Criminal prosecutions often raise complex questions about the scope of prosecutorial discretion and the constitutional protections afforded to defendants. One recurring issue involves how courts address double jeopardy concerns when multiple convictions arise from closely related conduct. A recent Florida decision highlights the limits of the State’s authority to dismiss charges after a jury has already rendered its verdict, underscoring the importance of procedural precision in criminal cases. This ruling serves as a critical reminder that even well-intentioned efforts to correct legal errors must comply with established constitutional and procedural rules. If you are charged with a crime, you should consult an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney to protect your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with multiple offenses arising from conduct involving a minor, including traveling to meet a minor and attempted lewd or lascivious battery. The charges proceeded to trial, where a jury evaluated the evidence presented by both parties.

Reportedly, the jury returned guilty verdicts on several counts, including a charge involving the use of a computer to solicit or entice a minor to engage in unlawful activity. Following the verdict, the parties and the trial court recognized that one of the convictions raised a double jeopardy concern because it overlapped with other offenses.

The post Florida Appellate Court Examines Limits of Prosecutorial Authority appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the State charged the defendant with sexual battery of a child based on conduct said to have occurred during two separate incidents in the fall of 2016. The charging document alleged a single count encompassing penetration that could have occurred either anally or vaginally within a defined timeframe.

Reportedly, the State presented testimony from multiple witnesses at trial, including three child witnesses. The primary victim testified that one incident involved anal penetration at the defendant’s home and that a later incident involved vaginal penetration. Two additional child witnesses testified to similar conduct occurring at the same location and described comparable statements made by the defendant when they told him to stop.

It is alleged that the State also introduced recorded jail calls made by the defendant while incarcerated. During these calls, the defendant repeatedly apologized to family members and others, stated that he had “messed up,” and expressed remorse. The defendant did not deny the allegations during these conversations.

It is reported that the defense presented one witness who testified about perceived changes in the alleged victims’ demeanor prior to the accusations. Defense counsel argued that the accusations were fabricated and framed the defense theory as a coordinated witch hunt against the defendant.

Reportedly, during closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury that unanimity was not required as to whether the penetration was anal or vaginal so long as the jurors believed the State proved the charged offense. Defense counsel did not object to this statement, and the jury received a general verdict form. The jury found the defendant guilty, and the trial court imposed a lengthy prison sentence. After the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, the defendant sought postconviction relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Grounds for Vacating a Conviction

On appeal, the court reviewed the postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo while accepting its factual findings if supported by competent evidence. The central issue was whether trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument and the use of a general verdict form prejudiced the defense under the standard established in Strickland v. Washington.

The court explained that postconviction prejudice requires a showing of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different. This standard focuses on the reliability of the verdict, not on whether an unpreserved error might qualify as fundamental error on direct appeal. The court emphasized that these are distinct legal doctrines serving different purposes.

Applying the correct standard, the court concluded that the postconviction court improperly relied on fundamental error principles when assessing prejudice. The court found no reasonable probability of a different outcome given the trial record. The jury was repeatedly instructed that attorneys’ arguments were not evidence and that any verdict must be unanimous. Courts presume jurors follow these instructions.

The court further emphasized the strength of the evidence presented at trial. Three child witnesses provided consistent accounts of sexual misconduct, and the defendant’s own recorded statements included repeated admissions of wrongdoing and expressions of remorse without any denial of the conduct. The defense theory required the jury to believe that all allegations were fabricated, making it unlikely that jurors selectively believed only one incident while rejecting another.

Because the defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel’s alleged deficiencies actually undermined confidence in the verdict, the appellate court held that the prejudice prong of Strickland was not satisfied. The court therefore reversed the order granting postconviction relief and remanded with instructions to reinstate the conviction and sentence.

Consult a Trusted Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Postconviction proceedings require a detailed understanding of trial records, the criminal process and constitutional law. Whether you are defending against serious criminal charges or evaluating potential postconviction remedies, it is essential to retain a skilled attorney. The trusted Tampa criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law represent clients throughout the Tampa area in complex felony, appellate, and postconviction cases, and if you hire us, we will advocate tirelessly on your behalf. To discuss your situation, contact us at 813-228-7095 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Explians Grounds for Vacating Convictions appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with grand theft auto. Before trial, the court appointed an expert to evaluate the defendant’s competence to proceed. This appointment was made after reasonable concerns were raised regarding the defendant’s mental condition. The record showed that the trial court had sufficient grounds to question whether the defendant fully understood the proceedings or could adequately assist in his defense.

It is alleged that despite appointing an expert, the trial court did not make an independent determination of the defendant’s competence before allowing the case to move forward. The case proceeded to trial, and the defendant was convicted and sentenced for grand theft auto. Following his conviction, the defendant argued that the trial court’s failure to make a required finding on his competency constituted fundamental error.

