Avvo Rating badge
NACDL badge
Expertise badge
Avvo Rating badge
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Home » Page 6

Posted In: | By

At both the state and federal levels, sentencing guidelines set forth what constitutes an appropriate sentence for certain offenses. The courts are not bound by the guidelines, though, and can issue a sentence that is greater or lesser than that suggested. In doing so, the court must abide by certain procedural rules, and if it fails to, the defendant may have grounds for challenging the sentence. Recently, a Florida court examined whether a court violated a defendant’s rights in issuing a sentence that represented an upward variance for a gun crime, ultimately determining that it did not. If you are accused of unlawfully possessing a weapon, it is in your best interest to meet with a Tampa weapons crime defense attorney to discuss your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty, after which he was sentenced to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. Although his advisory guidelines range was calculated as 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment, the court sentenced him to 50 months. The defendant appealed.

Sentence Variances in Florida Criminal Cases

On appeal, the defendant argued that his sentence constituted an upward departure rather than an upward variance. The court disagreed, however, ruling that the defendant’s sentence was an upward variance based on the trial court’s stated reasons for imposing it. Specifically, the court found that the trial court did not refer to a departure provision and that the grounds the trial court gave for the sentence were based on the factors outlined in the imposition of a sentence law. Thus, the court declined to adopt the defendant’s arguments that the trial court erred in failing to comply with established procedures for imposing an upward departure. 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 ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida criminal matters, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt. While the prosecution can use circumstantial and direct evidence to establish that a defendant committed a crime, it cannot rely on facts not in evidence, as explained by a Florida court in a recent case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. If you are accused of a gun offense, it is smart to speak to a Tampa weapons crime defense attorney about your options for protecting your rights.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the State charged the defendant with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. During the trial, the State presented testimony from a police officer that came in contact with the defendant during an investigation. The officer stated that the defendant told him he had a gun in his possession.

It is alleged that a second officer testified, corroborating the first officer’s report. The defendant testified and denied making the aforementioned statements or possessing a gun. During the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury the defendant was not reliable and implied that the second testifying officer was credible because he had not been convicted of a felony. Defense counsel objected, but the court overruled the objection. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida, crimes are classified by degrees, with life felonies carrying the most significant penalties. It is critical that the courts classify criminal offenses accurately because if they fail to do so, it can result in improperly enhanced sentences. The impact of an inaccurate crime classification was demonstrated in an opinion recently delivered by a Florida court in which the court found that the defendant was entitled to an appeal after he was sentenced for a life felony when he was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, which is a first-degree felony. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is critical to retain a Tampa violent crime defense attorney who will fight to protect your interests.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant shot his girlfriend in front of multiple witnesses. In an attempt to hide the shooting, he hired a third party to murder the witnesses, one of whom lived. The defendant was then charged with one count of attempted first-degree murder with a weapon and two counts of first-degree murder with a weapon. The jury convicted him of attempted first-degree murder with a weapon as a principal due to the actions committed by his co-defendant.

It is reported that the jury did not issue a specific finding that the defendant used, displayed, or threatened to use a gun during the commission of the crime, however. Under Florida law, first-degree murder is a first-degree felony, but the trial court entered a judgment listing the offense as a life felony. The defendant then filed a petition for habeas corpus review, arguing that the court incorrectly enhanced his sentence. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

People incarcerated in federal prisons typically have to serve the entirety of their sentences unless they are eligible for parole or get credit for good behavior. In some instances, though, federal prisoners may be able to obtain a compassionate release. Only reasons enumerated by statute qualify for release, however, as explained in a recent Florida case in which the court denied the request for compassionate release of a defendant convicted of robbery. If you are accused of robbery or another theft crime, it is prudent to consult a Tampa theft offense defense attorney to determine what measures you can take to protect your rights.

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. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Many criminal defendants unwaveringly assert their innocence, but others choose to plead guilty in hopes of obtaining a favorable plea deal. State and federal law allows defendants to enter guilty pleas, as long as they do so willingly and with a clear understanding of the consequences of their decision, but if they do, they typically have limited chances to withdraw their plea. Recently, a Florida court analyzed when permitting a criminal defendant to change their guilty plea is appropriate in a case in which the defendant pled guilty to numerous crimes involving sex with a minor. If you are charged with a sex crime, you may face substantial penalties if convicted, and it is in your best interest to talk to a Tampa sex crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant lived with his girlfriend and her teenage son and daughter. For approximately one year, the defendant had sex with the daughter, who was sixteen at the time. The daughter cooperated with law enforcement and made calls to catch the defendant scheduling sex acts. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with recruiting and soliciting a minor to engage in a commercial sex act.

