Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the State charged the defendant with burglary of an occupied dwelling with assault and was subsequently convicted of the lesser included offense of burglary of an occupied dwelling. He moved for acquittal prior to the verdict, but the trial court denied his motion.

Allegedly, the defendant subsequently filed an appeal, raising three arguments: first, that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, asserting that the State had not presented sufficient evidence of intent to commit an offense upon entry into the victim’s home; second, that he was entitled to a twelve-person jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and third, that the trial court erred in not granting his motion to correct a sentencing error regarding the imposition of a public defender fee.

Grounds for Reversing Convictions

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction but reversed the sentence in part. Regarding the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, the court found that the evidence presented by the State, including testimony from the victim of the alleged crime, testimony, was sufficient to support the conviction for burglary. As such, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Concerning the request for a twelve-person jury, the court noted it previously rejected similar arguments and had no basis for disturbing its precedent.

However, the court found merit in the defendant’s argument regarding the sentencing error. Specifically, the court explained that the defendant had not been given notice of, or the opportunity to contest, the imposition of a $5,000 public defender fee exceeding the statutory minimum. The court determined that the circuit court had erred in not addressing this issue properly. Therefore, the court reversed the sentencing judgment to the extent that it imposed the $5,000 fee and remanded the case for the trial court to correct this error.

Confer with a Skilled Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Burglary, and other theft offenses, carry substantial penalties, but there are often multiple defenses people charged with such crimes can assert to avoid convictions. If you are charged with burglary or any other crime, it is wise to confer with an attorney as soon as possible. The skilled Tampa theft crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can assess the circumstances surrounding your charges and aid you in seeking the best legal result possible under the facts of your case. You can reach Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to arrange a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Reversing Convictions appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Typically, jurors possess only a vague understanding of what acts constitute a particular crime. Thus, in Florida criminal cases, the court will provide the jury with instructions regarding what factual elements the State must prove in order for the defendant to be found guilty. If a court fails to properly instruct a jury, though, the defendant may be unjustly convicted and may have grounds to seek a reversal of the conviction via an appeal. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant was charged with burglary, and the court failed to provide the jury with the standard instruction for that offense. If you are accused of burglary or any other theft crime, it is advisable to meet with a knowledgeable Tampa theft crime defense attorney to evaluate what defenses you may be able to assert.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that a woman who was in the process of moving took several trips through her home and out to her car during the day. On one of her trips, she noticed the defendant standing in her kitchen in front of an open drawer that previously had been closed. The defendant stated he needed help and gave a rambling speech that lasted close to an hour, after which he left. The woman called the police, and the defendant was arrested and charged with burglary.

It is alleged that at the trial of the matter, defense counsel requested that the court provide the jury with the standard instruction regarding a burglary. The trial judge declined to do so, however, due to his belief that the instruction did not make sense. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to provide the jury with the standard instruction.

The Importance of Jury Instructions in Criminal Trials

Under Florida law, standard jury instructions are presumed to be correct and are favored over special instructions. A court does have some discretion as to whether to use a special or standard instruction, especially if the standard instruction is not appropriate or suffers from another issue. If a court modifies a standard instruction, though, it must state either in a separate order or on the record the manner in which the standard instruction was inadequate or incorrect and the legal grounds for varying from the standard instruction. The appellate court explained that this step was necessary pursuant to Florida law.

Here, the appellate court found that the trial court’s instruction, which omitted a key element of the offense, was incorrect and insufficient. Further, the court failed to comply with the procedural requirements by not explaining the reason for the deviation. As such, the defendant’s conviction was reversed.

Discuss Your Charges with a Seasoned Tampa Attorney

When a criminal defendant is charged with burglary or any other crime, the State must prove each element of the crime to obtain a conviction, and if it cannot, the defendant should be found not guilty. If you are accused of a theft crime, it is critical to retain an attorney who will fight tirelessly on your behalf. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned theft crime defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and help you formulate compelling defenses. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted via the online form or at 813-228-7095 to schedule a meeting.

The post Florida Court Explains the Importance of Jury Instructions in Criminal Trials appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

For example, a Florida Court of appeals recently ruled that actual possession of a gun is not required for a court to impose a mandatory firearm enhancement sentence on a minor defendant who entered a plea for an armed burglary charge.  If you are a minor resident of Tampa facing criminal charges, you should consult with a Tampa criminal defense attorney to discuss whether entering a plea agreement may be appropriate in your case.

