St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

Court Rejects a Florida Defendant’s Attempt to Set Forth Defenses Post-Conviction

July 15, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

There are numerous defenses and arguments a criminal defendant may be able to set forth to avoid a conviction or a severe sentence. As explained in a recent Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of numerous violent crimes, including first-degree murder, most defenses cannot be argued retroactively, however. If you are charged with murder, attempted murder, or any other violent crime, it is critical to retain an assertive St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorney to discuss what defenses you may be able to assert to protect your rights.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Appeal

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder of his ex-girlfriend, attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, and burglary. He was sentenced to death for the first-degree murder conviction, and the sentence eventually became final. The defendant then filed a post-conviction motion asking the court for relief on several grounds. The court denied the defendant’s motion and affirmed his sentence. The defendant then appealed.

Post-Conviction Defenses

First, the defendant argued on appeal that he was entitled to relief under Atkins v. Virginia, a United States Supreme Court case and cases that were subsequently decided in the Florida courts, on the grounds that he suffered from an intellectual disability. The court rejected this assertion, stating that the law was clear that relief for an intellectual disability could not be granted retroactively. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court ruling dismissing the petition for relief due to intellectual disability as time-barred.

Court Analyzes Admissibility of Prior Statements in Sex Crime Cases in Florida

June 19, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

In many instances in which a person is charged with a sex crime, the State’s primary evidence against the person will consist of statements and testimony from the alleged victim. Thus, whether a person is convicted of a sex crime largely depends on whether the judge or jury finds the victim’s account of what occurred to be credible. In many cases, the State may attempt to bolster a victim’s credibility by offering testimony from other witnesses that corroborate the witness’s testimony. While some testimony is admissible, however, testimony regarding prior consistent statements made by the victim to third parties is only admissible in limited circumstances, as discussed in a case in which the defendant was convicted of numerous sex crimes. If you are faced with charges you committed a sex crime in St. Petersburg, it is prudent to speak with a diligent St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney to assess what evidence the State may be permitted to use against you.

Factual Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous sex crimes arising out of allegations of inappropriate contact with the victim, who was his minor daughter. Prior to the arrest, the victim made statements to a school nurse and detectives regarding the alleged contact. During the trial, the victim testified regarding the contact as well, and the State introduced testimony from the detectives and nurse regarding the victim’s prior statements. The defendant was convicted after which he appealed, arguing that the testimony of the nurse and detectives regarding the victim’s prior statements constituted inadmissible hearsay. The State argued the statements were admissible as they were offered to refute the defendant’s allegations regarding the victim’s motives for accusing the defendant of the actions that formed the basis of his charges.

Admissibility of Consistent Prior Statements

Generally, testimony regarding prior consistent statements made by a witness to a third party constitutes inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used to corroborate the witness’s in-court testimony. Prior inconsistent statements are admissible in limited circumstances, however, such as when they fall under an exception to the rule against hearsay or do not actually constitute hearsay. Specifically, a prior consistent statement is not inadmissible hearsay when a declarant testifies at trial and is cross-examined regarding the statement, and the statement is made to rebut a charge of a recent fabrication, improper motive, or undue influence.

Florida Court Discusses Burden of Proof for Mitigating Circumstances

May 19, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

The sentence imposed on a criminal defendant convicted of a crime depends on numerous factors, including whether the sentence should be increased or reduced due to any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Thus, if a jury is not properly advised of the weight of such circumstances or how they should be assessed, it can adversely affect a defendant’s case. In a recent ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Florida, the court clarified the burden of proof that applies to mitigating circumstances, in a case in which the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. If you live in St. Petersburg and are charged with murder or any other violent crime, it is advisable to consult a skillful St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to discuss your case.

Facts Regarding the Case and Sentencing Hearing

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to death, after which he filed a petition for relief. He was then granted a new penalty-phase trial and was sentenced to death a second time, after which he appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial court made a fundamental error by neglecting to instruct the jury regarding the burden of proof that applied to mitigating circumstances.

The burden of Proof that Applies to Findings Related to Mitigating Circumstances

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court was required to advise the jury that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that any aggravating factors were adequate to impose a death sentence and that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors. The court disagreed. Specifically, the court noted that while previous case law suggested that a jury must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the weight and sufficiency of any aggravating factors required a recommendation that a defendant should be sentenced to death, the prior courts mischaracterized the standard.

Florida Court Discusses the Right to a Speedy Trial in a Sexual Battery Case

April 20, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

One of the many rights afforded criminal defendants by State and Federal law is the right to a speedy trial. In other words, a defendant cannot be arrested and then detained for an unreasonable amount of time prior to being tried, and if a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is violated, the charges against the defendant may be dismissed. In a recent case in which a defendant was charged with sexual battery, a Florida appellate court discussed the factors weighed in determining when an arrest occurred to determine whether the State violated a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. If you are charged with sexual battery or a related offense in St. Petersburg, it is in your best interest to speak to a capable St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney regarding your rights.

