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 a jury convicted the defendant of first-degree grand theft and second-degree grand theft. During the trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of the defendant’s alleged fraudulent actions during her bankruptcy case, arguing that this evidence was relevant to the theft charges. Specifically, the prosecution presented a recording of a meeting between the defendant and the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, in which the defendant was confronted about not disclosing a property transfer in her bankruptcy documents.

The post Florida Court Discusses Collateral Crime Evidence in Theft Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged in a superseding indictment with nine counts of wire fraud and five counts of aggravated identity theft. The government alleged that the defendant engaged in a scheme to defraud the Small Business Administration and lenders administering the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program by submitting false and fraudulent loan applications on behalf of three entities. The defendant also allegedly forged signatures on documents supporting these applications.

It is reported that the defendant proceeded to a jury trial on all fourteen counts, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on six counts: four counts of wire fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The jury acquitted the defendant on the remaining eight counts. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial, challenging the guilty verdicts on the grounds of insufficient evidence and legal errors.

Grounds for Vacating an Identify Theft Conviction

Upon review, the court granted the defendant’s motion in part and denied it in part. The court agreed with the defendant’s assertion that the basis of his conviction for aggravated identity theft was not a misrepresentation of the alleged victim’s identity. Instead, the crux of the offense was a misrepresentation of the nature of his businesses and whether they could obtain the relief in question. As such, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s issue as to those counts and ruled in the defendant’s favor as to that issue.

Conversely, however, the court discussed the defendant’s argument for acquittal on the wire fraud counts, namely that he did not need to demonstrate that the banks from which he obtained the loans suffered actual harm. The court upheld his conviction on those counts on other grounds, though, namely that banks can be victims, without resolving his arguments.

The court also denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial and partially granted the provisional motion for release pending appeal, which authorized the defendant to self-surrender to the Bureau of Prisons at the time of sentencing.

Meet with a Seasoned Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer

People charged with theft crimes often worry that the odds are stacked against them, but in many instances, the prosecution lacks the evidence needed to sustain a conviction. If you are accused of unlawfully diverting someone else’s property, it is advisable to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. The seasoned Tampa theft crime defense lawyers at Hanlon Law can assess your case and help you determine what defenses you may be able to set forth. You can reach out to Hanlon Law using our online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Vacating an Identify Theft Conviction appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with identity theft and wire fraud. During his trial, the government alleged that the defendant, who was an attorney, obtained litigation advances from financing companies in the names of his clients without their knowledge and used the fraudulently obtained funds to pay his law firm’s expenses. The jury convicted the defendant of the charged offenses. He subsequently appealed on several grounds, including a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, insufficient evidence to support his convictions and an error in the jury instruction regarding deliberate ignorance.

The Speedy Trial Act

The defendant also argued that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. The court disagreed, finding that the evidence presented by the government was substantial and overwhelming. Testimony from former employees and representatives of financing companies, along with business records and client statements, established the defendant’s central role in the fraudulent scheme.

Lastly, the defendant contended that the district court erred by omitting part of the instruction on deliberate ignorance. While the court acknowledged this error, it determined it to be harmless. The court emphasized that there was an abundance of evidence demonstrating the defendant’s actual knowledge of the fraud, and the jury had been instructed that they could convict based on this knowledge. Therefore, the omission in the instruction did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, and the court affirmed their convictions.

Meet with a Skilled Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

People charged with theft crimes often fear that their conviction is inevitable, but there are numerous phases between charges and a conviction, and prosecutorial missteps often result in the charges being dismissed. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is in your best interest to meet with an attorney. The skilled Tampa criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law are proficient at helping people charged with crimes protect their interests, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. 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 The Speedy Trial Act in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant stood trial for six charges related to a fraud scheme involving clearing vehicle titles of liens from financial institutions and other lienholders. The scheme included false and fraudulent towing and storage liens, false claims of vehicle sales at public auctions, and the submission of fabricated documents to Florida tax collector offices.

Allegedly, after a four-day trial, the jury found the defendant guilty on four of the counts against him, one of which was aggravated identity theft. The jury instruction for this count, which both the defendant and the government proposed and to which the defendant did not object, required the government to prove that the means of identification was possessed “during and in relation to” the crime alleged in the indictment. The defendant subsequently sought a new trial on the aggravated identity theft count.

Grounds for Granting a New Trial

The court ultimately denied the defendant’s request for a new trial. The defendant was convicted under a provision of a statute that makes it a crime to knowingly transfer, possess, or use another person’s means of identification without lawful authority “during and in relation to” certain felonies, including wire fraud. The defendant argued that the jury instruction on the “during and in relation to” element was no longer valid after a recent Supreme Court decision, which clarified the scope of aggravated identity theft.

In that case, the Court overturned an aggravated identity theft conviction, stating that a defendant “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal. The Court emphasized that it must involve fraudulent or deceptive conduct specifically related to “who” is involved rather than “how” a service was performed.

