History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged in a Florida circuit court with attempted aggravated battery arising from an incident involving a firearm. The prosecution asserted that the defendant took overt steps toward committing a violent battery using a deadly weapon but failed to complete the act.

Reportedly, during the trial, the State presented evidence that the defendant possessed a firearm and attempted to use it in a manner capable of causing serious bodily harm. The jury heard testimony suggesting that the weapon malfunctioned, preventing it from firing as intended.

It is alleged that after deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of attempted aggravated battery. At the same time, the jury made a specific factual finding that the defendant possessed a firearm during the offense but did not discharge it.

It is reported that the defendant filed a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial. In his motions, he asserted that the jury’s findings were legally inconsistent. The defendant contended that a conviction for attempted aggravated battery with a firearm could not stand where the jury explicitly found that the firearm was not discharged. The trial court denied both motions.

Reportedly, the defendant appealed the conviction to the Florida District Court of Appeal, asserting that the trial court erred in rejecting the inconsistency argument and allowing the verdict to stand.

Standards Governing Inconsistent Verdict Claims

On appeal, the court reviewed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal and the motion for a new trial under established standards governing inconsistent verdict claims. The court began by reaffirming that Florida law generally permits inconsistent jury verdicts. This rule reflects the reality that juries may exercise leniency, compromise, or mistake without necessarily invalidating a conviction.

The court then explained the narrow exception for “true inconsistent verdicts.” Such verdicts arise only when an acquittal on one count contradicts a necessary element required for conviction on another count. In other words, the inconsistency must be legally irreconcilable, not merely factually confusing.

Applying this framework, the court examined the elements of attempted aggravated battery. To sustain a conviction, the State must prove that the defendant intended to commit aggravated battery, took an overt act toward its commission beyond mere preparation, and failed to complete the offense. The offense may be established if the defendant intended to cause great bodily harm or attempted to use a deadly weapon.

The court emphasized that discharge of a firearm is not a required element of attempted aggravated battery. The critical inquiry is whether the defendant attempted to use a deadly weapon to inflict harm. Evidence that a firearm was pointed or manipulated in an effort to cause injury may satisfy this element, even if the weapon does not fire.

In evaluating the jury’s findings, the court determined that there was no legal inconsistency. The jury’s conclusion that the defendant did not discharge the firearm did not negate any element of the offense. The conviction rested on the attempted use of the weapon, not its successful discharge. The evidence indicating that the firearm malfunctioned supported the conclusion that the defendant took substantial steps toward committing the offense but failed to complete it.

Because the defendant raised no additional challenges to the sufficiency or weight of the evidence, the court affirmed the conviction in full.

Meet with a Trusted Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are charged with battery or another violent offense, it is critical to understand how Florida courts interpret the law, and you should talk to an attorney. The trusted Tampa violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are well-versed in trial defense and can assess whether the evidence and jury findings in your case support a viable challenge. Contact the firm online or call 813-228-7095 to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Explains Standards Governing Inconsistent Verdict Claims appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Procedural History and Factual Background

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in Miami-Dade County of sexual battery involving a victim under the age of twelve, and that his conviction became final several years prior to 2023. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief through multiple prior motions, the defendant filed a successive motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing that a 2023 legislative amendment to Florida Statutes § 794.011(2)(a) entitled him to relief. Specifically, the defendant relied on an October 2023 statutory change that reclassified certain sexual battery offenses as capital crimes and altered jury and procedural requirements.

The post Florida Court Examinew Retroactivity and Postconviction Relief in Sexual Battery Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the State charged the defendant with aggravated battery on February 10, 2021. The charge stemmed from a December 26, 2020, incident where the appellant’s girlfriend informed law enforcement that, during an argument, the defendant physically assaulted her. She claimed he threw her to the ground, placed his knee on her neck, covered her nose and mouth, and punched her, resulting in a lost tooth. The girlfriend later recanted her allegations, claiming her injuries were due to a car accident. Despite a no-contact order, the defendant contacted the victim over 4,400 times while awaiting trial, allegedly instructing her on how to recant her statements.

Reportedly, five days before the trial, the State amended the information to include a new charge of witness tampering based on these phone calls. The defendant requested a continuance to investigate the new charge, but the trial court denied the request. The defendant was subsequently convicted on both counts and sentenced to concurrent thirty-year sentences, with a fifteen-year mandatory minimum on the aggravated battery charge.

Grounds for Granting a Continuance in a Criminal Case

On appeal, the court evaluated the trial court’s denial of the continuance request, considering whether the appellant had enough time to prepare for the new witness tampering charge. The court emphasized that the new charge, introduced just five days before trial, involved extensive evidence, including over 4,400 phone calls.

Given the complexity of the new charge and the lack of adequate time to prepare a defense, the court found that the appellant was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance. The court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance request, vacating the conviction and sentence for witness tampering, and remanding for a new trial on that charge. The conviction for aggravated battery was affirmed without further comment. The case was remanded for resentencing based on a corrected scoresheet.

Speak to an Experienced Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you are charged with battery or any other violent offense, it is smart to speak to an attorney to gain a better understanding of your rights. The experienced Tampa violent crime defense lawyers at Hanlon Law understand what it takes to achieve favorable outcomes in criminal cases, and if you engage our services, we will fight tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law using our online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to arrange a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for a Continuance in a Criminal Case appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural Overview

It is reported that the defendant faced charges of high-speed or wanton fleeing, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon on law enforcement officers, and resisting officers without violence. His charges stemmed from a single incident in which he was involved in a car chase and reportedly rammed his truck into sheriff’s deputy vehicles. During the trial, conflicting evidence arose regarding whether the defendant’s vehicle hit the deputies’ cars or vice versa. The jury found him guilty of attempted aggravated battery and acquitted him of the principal offense of aggravated battery.

