Home » Violent Crime

Articles Posted in Violent Crime

Posted In: | By

In Florida, certain repeat offenders may be sentenced more harshly under the state’s “violent career criminal” statute. When prior convictions are used to enhance a sentence, disputes often arise over whether those convictions qualify under the law. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision that clarifies how courts interpret predicate offenses in violent career criminal cases, particularly where juvenile escape convictions are involved. If you are facing serious firearm charges or enhanced penalties, it is critical to consult with a Tampa criminal defense attorney who can evaluate your record and protect your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted by a jury of being a violent career criminal in possession of a firearm. The incident arose in 2019 after the defendant allegedly brandished a firearm during an argument and discharged multiple rounds into the air.

Allegedly, the State sought to establish the defendant’s status as a violent career criminal by presenting evidence of three prior convictions: aggravated battery in 2012, burglary in 2005, and escape in 1995. The defendant did not dispute that the aggravated battery and burglary convictions qualified as predicate offenses under the statute. However, the defense challenged the use of the 1995 conviction, arguing it arose under the juvenile code and did not meet the statutory definition of “escape” for violent career criminal purposes. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Federal sentencing laws impose strict limits on the types and lengths of punishment courts may impose, even when the facts of a case are particularly egregious. A recent Florida decision issued in a violent crime case reaffirms the non-waivable nature of statutory maximum penalties and emphasizes the principle that sentencing authority is confined by congressional mandate, as the court vacated a 15-year term of supervised release, finding that the district court exceeded its statutory authority, even though the defendant purportedly “stipulated” to the excessive term. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is smart to speak to a Tampa violent crime defense lawyer about what measures you can take to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant engaged in a violent campaign of crimes against gay men in Miami while on probation. Reportedly, the defendant used a dating app to lure victims under false pretenses. On multiple occasions, the defendant brandished a firearm, forced victims into vehicles, and drove them to banks or stores to withdraw money or buy gift cards. Allegedly, the crimes escalated to physical assault, with one victim being beaten and another shot multiple times. The defendant reportedly made hateful, homophobic statements to his victims and expressed an intent to punish them for their sexual orientation.

It is reported that a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on 17 counts, including carjacking, kidnapping, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and bank robbery. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges without a plea agreement. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Federal sentencing laws provide mechanisms for defendants to seek reductions in their sentences under specific legal standards. When a defendant requests a sentence reduction, the court must evaluate whether extraordinary and compelling reasons justify such relief and whether the reduction aligns with sentencing guidelines and public safety considerations. A recent Florida case examined these factors when a defendant convicted of numerous violent crimes sought a reduction based on a newly proposed amendment. If you have questions about post-conviction relief, it is smart to consult an experienced Tampa violent crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant pleaded guilty to multiple federal offenses, including conspiracy to commit carjacking, carjacking, brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, conspiracy to commit access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft. Reportedly, the defendant was sentenced to a total of 120 months of imprisonment. The sentencing court considered the defendant’s youth and background but determined that the statutory mandatory minimums applied significantly influencing the overall sentence.

It is reported that the defendant later sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that his age at the time of the offense warranted a downward departure under the newly proposed Amendment 829. Allegedly, the defendant contended that this amendment should be applied retroactively, asserting that his youth at the time of the offense should be grounds for a reduced sentence. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In criminal cases involving severe charges, the discretion of trial courts in sentencing and the imposition of probationary conditions often come under scrutiny. A recent Florida opinion examines these issues in the context of a second-degree murder conviction, shedding light on the boundaries of judicial authority. If you are facing criminal charges, it is crucial to consult with an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney to ensure that your rights are upheld throughout the legal process.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with first-degree murder but later pled no contest to second-degree murder with a firearm as part of a plea agreement. The charges stemmed from the defendant’s role in orchestrating the murder of the victim, who was the father of her child. Allegedly, the defendant hired another individual to carry out the murder, which occurred outside the victim’s residence while their child was asleep inside the home.

Reportedly, the plea agreement mandated a minimum sentence of 25 years but allowed the trial court discretion to impose up to a life sentence. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered evidence of the defendant’s role in planning the murder, as well as testimony presented by both the defense and prosecution. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 53 years’ imprisonment followed by probation for life. As part of the probationary conditions, the trial court reportedly included several special conditions, such as prohibiting contact with the victim’s family, requiring completion of parenting classes, and mandating participation in GED or vocational training.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Criminal defendants have a right to be advised of the charges filed against them with ample time to prepare for trial. If the State amends the information charging the defendant shortly before trial, therefore adding a new charge, it may deny the defendant the constitutional right to prepare a defense and may be grounds for reversing any conviction arising out of the latest charges. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant was charged with battery and later tampering with a witness.  If you are accused of battery or assault, it is smart to confer with a Tampa violent crime defense attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the State charged the defendant with aggravated battery on February 10, 2021. The charge stemmed from a December 26, 2020, incident where the appellant’s girlfriend informed law enforcement that, during an argument, the defendant physically assaulted her. She claimed he threw her to the ground, placed his knee on her neck, covered her nose and mouth, and punched her, resulting in a lost tooth. The girlfriend later recanted her allegations, claiming her injuries were due to a car accident. Despite a no-contact order, the defendant contacted the victim over 4,400 times while awaiting trial, allegedly instructing her on how to recant her statements.

Reportedly, five days before the trial, the State amended the information to include a new charge of witness tampering based on these phone calls. The defendant requested a continuance to investigate the new charge, but the trial court denied the request. The defendant was subsequently convicted on both counts and sentenced to concurrent thirty-year sentences, with a fifteen-year mandatory minimum on the aggravated battery charge. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida, the courts generally rely on sentencing guidelines when determining appropriate penalties in criminal cases. The courts can deviate from the guidelines, though, if they determine that doing so is necessary under the circumstances. Recently, a Florida court discussed the grounds for issuing an upward variance sentence in a robbery case in which the defendant appealed his sentence. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is smart to meet with a Tampa violent crime defense lawyer to determine your options for seeking a favorable result.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with attempted Hobbs Act robbery and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence following an incident where, after accepting a ride from a driver, he attempted to rob the driver at gunpoint. A struggle ensued, and the defendant shot at the driver’s car as the driver fled, but no one was injured. The defendant pleaded guilty to the robbery charge, while the firearm charge was dismissed. The Presentence Report (PSR) calculated the defendant’s total offense level as 24 and assigned four criminal history points based on prior convictions, placing him in Criminal History Category (CHC) III, which resulted in a sentencing guidelines range of 63 to 78 months.

Allegedly, the government sought an upward variance due to the defendant’s escalating criminal behavior, while the defense requested a sentence within the guideline range. The district court sentenced the defendant to 120 months imprisonment, significantly above the guideline range, and three years of supervised release. The defendant appealed, challenging the calculation of his criminal history category. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In many criminal matters,  the prosecution lacks direct evidence that the defendant committed the crime in question. While prosecutors can use circumstantial evidence to demonstrate a defendant’s guilt, they must abide by any applicable rules of evidence. Recently, a Florida court examined when witness opinion testimony can be introduced in a criminal trial, in a case in which the defendant was convicted of murder and other charges. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is wise to meet with a Tampa violent crime defense attorney to assess your possible defenses.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant faced numerous charges, including second-degree murder with a firearm, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and aggravated assault with a firearm. The charges stemmed from a dispute between the defendant’s family and the victim’s family, culminating in a confrontation at a local park. Earlier animosity arose from the defendant’s sister’s past relationship with the victim. A Snapchat conversation between the defendant and the victim led to an agreement for a fistfight to settle their differences. On the night of the incident, the defendant drove to the park armed with an AR-15 rifle. A heated argument ensued, and the defendant fired multiple shots from his vehicle, resulting in the death of the victim and injuries to others present.

