Constitutional challenges involving firearm offenses can reshape how criminal statutes are enforced and interpreted. A recent Florida ruling examined whether the state could prohibit otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from carrying a concealed firearm solely because of their age. The court’s ruling addressed important questions regarding the scope of the Second Amendment and the constitutional limits on age-based firearm restrictions. If you have been charged with a firearm offense, it is smart to speak to a Tampa gun crime defense attorney to determine how to protect your interests.

History of the Case

Allegedly, law enforcement responded to a report that an individual had displayed a handgun toward a vehicle. Officers located the defendant, who matched the description provided by the caller, conducted a pat down, and discovered an unholstered handgun concealed on the defendant’s person. Because the defendant was 18 years old, the State charged the defendant with carrying a concealed firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm.

Reportedly, the defendant moved to dismiss the concealed firearm charge, arguing that Florida’s statutory scheme unconstitutionally prevented otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from exercising their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense. The prosecution argued that requiring individuals to satisfy licensing requirements and restricting concealed carry for certain persons served legitimate public safety interests. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the licensing provisions were designed to ensure that only responsible citizens could lawfully carry concealed firearms. The defendant subsequently entered a no-contest plea while specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of the dispositive motion to dismiss.

Second Amendment Rights Under Florida Law

The court reviewed the constitutional challenge de novo because the case presented a pure question of law involving the validity of a statute. Applying the analytical framework established by the United States Supreme Court, the court first considered whether the plain language of the Second Amendment protects the conduct at issue. The court concluded that adults between the ages of 18 and 20 are included among “the people” referenced in the Second Amendment and therefore possess the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The court next examined whether Florida demonstrated that its age based restriction was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Looking to decisions from the United States Supreme Court and several federal appellate courts, the court determined that historical evidence did not support categorically denying otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 the ability to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense. While historical regulations recognized restrictions involving convicted felons, mentally ill individuals, and persons who posed credible threats to others, the court found no comparable historical tradition treating all young adults as a prohibited class.

The court also rejected arguments that modern public safety concerns alone could justify the restriction. It explained that under current Second Amendment jurisprudence, the government must establish that the challenged regulation aligns with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rather than relying solely on policy considerations. Because the challenged statute barred adults aged 18 to 20 from qualifying for concealed carry solely on age grounds, the court concluded that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden on a protected constitutional right.

Accordingly, the court held that the challenged statutory provision was facially unconstitutional as applied to adults aged 18 to 20. It vacated the defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Meet with an Assertive Tampa Gun Crime Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a gun offense, it is important to meet with an attorney to discuss your potential defenses. The assertive Tampa gun crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are dedicated to helping people protect their interests in criminal proceedings, and if you hire us, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. Contact Hanlon Law through our online form or call 813-228-7095 to set up a confidential meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Age Related Gun Crimes appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the defendant pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony. Following the guilty plea, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report to assist the court in determining an appropriate sentence.

Reportedly, the presentence report concluded that the firearm involved in the offense was capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. Based on that finding, the report recommended application of a sentencing enhancement under the federal sentencing guidelines. At the sentencing hearing, the court asked whether either party objected to the findings contained in the report. No objections were raised by the defense.

It is reported that the district court adopted the findings contained in the presentence report and applied the enhancement when calculating the defendant’s advisory guideline range. After considering the relevant sentencing factors, the court imposed a sentence of 168 months of imprisonment. The defendant subsequently appealed, arguing that the enhancement should not have been applied because the government failed to prove that the firearm was capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.

Sentencing Enhancements and Presentence Reports

On appeal, the court examined the defendant’s challenge under the plain-error standard because no objection had been raised in the district court. Under that standard, an appellate court will reverse only when there is a clear error that affects substantial rights and undermines the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.

The court explained that the government ordinarily bears the burden of establishing the factual basis for a sentencing enhancement. However, that burden changes when a defendant fails to object to factual statements contained in a presentence report. Federal courts have consistently held that unchallenged factual findings in a presentence report are deemed admitted and may be relied upon by the sentencing court.

Applying those principles, the court concluded that the district court committed no error. The presentence report expressly stated that the firearm involved in the offense was capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine, and the defendant did not object to that finding at sentencing. As a result, the district court was entitled to treat the factual assertion as admitted and use it as the basis for applying the enhancement.

The defendant also argued that an exception contained in the sentencing guidelines should have applied because of the firearm’s configuration. The appellate court rejected that argument as well, noting that the record contained no evidence supporting the applicability of the exception. Because the defendant failed to object to the report and failed to present evidence establishing the exception, the court determined that the sentencing enhancement was properly applied.

The court ultimately held that the unobjected-to presentence report provided a sufficient factual basis for the enhancement. Finding no error in the district court’s sentencing analysis, the appellate court affirmed the defendant’s sentence.

Consult with a Dedicated Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is critical to understand your options and the rules surrounding your case, and you should talk to an attorney. The dedicated Tampa gun crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can help you understand your rights and assist you in seeking a favorable outcome. Whether your case involves federal charges, sentencing issues, or appellate concerns, our attorneys are prepared to provide strategic guidance and vigorous representation. You can reach us through our form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a confidential meeting.

The post Florida Court Weighs Challenge to Sentencing Enhancements appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Sentence-reduction motions under federal law often require courts to balance evolving sentencing reforms with the finality of criminal judgments. Defendants frequently invoke statutory changes and constitutional developments in an effort to obtain relief, but courts apply strict standards when determining whether a reduced sentence is warranted. A recent Florida ruling issued in a drug crime case demonstrates how difficult it can be to meet the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” requirement, particularly when the underlying sentencing framework remains unchanged. If you are charged with a drug crime, you should speak with a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney to understand your available options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant had a lengthy criminal history that included multiple state convictions for drug offenses and violent crimes spanning several years. These prior convictions ultimately played a significant role in the defendant’s later federal sentencing.

Reportedly, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on charges including conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The defendant entered a guilty plea to these charges.

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

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the government charged the defendant in a superseding indictment with multiple firearm-related offenses, including discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, conspiring to use and carry a firearm during a crime of violence, and causing the death of a person during a crime of violence. Each of those charges depended on whether an underlying cyberstalking offense qualified as a crime of violence under federal law.

Reportedly, the predicate offense alleged by the government involved cyberstalking resulting in death, charged under federal statutes that prohibit using electronic communications or interstate facilities to place another person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. The indictment alleged that the victim ultimately died as a result of the charged course of conduct.

It is alleged that the defendant moved to dismiss the firearm-related counts, arguing that the federal cyberstalking statute does not categorically require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. According to the motion, the statute could be violated through conduct that induces fear without any actual or threatened violence.

It is reported that the government opposed the motion, contending that cyberstalking resulting in death necessarily involves physical force and therefore qualifies as a crime of violence sufficient to support the firearms counts.

Crimes of Violence in Firearms Cases

The court began its analysis by determining the proper framework for evaluating whether the predicate offense constituted a crime of violence. Because the cyberstalking statute contains multiple subsections with distinct elements, the court applied the modified categorical approach rather than the traditional categorical approach. That method allows courts to examine a limited set of charging documents to identify the specific statutory provision at issue.

Applying that approach, the court focused on the subsection criminalizing cyberstalking resulting in death. The court examined whether the elements of that offense require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person, as required by federal firearms statutes.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the statute imposes strict liability without any force component. Instead, the court emphasized the statutory language providing enhanced penalties when the death of the victim results. According to the court, the term victim carries a well-established legal meaning that implies direct and proximate harm caused by the defendant’s conduct.

Relying on principles of statutory interpretation, the court concluded that a death resulting from cyberstalking necessarily involves the intentional or knowing use of force. The court reasoned that a person cannot proximately cause the death of another, in the ordinary sense of the word victim, without engaging in conduct involving physical force capable of causing injury or death.

The court also rejected hypothetical scenarios in which death might follow emotional distress or indirect consequences of stalking. It explained that federal criminal statutes incorporate proximate cause limitations and do not extend liability to speculative or unforeseeable outcomes. Only deaths that directly and foreseeably result from the stalking conduct fall within the statute’s scope.

Based on this reasoning, the court held that cyberstalking resulting in death qualifies as a crime of violence. Because the predicate offense satisfied the statutory definition, the court denied the motion to dismiss the firearm-related counts, allowing the prosecution to proceed on those charges.

Consult a Trusted Tampa Firearm Crime Defense Attorney

Federal gun crime prosecutions often hinge on complex statutory interpretations that can determine whether a defendant faces decades of additional incarceration. If you are charged with a firearms offense, it is smart to consult an attorney about how you can safeguard your rights. The experienced Tampa criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law understand how federal courts analyze criminal charges, and if we represent you, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach us through our online form or call 813-228-7095 to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Evaluates Crimes of Violence in Firearms Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

It is alleged that witnesses living in the apartment complex observed portions of the altercation and that cellphone video footage captured segments of the incident. The daughter who was shot testified for the defense and stated that she accidentally shot herself. The defendant likewise testified that the discharge was accidental and occurred during the struggle.