Factual Background

It is reported that a woman was sexually assaulted while running in a park in September 2017. Immediately after the incident, the woman advised her husband that the defendant was the assailant, and the husband detained the defendant until the police arrived. Upon arrival, the police questioned the defendant, read him his Miranda warnings, and took him to the police station where he was held in a cell. Additionally, DNA samples were taken from the defendant. The defendant was ultimately released and was formally arrested and charged with sexual battery in November 2018. The defendant then moved to have the charge dismissed, arguing that he was not charged within 175 days of his arrest as required by Florida’s speedy trial law. The court agreed and dismissed the charge, after which the State appealed.

Determining When an Arrest Occurred

Under Florida’s speedy trial law, a defendant must be charged within 175 days of his or her arrest. On appeal, the court noted that a person could be taken into custody for purposes of requiring a Miranda warning, but not for purposes of triggering the speedy trial rule. Rather, for purposes of evaluating if a person was arrested prior to a formal arrest, the court must conduct a four-part test. Specifically, the court must find that the purpose of the authority was to effect an arrest, the defendant was seized, the police officer communicated an intent to effect an arrest to the defendant, and the defendant believes the officer is there to detain and arrest him.

Florida Court Discusses When a Person Must Register as a Sexual Offender

March 21, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

Often, people who are convicted of sex crimes are required to register as sex offenders. Thus, if a person is required to register as a sex offender and fails to do so, it can result in a reconviction of their probation. Recently, an appellate court in Florida analyzed whether the court must explicitly designate a person as a sexual offender for the person to be required to register as a sex offender in a case in which the defendant’s probation was revoked for failing to register. If you are a resident if St. Petersburg currently charged with a sex crime, it is prudent to consult a trusted St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney regarding your options for protecting your interests.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with false imprisonment, aggravated battery, and lewd or lascivious battery, in 2002. The charging information alleged that the defendant engaged in sexual activity with a person between the ages of twelve and sixteen. He pleaded guilty to the aggravated battery and false imprisonment charges, and the State agreed not to prosecute him on the lewd and lascivious battery charge. After the defendant completed his sentence, he was released on probation.

Reportedly, six years later, the defendant was charged with the failure to register as a sexual offender. In response, he filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that he had never been designated as a sexual offender, and an automatic designation without a hearing violated his rights. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding there was a sexual component to the underlying claims. The defendant pleaded guilty and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion.

Florida Court Discusses Felony Hazing as a Principal

February 11, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

Hazing is a long-standing tradition in many college fraternities and sororities. Hazing is also unlawful, and parties that engage in hazing can be charged criminally for any harm that occurs as a result of the hazing. Further, a person may be charged criminally for hazing even if he or she did not directly participate in the unlawful activity. This was demonstrated in a recent case decided by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, in which the court reversed a trial court’s dismissal of hazing charges against a fraternity president. If you live in St. Petersburg and are charged with hazing or any other crime alleging you caused bodily harm, it is sensible to meet with a skillful St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to discuss your options for striving to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was the president of a fraternity at a Florida university. As the president, he presided over all fraternity activities and agreed to all pledge activities. Additionally, he was present for a meeting in which the members of the fraternity’s executive board discussed the dangers of the underage pledges becoming intoxicated at an upcoming pledge event, and he encouraged the event to take place.

Allegedly, during the event in question, the victim consumed most of a bottle of bourbon and subsequently died of acute alcohol intoxication. His blood alcohol concentration at the time of his death was over 0.44%. The defendant was not present at the event. The State charged the defendant with one count of felony hazing and one count of misdemeanor hazing, however. During a pre-trial hearing, the court dismissed the felony hazing count, after which the State appealed.

Florida Court Discusses Evidence Sufficient to Show a Sex Offender Probation Violation

January 20, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

In some instances in which a defendant is charged with a sex crime, the defendant’s counsel is able to negotiate an agreement where the person is placed on probation in exchange for a no-contest plea. In any case, where a defendant is sentenced to probation, it is crucial for the defendant to comply with the terms of the probation. If a defendant does not comply with the terms of probation, the probation may be revoked. As demonstrated in a recent case, however, the State must produce sufficient evidence that a defendant violated the terms of his or her probation, in order to obtain a revocation. If you are a resident of St. Petersburg and you are accused of committing a sex crime, it is prudent to meet with a capable St. Petersburg sex crime attorney to discuss what evidence you may be able to offer in your defense.

Facts Regarding the Defendant’s Probation.

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with lewd or lascivious conduct. He pleaded no contest, after which he was placed on sex offender probation. After he was released from jail, he went to the location approved by his probation officer, which was the home where he lived prior to his arrest. Upon arrival, he learned his wife had sold the home. He was then placed with a sponsor at a second residence, but disliked the location and requested to move.