Allegedly, the evidence presented during the trial included testimonies from witnesses, forensic analysis, and the defendant’s own account. The court noted that the defendant claimed self-defense, asserting that he shot at the victim to prevent an imminent threat. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts, with some supporting the defendant’s version and others disputing it. The defendant was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the trial court erred by allowing a witness to opine on the reasonableness of the defendant’s use of deadly force. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Florida law permits the courts to not only sentence people convicted of crimes to imprisonment but also to order them to pay restitution to their victims. Recently, a Florida court discussed the basis for imposing a restitution order in a battery case in which it affirmed the trial court’s sentence. If you are accused of battery, it is in your best interest to meet with a Tampa violent crime defense attorney to determine what arguments you may be able to assert in your defense.

Factual and Procedural Overview

It is reported that the defendant faced charges of high-speed or wanton fleeing, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon on law enforcement officers, and resisting officers without violence. His charges stemmed from a single incident in which he was involved in a car chase and reportedly rammed his truck into sheriff’s deputy vehicles. During the trial, conflicting evidence arose regarding whether the defendant’s vehicle hit the deputies’ cars or vice versa. The jury found him guilty of attempted aggravated battery and acquitted him of the principal offense of aggravated battery.

Allegedly, following the defendant’s conviction, the trial court sentenced him to prison and ordered restitution of $8,018.85 for the property damage inflicted on the sheriff’s vehicles. Although the defendant did not object to the restitution order during sentencing, he later contested it in a motion, asserting that he was acquitted of the charge forming the basis of the restitution. The court denied his motion, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

When sentencing a defendant following a conviction, the Florida courts will look at mitigating and aggravating factors to determine what constitutes an appropriate penalty. Typically, such analysis and sentencing occur shortly after a conviction. Merely because a significant amount of time has passed between a conviction and sentencing, however, does not mean that the sentence is patently cruel and unusual, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant appealed his sentence for murder and other crimes, which was delivered thirty years after his conviction. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is crucial to retain a Tampa violent crime defense attorney to assist you in fighting to protect your liberties.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant went to a substance abuse rehabilitation facility, where he provided the staff with a motel room number. The victim, a nurse the defendant knew, was subsequently found dead in the motel room. The defendant was charged and convicted of first-degree murder. The trial court imposed the death penalty in accordance with the jury’s recommendation. The trial court’s decision was affirmed in 1996.

It is reported that the defendant was granted two additional sentencing proceedings. In the first new sentencing proceeding, in 2005, it was found that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, but the death sentence was affirmed. In the second sentencing proceeding, the defendant waived the right to a penalty-phase jury and the right to present mitigating evidence. The trial court imposed a death sentence after considering the aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Under State and Federal law, people have the right to represent themselves in criminal trials. Self-representation is not a venture that should be entered into lightly, however, as few non-attorneys possess the skills and legal knowledge needed to mount a compelling defense on their own behalf.   While a pro se defendant may intend to consult with an attorney waiting in the wings, they do not have the constitutional right to do so, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in which the court denied the defendant’s appeal following his assault conviction. If you are charged with assault and battery, it is wise to meet with a Tampa violent crime defense attorney about your possible defenses as soon as you can.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with battery on a police officer. After the state rested its case, the defendant asked to represent himself for the rest of the trial. The court conducted a Faretta hearing, after which it found that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and freely chose to represent himself despite the risks. During the trial, the defendant repeatedly tried to read from deposition testimony, but the court refused to permit him to do so. The court then asked the defendant if, in light of the fact that he could not read from the deposition transcripts, he still wanted to proceed without an attorney. The defendant responded that he did.

Allegedly, the defendant later asked if the court would allow one of his former lawyers to help him. The judge allowed the defendant to consult his former attorneys to determine whether they should represent him. After that discussion, the defendant chose to represent himself. He was convicted, after which he appealed. Continue Reading ›