St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Imposing Pre-Trial Detention

February 14, 2021 | by Hanlon Law, PA

One of the initial questions many criminal defendants have is whether they will be released on bail prior to their criminal trials. If a defendant is detained prior to trial, it may not only result in a loss of liberties, but it may also greatly impact the defendant’s ability to participate in formulating a compelling defense. Thus, a defendant that is detained prior to trial may ask the court to reconsider its ruling, but such reversals are not easily obtained. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida opinion in which the court recommended that the defendant’s pre-trial detention be sustained, in a matter where the defendant faced numerous gun crimes. If you are charged with a firearms offense, it is advisable to speak to a knowledgeable St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney about your rights.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with numerous gun crimes after he was observed in a crowded casino with a backpack containing loaded firearms. The defendant had an extensive criminal history that included numerous convictions for weapons offenses, theft, attempted robbery, and probation violations. Following his arrest, a pre-trial detention hearing was held, during which the court determined the defendant posed a danger to the community. Thus, an order of detention was issued. The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in ordering pre-trial detention.

Grounds for Ordering Pre-Trial Detention

The court explained that if pre-trial detention is ordered by a magistrate judge or a person other than a court having original jurisdiction over the case, the defendant may file a motion with the court that has original jurisdiction, requesting a revocation and amendment of the order. In the subject case, the order was issued by a magistrate court. Thus the matter was filed with the district court. Continue Reading ›

Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Revocation of Probation

January 15, 2021 | by Hanlon Law, PA

Typically, when a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced to probation, the court will issue terms the person must comply with as part of his or her release. Thus, a defendant that violates one or more conditions of probation may face probation revocation. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion discussing what is weighed in determining whether a violation of a condition of probation warrants revocation in a case in which the defendant on probation for aggravated battery was accused of violating numerous terms of his release. If you are accused of violating a probationary term, it is in your best interest to meet with a trusted St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney regarding your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes, including aggravated battery. He entered into a plea agreement that included sixty months of probation. In the first two years of his probation, the defendant was found to be in violation and was placed on community control. Another affidavit of violation was filed, alleging two additional violations of his community control, namely that he failed to remain in his residence and failed to complete a drug treatment program.

Allegedly, a hearing was held during which it was determined that the defendant was not present at his residence and his absence was not authorized, but that he was released from his drug treatment program due to health issues. He was found to have violated both conditions, and his community control was revoked. He was then sentenced to over five years in prison, after which he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Florida Court Discusses the Right to be Physically Present in a Courtroom

December 11, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused upheaval in every area of life, including the judicial system. While many courts have delayed and canceled proceedings to protect public health, they are also largely mindful of protecting the rights of criminal defendants and must balance both objectives in determining how to proceed. Whether a remote probation violation hearing using audio-video technology violates a defendant’s constitutional rights was the topic of a recent opinion drafted by a Florida court. If you are charged with violating the terms of your probation, it is advisable to speak to a seasoned St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights.

The Defendant’s Probation

It is alleged that in 2018 the defendant was placed on probation for first-degree murder. In June 2020, an affidavit was filed indicating he violated the terms of his probation by committing three new offenses. He was taken into custody and held without bond, and faced a life sentence if he was found guilty of violating his probation.

Reportedly, in October 2020, the Florida Supreme Court issued an order providing that all rules and court orders that prohibited the use of communication equipment for remote proceedings were suspended. Thus, it was determined at a status conference that the defendant’s probation violation hearing would be conducted via remote means. The defendant objected to the remote hearing, as he would not be in the same room as his counsel, and stated that it would constitute a violation of his Constitutional rights. The court overruled his objections, and the defendant appealed.

Florida Court Discusses Amendment of an Information

November 10, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

In Florida, the State will typically institute a criminal case by filing an information with a court. An information sets forth the charges against the defendant as well as the essential facts that support such charges. Thus, if the State is permitted to amend the information after the case is underway, it may adversely affect a criminal defendant’s substantive rights. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion discussing when an amendment of an information is permissible in a case in which the defendant was charged with lewd and lascivious behavior. If you are faced with accusations that you engaged in criminally inappropriate behavior, it is wise to talk to a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to determine what defenses you may be able to set forth.

The Charges Against the Defendant

It is reported that the defendant was charged with four counts of sexual battery and numerous other crimes via an information. During the trial, the State moved to amend the information to change the sexual battery crimes to lewd or lascivious molestation. The defendant objected, but the trial court permitted the State to make the requested changes. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, after which the defendant appealed, arguing that the amendment violated his rights. On appeal, the appellate court found in favor of the State.

When Amendment of an Information is Permitted

Under Florida law, amending an information during trial is permitted in certain circumstances. Specifically, the State may substantively amend an information at trial, even if a defendant objects to the modification, if it will not result in prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant. If the defendant’s rights will be violated, however, a request to amend an information should be denied. In the subject case, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the amendment did not impair the defendant’s substantive rights.

Florida Court Rules RICO Conspiracy Is Not a Crime of Violence

October 12, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

In many cases in which a person engages in criminal activity while using a firearm, he or she may be charged with additional offenses in addition to facing charges for the underlying crime. For example, a person that commits a crime of violence while carrying a weapon may be charged with a federal firearms offense. Recently, a Florida court addressed the issue of whether a RICO conspiracy crime constitutes a crime of violence under federal law, ultimately determining that it does not. If you are charged with RICO conspiracy or any other drug crime, it is prudent to speak with a St. Petersburg drug crime defense attorney experienced in handling complex matters to determine what defenses may be available.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendants, collectively, operated an organization engaged in drug trafficking in Florida. Many of them carried guns while they kidnapped, beat, and murdered people. They were charged with and convicted of participating in a racketeering conspiracy under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, drug trafficking conspiracy, gun crimes, and other offenses. Following their convictions and sentencing, they appealed on several grounds, including the issue of whether RICO conspiracy is a crime of violence.

RICO Conspiracy Is Not a Crime of Violence

Under federal law 18 U.S.C. 924(c), a crime of violence is a felony that includes as one of its elements the use, or attempted or threatened use, of physical force against another person or property, or that by its nature, involves a significant risk that physical force will be used in the commission of the offense. After the statute was enacted, the clause regarding a significant risk of force was deemed unconstitutional. Thus, in determining whether an act constitutes a crime of violence, the court must look to the elements of the crime.

Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Continuing Criminal Trials

September 15, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

While criminal defendants are not required to set forth a defense, many do, and it generally takes a substantial amount of time to gather the facts and evidence needed to refute the State’s claims. Thus, if a defendant is denied the right to have sufficient time to prepare a defense, it can greatly impact his or her rights. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which a defendant’s information was amended to include a burglary with assault and battery charge right before trial, but his request to continue the trial was denied. If you are accused of assault and battery or other crime of violence, it is advisable to speak to a trusted St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to determine your rights.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant and a friend visited the home of another woman in August 2016. The friend, who was homeless, sometimes stayed at the woman’s home with her children. The defendant and the woman left the home but returned later that evening. The defendant then reportedly engaged in illegal acts and was driven out of the home by the friend. He was subsequently charged with numerous offenses.

Reportedly, one week prior to trial, the State filed an amended information, setting forth a burglary with assault or battery charge against the defendant. The State also identified three additional witnesses two days later. The defendant filed a motion to continue the trial to afford him additional time to prepare his defense. The court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted, after which he appealed.

Florida Court Discusses the Right to a Competency Hearing

August 13, 2020 | by Hanlon Law, PA

In Florida, the State generally cannot conduct a criminal trial unless the defendant is deemed mentally competent to proceed. As such, if a court fails to accurately assess whether a defendant has the mental capacity to participate in a fair trial and the defendant is ultimately convicted, the defendant may have grounds to argue the conviction should be reversed. In a recent Florida murder case, a court examined whether a trial court’s acceptance of a guilty plea without conducting a competency hearing violated the defendant’s right to due process. If you are accused of murder or another violent crime, it is in your best interest to retain an experienced St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorney to help you seek a fair outcome.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant, who was incarcerated, was suspected of attacking another inmate. The victim, who died from his injuries, was briefly interviewed prior to his death and named the defendant as the person who both bound his hands and feet and stabbed him. The defendant was interviewed as well, admitting to tying the victim up but stated he blacked out after that due to anger, and could not recall what happened. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder, to which he pleaded guilty.

Allegedly, the prosecution and defense counsel both then agreed to enter the defendant’s competency evaluation reports into evidence. The defendant was ultimately sentenced to death. Following his sentencing, he appealed, arguing in part that the court violated his right to due process by failing to conduct a competency hearing.

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.