It is reported that the State charged the defendant with improper exhibition of a firearm and discharging a firearm in a residential area. At trial, the State argued that witness testimony and video evidence showed the defendant improperly displayed the firearm and that the presence of multiple people satisfied the statutory elements. The defense countered that there was no intentional exhibition of the firearm and that the discharge was accidental and not caused by the defendant’s actions.

Reportedly, the jury found the defendant guilty on both counts, and the trial court entered judgment and sentence. The defendant appealed, challenging the validity of the conviction for discharging a firearm in a residential area.

Charging Information in Florida Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed de novo whether the charging information was fundamentally defective. The court reiterated that a defendant may only be convicted of the crimes charged and that due process is violated when a conviction rests on an uncharged offense, even if the uncharged offense is similar in nature.

The court noted that the information charged the defendant under a statutory subsection that criminalizes the recreational discharge of a firearm in a primarily residential area. That provision requires proof that the discharge was recreational in nature, such as target shooting. However, the State’s theory at trial focused on negligent or reckless discharge of a firearm on property used primarily as a dwelling, which is governed by a different statutory subsection with distinct elements.

The court emphasized that citing the wrong statutory subsection is not a mere technical error when the subsection charged omits an essential element of the offense actually tried. Because the State presented evidence and argument consistent with negligent or reckless discharge rather than recreational discharge, the defendant lacked proper notice of the crime for which she was ultimately convicted.

Relying on prior precedent, the appellate court explained that convictions based on uncharged theories constitute fundamental error and require reversal. The court concluded that the information failed to allege the essential elements of the offense proven at trial and that the defendant was therefore convicted of an uncharged crime.

As a result, the court reversed the conviction for discharging a firearm in a residential area and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to vacate that conviction. The court otherwise affirmed the remaining conviction.

Meet with a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case

Firearm cases often involve nuanced statutory distinctions that can determine whether a conviction stands or falls on appeal. If you are charged with a gun crime, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your potential defenses. The knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and help you to seek the best outcome possible. You can reach us at 813-228-7095 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Court Discusses Charging Information in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

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

Case Setting

It is reported that the defendant was indicted on several counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The charges arose after the defendant was stopped by police while traveling with a co-defendant. Law enforcement officers searched the vehicle and discovered methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, digital scales, and a loaded firearm. The government introduced evidence linking the defendant to both the vehicle and the controlled substances.

It is alleged that the prosecution argued the firearm was used to facilitate the drug trafficking operation, and that the firearm’s presence in close proximity to the drugs supported a conviction under § 924(c). The case proceeded to trial, and the jury convicted the defendant. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that included a mandatory consecutive sentence for the firearm offense. The defendant appealed his conviction, asserting that the jury instructions on the firearm count were deficient and that the trial court improperly excluded certain defense evidence.

Evidence Sufficient to Establish Guilt in Drug Crime Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s instructions to the jury regarding the firearm possession charge. The defendant argued that the court failed to explain that mere possession of a firearm near drugs is not sufficient for a conviction under § 924(c), and that the instruction did not adequately define the phrase “in furtherance of.” The court rejected this argument, noting that the jury instructions closely followed the Eleventh Circuit’s pattern language and correctly required the jury to find that the firearm furthered, advanced, or helped forward the drug trafficking crime. The court emphasized that the instruction did not permit a conviction based solely on proximity and that the jury was properly guided on the applicable legal standard.

The defendant also challenged the exclusion of out-of-court statements he sought to introduce at trial. It is alleged that the defense attempted to introduce statements by a third party suggesting ownership of the drugs and firearm, which the court excluded as hearsay. The court concluded that the statements were properly excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that the exclusion did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. The court found that the statements lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and were not admissible under any recognized hearsay exception.

Additionally, the court addressed limitations placed on defense counsel’s cross-examination of a government witness. The defendant asserted that he was prevented from fully exploring the witness’s cooperation with law enforcement. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in managing the scope of questioning and that the defense was allowed adequate opportunity to impeach the witness’s credibility.

After reviewing the record, the court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that no reversible error occurred. The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentence.

Speak to a Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case

Federal drug and firearm prosecutions often involve high-stakes litigation and strict statutory penalties. Defendants in these cases must be prepared to challenge improper jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and procedural missteps. If you are facing serious federal charges, or if you are appealing a federal conviction, the experienced Tampa criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can provide the knowledgeable and aggressive representation you need. Call our Tampa office today at 813-228-7095 or complete our online contact form to schedule a confidential consultation.

