Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the defendant, who was a juvenile, was residing at a group home when he was seen hitting another resident. Law enforcement officers responded to the scene, and the juvenile defendant was subsequently arrested. The State filed a delinquency petition against the juvenile defendant, charging him with one count of simple battery. At the final adjudicatory hearing, as the victim failed to appear, the State sought to prove the offense through alternative means, primarily relying on the surveillance footage.

Allegedly, two witnesses testified to authenticate the footage: a group home employee who retrieved the video and a police officer who viewed the footage and retrieved it from the IT personnel at the group home. The court issued a final order adjudicating the juvenile defendant delinquent for battery and placing him under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice for one year. The juvenile defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the surveillance footage into evidence during the adjudicatory hearing.

Admission of Video Evidence at Juvenile Delinquency Hearings

On appeal, the court rejected the juvenile defendant’s arguments and upheld his adjudication of delinquency for battery. In doing so, the court noted that under the Florida Evidence Code, authentication of evidence is a prerequisite for its admissibility, requiring evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

Further, the court emphasized that the factfinder is authorized to determine the authenticity of the evidence ultimately. The court also noted that the silent witness theory allows for the admission of evidence based on the reliability of the production process.

In this case, the court found that the foundational requirements for admitting the surveillance footage were met. The witnesses provided testimony establishing the date and time of the captured image, the absence of image manipulation, and the identification of participants depicted in the footage. Based on these factors, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video into evidence. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Talk to a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

If your child is charged with a crime, it is important to understand the criminal process and what repercussions they may face if they are adjudicated delinquent, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The knowledgeable Tampa juvenile crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can advise you of your child’s potential defenses and help you to seek the best outcome available under the facts of your case. You can contact Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidence at Juvenile Delinquency Hearings appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

This was explained in a recent case in which a Florida appellate court overturned a trial court order for restitution, finding the State had not produced sufficient evidence of a causal connection between the damages sought and the defendant’s conduct. If you are a juvenile living in Tampa and you are currently facing criminal charges, you should retain a trusted Tampa criminal defense attorney to assist you in formulating a defense that will provide you with a good chance of a favorable outcome under the circumstances. 

Facts of the Case 

It is reported that the defendant, a minor, was charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle. He entered into a plea agreement with the State, in which he pled to the lesser included offense of trespass of a conveyance and agreed to pay restitution. As such, the court ordered restitution with the specific amount to be determined at a later date. At a hearing to determine the restitution amount, the owner of the car testified that the car was in perfect condition prior to the theft, but had extensive damage when it was returned. The State presented an expert who testified that the estimated cost to repair the damage was $3,310.37. The defendant’s attorney argued that the State had failed to produce evidence showing that the damage alleged was caused by the defendant. The court disagreed, ordering the defendant to pay $3,310.37 in restitution. The defendant appealed.

Grounds for Ordering Restitution

On appeal, the court noted that the Florida statutes permit a court to order a minor to pay restitution for any damage caused by the minor’s criminal activity. The statute has been interpreted to allow restitution where the damage bears a significant relationship to the criminal activity. In the subject case, the court found that the State did not produce substantial, competent evidence to show a link between the charged offense and the damages claimed. Importantly, there was no evidence of damage in the police report. Additionally, the record indicated the defendant only drove the car for half an hour and slept in in for an hour and a half. Further, the court found that as the State did not produce an estimate of damages prior to the restitution hearing, the defendant had no notice of the damages he would be required to pay. Thus, the court reversed the restitution order and remanded for a new hearing.

Set Up a Consultation with a Skilled Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Juvenile defendants have rights under the law, including the right to be free from unjust penalties. If you are a juvenile resident of Tampa and are charged with a crime, you should consult a skilled criminal defense attorney to discuss your case and the potential penalties to the charges you face. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned Tampa criminal defense attorney who provide you with assertive and thorough representation. Mr. Hanlon can be reached at at 813-228-7095 or via the online form to set up a meeting.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Court Holds Actual Possession of a Gun is Not Needed to Impose a Firearm Sentence Enhancement, December 19, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Florida Court Overturns Restitution Order Due to Insufficient Evidence Linking the Crime to the Damages 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.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, it is the internal practice of the Tampa Police Department to regularly check in on juveniles on probation to ensure they are complying with the terms of the probation.  If the police determine a juvenile is violating the terms of his or her probation, a “local pickup order” call will then be placed to pick up the juvenile for violation of probation. In this case, two police officers received a dispatch call to pick up the defendant for violation of probation. The officers went to the defendant’s house to arrest him and found him hiding in a closet. The defendant refused to walk down the stairs of the apartment and had to be carried out by the police officers. After the defendant was placed in the police car, he kicked out a window, and the officers had to restrain him. The defendant was subsequently charged and convicted of criminal mischief and resisting an officer without violence. The defendant subsequently appealed his conviction.

The post Florida Court of Appeals Reverses Conviction for Resisting an Officer Without Violence appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Youthful Offender Act

In order to be eligible for consideration as a youthful offender, the defendant must meet certain requirements. Of course there is an age requirement. Defendants need to be between 18 and 21 at the time of sentencing. Defendants under 18 are also potentially eligible for youthful offender status if the case has been transferred to the adult court.

Youthful offender status is available only for felonies, however; it is not available for those who have been convicted of capital or life felonies. Defendants also need to have been found guilty or have pled nolo contendere (no contest) to their charges. Finally, defendants are only eligible for youthful offender status one time. Therefore, if they have already been sentenced as a youthful offender before, they are not eligible a second time.