The defendant asserted that his use of the forged signature on a towing and storage receipt in the wire fraud scheme was merely ancillary to the fraudulent activity. The court disagreed, ruling that the defendant’s conduct fit the classic variety of identity theft described in the case in question, as he used the victim’s identifying information fraudulently to deceive the tax collector’s office. As such, the court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Talk to an Experienced Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Today

White-collar crimes, like fraud, carry significant penalties, but the prosecution must meet a high burden of proof in order to obtain a conviction. If you are charged with fraud, it is wise to talk to an attorney about your possible defenses. The experienced Tampa criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and help you to seek the best legal outcome available 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 set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Granting a New Trial in an Identity Theft Case appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant agreed to repair a car for his friend and subsequently borrowed tools from his friend’s sister. He drove off with the car and the tools and did not return the car for a week; he never returned the tools. The state charged him with grand theft of a car and theft of tools. He was found guilty of both crimes, after which he appealed.

Determining if a Conviction Violates Double Jeopardy

On appeal, the defendant argued that his convictions violated double jeopardy. The court disagreed and denied his appeal. In doing so, it explained that double jeopardy bars a person from being prosecuted, convicted, or punished for the same crime more than once. In cases of theft convictions where the crimes are merely different degrees of the core offense of theft, multiple convictions arising out of the same core offense violate double jeopardy.

The court noted that the issue of double jeopardy is complicated in car theft cases where items within a car are also taken. Generally, in such cases, the courts will find that if the State demonstrates an adequate separation in time, place, and circumstances between the alleged theft offenses, convictions for both crimes will not violate double jeopardy. The prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply when a defendant commits distinct criminal acts, however.

In the subject case, the court found that the defendant deprived separate victims of separate property. Specifically, the theft of the car and the theft of the tools involved separate circumstances and intent. The court elaborated that the defendant obtained the tools before taking the car and only left with the car after returning to the friend’s home. The defendant also manifested different intentions with respect to the property by returning the car but never returning the tools. Therefore, s the thefts occurred under different circumstances and with different intent, the defendant could be punished for both offenses without violating double jeopardy.

Speak to a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Today

Theft crimes can result in significant sentences, but a person cannot be punished more than once for a single offense. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is wise to speak to an attorney about your options. The knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can inform you of your rights and aid you in pursuing a just outcome. You can reach Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Explains Determining if a Conviction Violates Double Jeopardy appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was convicted of numerous robbery-related crimes and sentenced to 270 months in federal prison. In addition to his robbery offenses, he had previously been arrested for several other crimes. He subsequently filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to federal law on the grounds that he had multiple medical conditions and was exposed to an increased risk of COVID-19.

It is reported that the government opposed the defendant’s motion, noting that the defendant’s claimed conditions did not qualify as one of the medical conditions set forth in the statutory guidelines that constitute grounds for granting compassionate release. The court agreed with the government’s reasoning and denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant then appealed.

Grounds for Granting Compassionate Release

On appeal, the defendant argued that the court erred in ruling that it could not consider reasons for granting compassionate release other than those listed in the statutory guidelines. The court ultimately disagreed and affirmed the trial court ruling. In doing so, the court explained that a term of imprisonment might be reduced if the factors considered when imposing a sentence weigh in favor of the release, there are compelling and extraordinary reasons for granting the request, and granting the request would not endanger any community or individual.

The court clarified that all of these conditions must be met; if they are not, a court cannot grant a request for compassionate release. In the subject case, the trial court expressly noted that the relevant sentencing factors weighed against granting the defendant’s request. Further, his criminal history and the need to deter him from committing crimes weighed heavily against him.

The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court should consider factors outside of those listed in the guidelines, noting there was no basis for his assertion. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s appeal.

Discuss your Charges with a Capable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

People accused of theft offenses may fear that the odds are stacked against them, but in many instances, the government lacks sufficient evidence to support a conviction. If you are charged with a theft crime, like robbery, it is in your best interest to discuss your charges with an attorney. The capable Tampa lawyers of Hanlon Law are proficient at helping people seek favorable verdicts in criminal proceedings, and if you hire us, we will diligently pursue the best outcome available. You can reach Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Granting Compassionate Release appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the federal government indicted the defendant with aggravated identity theft, mail fraud, and other offenses. He entered into a written plea agreement, agreeing to plead guilty to two of the counts and to make full restitution to the victims of his crimes. Further, he acknowledged that the restitution amount determined by the court would be in excess of $260,000 and that he waived the right to appeal the sentence imposed unless it exceeded the sentencing guideline range or statutory maximum or violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

It is reported that the court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea and the plea agreement, sentenced him to approximately 250 months in prison, and ordered him to pay restitution in excess of $440,000. He appealed, arguing that the government failed to offer evidence of loss sufficient to support the restitution amount.