Review of Competency Determinations

On appeal, the court reviewed whether the trial court’s omission required reversal. In doing so, the court emphasized that when reasonable grounds exist to question a defendant’s competency, the trial court must make its own finding, independent of expert evaluations, before proceeding. This rule stems from both constitutional due process requirements and Florida precedent, including Carnley v. State, where the appellate court clarified that failing to make such a determination constitutes fundamental error.

Ultimately, the court concluded the trial court had ample basis to question the defendant’s competency, as reflected in the record, but did not fulfill its legal obligation to make an independent ruling. Because the law views this failure as a fundamental error, reversal was required.

Ultimately, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case. The court directed the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency determination, which means the court must assess whether the defendant was competent at the time of trial. If such a determination cannot be made reliably, the trial court must grant the defendant a new trial.

Confer with a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Competency issues arise more often than many defendants realize, particularly when mental health concerns intersect with serious criminal charges. Florida law provides clear protections to ensure that no defendant is tried or convicted while incompetent, but these protections must be properly invoked and enforced. If you are facing prosecution and questions of competency or mental health are involved, the assertive Tampa criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are ready to fight for your rights. Call our Tampa office today at 813-228-7095 or complete our online contact form to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Reverses Conviction in Competency Determination Case appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

The post Florida Court Discusses Armed Career Criminal Act Designations appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

It is alleged that the defendant objected to the trial court’s consideration of the later convictions, arguing that a de novo resentencing should be limited to factors present at the time of the primary offense. The defendant’s counsel highlighted mitigating factors, including his age at the time of the offense and the lack of physical injuries to the robbery victims. Despite agreeing that a life sentence would be disproportionate if based solely on the primary offense, the trial court ultimately imposed concurrent life sentences, specifically referencing the defendant’s 2016 convictions related to the attempted killing of a witness. The defendant appealed.

Factors Considered in Sentencing

The court undertook a de novo review to assess whether the trial court erred in considering the subsequent convictions. A Florida Supreme Court case that barred trial courts from considering subsequent arrests without convictions when sentencing a defendant for a primary offense weighed heavily in the court’s decision. However, the court distinguished the present case from the prior case, noting that the defendant’s subsequent crimes resulted in convictions, not mere arrests.

The court also referenced other decisions that upheld a sentencing court’s authority to consider prior convictions, even when the conduct occurred after the primary offense, as long as those convictions occurred before resentencing. The court underscored that convictions, unlike arrests, are based on findings beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, do not pose the same due process concerns.

Additionally, the court cited Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code, which prioritizes punishment but allows rehabilitation to be considered a secondary goal. The judges affirmed that evidence of a defendant’s later criminal conduct may be relevant to assessing the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, particularly where the conduct directly undermines efforts to seek leniency. Here, the court found it especially relevant that the subsequent convictions involved an attempt to intimidate a witness in the case where the defendant was being resentenced.

Ultimately, the panel concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in considering the defendant’s subsequent convictions. The court affirmed the life sentences imposed on resentencing, emphasizing that Florida case law did not create a categorical bar against such consideration and that the trial judge had clearly articulated the reasons for relying on the later convictions.

Contact a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer

Sentencing and resentencing proceedings can carry serious consequences, especially when courts weigh the full scope of a defendant’s conduct. If you are facing criminal charges, an appeal, or resentencing, it is crucial to work with legal counsel who understands how courts determine sentences. At Hanlon Law, our experienced Tampa criminal defense attorneys can advise you of your rights and help you to seek a favorable outcome. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us at 813.228.7095 or complete our online form.

The post Florida Court Examines Factors Considered in Sentencing appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant had a history of multiple post-conviction motions dating back to 1993 when he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, burglary with assault, and arson, receiving consecutive sentences totaling sixty years in prison. Over the years, he filed numerous post-conviction motions, with this case being just one among many. Despite previous warnings from the court about the consequences of filing further meritless pro se cases, the defendant continued to submit additional filings.

Allegedly, the defendant, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the court. The court denied his petition and issued an order to show cause why the defendant should not be prohibited from making further self-represented filings related to a specific lower tribunal case number. Despite being given forty-five days to respond, the defendant did not file a response.

The Right to File Pro Se Motions

The court issued an order barring the defendant from filing additional pleadings pro-se. In doing so, the court emphasized that while incarcerated individuals have a constitutional right to challenge the legal basis for their incarceration, this right can be forfeited if it is abused through repetitive and meritless filings.

In this case, despite being given an opportunity to respond, the defendant failed to show good cause for further self-represented filings related to the specified lower tribunal case number. Therefore, the court decided to prohibit the defendant from submitting any more filings related to that case number unless they were reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney.