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

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.

It is further reported that the defendant did not object to the jury instructions at trial. He was convicted and sentenced to 180 months in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which enhances penalties for defendants with three or more qualifying prior convictions. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the jury instructions under Rehaif, arguing that the omission constituted plain error warranting reversal.

Appellate Review and Legal Ruling

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court acknowledged that the jury instructions were erroneous under Rehaif because they failed to require proof that the defendant knew he had a prior felony conviction at the time of the offense. However, because the defendant did not raise the issue at trial, the appellate court reviewed for plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).

To prevail under plain error review, the defendant had to show that the instructional error was clear, affected his substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The court found that the error was clear in light of Rehaif, but concluded that it did not affect the outcome of the trial.

The court noted that the defendant had stipulated to his prior felony status and that the evidence showed he had served more than a year in prison on earlier convictions. Based on this record, the panel determined that no reasonable jury could have found that the defendant was unaware of his felon status. As a result, the court held that the omission of the Rehaif knowledge element did not warrant reversal under the plain error standard.

The court also affirmed the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement, finding that the defendant’s prior convictions qualified as “serious drug offenses” under federal law. The ACCA enhancement mandated a 15-year minimum sentence, which the district court imposed.

Talk to a Skilled Tampa Weapons Crime Defense Attorney

Federal firearms prosecutions involve complex statutory requirements, and courts continue to grapple with the implications of recent Supreme Court rulings. If you are facing federal weapons charges, the skilled Tampa gun crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and help you explore all available defenses. Contact our Tampa office today at 813-228-7095 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Evaluates Rehaif Error in Federal Firearm Possession Conviction appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

Evidence Sufficient to Support a Gun Crime Conviction

On appeal, the court considered whether the State presented legally sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Under Florida law, a conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has a prior felony conviction. The appellate court examined whether the trial record contained competent evidence establishing this element.

It is reported that the court found that the State failed to present any admissible evidence proving the defendant’s prior felony conviction. The court noted that without a valid stipulation or the introduction of a certified copy of the prior conviction, the State did not meet its burden of proof. Citing Florida precedent, the court held that a fundamental error occurs when the State entirely fails to establish an essential element of the charged offense, making reversal necessary.

Further, the court determined that the error was not harmless, as the absence of evidence meant that a guilty verdict could not have been legally obtained. The court emphasized that, under Florida law, a stipulation to an element of a crime must be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made and must be accompanied by a proper on-the-record colloquy to ensure the defendant’s understanding and agreement. As such, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction and sentence, remanding the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

Meet with an Experienced Tampa Gun Crime Defense Attorney

If you have been convicted of a gun crime based on insufficient evidence, it is critical to explore your legal options for appeal. The experienced Florida gun defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are dedicated to protecting the rights of the accused. You can contact us at 813-435-6200 or fill out our online form to set up a conference today.

The post Florida Court Explains Evidence Sufficient to Support a Gun Crime Conviction appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

Grounds for Deeming a Defendant a Career Criminal

On appeal, the court assessed whether the defendant’s prior convictions qualified as violent felonies or serious drug offenses under the ACCA. In doing so, the court explained that under the ACCA, a defendant convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years if he has three prior convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense.

The court first addressed whether the defendant’s Florida aggravated assault convictions qualified as violent felonies. Using the categorical approach, the court looked only at the statutory elements of the offense. The court cited a recent Florida case confirming that aggravated assault could not be committed in a reckless manner and thus categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause.

Next, the court examined whether the defendant’s Florida conviction for delivering cocaine qualified as a serious drug offense. The ACCA defines a serious drug offense as one involving the manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance. The court applied the categorical approach to determine if the state statute aligned with the ACCA’s definition.

The defendant argued that Florida law defined cocaine more broadly than federal law due to differences in the treatment of ioflupane. However, the court rejected this argument based on precedent, stating that the relevant drug schedules were those in place at the time of the state offense, not at the time of the federal firearm offense.

Since there was no mismatch in how Florida and federal schedules treated ioflupane at the time of the defendant’s cocaine delivery offense, the court concluded that his conviction qualified as a serious drug offense. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s application of the ACCA enhancement and upheld the defendant’s sentence.

Consult with a Proficient Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is wise to consult with a lawyer to discuss your case. The proficient Tampa gun crime defense lawyers at Hanlon Law can help you achieve the best possible outcome based on the details of your case. Reach out to Hanlon Law using our online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to set up a consultation.

The post Florida Court Explains Grounds for Deeming a Defendant a Career Criminal appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.