It is reported that the defendant’s probation officer approved the move but advised the defendant he could not move until his new residence was inspected. The defendant moved regardless. The defendant was then charged with four counts of violating the conditions of his probation. He was convicted on all four charges, after which he appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to show that he violated two of the conditions in question.

Florida Court Discusses Impact of Improper Statements in Sex Crime Cases

December 19, 2019 | by Hanlon Law, PA

Under Florida law, there are rules establishing what the prosecution is permitted to assert at trial for a sex crime case. If the prosecution violates the rules to the detriment of the defendant, and the defendant is subsequently convicted, the defendant may be entitled to a new trial. The District Court of Appeals of Florida, Second District, discussed when a new trial is warranted because of improper statements, in a case where the defendant was convicted for sexual battery. If you reside in St. Petersburg and are accused of sexual battery, it is sensible to consult an experienced St. Petersburg sex crime attorney to analyze what evidence the State is permitted to use against you at trial.

Evidence Regarding the Alleged Offense and Trial

It is reported that the defendant was charged with sexual battery with a deadly weapon. During the trial, the victim testified that she saw the defendant walking on the side of the road and gave him a ride. She also stated that later in the evening, the defendant held a knife against her neck and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse. She underwent a medical examination during which a DNA swab identified the defendant’s semen. The defendant testified, however, that his sexual encounter with the victim was consensual, and he denied holding a knife to her neck.

Allegedly, during closing arguments, the prosecution stated that the defendant engaged in spaghetti throwing, in that he was throwing out defenses to see what would stick, used smoke and mirror tactics, and likened the defense arguments to an abusive relationship. The jury convicted the defendant of sexual battery, which was a lesser-included offense. The defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial due to improper statements made by the prosecution in its closing.

Court Discusses Right to Post-Conviction DNA Testing in Florida Criminal Cases

October 21, 2019 | by Hanlon Law, PA

Advances in technology over the past several decades have vastly changed the manner in which criminal cases are prosecuted and defended. For example, in many criminal cases, the prosecution will seek to introduce DNA evidence to establish the defendant’s guilt. Defendants can introduce DNA evidence as well, but only under certain circumstances. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, recently discussed the parameters for a defendant’s right to post-conviction DNA testing in a case in which the defendant appealed his convictions for multiple sex crimes. If you live in St. Petersburg and are charged with one or more sex crimes, it is prudent to meet with a knowledgeable St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney to discuss what evidence you may be able to set forth in your defense.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with sexual battery on a victim under twelve years old and lewd and lascivious molestation of a victim under eighteen years old. The alleged victim was the defendant’s stepdaughter. At trial, the victim testified that when she was ten years old, the defendant came into her room at night and touched her genitals with his hand and genitals. She also testified that the defendant hit her on the leg with a belt and that she still had a mark from when he hit her. Lastly, the victim testified that the defendant threatened to beat her if she reported his behavior to anyone.

Reportedly, the defendant was found guilty of both charges and was sentenced to life in prison for the sexual battery charge and fifty-five years imprisonment for the lewd and lascivious molestation charge. He filed multiple post-conviction motions, all of which were denied. He then filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Florida Court Rules Civil Commitment for Sex Offender is Not a Punishment

September 20, 2019 | by Hanlon Law, PA

In many instances in which a person is charged with a sex crime, the person will choose to enter into a plea agreement rather than proceed to trial. Under the terms of a plea agreement, the defendant will either enter a guilty plea or plea of no contest to the charged offenses in exchange for a lesser sentence. In a recent case arising out of the District Court of Appeals of Florida, First District, the court discussed whether the State’s involuntary commitment for sex offender treatment of a defendant who was convicted of sexual battery violated the plea agreement. If you are faced with charges of sexual battery it is critical to retain a proficient St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney to help you determine the best manner to proceed in your case.

Procedural Background of the Case

Reportedly, in 2002, the defendant was charged with sexual battery. He entered into a plea agreement by which he was convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment followed by five years of sex offender probation. Following his release from prison in 2009, he was transferred to a Civil Commitment Center under the direction of the Department of Children and Families. The defendant then admitted to violating his probation in 2013 and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. The defendant appealed, arguing that his civil commitment was an enhancement to his sentence and therefore violated both his plea agreement and double jeopardy. Additionally, he argued that as he remained confined his probation never began and the State, therefore, had no right to revoke his probation.

Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders

On appeal, the court affirmed the revocation of the defendant’s probation. The court stated that under Florida law, involuntary commitment of a person convicted of a sex crime is a civil commitment and not a punishment. Therefore, a plea agreement for imprisonment followed by probation is not violated if the defendant is committed to a sex offender facility following his or her imprisonment. The court explained that the Florida Supreme Court explicitly rejected the argument that a civil commitment was an additional term of probation. Continue Reading ›