Case Setting

Allegedly, in February 2013, the defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of federal law. He failed to self-surrender after missing his initial sentencing, leading to a sentence of 262 months of incarceration followed by five years of supervised release. The sentence was not based on drug quantity guidelines but on his designation as a career offender due to two prior crimes.

It is reported that the defendant’s incarceration term was later reduced to 192 months for assisting police in a homicide investigation. Having served over ten years of his 192-month sentence, the defendant, aged 38, is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Bastrop, Texas, with a projected release date of May 24, 2026. While in custody, he faced over a dozen disciplinary incidents, including drug or alcohol possession and refusing work, with the most recent incident in April 2023. He then moved for a second sentence reduction.

Grounds for Reducing Sentences in Florida Criminal Cases

The court first addressed whether the defendant exhausted his administrative remedies before considering his motion for a sentence reduction. The defendant submitted a sentence-reduction request to his facility’s warden in February 2024, and the warden responded with a denial in April 2024. Despite the government’s claim that the defendant did not appeal administratively, the court found he sufficiently exhausted his remedies since the warden’s response arrived after thirty days.

Next, the court evaluated the defendant’s claim of an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction due to a gross disparity in light of a change in the law. The defendant argued that one of his prior convictions, previously considered a crime of violence, no longer qualified, impacting his career-offender status and resulting in a significant sentence disparity.

The court acknowledged the change but determined that the 17-month difference between his current sentence and the likely sentence today did not constitute a gross disparity. Therefore, the court found that the defendant failed to establish an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.

Additionally, the court found that the defendant posed a danger to the community, as evidenced by his numerous disciplinary incidents in prison, including drug-related offenses. This history precluded the court from granting a sentence reduction, as it must ensure that a defendant does not pose a threat to the community.

Finally, the court considered the sentencing factors, emphasizing the seriousness of the defendant’s drug crime, his history of serious offenses, and the need for the sentence to reflect the offense’s severity, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public. These considerations supported maintaining the defendant’s current sentence. Consequently, the defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction was denied.

Consult with an Experienced Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer

People charged with drug offenses may face substantial penalties if they are convicted, but simply because the government charges a person with a crime does not necessarily mean the prosecution has enough evidence to sustain a conviction. If you are charged with a drug offense, it is wise to consult with a lawyer to discuss your case. The experienced Tampa drug crime defense lawyers at Hanlon Law can assist you in pursuing the best possible outcome based on the specifics of your case. You can contact Hanlon Law via our online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to schedule a consultation.

The post Court Explains Grounds for Reducing Sentences in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was indicted by a grand jury with conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He entered a guilty plea. The Presentencing Investigation Report (PSI) indicated that following the defendant’s arrest for the charged offenses, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent obtained a warrant to search his residence and found a pistol near his bed.

It is reported that the probation office applied an enhancement for the defendant’s possession of a dangerous weapon in determining his offense level and recommended a sentence of 60 to 71 months’ imprisonment. Before sentencing, both the defendant and the prosecution objected to the firearm enhancement. The court overruled the objections and sentenced the defendant to 62 months in prison, after which he appealed.

Evidence Needed to Justify a Firearm Enhancement

On appeal, the defendant argued that the firearm enhancement was improper as there was no evidence that he used the weapon in the commission of the crime. The court explained that a person convicted of drug trafficking is subject to a two-level sentence enhancement if he or she possessed a dangerous weapon.

In order to justify a firearms enhancement, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was present at the location of the charged conduct or that the defendant possessed a firearm while engaging in conduct associated with the offense for which he or she was convicted. The government must also prove that a nexus beyond mere possession exists between the gun and the crime committed.

The government is not required to show, though, that the firearm was used to facilitate the distribution of drugs in order for the enhancement to apply. Merely establishing the presence of the gun is sufficient. In the subject case, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to justify the enhancement and upheld the defendant’s sentence.

Speak to a Seasoned Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a drug offense can result in a lengthy sentence, especially if the prosecution alleges guns were involved in the commission of the crime, but there are often numerous defenses defendants can assert to avoid guilty verdicts. If you are accused of committing a drug crime, it is advisable to speak to an attorney as soon as possible. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned Tampa criminal defense attorney with ample experience defending people charged with serious crimes, and if you hire him, he will fight to help you seek a favorable outcome. You can contact Mr. Hanlon via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Explains Evidence Needed to Justify a Firearm Enhancement appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The defendant’s doctor testified at the sentencing hearing that the defendant suffered from neurological problems that left him “simple” and “confused.” The doctor said he wasn’t capable of operating a multimillion dollar criminal enterprise like the prescription drug ring in which he was accused of being involved. Investigators, however, said the defendant was clear about the facts of the alleged crimes in several hours of police interviews. His ex-wife also said the defendant stopped going to doctor visits and continued to run the criminal operation, including by considering expanding it to Puerto Rico. As a result, the judge denied his request to reduce his sentence.

Affirming the decision on appeal, the Fourth District said the judge didn’t err by failing to hold a competency hearing to determine whether the defendant was mentally capable of entering a guilty plea. The court said the judge had no reasonable basis to believe that he wasn’t mentally competent to proceed. Instead, the court said “competent substantial evidence existed that the defendant was competent.”

The post Mental Health Issues in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

A defendant was charged with trafficking in hydrocodone in 2012. The prescription drug is a powerful painkiller that’s addictive and has been the source of a significant number of overdoses. The defendant was allegedly holding between 14 and 28 grams of the drug at the time. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The defendant later appealed the decision, arguing that he was sentenced under the wrong section of the Florida law on trafficking in prescription drugs. The defendant said he was sentenced under the section that bans trafficking in hydromorphone. That’s also an opioid-based pain reliever, but it’s a stronger drug that is even more prone to addition than hydrocodone. At the time that he challenged the sentence in 2014, hydrocodone trafficking was subject to a mandatory minimum three years behind bars, while hydromorphone came with a mandatory minimum 15 years in prison.

Still, the First District rejected the defendant’s appeal. The court explained that the state legislature changed the law in 2014 to separate hydrocodone and hydromorphone. Before that time, trafficking in either drug was subject to the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. Since the defendant was charged with the crime in 2012, the court said he was subject to the stiffer penalty under the previous version of the law.

“The Florida Constitution provides that repeal or amendment of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution or punishment for any crime previously committed,” the court explained. “The purpose of this ‘Savings Clause’ is to require the statute in effect at the time of the crime to govern the sentence an offender receives for the commission of that crime.”

As a result, the court said the 2014 amendment to the drug law didn’t apply to the defendant’s case. The court affirmed his conviction and sentence.

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 prescription drug trafficking 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 blog 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 Sentencing Issues in Florida Prescription Drug Trafficking Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The Court explained that the federal law banning felons from having guns stems from the federal government’s power under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. That clause directly authorizes the feds “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” It has been read broadly to give the government wide enforcement authority over anything that has some connection to commerce between states.

“The statute is constitutional as applied so long as the government proves some minimal nexus to interstate commerce,” the court explained. The government can establish that connection “by demonstrating that the firearm traveled in interstate commerce through testimony that the firearm was manufactured in a different state.”

The post Florida Felon Gets Federal Time for Sunshine State Gun Possession appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The proposed law is a Senate bill brought forth by a pair of Florida legislators. SB 694 permits a court to sentence a drug offender to a sentence less than a mandatory minimum sentence if the following conditions are met:  (i) the person did not engage in a criminal enterprise as defined in Florida Statutes Section 893.20(1) (a continuing criminal enterprise); (ii) the person did not use or threaten violence or use a weapon during the commission of the crime; and (iii) the person did not cause a death or serious bodily injury.

The Florida House of Representatives version is very similar to the one proposed in the Senate but with a few key differences. The court is required to at least impose a sentence of imprisonment that is “no less than one-third of the sentence prescribed” by the mandatory minimum sentencing statute. Separately, the drug offender cannot have certain prior convictions, including a crime of violence as defined in Florida Statutes Section 784.046(1)(a).

These more lenient proposed drug laws are likely results of disproportionate jail sentences for non-violent drug offenders. For instance, a middle-aged woman in Florida sold prescription pills to a police informant. Even though she did not have any prior arrests, she was sentenced to almost three decades in prison. Another case involved a middle-aged man who was caught with a handful of a family member’s hydrocodone pills. He was charged and eventually sentenced to 15 years in prison.

These sentences were all results of Florida mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drugs. If the weight of the illegal substance is beyond a statutorily defined weight, and the State obtains a drug trafficking conviction, the judge is stripped of discretion and has to impose the statutorily defined sentencing guidelines. News sources, however, note that since the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines have been imposed, illegal drug use has skyrocketed in Florida, so these rules are clearly not effective.

It’s absolutely essential to choose the right lawyer if you or a loved one is trying to defend against drug charges. Will Hanlon has an impressive record of expertly handling drug crime cases in Tampa. It’s not the time to take any unnecessary risks with your future. If you would like to discuss your case or charges against you, call Hanlon Law at 813-228-7095 or contact us online.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Court Rules that Liquid By-Product Counts in Meth Trafficking Case, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog, August 31, 2017

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Aggravated Battery Conviction but Overturns Conspiracy to Deliver Cannabis Conviction, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog, October 10, 2017

The post Proposed Florida Law Gives Judges More Discretion in Sentencing Drug Offenders 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.

Four deputies with the Clay County Sheriff’s Office arrested the defendant after a shootout, which killed one of the deputies. In a search of the residence, the deputies found instruments indicative of a meth lab. The collected items included items with a total weight of approximately one gram of meth at various stages of the production process, in addition to a vase containing 26.2 grams of a liquid by-product left over from the manufacturing process. The liquid by-product was toxic, but it only contained a trace amount of meth (less than 1%). There was testimony at trial that the liquid could be reused to manufacture additional meth. Based on the weight of the meth, plus the liquid by-product, the defendant was convicted under the felony meth trafficking statute, along with other crimes. Specifically, the meth trafficking statute provides that quantities of meth of 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, carry with them a minimum sentence of three years and a fine of $50,000.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the 26.2 grams of liquid by-product should not have been included in the total weight of the meth. The defendant conceded that the mixture contained trace amounts of meth, but it was not a consumable or marketable mixture. The defendant relied on an argument discussed in a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991). The defendant argued that the weight of any unmarketable portion of a mixture should be excluded from the weight of the controlled substance. However, the Supreme Court did not adopt the defendant’s position in Chapman. Instead, the Court ultimately adopted the “market-oriented” approach, under which the total quantity of what is distributed, rather than the amount of the pure drug involved, is used to determine the length of the sentence.

The post Florida Court Rules that Liquid By-Product Counts in Meth Trafficking Case appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.