One of the protections afforded criminal defendants by the United States Constitution is the prohibition of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy prevents a defendant from being tried or convicted more than once for the same crime. While multiple criminal charges can arise out of a singular act if a defendant is convicted of lesser included offenses of the crimes charged that are essentially the same crime it will violate the rule against double jeopardy.

This was illustrated in a case recently decided by a Florida court of appeals, in which the court overruled a defendant’s dual burglary convictions due to double jeopardy, despite the fact that the crimes the defendant was charged with did not violate double jeopardy. If you are a resident of Clearwater facing criminal charges, it is prudent to meet with a skilled Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss your available defenses.

The Defendant’s Charges and Convictions

Reportedly, the defendant entered the home of his victim without her consent. When the victim discovered the defendant, he pinned her against a wall and then fled. The defendant was later identified by the victim in a lineup. The defendant was charged with armed burglary, burglary with a battery and robbery with a deadly weapon. During the trial, the defendant argued that the dual burglary charges violated double jeopardy and asked the court to dismiss the second charge. The court declined the defendant’s request. A jury convicted the defendant of burglary, the lesser included offense of the armed burglary charge. He was convicted of burglary with battery and robbery with a deadly weapon as well. Following his sentencing, the defendant appealed.

Continue Reading

When a defendant is convicted of a crime there are certain factors that the court can consider when determining an appropriate sentence. For example, a court is not permitted to consider a defendant’s arrest for a subsequent crime when imposing a sentence for the primary offense the defendant was convicted of committing.

A Florida appellate court recently ruled, however, that a trial court is permitted to consider facts underlying a subsequent arrest when considering whether to revoke a convicted felon’s community control.  If you live in Clearwater and are charged with a crime, it is important to retain an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney who will work diligently to help you retain your rights.

Facts Regarding the Defendant’s Criminal History

Reportedly, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison followed by two years of community control. Four months after his release to community control the State filed an affidavit alleging the defendant violated his community control. Specifically, he failed to remain in his residence and refused to submit to a urinalysis. The State later amended the affidavit to include allegations that the defendant had recently been arrested for burglary, resisting officers without violence, and drug crimes.

Continue Reading

If you are convicted and sentenced to be incarcerated, in certain cases you may be given credit for any time you were in jail after your arrest for the subject charges prior to your conviction. Recently, a Florida district court of appeals defined the circumstances in which a court is required to give credit for time served, and when such credit is discretionary.  If you are a Clearwater resident currently facing criminal charges, you should retain a trusted Clearwater criminal defense attorney to help you develop arguments that will assist you in retaining your liberties.

Facts Regarding the Defendant’s Arrest and Conviction

The defendant was charged with first degree murder and burglary in Florida. The defendant was arrested in Argentina but fought his extradition to Florida for several years. During that time he remained in an Argentine jail. He was ultimately extradited and tried and convicted of the charges. He was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. The defendant then filed a motion seeking credit for the time served in the Argentine jail. The trial court denied his motion, after which the defendant appealed.

Florida Law Regarding Credit for Time Served

Section 921.161 of the Florida Statute states that a prison sentence will not begin to run until the date such sentence is imposed, but the court imposing the sentence must grant the defendant credit for the entirety of the time he or she spent in a county jail prior to the sentence. The credit given must be for a specific period of time and the amount of time credited must be indicated in the sentence. While the law requires trial judges to give a defendant credit for time served in a Florida county jail prior to the disposition of offenses charged, the law does not require a judge to give a defendant credit for time spent in a jail in other jurisdictions.

Continue Reading

If a person is suspected of a crime, he or she nonetheless has rights under the law, including the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Even if a person consents to a search, any evidence obtained during the search may be tainted if the consent was not properly obtained or if the search exceeded the scope of the consent.

A Florida district court of appeals recently discharged a defendant’s conviction based on a firearm found during a search, on the grounds that the state could not prove the weapon was found within the areas the defendant gave the police permission to search. If you were charged with a crime after the police searched your home, you should consult a knowledgeable Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss whether you may be able to preclude evidence found during the search.

Facts Regarding the Search of the Defendant’s Property

Allegedly, the police responded to a call that shots had been fired at the defendant’s apartment. Upon arriving at the scene, the police did an initial security sweep, in which they found shell casings and smelled gunpowder. The police escorted the defendant’s girlfriend and children out of the home, and the area was sealed until detectives arrived to conduct a shooting investigation. A detective arrived shortly thereafter and entered the home to secure the scene and begin the investigation. He later testified that this entry was not part of the protective sweep.

Continue Reading

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional, in Hurst v. Florida. The Hurst ruling continues to have lasting effects in Clearwater and throughout the state, as many death sentences imposed prior to Hurst may be unconstitutional.

For example, the Supreme Court of Florida recently held that the Hurst ruling required resentencing in a case where the death penalty was imposed absent a unanimous jury recommendation.  If you live in Clearwater and are charged with a crime, it is in your best interest retain an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney to help you retain your rights.

Facts Surrounding the Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

Reportedly, the defendant was stopped by a police officer while driving a vehicle, when he attempted to flee. The officer followed the defendant and eventually caught up with him. The defendant stopped his vehicle, after which the officer stopped his vehicle. The defendant then exited his vehicle with a handgun and fired three shots into the officer’s vehicle. The shots hit the officer and he died from his injuries. The defendant then returned to his vehicle and fled. He was ultimately arrested without incident by other officers. The defendant was charged with and convicted by a jury of first degree murder. During the penalty phase of the trial, nine out of twelve jurors recommended death. The Florida statute in effect at that time permitted a judge to impose a death sentence if seven jurors recommended death. The judge released the jurors following the penalty recommendation.