Factual Background

Reportedly, a witness saw four males trying to open a car in a parking lot. She contacted the police, who responded and ultimately detained the defendant. The officers became aware that a gun had been taken from a car burglarized by one of the four males. The minor defendant advised the officer that he knew where the gun was, and proceeded to lead the officers to the gun. A second male who was detained told the officers that a third male handed him the gun and he did it in a bush. None of the men indicated who removed the gun from the car.

The minor defendant was charged with armed burglary of a conveyance, grand theft of a firearm, burglary of a conveyance and resisting without violence. The minor defendant entered a plea on all of his charges. At the hearing, the state advised a mandatory 15-day detention was required pursuant to section 790.22(9)(a), since it was a firearm case. The minor defendant’s attorney argued that the 15-day enhancement should not be imposed since the minor defendant never had possession of the gun. The court ultimately agreed that the minor defendant should not face the enhancement and declined to impose the 15-day detention. The state appealed.

Mandatory Detention in Firearm Cases

The issue on appeal was whether the minor defendant actually had to possess the firearm for the enhancement to be imposed. The court noted that section 790.22(9)(a) requires a mandatory sentence of 15 days in a detention center for any minor found to have committed an offense involving a firearm. The court found that the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous, and did not require the actual use or possession of a firearm. Rather, the court held that the statute only required a defendant to commit a crime that involved the use or possession of a firearm. In other words, the focus was not on a defendant’s specific actions but on the category of the crime. Here, the minor defendant was charged with armed burglary which by definition requires the offender to arm himself with a dangerous weapon. Therefore, the court found that the trial court erred in failing to impose the 15-day sentence required by section 790.22(9)(a). As such, they reversed the sentence and remanded with instructions.

Consult a Seasoned Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are a juvenile Tampa resident who is charged with a crime, it is in your best interest to consult a seasoned criminal defense attorney to analyze the facts of your case and determine the potential sentences for the charges you face. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a proficient Tampa criminal defense attorney who can help you develop an appropriate defense. Contact our offices at 813-228-7095 or via the online form to set up a consultation.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Court of Appeals Overturns Conviction After Defendant’s Attorney Does Not Comply with the Defendant’s Wishes to Withdraw his Plea December 12, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

Florida Court of Appeals Reverses Conviction for Resisting an Officer Without Violence  November 27, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

Appeals Court Upholds Reduction of Sentence for Florida Defendant October 15, 2017, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Florida Court Holds Actual Possession of a Gun is Not Needed to Impose a Firearm Sentence Enhancement appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

During closing arguments, a prosecutor told the jury that it was required to find the defendant guilty of the charge, even if they believed his version of the events. That’s because, according to the prosecutor, the defendant was committing the crime of resisting a police officer when he entered the dwelling. The prosecutor also said that the defendant’s demeanor when he testified clearly showed that he was guilty.

“He’s being accused of armed burglary of a dwelling,” the prosecutor said. “He should be yelling, screaming `I didn’t do this.’ He should be yelling and screaming. Yet, he was stuttering over his words. He couldn’t even get his story out.”

The defendant was convicted on all three charges. He later appealed that decision, arguing that the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments were improper. The Fifth District agreed.

The court said the prosecutor inaccurately described the law when he told the jury that the defendant admitted to committing the crime of resisting a police officer when he entered the dwelling. The court explained that Florida law makes it a crime to willfully flee or attempt to elude “a law enforcement officer in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle, with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle, with siren and lights activated.” State law also makes it a crime to resist an officer “in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty.” In this case, however, the court said there was no evidence showing that an officer had his siren or lights activated when the defendant entered the house. There was also no evidence that an officer had attempted to detain or arrest the defendant, according to the court.

The appeals court also said it wasn’t appropriate to try to force the defendant to prove his innocence through his demeanor on the witness stand. The burden in any criminal case is at all times on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged with the crime actually committed it.

As a result, the court overturned the defendant’s conviction.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced attorney. Tampa burglary 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.

More Posts:

Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Florida Criminal Cases

Constructive Possession in Florida Gun Crime Cases

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

The post Prosecutor’s Jury Statements Sink Florida Burglary Conviction appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.