If the judge determines that a defendant is eligible for youthful offender status under the Act, they are able to give a more lenient sentence. Youthful offenders can only be sentenced to up to six years of jail time. They also may be sentenced to up to six years of probation, house arrest, or other supervision.

 Appeals Court Case

The Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida recently heard a case where the judge had to determine whether to grant the defendant youthful offender status or not. Here, the defendant tried to steal an unoccupied and idling car outside of a fast food restaurant. The owner of the car was able to reach in and put the car in neutral and began struggling with the defendant. The defendant shot at the car owner and hit him in his back and knees. However, the driver was able to get control of the car and drive away. He ended up being found guilty of aggravated battery and trespass.

The defendant was under the age of 18 at the time of sentencing, and asked the court for youthful offender sentence. The trial court judge explained that he had a hard time making the decision as to whether to grant the defendant youthful offender status or not. On one hand, the judge noted that if the defendant was not given youthful offender status, the judge would be required to sentence him to at least 25 years in prison. On the other hand, he noted that youthful offender status is generally not appropriate when there have been shots fired.

Eventually, the judge denied the defendant’s application for youthful offender status and sentenced him to 25 years. The appeals court here upheld this decision, although one judge dissented.

Contact an Experienced Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Today!

Being convicted of a crime as a young person can have huge consequences on someone’s life. The violent crimes defense attorneys at Hanlon Law Firm zealously and knowledgeably defend clients charged with a crime. Contact us online or call our offices at (727) 897-5413 to speak with our skilled attorneys about your case.

See Related Posts:

Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Florida Criminal Cases

Florida Court Remands Case, Highlighting Effect of Juvenile Offender Status on Sentencing

The post Juvenile in Florida Asks For Youthful Offender Status After Shooting appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The Fifth District disagreed. “The court clearly allowed for the consideration of Young’s age in fashioning its sentence, as evidenced by Young receiving the lowest permissible sentence for his crime,” the court said. “Although we acknowledge that the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence required here does limit, to some extent, the discretion of a trial court in sentencing a juvenile offender, we do not view this modest limitation as a constitutional infirmity.”

The Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that life sentences for juveniles who don’t commit homicide are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The justices two years later expanded that decision, finding that any life sentence for a juvenile that doesn’t at least include the opportunity for parole is unconstitutional. But Young’s case didn’t involve a mandatory life sentence, the court said. Instead, he got a separate sentencing hearing to determine whether he should be sentenced to life in prison. At the close of that hearing, the judge decided to sentence Young to 10 years behind bars. That decision was entitled to “substantial deference,” according to the court.

“Young will be released from prison and will re-enter society when he is 27 years old,” the court said. “The trial court, by its sentence, has provided Young with a “meaningful opportunity” for early release at a young age.”

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 attorney. Tampa gun crime 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:

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Aggravated Battery Conviction but Overturns Conspiracy to Deliver Cannabis Conviction

Tampa Woman Guns Down Teen who Carjacked her Son, Raising Stand Your Ground and Felony Murder Issues

Florida Trial Court Committed a Reversible Error By Not Properly Instructing Jury as to Self-Defense Claim

The post Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Under the new framework, the status of an offender as either an adult or a juvenile at the time the crime was committed is a crucial threshold question. Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals recently remanded a case to determine whether the defendant was a juvenile at the time the crime was committed.

The defendant appealed his conviction because there were discrepancies in his age. The defendant’s arrest affidavit showed his date of birth as December 3, 1963. However, the Florida Department of Corrections listed his date of birth as December 3, 1962. The offenses for the defendant’s crimes ranged from March to May 1981. The appeals court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the defendant’s correct date of birth. If the defendant was born in 1963, the defendant could be eligible for relief under the Florida Supreme Court decision in Atwell v. Florida.

Under Atwell, the defendant was sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 25 years. The defendant was sentenced as a juvenile, and after 25 years, the parole board set his parole eligibility for the year 2130, which would almost certainly ensure that the defendant would spend the rest of his life in prison. If a juvenile offender is subject to a lengthy sentence (i.e., between 40 years and life imprisonment), the court is required to consider certain sentencing factors. For instance, the juvenile’s sentence is reviewed by a judge after 25 years. The judge has the opportunity to determine whether the juvenile’s sentence should be revised. The judge reviewing the juvenile’s sentence considers, as factors, the offender’s age and how that might have affected the juvenile’s actions when the crime was committed, the victim’s perspective or the victim’s family’s input regarding the release of the juvenile from confinement, and the level of risk that the juvenile offender presents to society and whether that level of risk is as high as it was at the time of sentencing.

In light of Atwell, the trial court must first determine the defendant’s age at the time of the offenses. If the defendant was a juvenile, he will be entitled to the relief set forth in Atwell.

If you are charged with any type of criminal offense in the Tampa Bay region, or even if you are under suspicion or targeted in an investigation, you should not hesitate to discuss your situation with a criminal attorney. Mr. Hanlon takes his professional responsibilities seriously, working hard to win dismissals, acquittals, or reductions of charges whenever possible. Call Hanlon Law at 813-228-7095 or use our online form to set up an appointment.

More Blog Posts:

Aggravated Battery Conviction Upheld for Rowdy Florida Bar Patron, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog, September 15, 2017

New Stand-Your-Ground Law at Issue in Tampa Murder Trial, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog, September 7, 2017

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

The post Florida Court Remands Case, Highlighting Effect of Juvenile Offender Status on Sentencing appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.