Articles Posted in Weapons

When the State prosecutes a crime, it must adhere strictly to the charges set forth in the information, as due process requires that defendants receive clear notice of the specific crimes they must defend against at trial. As such, if the State proceeds on a theory that differs from the offense actually charged, even subtle statutory differences can result in reversible error. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how convictions may be overturned when the evidence and theory of prosecution do not align with the charging document. If you are facing firearm-related charges, you should consult a Tampa criminal defense attorney to ensure your rights are fully protected.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendant went uninvited to her daughter’s apartment complex, accompanied by another family member, because she was concerned about the daughter’s relationship and wanted to persuade her to leave the residence. An argument developed in the parking lot between the daughter and the accompanying family member, which escalated into physical pushing and shoving.

Reportedly, the defendant became involved in the altercation while carrying a firearm in a hip holster, which she routinely wore for personal protection. During the physical struggle, the firearm discharged and struck the daughter, causing injury. The evidence presented at trial conflicted as to how the firearm came out of the holster and who caused it to fire. Continue Reading ›

A federal firearm charge is one of the most serious situations a defendant can encounter. A single conviction can mean years in federal prison, especially when a judge imposes a sentence above the recommended guidelines. Defendants often believe that a guilty plea ends their chances of defending themselves, but post-conviction motions and appeals can sometimes provide a second opportunity to challenge unfair rulings. A recent decision from a Florida court shows how courts approach these challenges and why building a strong defense early is essential. If you are accused of illegally possessing a firearm, a Tampa federal criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and fight for the best possible outcome.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a road rage incident in January 2023 in which he exchanged gunfire with another driver. Allegedly, during the altercation, the defendant mistakenly fired into a third vehicle occupied by two adolescents, narrowly missing their heads and injuring one of them with shattered glass.

In federal firearms prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government must prove not only that the defendant possessed a firearm, but also that the defendant knew at the time of possession that he was prohibited from doing so due to a prior felony conviction. This knowledge requirement was clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Rehaif v. United States in 2019. A recent decision from a federal court sitting in Florida illustrates how courts evaluate cases tried before Rehaif and whether a missing jury instruction on the knowledge element requires reversal. If you are facing a firearm charge under federal law, a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney can assess whether your constitutional rights were upheld during trial and sentencing.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The charge stemmed from an incident in which law enforcement officers found a loaded pistol during a search of the defendant’s vehicle following a traffic stop. The defendant had previously been convicted of multiple felonies and was prohibited from possessing firearms.

Allegedly, the trial in this case occurred before the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, which held that the government must prove the defendant knew of his felony status when he possessed the firearm. At trial, the court instructed the jury that to convict, it must find that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm, but the instruction did not include the requirement that the defendant knew he was a convicted felon. Continue Reading ›

In Florida criminal matters, a conviction must be based on legally sufficient evidence proving every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, a defendant can challenge their conviction on appeal, as illustrated in a recent Florida decision issued in a weapons crime case where the defendant successfully argued that the State failed to present adequate evidence of an essential element of the charged crime. If you are facing gun crime charges or wish to appeal a conviction, it is smart to confer with a skilled Tampa gun crime defense attorney promptly.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Florida law. Reportedly, during trial, defense counsel stipulated that the defendant was a convicted felon, but the trial court did not conduct a formal colloquy to confirm the defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to require the State to prove that status beyond a reasonable doubt. It is reported that the State failed to introduce either a certified record of the defendant’s prior felony conviction or a formal stipulation into evidence.

It is alleged that following the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict, and the defendant was sentenced to one year of reporting probation. The defendant subsequently appealed the conviction, arguing that the State’s failure to introduce sufficient evidence of his prior felony conviction constituted a fundamental error requiring reversal. Continue Reading ›

People convicted of felonies often lose certain rights, like the right to possess a weapon. As such, if they are subsequently found with a gun in their possession, they may be charged with a crime. Additionally, depending on their criminal history, they may be sentenced as a career criminal. In a recent Florida gun crime case, the court discussed the grounds for deeming a defendant a career criminal before ultimately determining the defendant was properly classified. If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is smart to meet with a Tampa gun crime defense attorney to determine your options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that in 2021, during a traffic stop, the defendant was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He subsequently pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of federal law. Prior to sentencing, the probation office drafted a presentence investigation report that included an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to the defendant’s three prior convictions for crimes that were either violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

It is reported that these convictions included two for aggravated assault in 2003 and 2015 and one for delivery of cocaine in 2007. The defendant objected to the ACCA enhancement, arguing that his prior convictions for aggravated assault did not qualify as violent felonies and his prior drug crime conviction did not qualify as a serious drug offense. However, the district court overruled his objections, deemed each conviction as qualifying under the ACCA, and imposed a 180-month sentence. The defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›

Criminal defendants will often want to mount a vigorous defense against the charges they face. In some instances, though, they will find it beneficial to enter into a plea agreement. Sentences issued pursuant to such agreements must abide by the sentencing laws and guidelines; otherwise, they may be overturned. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida weapons crime case in which the defendant argued that his consecutive sentences were illegal and ultimately prevailed. If you are accused of a gun crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a Tampa gun crime defense lawyer to determine your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

History of the Case

It is reported that pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant was serving a twenty-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for aggravated assault with a firearm and discharge, as well as a consecutive five-year prison sentence, with a three-year mandatory minimum provision, for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court imposed the sentences under section 775.087(2) of the Florida Statutes.

Allegedly, the defendant moved to correct his sentence, arguing that the consecutive sentencing structure was illegal because the crimes were committed during a single criminal episode with one victim and a single shot discharged that did not strike the victim. The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

In Florida, people generally have the right to carry firearms. There are exceptions to the rule, however. For example, people convicted of felonies can be charged with crimes for possessing weapons. Convictions for such offenses can carry significant penalties, and in many cases, it is unlikely that any subsequent changes in the law provide grounds for a reduced sentence, as explained in a recent Florida ruling. If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is smart to contact a Tampa gun crime defense lawyer to determine your possible defenses.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the defendant pleaded guilty to possession of multiple firearms as a convicted felon and received a sentence of 97 months in prison, based on his offense level and criminal history category. Subsequently, certain sentencing adjustments were issued by the United States Sentencing Commission, including Amendment 821, which the defendant sought to apply retroactively to his case.

It is reported that the defendant particularly focused on the part of Amendment 821, which allows for a downward departure in a defendant’s criminal history category if certain criteria are met, including prior convictions for possession of marijuana for personal use. Additionally, he argued that the executive order issued by President Joe Biden granting pardons for simple possession of marijuana offenses applied to his case. As such, he sought a revised sentencing of 87 months or lower based on these developments. Continue Reading ›