Avvo Rating badge
NACDL badge
Expertise badge
Avvo Rating badge
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Home

Posted In: | By

In serious criminal cases, especially those involving potential capital offenses, the size and composition of the jury can raise important constitutional and statutory questions. Florida law historically permits six-person juries for most felony trials, but capital cases require twelve-person juries under both statutes and procedural rules. In a recent Florida sex crime case in which the defendant challenged the use of a six-person jury the court discussed what steps defendants must take to preserve their right to challenge jury decisions. If you are charged with a serious felony in Florida, a skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney can help you understand your trial rights and advocate on your behalf throughout the legal process.

Case History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with a series of serious sexual offenses that allegedly took place between 2007 and 2019. The charges included multiple counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve, sexual battery on a child between the ages of twelve and eighteen by a person in familial or custodial authority, and lewd or lascivious molestation. The alleged victim was the defendant’s daughter, who testified that the abuse began when she was five years old.

It is alleged that the case proceeded to trial before a six-person jury, consistent with Florida practice for non-capital felonies. The defendant did not object to the jury size or request a twelve-person jury. The jury convicted the defendant on nearly all counts, and the court imposed multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole.

It is further reported that on appeal, the defendant raised two main arguments. First, he argued that his convictions for certain counts violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, as he was charged under a statutory definition of sexual battery that was amended after the alleged offenses occurred. Second, he argued that he was entitled to a twelve-person jury under Florida law and the United States Constitution because he was charged with capital felonies. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In federal firearm and drug cases, defendants often face enhanced penalties if their criminal history includes certain violent or drug-related felonies. The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) imposes mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, and courts regularly review whether a defendant’s past convictions meet the statute’s criteria. A recent Florida decision demonstrates how courts approach challenges to ACCA designations, especially when defendants argue that prior Florida convictions were improperly classified. If you are facing federal sentencing enhancements, a skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney can help you explore ways to challenge the underlying legal findings.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon The district court sentenced the defendant to 216 months in prison after determining that he qualified as an armed career criminal under the ACCA based on three prior Florida convictions: aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and cocaine possession with intent to distribute. The defendant appealed, arguing that each of these prior convictions was improperly used to enhance his sentence under the ACCA.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

When a person is granted a new sentencing hearing, it can feel like a rare second chance, a critical opportunity to seek leniency, highlight mitigating factors, and present a complete picture of personal growth. But resentencing also opens the door for courts to weigh new and potentially damaging information. In a recent Florida case, a defendant learned that subsequent convictions, even those for crimes committed after the original offense, can factor heavily in the trial court’s resentencing decision. If you are preparing for resentencing, it is essential to work with a Miami criminal defense attorney who can help you navigate the risks and opportunities that come with it.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was initially convicted in 2010 of three counts of armed robbery and one count of burglary, all stemming from a 2008 incident. The defendant received consecutive life sentences for the robbery charges and a concurrent life sentence for the burglary conviction. It is further reported that, on appeal, the burglary conviction was reversed, and the trial court later vacated the judgment and sentence for that charge.

Allegedly, in 2020, the defendant filed a motion for resentencing based on a corrected scoresheet that no longer included the vacated burglary conviction. The trial court granted the motion and held a resentencing hearing in July 2022. At this hearing, the State introduced evidence of the defendant’s subsequent convictions from a separate incident that occurred in 2009, after the date of the primary offenses but before the original sentencing. These offenses involved attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder against a witness in the 2008 case. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Federal fraud prosecutions often result in enhanced penalties when the defendant is found to have engaged in additional unlawful conduct, such as obstructing justice or participating in the resale of stolen property. Sentencing enhancements can significantly increase a defendant’s prison term, and attempts to overturn them on appeal are rarely successful unless the trial court clearly misapplied the law. A recent opinion delivered by a Florida court illustrates how federal courts evaluate claims involving sentencing errors and underscores the importance of preserving objections in a timely and thorough manner. If you are facing fraud charges, you should speak with a Tampa fraud crime defense attorney about your rights and legal options.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of wire fraud. The charges stemmed from a scheme to obtain fraudulent titles for stolen vehicles using forged documents submitted to state authorities. The government alleged that the defendant worked with others to exploit vehicle registration systems in order to claim ownership over stolen automobiles. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.

Allegedly, during trial, the defendant testified in his own defense and denied knowingly participating in any fraud. The jury ultimately acquitted him on the conspiracy count but convicted him on both substantive counts of wire fraud. The probation office prepared a presentence investigation report recommending sentencing enhancements, including a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4) for being in the business of receiving and selling stolen property and another two-level increase under § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Federal sentencing laws impose strict limits on the types and lengths of punishment courts may impose, even when the facts of a case are particularly egregious. A recent Florida decision issued in a violent crime case reaffirms the non-waivable nature of statutory maximum penalties and emphasizes the principle that sentencing authority is confined by congressional mandate, as the court vacated a 15-year term of supervised release, finding that the district court exceeded its statutory authority, even though the defendant purportedly “stipulated” to the excessive term. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is smart to speak to a Tampa violent crime defense lawyer about what measures you can take to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant engaged in a violent campaign of crimes against gay men in Miami while on probation. Reportedly, the defendant used a dating app to lure victims under false pretenses. On multiple occasions, the defendant brandished a firearm, forced victims into vehicles, and drove them to banks or stores to withdraw money or buy gift cards. Allegedly, the crimes escalated to physical assault, with one victim being beaten and another shot multiple times. The defendant reportedly made hateful, homophobic statements to his victims and expressed an intent to punish them for their sexual orientation.