Restitution in Theft Cases

The court rejected the defendant’s arguments on appeal and affirmed the restitution amount. First, the court noted that the defendant attempted to circumvent his waiver of the right to appeal by arguing that the restitution amount surpassed the maximum amount allowable by statute. The court spurned this argument, noting that the restitution law does not set forth a maximum.

The defendant also asserted that the restitution amount violated his Eighth Amendment protections against excessive fines. The court declined to adopt this reasoning as well. The court explained that fines would only be deemed excessive if they are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the defendant’s crimes.

In the subject case, the restitution imposed by the district court directly reflected the defendant’s offense, as he was ordered to pay the actual amount of the losses he caused his victims to suffer. Finally, the court found that any other argument asserted by the defendant was barred by his waiver of the right to appeal. Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s restitution order.

Talk to a Trusted Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

The courts can impose substantial penalties on people convicted of theft crimes, including ordering them to pay restitution. If you are accused of identity theft or any other theft offense, it is smart to talk to an attorney to investigate your options for protecting your interests. The trusted Tampa lawyers of Hanlon Law have ample experience defending people in the Florida courts, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Examines Restitution in Theft Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Historical Background of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with aggravated identity theft and access device fraud in violation of federal law. He pled guilty to both charges pursuant to a written plea agreement. The facts in the plea agreement indicated that the defendant obtained personal identifying data from over 100 victims and then used the data to access dormant credit cards or obtain new cards.

Reportedly, he then used the cards in stores throughout the country and sold the materials he purchased with the cards on the internet. The total financial losses caused by the theft exceeded $650,000. The court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea, following the magistrate’s recommendation. It ultimately imposed a sentence of 96 months imprisonment, which was above the range set forth in the sentencing guidelines. The defendant appealed. Among other things, he argued that the sentence was unreasonable.

Determining Whether a Sentence is Reasonable

The court affirmed the defendant’s sentence on appeal. The courts determine whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the statutory factors pertaining to the imposition of a sentence and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances. The courts must weigh all of the statutory factors but have discretion as to what weight to grant each factor.

A party challenging the reasonableness of a sentence then bears the burden of showing it is unreasonable in light of the factors. The court clarified that it would not overturn a sentence absent a firm and definite conviction that the sentencing court clearly made an error of judgment in weighing the statutory factors, which resulted in a sentence that fell outside of the range of reasonable sentences as dictated by the facts of the case.

In the subject case, the court concluded that the defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable, as it was well below the statutory maximum, which indicated reasonableness, and the sentence to his second count was mandatory. Thus, the court rejected his appeal.

Confer with an Assertive Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Theft crimes are zealously prosecuted in Florida, and people found guilty of theft offenses often face lengthy sentences. If you are charged with identity theft or any other theft offense, it is wise to confer with an attorney as soon as possible. The assertive Tampa lawyers of Hanlon Law are well versed in what it takes to obtain successful results in criminal matters, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Hanlon Law via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Determines Whether a Sentence for a Theft Crime is Reasonable appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The Defendant’s Petition

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of possessing unauthorized access devices and aggravated theft in violation of federal law and sentenced to thirty months imprisonment followed by three years of probation. He was housed at a federal prison. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the defendant petitioned the court for a modification of his sentence. Specifically, he requested a release to home confinement under the CARES Act or a compassionate release under federal law. Upon review, the court denied his petition.

Reductions and Modifications of Sentences

Typically, a court cannot change a term of imprisonment after it has been imposed. In other words, district courts have no inherent authority to alter a prison sentence and can only do so when permitted by statute or rule. The defendant first requested a modification of his sentence to home release pursuant to the CARES Act. The court noted, however, it lacked the authority to grant this relief.

Specifically, after a sentence is imposed, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) dictates where a person will be imprisoned. While the CARES Act expanded the BOP’s right to use house confinement, it did not remove the BOP’s authority to designate where a prisoner’s sentence will be served or extend that right to any other party. Thus, the defendant’s request for home confinement was denied.

The court also declined to grant the defendant’s request for compassionate release. The court explained that it had the authority to reduce a term of imprisonment if, after reviewing the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553, it found that compelling and extraordinary reasons warranted a reduction. Such a reduction should only be granted in cases in which the defendant does not pose a threat to society, however. In the subject case, the court found that the defendant failed to establish that the factors weighed in favor of a reduced sentence. Thus, his request was denied.

Meet with a Seasoned Criminal Defense Attorney in Tampa

Simply because people are charged with or convicted of crimes does not mean they no longer have any rights, and some people may be eligible for modified sentences in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If you are accused of theft or any other offense, it is prudent to meet with a lawyer regarding your options. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned criminal defense attorney who can aid you in seeking the best legal outcome available under the facts of your case. You can contact Mr. Hanlon via the form online or by calling 813-228-7095 to schedule a meeting.

The post Florida Court Declines to Modify Sentence Due to COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.