The court warned the defendant that any unauthorized filings would result in sanctions, including potential disciplinary action by the Florida Department of Corrections, such as forfeiture of gain time. Ultimately, the court issued the order to prohibit further filings, aiming to balance the defendant’s access to courts with the court’s need to allocate its resources to legitimate appeals and petitions.

Talk to a Dedicated Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

People convicted of crimes often have grounds for pursuing appeals, but the criminal process can be difficult to navigate without the assistance of an attorney. If you are charged with a crime and want to understand your rights, it is wise to talk to a lawyer. The dedicated Tampa criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law inform you of your options and help you to seek the best outcome possible. You can contact Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to arrange a consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses Right to File Pro Se Motions in Criminal Proceedings appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

The post Court Examines Florida’s Unanimous Verdict Requirement in Criminal Matters appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was driving his car along a Florida highway and had one passenger in his vehicle. He struck another car, resulting in the sudden death of the driver. Additionally, the impact caused the second vehicle to crash into a third vehicle that was occupied by a passenger and a driver. The two people in the third vehicle and the defendant’s passenger all suffered injuries. The defendant left the scene of the accident, however, without trying to render aid to any of the injured parties.

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous crimes arising out of the accident, including one count of leaving the scene of an accident that involved death, and three counts of leaving the scene of an accident involving injury. A jury convicted him as charged, after which he appealed, arguing that his convictions violated double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy Violations

On appeal, the court noted that even though the defendant had not preserved his claim that a double jeopardy violation occurred, such a violation is considered a fundamental error. Therefore, it can be raised for the first time on appeal. The court went on to explain that the act of leaving the scene of a car accident permits only a solitary conviction, even if the accident caused harm to multiple people and the death of a person. In other words, the conduct involves a single episode of departing from the scene, despite the fact that the collision involved numerous cars and victims.

The court explained that when a defendant’s multiple convictions violate double jeopardy, the proper solution is to vacate any convictions for lesser offenses and affirm the conviction for the greater offense. Here, the defendant’s convictions for leaving the scene of an accident involving injury were lesser offenses of leaving the scene of an accident involving death. As such, the court vacated his convictions based on the lesser charges.

Meet with an Experienced Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

There are many protections afforded criminal defendants by the State and Federal constitutions, including the right to not be tried or convicted more than once for a single crime. If you are accused of a criminal offense, it is smart to meet with an attorney to examine your rights.  The experienced Tampa criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law possess the skills and experience needed to help you seek a favorable outcome, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Double Jeopardy Violations appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The Facts of the Case

According to reports, the defendant was found guilty of possessing child pornography. He was sentenced to pay $10,000 in compensation to the victim of his crime after his conviction. He filed an appeal, claiming that the amount of compensation awarded did not accurately reflect his role in the victim’s injury, and requesting a new hearing on the restitution decision. The defendant’s request was denied by the appellate court, which upheld the lower court’s decision.

The post Florida Court Discusses Restitution in Criminal Matters appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Can the Police Force You to Turn Over Your Phone and Online Records?

Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 12 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, people have the right to be free from searches and seizures that are unreasonable. The courts have interpreted these provisions to mean, in part, that the police generally cannot conduct a search or take someone’s property without a warrant. In other words, they typically are not permitted to force people to hand over their phones or allow the police to search their computer records unless the police have a valid warrant.

Further, under Florida law, the police must demonstrate probable cause to obtain a warrant to conduct a search. This means that they must show that when presented with the information in the officer’s possession, a reasonable person would determine that a crime has been committed and that the individual the warrant pertains to committed the offense. Put another way, a police officer must offer factual evidence indicating he or she harbors a rational belief the defendant broke the law.

How to Protect Your Rights

If the police asked you to turn over your phone or online records without a warrant, you have the right to say no. It is prudent in such instances to seek the assistance of a lawyer, to help you understand and protect your rights. Even if the police present you with a warrant, it is advisable to retain an attorney, as there may be grounds for arguing the warrant is unlawful. Further, even if the police have a warrant, they cannot exceed the scope of the warrant in conducting their search. In other words, if the warrant states the police can search a person’s vehicle, an officer cannot use that as a basis to compel the production of a phone.

Speak to a Trusted Criminal Defense Attorney in Tampa

The police generally need a warrant to access a person’s property or records, and if they conduct a search without a warrant, it may constitute grounds for arguing that the search is unlawful and any evidence obtained from it should be precluded. If you are being investigated for a crime, it is important to understand your rights during the criminal process, and you should speak to an attorney as soon as possible. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a trusted Tampa criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your potential defenses and help you to seek the best outcome possible in your case. You can contact Mr. Hanlon via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Can the Police Force You to Turn Over Your Phone and Online Records? appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.