evidence of his performance on the field sobriety exercises, arguing that his consent was lacking and, therefore, the evidence violated the Fourth Amendment.

Allegedly, during the trial court’s hearing on the defendant’s motion, the court found that although there was reasonable suspicion of DUI, the defendant did not voluntarily consent to the field sobriety exercises. Consequently, the court granted the motion to suppress the evidence. The state appealed. Continue Reading ›

Florida Court Discusses Crimes Requiring Sex Offender Registration

Posted In: April 28, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

In Florida, people convicted of sex crimes generally are required to register as sex offenders; if they fail to, they may face additional charges. Notably, people can be required to register as sex offenders if they are convicted of sexual offenses that require registration in other states. Recently, a Florida court examined what constitutes an offense requiring registration in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for failing to register. If you are accused of a sex crime, it is important to meet with a Tampa sex crime defense attorney to assess your options for protecting your interests.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with failing to register as a sex offender. The defendant moved for acquittal, but his motion was denied. A jury subsequently found him guilty as charged. The defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was required to register as a sex offender.

Crimes Requiring Sex Offender Registration

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained that to establish culpability for failing to register as a sex offender, the State was required to demonstrate that the defendant was convicted of a sexual offense that required registration. In order to meet this burden, the State offered evidence at trial that the defendant was found guilty of oral copulation with the use of force in California. Continue Reading ›

Court Examines Florida’s Unanimous Verdict Requirement in Criminal Matters

Posted In: April 27, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

Under Florida’s constitution, criminal convictions require a unanimous verdict. This means, in part, that jurors must be in complete agreement that the prosecution has established each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is ambiguity regarding the unanimity of a verdict, a defendant may be able to argue that it should be vacated. Recently, a Florida court discussed what evidence a defendant must offer to prove a verdict was not unanimous in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for resisting an officer. If you are charged with a crime in Tampa, it is wise to speak to a Tampa criminal defense attorney to determine your potential defenses.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was involved in an altercation at a bar, after which he spoke with police officers. He was taken to a hospital; when police arrived at the hospital, they found that the defendant had absconded. An officer found him lying on the ground down the road. The defendant and officer’s accounts of what transpired vary, but the defendant was ultimately charged with two counts of resisting an officer without violence. A jury found him guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced to one year for each count. He then appealed.

Court Discusses Sentence Variances in Florida Criminal Cases

Posted In: March 31, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

At both the state and federal levels, sentencing guidelines set forth what constitutes an appropriate sentence for certain offenses. The courts are not bound by the guidelines, though, and can issue a sentence that is greater or lesser than that suggested. In doing so, the court must abide by certain procedural rules, and if it fails to, the defendant may have grounds for challenging the sentence. Recently, a Florida court examined whether a court violated a defendant’s rights in issuing a sentence that represented an upward variance for a gun crime, ultimately determining that it did not. If you are accused of unlawfully possessing a weapon, it is in your best interest to meet with a Tampa weapons crime defense attorney to discuss your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty, after which he was sentenced to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. Although his advisory guidelines range was calculated as 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment, the court sentenced him to 50 months. The defendant appealed.

Sentence Variances in Florida Criminal Cases

On appeal, the defendant argued that his sentence constituted an upward departure rather than an upward variance. The court disagreed, however, ruling that the defendant’s sentence was an upward variance based on the trial court’s stated reasons for imposing it. Specifically, the court found that the trial court did not refer to a departure provision and that the grounds the trial court gave for the sentence were based on the factors outlined in the imposition of a sentence law. Thus, the court declined to adopt the defendant’s arguments that the trial court erred in failing to comply with established procedures for imposing an upward departure. Continue Reading ›

Florida Court Discusses the Right to Consult with Standby Counsel

Posted In: March 23, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

Under State and Federal law, people have the right to represent themselves in criminal trials. Self-representation is not a venture that should be entered into lightly, however, as few non-attorneys possess the skills and legal knowledge needed to mount a compelling defense on their own behalf. While a pro se defendant may intend to consult with an attorney waiting in the wings, they do not have the constitutional right to do so, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in which the court denied the defendant’s appeal following his assault conviction. If you are charged with assault and battery, it is wise to meet with a Tampa violent crime defense attorney about your possible defenses as soon as you can.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with battery on a police officer. After the state rested its case, the defendant asked to represent himself for the rest of the trial. The court conducted a Faretta hearing, after which it found that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and freely chose to represent himself despite the risks. During the trial, the defendant repeatedly tried to read from deposition testimony, but the court refused to permit him to do so. The court then asked the defendant if, in light of the fact that he could not read from the deposition transcripts, he still wanted to proceed without an attorney. The defendant responded that he did.

Allegedly, the defendant later asked if the court would allow one of his former lawyers to help him. The judge allowed the defendant to consult his former attorneys to determine whether they should represent him. After that discussion, the defendant chose to represent himself. He was convicted, after which he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Florida Court Explains Statements Permissible in Closing Arguments

Posted In: February 28, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

In Florida criminal matters, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt. While the prosecution can use circumstantial and direct evidence to establish that a defendant committed a crime, it cannot rely on facts not in evidence, as explained by a Florida court in a recent case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. If you are accused of a gun offense, it is smart to speak to a Tampa weapons crime defense attorney about your options for protecting your rights.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the State charged the defendant with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. During the trial, the State presented testimony from a police officer that came in contact with the defendant during an investigation. The officer stated that the defendant told him he had a gun in his possession.

It is alleged that a second officer testified, corroborating the first officer’s report. The defendant testified and denied making the aforementioned statements or possessing a gun. During the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury the defendant was not reliable and implied that the second testifying officer was credible because he had not been convicted of a felony. Defense counsel objected, but the court overruled the objection. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains Crime Classifications Under Florida Law

Posted In: February 18, 2023 | Hanlon Law, PA

In Florida, crimes are classified by degrees, with life felonies carrying the most significant penalties. It is critical that the courts classify criminal offenses accurately because if they fail to do so, it can result in improperly enhanced sentences. The impact of an inaccurate crime classification was demonstrated in an opinion recently delivered by a Florida court in which the court found that the defendant was entitled to an appeal after he was sentenced for a life felony when he was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, which is a first-degree felony. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is critical to retain a Tampa violent crime defense attorney who will fight to protect your interests.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant shot his girlfriend in front of multiple witnesses. In an attempt to hide the shooting, he hired a third party to murder the witnesses, one of whom lived. The defendant was then charged with one count of attempted first-degree murder with a weapon and two counts of first-degree murder with a weapon. The jury convicted him of attempted first-degree murder with a weapon as a principal due to the actions committed by his co-defendant.

It is reported that the jury did not issue a specific finding that the defendant used, displayed, or threatened to use a gun during the commission of the crime, however. Under Florida law, first-degree murder is a first-degree felony, but the trial court entered a judgment listing the offense as a life felony. The defendant then filed a petition for habeas corpus review, arguing that the court incorrectly enhanced his sentence. Continue Reading ›