Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

In Florida criminal cases, evidence of prior bad acts is typically excluded to avoid prejudicing the defendant. However, such evidence may be admitted for specific purposes, like demonstrating intent or knowledge. In a recent drug crime case, a Florida court considered the admission of such evidence under Rule 404(b) and ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision to allow evidence of prior bad acts. If you are accused of committing a drug offense, you should consult with a Tampa drug crime defense attorney to evaluate your legal options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was convicted of several charges, including possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The charges arose from a traffic stop and subsequent search of the defendant’s vehicle, during which law enforcement discovered firearms and various drugs.

Reportedly, the prosecution introduced testimony from a witness who claimed the defendant had sold him drugs numerous times before the incident in question. The defendant objected, arguing that the testimony was irrelevant to the current charges and unduly prejudicial. The trial court overruled the objections, finding that the evidence was admissible to establish the defendant’s intent and knowledge. After his conviction, the defendant appealed, challenging the admissibility of the prior bad acts evidence. Continue Reading ›

Pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, people convicted of serious drug offenses may face enhanced penalties if they are later convicted of another crime. There is often a dispute over what constitutes a serious offense, however. Recently, the United States Supreme Court clarified the Armed Career Criminal Act, ultimately adopting a backward-looking approach. If you are accused of a crime and have a history of drug crime convictions, it is advisable to speak to a Tampa drug crime defense attorney about your potential defenses at your earliest convenience.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that in 2016, police officers conducted a warrant-authorized search of the defendant’s home, where they found cocaine, scales, and a loaded firearm. Subsequently, the Middle District of Pennsylvania accepted the defendant’s guilty plea to one count of drug distribution and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in July 2019. The Probation Office recommended sentencing the defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to his five prior convictions: four for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and one for delivering cocaine.

Federal sentencing statutes allow the courts to impose increased penalties for each subsequent conviction for a serious drug offense. It may not always be clear what constitutes a serious drug crime, however. In a recent Florida opinion issued in a drug offense case, the court discussed what constitutes a serious offense before affirming the defendant’s sentence. If you are accused of drug trafficking, it is imperative to meet with a Tampa drug crime defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant entered guilty pleas to charges of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and other offenses. The trial court sentenced the defendant to ninety months in prison to be followed by four years of supervised release. The court, in determining the defendant was an armed career criminal, relied on three prior state law convictions for “serious drug offenses.” Specifically, it looked at his convictions for delivery of cocaine, possession or cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and conspiracy to traffic cocaine. The defendant appealed.

Serious Drug Offenses Under Federal Law

On appeal, the defendant contested the classification of his conviction for conspiracy under state law as a “serious drug offense,” arguing three points challenging the nature of the offense and its federal implications. Continue Reading ›

It is axiomatic that under state and federal law, a person cannot be charged with or convicted for the same crime more than once, as doing so would violate their protections against double jeopardy. Merely because a person is convicted of violating a specific statute more than once does not necessarily mean that their rights have been violated, however, as illustrated in a recent Florida ruling issued in a drug crime case in which the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. If you are faced with accusations that you committed a drug-related crime, it is wise to contact a Tampa drug crime defense lawyer regarding what steps you can take to protect your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in 2016 of four counts related to the possession and distribution of heroin. His PSI categorized him as a career offender based on multiple previous felony convictions for controlled substance crimes, including two convictions for the sale of cocaine in violation of Florida law and one conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of federal law. The defendant objected to these calculations during sentencing, arguing that he was being charged for the same cocaine convictions multiple times, raising a double jeopardy claim.

It is alleged that in the district court affirmed the PSI’s calculations, and his sentence was upheld on direct appeal. In 2022 the defendant filed a Rule 36 motion, contending that his prior state and federal cocaine convictions should be scored as a single offense for the purposes of calculating his criminal history in relation to his 2016 heroin conviction. The trial court denied his motion, which led to the current appeal.

Continue Reading ›

For decades, certain people convicted of certain drug offenses were unjustly punished more harshly than those found guilty of similar crimes. In an effort to rectify such inequities, the United States government enacted the First Step Act, which among other things, reduces the sentencing disparity between similar drug crimes. The Act applies retroactively, meaning many people convicted of covered drug offenses are eligible to have their sentences reduced. In a recent Florida opinion, the court discussed the Act and what constitutes a qualifying offense for purposes of sentence reduction. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is smart to meet with a Tampa drug crime defense attorney to examine your potential defenses as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant moved for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. The court denied his motion, and he appealed. He then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied as well. He filed a second appeal; in response, the government moved for summary affirmance.

Sentence Reductions Under the First Step Act

The court ultimately granted the government’s motion. It noted that summary disposition is appropriate in cases where one party’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law. The court generally reviews de novo whether the district court had the authority to modify a defendant’s sentence under the First Step Act, but the denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Continue Reading ›

Generally, the Government cannot introduce evidence that a person previously was convicted of a crime prove a person’s character to demonstrate that they acted in accordance with that character on a specific occasion. In other words, proof a person committed a crime on a prior occasion cannot be used to establish guilt in a current criminal proceeding. Evidence of other crimes and bad acts can be introduced for other purposes, however. In a recent opinion issued in a drug crime case, a Florida court discussed the grounds for admissibility of evidence of other crimes. If you are charged with a drug offense, you should confer with a Tampa drug crime defense lawyer to discuss what evidence the Government is permitted to use against you.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with multiple drug crimes arising out of his alleged conspiracy to possess methamphetamines. The defendant’s coconspirator pleaded guilty, while the defendant entered a not guilty plea. The Government sought to introduce the defendant’s two prior convictions for possession of controlled substances with the intent to distribute at trial. The defendant moved to preclude the evidence as proof of other crimes, wrongs, and bad acts pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

Admissibility of Other Crime Evidence

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) prohibits parties from using evidence of other acts, crimes, or wrongs to establish a person’s nature and to show that they acted in accord with that nature in a particular instance. Such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, though. Specifically, it can be used to show intent, motive, plan, knowledge, and identity, among other things. Continue Reading ›

In recognition of the fact that certain sentencing guidelines resulted in disparate sentences for similar crimes, the United States legislature passed a set of laws that rendered people convicted of drug crimes involving crack cocaine eligible for reduced sentences. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling, though, mere eligibility is insufficient to demonstrate that such relief should be granted. If you were convicted of a drug offense, you might be eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to recent changes in the law, and it is advisable to speak to a trusted Tampa drug crime defense lawyer about your options.

The Defendant’s Conviction

It is reported that in 2005, a jury convicted the defendant of numerous offenses, including possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. Due to his prior history of drug crimes and the quantity of crack cocaine in his possession, he was subject to a mandatory life sentence. The district court ultimately imposed a sentence of life plus fifteen years imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. After Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010 and the First Step Act in 2018, the defendant moved to reduce his sentence. The trial court granted his motion in part, reducing his sentence to 420 months in prison followed by eight years of supervised release. The defendant appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in not reducing his sentence further.