Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog
Federal sex offense charges carry some of the harshest penalties in the criminal justice system. Even when sentencing guidelines recommend a relatively short term, a judge can impose a much longer sentence based on the nature of the conduct, the defendant’s history, and the perceived danger to the community. Defendants often believe that once they plead guilty, their sentencing outcome is fixed, but appellate courts sometimes review whether a district court acted within its discretion in imposing a lengthy term. A recent Florida sex crime case shows how appellate courts approach these issues and why an experienced federal defense attorney is essential in protecting a defendant’s rights. If you are accused of committing a federal offense involving a minor, a Tampa federal criminal defense lawyer can help you understand the government’s evidence and pursue the best possible result.
Factual and Procedural History
It is reported that the defendant engaged in sexually explicit online conversations with undercover Homeland Security agents posing as a thirteen-year-old girl. Between January and March of 2024, the defendant used the social media platform Kik to send dozens of obscene messages, photographs, and videos. It is alleged that he transmitted four pictures or videos depicting male genitalia and two videos showing adults engaged in sexual acts. The defendant repeatedly asked the individual he believed to be a minor to send nude images and attempted several times to arrange a meeting for sexual activity.
It is further reported that the defendant had a prior sex-related conviction dating back to 2015. In that earlier case, the defendant agreed to pay an undercover officer to engage in sexual activity with a fictitious twelve-year-old girl. After serving community control and probation, he was required to register as a sex offender under Florida law. Less than five years after completing probation, he again initiated contact with someone he believed to be a child.
It is alleged that a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on two counts: transferring obscene material to a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1470 and committing a felony offense involving a minor while registered as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. The defendant entered a guilty plea to both counts without a plea agreement. The presentence investigation report calculated a guideline range of zero to six months for the §1470 offense, based on an offense level of eight and a criminal history category of I. However, the §2260A charge carried a mandatory ten-year consecutive sentence. After hearing testimony from the defendant and his family regarding his mental health struggles, family relationships, and community involvement, the district court imposed a total sentence of fifteen years; ten years for the §2260A offense and an additional five years for the §1470 count, which represented a significant upward variance from the advisory guideline range.
Grounds for Deeming a Sentence Unreasonable
It is reported that the defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable term for transferring obscene material to a minor. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the judge gave insufficient consideration to the sentencing guidelines and failed to give proper weight to mitigating evidence. The court reviewed the sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard, explaining that a sentence is unreasonable only if the district court fails to consider relevant factors, gives undue weight to an improper consideration, or commits a clear error of judgment.
Ultimately, the court determined that the district court had properly treated the guideline range as the starting point for its decision. The record showed that the sentencing judge referenced the guideline range multiple times and explained in detail why a higher sentence was appropriate. The court emphasized that the defendant had previously been convicted of nearly identical conduct and that he continued to engage in sexual communications with someone he believed was a thirteen-year-old child. The district court also focused on the need to protect the public, observing that the defendant “posed a grave danger” given his repeated behavior. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that these considerations were valid under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and supported the upward variance.
Further, the court rejected the defendant’s claim that the district court failed to properly consider his mitigating evidence. The Eleventh Circuit noted that a sentencing judge is not required to discuss every argument or piece of evidence on the record. The sentencing transcript showed that the court had acknowledged the defendant’s statements, his family’s testimony, and the factors set out in § 3553(a). Because the final sentence was five years below the statutory maximum and justified by the seriousness of the conduct, the court found no abuse of discretion. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment and the defendant’s total fifteen-year sentence.
Talk to a Dedicated Tampa Sex Crime Defense Attorney
Federal sex offense cases carry severe penalties and long-term consequences. If you are under investigation or charged with a federal offense involving alleged online communications or conduct with a minor, the experienced Tampa federal defense lawyers at Hanlon Law can help you understand your rights, evaluate the government’s case, and build a strong defense. Contact our Tampa office today at 813-228-7095 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.