It is reported that a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on 17 counts, including carjacking, kidnapping, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and bank robbery. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges without a plea agreement. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida, a DUI arrest must be supported by probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances. While direct observation of driving is often central to this analysis, officers may rely on credible information from civilian witnesses and circumstantial indicators of impairment. This was demonstrated by a recent Florida opinion that reinforced that citizen informants and corroborating evidence can support an arrest, even where the defendant is not caught in the act. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Tampa DUI defense attorney regarding your case.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested following a crash involving a vehicle registered to him that collided with a business located in a shopping plaza. The defendant had driven the vehicle to a bar within the plaza earlier that same evening. After the incident, law enforcement responded to a 911 call placed by the bar manager, who had been alerted to the crash by his security guard.

It is reported that when officers arrived, the defendant’s vehicle had already been moved from the crash site, and the defendant was observed standing nearby with two other individuals. None of the officers witnessed the crash or directly observed the defendant operating the vehicle. However, officers testified that the bar manager identified the defendant as the vehicle’s owner and stated that his security guard had seen the crash. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida criminal matters, a conviction must be based on legally sufficient evidence proving every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, a defendant can challenge their conviction on appeal, as illustrated in a recent Florida decision issued in a weapons crime case where the defendant successfully argued that the State failed to present adequate evidence of an essential element of the charged crime. If you are facing gun crime charges or wish to appeal a conviction, it is smart to confer with a skilled Tampa gun crime defense attorney promptly.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Florida law. Reportedly, during trial, defense counsel stipulated that the defendant was a convicted felon, but the trial court did not conduct a formal colloquy to confirm the defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to require the State to prove that status beyond a reasonable doubt. It is reported that the State failed to introduce either a certified record of the defendant’s prior felony conviction or a formal stipulation into evidence.

It is alleged that following the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict, and the defendant was sentenced to one year of reporting probation. The defendant subsequently appealed the conviction, arguing that the State’s failure to introduce sufficient evidence of his prior felony conviction constituted a fundamental error requiring reversal. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Federal sentencing laws provide mechanisms for defendants to seek reductions in their sentences under specific legal standards. When a defendant requests a sentence reduction, the court must evaluate whether extraordinary and compelling reasons justify such relief and whether the reduction aligns with sentencing guidelines and public safety considerations. A recent Florida case examined these factors when a defendant convicted of numerous violent crimes sought a reduction based on a newly proposed amendment. If you have questions about post-conviction relief, it is smart to consult an experienced Tampa violent crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant pleaded guilty to multiple federal offenses, including conspiracy to commit carjacking, carjacking, brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, conspiracy to commit access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft. Reportedly, the defendant was sentenced to a total of 120 months of imprisonment. The sentencing court considered the defendant’s youth and background but determined that the statutory mandatory minimums applied significantly influencing the overall sentence.

It is reported that the defendant later sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that his age at the time of the offense warranted a downward departure under the newly proposed Amendment 829. Allegedly, the defendant contended that this amendment should be applied retroactively, asserting that his youth at the time of the offense should be grounds for a reduced sentence. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida, people are protected against being convicted more than once for the same offense, as it violates their right against double jeopardy. While in some cases, it is clear that multiple convictions violate double jeopardy, in others, it is less so, as illustrated in a recent Florida ruling involving DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide convictions. If you are charged with a crime, it is smart to speak to an experienced Tampa criminal defense lawyer about what you can do to safeguard your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged and convicted of multiple offenses, including DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide, stemming from a single-car accident that resulted in a fatality. Allegedly, the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol when he lost control of the vehicle, causing a crash that killed his passenger. The State charged the defendant with DUI manslaughter under Florida Statutes § 316.193 and vehicular homicide under § 782.071, among other offenses.

Reportedly, the defendant pled guilty to these charges and received concurrent sentences for the convictions. However, following sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that his trial counsel failed to inform him of a double jeopardy violation arising from convictions for both offenses related to the same death. He also challenged fines, costs, and probation conditions imposed during sentencing, asserting errors in their statutory basis and applicability. Continue Reading ›

By
Posted in: DUI
Posted In:
Updated:

Posted In: | By

In criminal cases involving severe charges, the discretion of trial courts in sentencing and the imposition of probationary conditions often come under scrutiny. A recent Florida opinion examines these issues in the context of a second-degree murder conviction, shedding light on the boundaries of judicial authority. If you are facing criminal charges, it is crucial to consult with an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney to ensure that your rights are upheld throughout the legal process.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with first-degree murder but later pled no contest to second-degree murder with a firearm as part of a plea agreement. The charges stemmed from the defendant’s role in orchestrating the murder of the victim, who was the father of her child. Allegedly, the defendant hired another individual to carry out the murder, which occurred outside the victim’s residence while their child was asleep inside the home.

Reportedly, the plea agreement mandated a minimum sentence of 25 years but allowed the trial court discretion to impose up to a life sentence. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered evidence of the defendant’s role in planning the murder, as well as testimony presented by both the defense and prosecution. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 53 years’ imprisonment followed by probation for life. As part of the probationary conditions, the trial court reportedly included several special conditions, such as prohibiting contact with the victim’s family, requiring completion of parenting classes, and mandating participation in GED or vocational training.

Continue Reading ›