Continue Reading

In the Florida criminal court system, a career offender designation can result in increased jail time. There are specific criteria that must be met before a defendant can be designated a career offender, and an improper designation can result in unjust penalties.

Recently, a federal court issued an opinion clarifying what convictions count toward a defendant’s career offender status under the Florida sentencing guidelines. If you are a resident of Clearwater with a prior criminal history and are currently charged with a crime, you should meet with a seasoned Clearwater criminal defense attorney to develop a plan that will provide you with a strong chance of a good outcome under the circumstances surrounding your charges. 

Defendant’s Prior Convictions

The defendant had previously been convicted of two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and one count of robbery. He was subsequently convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court designated the defendant as a career offender under Florida’s sentencing guidelines and sentenced him to 120 months in prison. The defendant then appealed his sentence, arguing that he was improperly designated a career offender. On appeal, the court affirmed his sentence.

Continue Reading

Florida law sets forth the evidentiary standards that apply in both criminal and civil proceedings. An important rule of evidence that is often invoked is the prohibition of hearsay evidence at a criminal trial. The standards applicable at a criminal trial may not be the same as those that apply at a supervised release revocation hearing, however.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Florida recently clarified this issue, in a case where the defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release, arguing that the state improperly relied on hearsay evidence in obtaining the revocation.  If you are a Clearwater resident currently facing criminal charges, it is in your best interest to retain a seasoned Clearwater criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to help you formulate a defense.

Prior Conviction and Subsequent Alleged Violation 

Allegedly, in 2009, the defendant pled guilty to possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense and was sentenced to 111 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. His supervised release began in 2016. Approximately one year later, the district attorney sought a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, alleging he violated the terms of his supervised release by committing a multitude of crimes, including aggravated battery.

Continue Reading

Criminal cases involving multiple defendants can be complicated. When defendants conspire to commit a crime, what crime each defendant is charged with depends on the original intent of the defendants, and whether the crimes ultimately committed fell within the scope of the initial plan. Under Florida law, the independent act doctrine allows a co-conspirator to avoid conviction for a crime if it was not foreseeable under the original plan.

In a recent case arising in a Florida Court of Appeals, the court explained when an instruction on the independent act doctrine is appropriate.  If you live in Clearwater and are facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss your case and what defenses you may be able to set forth.

 Trial Testimony

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with first-degree felony murder and armed burglary. During the trial, the state presented evidence the defendant and three other individuals went to the victim’s apartment, with the intent to rob the victim. While he was in the victim’s apartment, the defendant took the victim into a room and threatened to kill the victim’s fiancé if the victim did not tell the defendant where drugs where hidden. Additionally, the defendant hit the victim in the head with a gun. The defendant subsequently told the victim’s fiancé he was going to kidnap the victim for ransom. The victim was forced into the trunk of his car which was driven from the scene by one of the defendant’s co-conspirators. The victim subsequently escaped from the trunk and was shot and killed by one of the defendant’s co-conspirators.

Continue Reading

Florida, like most states, treats minors charged with crimes differently than adults. The Florida Rules of Juvenile Proceeding provide more safeguards for protecting the rights of juveniles charged with crimes, and the failure to comply with the rules can result in the reversal of a conviction. This was illustrated in a recent case out of the Florida appellate courts, where the court reversed a juvenile conviction on the grounds that the trial court had not properly established the juvenile defendant’s right to counsel. If you are a juvenile resident of Clearwater facing criminal charges it is in your best interest to consult a knowledgeable Clearwater criminal defense attorney to help protect your rights.

Trial Court Proceedings

Allegedly, the defendant, who was a minor, was on probation for various charges. The state filed affidavits alleging the defendant was in violation of his probation. The case proceeded to a plea hearing, which the defendant attended alone without the presence of a parent, guardian, or adult relative. He advised the court that he wished to waive his right to an attorney and admit to violating the terms of his probation. The court subsequently found the defendant waived his right to counsel freely and voluntarily and scheduled a date for the disposition of defendant’s charges. The defendant was not represented by counsel at the disposition hearing. He was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice to be placed in a residential program. The defendant subsequently appealed, arguing that the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to properly investigate his waiver of the right to counsel.

If you are convicted of a crime, that does not necessarily mean you can no longer appeal your conviction or sentence. If subsequent rulings determine that a law or method used to evaluate your guilt is unconstitutional, your conviction may be overturned or your sentence may be reduced.

For example, in a recent case, a Florida Court of Appeals held that a defendant convicted of crimes of violence may be entitled to have a jury re-evaluate his sentencing due to recent case law that determined the method previously used to evaluate crimes of violence for purposes of enhanced sentencing was unconstitutionally vague. If you are a Clearwater resident charged with a crime you should consult an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney to determine how previous convictions may affect your case.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Subsequent Appeal

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with and convicted of multiple crimes, including knowingly carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which permitted enhanced penalties for defendants with prior convictions. The defendant’s total sentence was 335 months in prison, which included 120 months for the section 924 charge. Shortly after the defendant was sentenced, the United States Supreme Court determined in Johnson v. United States that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) was void due to vagueness. The defendant subsequently moved to vacate his sentence for the section 924 violation, arguing that his conviction was invalid under Johnson. The court denied his motion, holding that Johnson did not render section 924 unconstitutional. The defendant appealed.

Continue Reading