It is reported that the defendant pleaded not guilty at his arraignment but requested a change of plea hearing a few months later, during which he requested to change his plea to guilty. The magistrate noticed he was hesitant and ended the hearing. The defendant requested a second change of plea hearing a week later, during which he stated that no one compelled him to plead guilty. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

People with an extensive criminal history may face greater penalties if they are convicted for another offense pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Only certain offenses qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA, though. Recently, a Florida court explained what constitutes a violent offense under the ACCA’s elements clause, in which it deliberated whether a prior conviction for aggravated assault could sustain the defendant’s enhanced sentence under the ACCA. If you are charged with assault, it is wise to confer with a Tampa assault defense lawyer to determine your options for seeking a good outcome.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant pleaded guilty to a federal charge of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Due to the defendant’s four prior convictions for violent crimes, the court ruled that the defendant should be sentenced to increased penalties under the ACCA and sentenced him to 211 months in prison.

Allegedly, the court relied on the conclusion that aggravated assault with a deadly weapon qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA. The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, and the court affirmed. He filed a petition for rehearing, and the court certified his questions to the Florida Supreme Court. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from incriminating themselves. In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Fifth Amendment to require that a criminal suspect be verbally advised of their right to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney prior to being questioned by the police. If a criminal defendant chooses to waive their Miranda rights, however, any information that they provide law enforcement agents can be used against them. Recently, a Florida court discussed what evidence is needed to demonstrate a voluntary and knowing waiver of Miranda rights in a matter in which the defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes. If you are accused of a violent offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a Tampa violent offense defense lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant walked into a home in which an eighteen-year-old and five other children were sleeping. One of the children recognized the defendant from a social media website. The defendant fired a gun multiple times, striking the eighteen-year-old and two of the children; the eighteen-year-old died from his wounds. The police arrested the defendant and transported him to a homicide office.

It is reported that the defendant advised the police that he could read and write English and was not under the influence of drugs. He was then given a form listing his constitutional rights and verbally advised of his right not to make statements or answer questions and of his right to an attorney. He stated he understood his rights and answered the detective’s questions. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and four other crimes. He moved to suppress the statements he made during the initial investigation, arguing he did not validly waive his Miranda rights. The trial court denied his motion, and a jury convicted him as charged. He then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Generally, when imposing sentences for crimes, the courts are bound by the sentencing guidelines. They may issue sentences at the high or low end of the guidelines, however, and in some instances, they can deviate from the guidelines. The courts will consider numerous factors in determining an appropriate sentence but have the discretion to assign greater weight to some factors than others, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the court rejected the defendant’s assertion that his sentence for gun crimes was unreasonable in light of his personal characteristics. If you are charged with a weapons offense, you may face serious penalties, and it is advisable to confer with a Tampa gun crime defense attorney about your possible defenses.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant, who is a convicted felon, was arrested for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon following a shooting at an apartment complex and a high-speed chase. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge against him pursuant to a plea agreement in which the government agreed to recommend that the court impose a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range.

Reportedly, a United States probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report in which he offered recommendations for the defendant’s sentence. He made a series of increases based on the nature of the defendant’s offense and the defendant’s extensive criminal history; based on the total offense level and criminal history, the probation officer calculated the sentencing guidelines range to be 84 to 105 months in prison. The court sentenced the defendant to 96 months in prison, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In addition to issuing prison sentences, federal courts have the right to order people convicted of certain crimes to pay restitution. Such amounts generally must reflect the actual damages caused, however; otherwise, defendants may be able to argue that they are unconstitutional. Recently, a Florida court examined what constitutes appropriate restitution in an identity theft case in which it ultimately rejected the defendant’s argument that the amount imposed was excessive. If you are accused of committing a theft crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Tampa theft crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

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. Continue Reading ›

By
Posted in: Theft
Posted In:
Updated: