Armed Robbery Category Archives — Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog Published by Tampa Criminal Attorney — Hanlon Law

Court Analyzes Upward Variances in Florida Criminal Sentences

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 23 Sep 2024 20:08:21 +0000

In Florida, the courts generally rely on sentencing guidelines when determining appropriate penalties in criminal cases. The courts can deviate from the guidelines, though, if they determine that doing so is necessary under the circumstances. Recently, a Florida court discussed the grounds for issuing an upward variance sentence in a robbery case in which the defendant appealed his sentence. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is smart to meet with a Tampa violent crime defense lawyer to determine your options for seeking a favorable result.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with attempted Hobbs Act robbery and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence following an incident where, after accepting a ride from a driver, he attempted to rob the driver at gunpoint. A struggle ensued, and the defendant shot at the driver’s car as the driver fled, but no one was injured. The defendant pleaded guilty to the robbery charge, while the firearm charge was dismissed. The Presentence Report (PSR) calculated the defendant’s total offense level as 24 and assigned four criminal history points based on prior convictions, placing him in Criminal History Category (CHC) III, which resulted in a sentencing guidelines range of 63 to 78 months.

Allegedly, the government sought an upward variance due to the defendant’s escalating criminal behavior, while the defense requested a sentence within the guideline range. The district court sentenced the defendant to 120 months imprisonment, significantly above the guideline range, and three years of supervised release. The defendant appealed, challenging the calculation of his criminal history category.

Upward Variances in Florida Criminal Sentences

On appeal, the court first reviewed whether the district court committed a plain error in calculating the defendant’s criminal history. It found that the district court erred in assigning four criminal history points because the defendant’s prior convictions, where adjudication was withheld, should have only resulted in two points. This error placed him in CHC III instead of CHC II, which would have lowered the guidelines range to 57 to 71 months.

However, the court concluded that this error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because the district court had imposed a sentence significantly higher than any possible guidelines range. The court emphasized that the sentencing judge found the defendant’s criminal history underrepresented and noted the seriousness of the offense.

The court also reviewed the sentence’s procedural and substantive reasonableness, determining that, although the guidelines range was miscalculated, the district court acted within its discretion by imposing a sentence far below the statutory maximum of 20 years. Given the defendant’s criminal history and the facts of the case, the appellate court held that the 120-month sentence was reasonable and affirmed the district court’s decision.

Meet with a Trusted Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you are charged with robbery or another violent crime, it is critical to understand your options, and you should meet with an attorney as soon as possible. The trusted Tampa violent crime defense lawyers at Hanlon Law can evaluate your charges and help you determine the best manner to proceed in pursuit of your desired outcome. You can reach Hanlon Law using our online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to arrange a conference.

The post Court Analyzes Upward Variances in Florida Criminal Sentences appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Granting Compassionate Release

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 01 Feb 2023 01:44:57 +0000

People incarcerated in federal prisons typically have to serve the entirety of their sentences unless they are eligible for parole or get credit for good behavior. In some instances, though, federal prisoners may be able to obtain a compassionate release. Only reasons enumerated by statute qualify for release, however, as explained in a recent Florida case in which the court denied the request for compassionate release of a defendant convicted of robbery. If you are accused of robbery or another theft crime, it is prudent to consult a Tampa theft offense defense attorney to determine what measures you can take to protect your rights.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was convicted of numerous robbery-related crimes and sentenced to 270 months in federal prison. In addition to his robbery offenses, he had previously been arrested for several other crimes. He subsequently filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to federal law on the grounds that he had multiple medical conditions and was exposed to an increased risk of COVID-19.

It is reported that the government opposed the defendant’s motion, noting that the defendant’s claimed conditions did not qualify as one of the medical conditions set forth in the statutory guidelines that constitute grounds for granting compassionate release. The court agreed with the government’s reasoning and denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant then appealed.

Grounds for Granting Compassionate Release

On appeal, the defendant argued that the court erred in ruling that it could not consider reasons for granting compassionate release other than those listed in the statutory guidelines. The court ultimately disagreed and affirmed the trial court ruling. In doing so, the court explained that a term of imprisonment might be reduced if the factors considered when imposing a sentence weigh in favor of the release, there are compelling and extraordinary reasons for granting the request, and granting the request would not endanger any community or individual.

The court clarified that all of these conditions must be met; if they are not, a court cannot grant a request for compassionate release. In the subject case, the trial court expressly noted that the relevant sentencing factors weighed against granting the defendant’s request. Further, his criminal history and the need to deter him from committing crimes weighed heavily against him.

The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court should consider factors outside of those listed in the guidelines, noting there was no basis for his assertion. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s appeal.

Discuss your Charges with a Capable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

People accused of theft offenses may fear that the odds are stacked against them, but in many instances, the government lacks sufficient evidence to support a conviction. If you are charged with a theft crime, like robbery, it is in your best interest to discuss your charges with an attorney. The capable Tampa lawyers of Hanlon Law are proficient at helping people seek favorable verdicts in criminal proceedings, and if you hire us, we will diligently pursue the best outcome available. 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 Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Granting Compassionate Release appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:26:09 +0000

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.

The post Florida Court Rules Dual Carjacking and Grand Theft Auto Convictions Violate Double Jeopardy appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 22:38:43 +0000

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.

“The evidence that the object [D.D.] used in the robberies was, if not a firearm, a BB gun replica of a firearm—which [D.D.’s] juries clearly found to be a weapon—is sufficient to sustain convictions for robbery with a weapon,” the court said.

The court also distinguished D.D.’s case from recent decisions out of other Florida appeals courts in which various other defendants were found not to have possessed the firearm used in a carjacking and a robbery, respectively. In those two cases, the jury found affirmatively that the defendants did not use the firearms in question. In D.D.’s case, the question was whether he used a firearm or a BB gun, rather than whether he had used a weapon at all.

As a result, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed D.D.’s conviction for robbery with a weapon.

As this case shows, a number of complicated legal issues often come up in Florida criminal cases, making it crucial to retain aggressive defense counsel who knows the legal ropes.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a gun or other crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced and caring attorney. Tampa gun crime lawyer Will Hanlon is a seasoned attorney who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of criminal offenses. Call our offices at (813) 228-7095 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.

The Right to a Lawyer in Florida Assault Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:09:00 +0000

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.

Reversing the decision on appeal, the Fourth District said the officers violated the defendant’s Miranda rights by continuing to engage with him after he invoked his right to a lawyer. “An individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation,” the court explained. “If the suspect requests a lawyer, then interrogation must not commence, and if any such interrogation has already begun, then it must immediately stop until a lawyer is present.”

In this case, the court said the defendant made an unequivocal request for an attorney at the start of the interrogation. Although prosecutors claimed that the defendant later changed his mind, the court said the officers had to honor the defendant’s request as soon as it was made. As a result, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a drug or other crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced attorney. Tampa assault defense lawyer Will Hanlon is a seasoned attorney who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of offenses. Call our offices at (813) 228-7095 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.