Allegedly, following the defendant’s conviction, the trial court sentenced him to prison and ordered restitution of $8,018.85 for the property damage inflicted on the sheriff’s vehicles. Although the defendant did not object to the restitution order during sentencing, he later contested it in a motion, asserting that he was acquitted of the charge forming the basis of the restitution. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Restitution in Attempted Aggravated Battery Cases

On appeal, the crux of the defendant’s argument lay in the premise that his conviction for attempted aggravated battery, rather than aggravated battery, demonstrated that the jury did not find that he had actually rammed the deputies’ vehicles. Therefore, he contended that the restitution order could not be based on conduct for which he was acquitted.

The court analyzed the difference between the two offenses—aggravated battery and attempted aggravated battery, noting that attempted aggravated battery could involve striking a vehicle without injuring or connecting with the person inside it. As such, the court found that the jury’s decision to convict the defendant of the lesser included offense did not necessarily mean they found he did not damage the deputies’ vehicles. Accordingly, the court found that the restitution order could be supported by the conviction for attempted aggravated battery.

The defendant also argued that restitution was improper because the sheriff’s office was not a “direct victim” under Florida’s restitution statute. The statute defined “victim” to include governmental entities when they are direct victims of the defendant’s offense. The defendant pointed out that he was acquitted of the principal offense related to the battery on officers.

Upon examining the amended statute, the court concluded that the sheriff’s office qualified as a direct victim. The office’s vehicles were directly damaged by the defendant’s conduct, and the statute encompassed such circumstances. Moreover, damage to law enforcement vehicles was deemed restitution-worthy by courts in other jurisdictions as it was not a typical cost of providing law enforcement services. Thus, the court upheld the restitution order.

Talk to an Assertive Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

People found guilty of battery on law enforcement officers might have to pay fines and restitution in addition to serving time in prison. If you are accused of a battery offense, it is wise to talk to an attorney about your possible defenses. The assertive Tampa criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and set forth compelling arguments in your favor. You can reach Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Court Discusses Restitution in Florida Attempted Aggravated Battery Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts Regarding the Charges and Conviction

The defendant was charged with aggravated battery and aggravated assault. The information alleged that the defendant committed an aggravated battery in the alternative. In other words, it alleged that the defendant used a firearm or knowingly caused great bodily harm in committing the battery. Following a trial, he was convicted of both counts. Regarding the aggravated battery charge, the jury included a special verdict that stated that the defendant possessed and discharged a firearm causing great bodily harm. Similarly, the guilty verdict for the aggravated assault charge contained a special verdict stating the defendant possessed and displayed a firearm in the course of committing the crime. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment for each charge, after which he moved to correct the sentences, arguing they were illegal.

Enhanced Sentences

The post-conviction relief court granted the defendant relief as to the sentence for the assault charge. Thus, the appellate court only addressed whether the sentence for the battery charge was proper. The court noted that if a person is convicted of aggravated battery in which he or she discharged a firearm and as a result of the discharge caused great bodily harm, the person will be sentenced to an enhanced minimum sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment. To pursue an enhanced mandatory sentence due to the use of a firearm, however, the State is required to set forth the grounds for the enhancement in the charging document. The State’s failure to precisely charge the elements cannot be cured by a jury’s findings.

In the subject case, the court noted that the information did not allege that the defendant discharged the firearm, or that the defendant used the firearm to cause bodily harm. As the information was defective in that it omitted a necessary element, the court reversed the defendant’s sentence and remanded with instructions for the ten-year minimum sentence to be imposed.

Speak with a Trusted Tampa Violent Crime Defense Attorney Regarding Your Case

If you live in Tampa and are charged with one or more violent crimes it is in your best interest to speak with a trusted Tampa criminal defense attorney to discuss your case and what defenses you may be able to set forth. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned Tampa violent crimes defense attorney who will aggressively advocate on your behalf to help you seek the best legal result possible under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Hanlon at 813-228-7095 or through the online form to schedule a confidential and free meeting to discuss your case.

The post Florida Court Discusses Requirements for Imposing an Enhanced Sentence appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Although the co-defendant physically committed the battery offense, Florida law criminalizes accomplices to a battery. The State is required to prove that the defendant intended for the battery to occur and did some act or said some words that assisted or furthered the battery.

The court of appeals found the evidence at trial to be sufficient. It was possible that both defendants created the cannabis sale as a ruse to commit another crime. The defendant also acted as a distraction so that the co-defendant had time to retrieve his firearm from his pants and shoot one of the victims. It appeared as though it were a pre-planned, coordinated effort in which the defendant intended to participate.

The post Florida Appeals Court Affirms Aggravated Battery Conviction but Overturns Conspiracy to Deliver Cannabis Conviction appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Late at night, the defendant arrived at a South Beach bar and began harassing a female bar patron. After the woman complained about the defendant’s behavior, the bar manager spoke to the defendant, who agreed to stop harassing the female patron. The defendant did not stop, however, and a security guard escorted the defendant outside. The defendant became enraged; he spit in the security guard’s face, stated that he would not leave, and threatened to kill the bar manager and the security guard. The bar manager called law enforcement after the defendant was escorted from the bar. The bar manager then stepped outside and was punched in the head by the defendant. When the punch connected, it knocked the bar manager unconscious. The bar manager fell backwards and hit his head on the ground. Medical expert testimony at trial indicated that the bar manager suffered brain damage as a result of the punch.

The defendant appealed the aggravated battery conviction because he argued that he did not have the requisite intent as required under Florida law. Florida statute section 784.045 provides that “[a] person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery . . . intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.”

The post Aggravated Battery Conviction Upheld for Rowdy Florida Bar Patron appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.