Badge - Avvo Rating 10, Superb
Badge - Natitonal Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Expertise badge
Badge - Avvo Rating, Top Attorney
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Home

Published on: | by

Criminal trials often turn on strategic choices made in the moment, and those choices can carry significant evidentiary consequences. One recurring issue involves whether a defendant who does not testify can nonetheless place credibility at issue through statements introduced by the defense. A recent Florida decision addressed this precise question in the context of a burglary prosecution, clarifying when prior convictions may be disclosed to a jury for impeachment purposes. If you are charged with burglary or any other theft crime, you should consider speaking with a Clearwater theft crime defense attorney about your rights

Case Setting

Allegedly, the victim was away from her residence when a home security system alerted her to movement near a sliding glass door, which served as the only entrance from the fenced backyard into the dwelling. She viewed a live video feed, observed an unknown individual inside the home, activated an alarm, and contacted law enforcement.

Reportedly, officers responded to the scene and reviewed surveillance footage showing an individual entering through the sliding glass door, moving through the residence, and exiting quickly once the alarm sounded. The victim later noticed that a jewelry box in a bedroom had been opened and that earrings were missing, with no signs of forced entry.

It is alleged that officers encountered the defendant shortly thereafter in a nearby commercial area wearing clothing consistent with the individual depicted on the security video. Law enforcement detained the defendant, conducted a pat-down, and did not locate any jewelry or other property from the residence.

It is reported that the State charged the defendant with burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. At trial, the defense conceded that the defendant was the person shown on the surveillance footage and did not dispute that the defendant lacked permission to enter the home. The defense theory instead focused on the State’s alleged failure to prove intent to commit an offense inside the dwelling.

Allegedly, during cross-examination of a law enforcement officer, defense counsel elicited testimony that the officer had asked the defendant whether he possessed any jewelry and that the defendant denied having any on his person. Following this exchange, the prosecution requested permission to inform the jury of the defendant’s prior felony and misdemeanor convictions involving dishonesty, arguing that the defense had introduced a hearsay statement subject to impeachment. The court permitted this testimony, and the jury convicted the defendant of burglary. He then appealed.

Impeachment Evidence in Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s decision to permit impeachment with prior convictions under an abuse of discretion standard, while addressing related evidentiary questions de novo. The court analyzed the interaction between Florida statutes governing hearsay, impeachment of declarants, and the balancing test that excludes relevant evidence when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.

The court explained that when a party introduces an out-of-court statement for its truth, the declarant’s credibility becomes subject to attack as though the declarant testified at trial. Under Florida law, qualifying prior convictions may be used for impeachment if they involve dishonesty or meet statutory sentencing thresholds. However, such evidence remains subject to exclusion if it poses an undue risk of unfair prejudice.

Applying these principles, the court determined that the defendant’s denial of possessing jewelry constituted self-serving and exculpatory hearsay in the context of burglary and theft charges. The court reasoned that the defense intentionally elicited the statement to support its theory and that the statement invited the jury to assess the defendant’s credibility. Because credibility was placed at issue, the trial court acted within its discretion by allowing impeachment with the number of prior convictions, while withholding details about their nature and issuing limiting instructions.

The court further emphasized that juries retain the authority to accept or reject testimony, even when uncontradicted. The absence of directly conflicting evidence did not remove credibility from consideration. As such, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Consult a Dedicated Clearwater Theft Crime Defense Attorney

If you are facing burglary or theft charges, it is critical to work with counsel who understands how trial strategy intersects with Florida evidence law. The dedicated Clearwater criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and help you seek the best outcome available. provide experienced representation to clients throughout Pinellas County and across Florida. You can contact us online or call 727-897-5413 to schedule a confidential consultation.

Continue reading →

by
Posted in: Theft
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Juvenile theft cases demand exacting proof because even minor evidentiary gaps can mean the difference between a lawful adjudication and a reversible error. When the State alleges grand theft of a motor vehicle, it must do more than show a child was near or inside a stolen car. It must also prove that the specific vehicle taken belonged to the person identified in the charging document. A recent Florida decision reinforces this critical safeguard, making clear that assumptions based on similarity and timing cannot substitute for competent evidence of ownership. If your child is facing theft or delinquency charges, you should speak with a Clearwater juvenile criminal defense attorney who can rigorously challenge the State’s case and protect your child’s future.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the State filed a delinquency petition accusing the defendant, a juvenile, of grand theft of a motor vehicle, asserting that the defendant stole a Nissan automobile identified as the property of another individual from a residence in Orange County.

Reportedly, the alleged owner testified at the adjudicatory hearing that her red Nissan sedan was taken from outside her home while she was inside, unaware that the keys had been removed from her porch. She further testified that she recovered the vehicle approximately one week later from a police tow yard and observed damage and flat tires upon its return.

Continue reading →

by
Posted in: Theft
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Federal drug and firearm cases often hinge on the government’s ability to investigate efficiently while respecting the constitutional protections guaranteed to every defendant. When delays occur between indictment and arrest, courts must determine whether those delays undermine the integrity of the prosecution or violate fundamental rights. A recent ruling from a Florida court illustrates how judges address these concerns in complex narcotics investigations marked by long investigative gaps and disputed law enforcement efforts. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should speak with a Clearwater drug crime defense attorney who can help you protect your interests at every stage of the process.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, federal agents intercepted a package containing cocaine and orchestrated a controlled delivery to a Tampa address in September 2019. A woman received the package and later handed it to two men, identified as the driver and the defendant, who placed it in a vehicle and traveled to an Orlando residence.

Reportedly, the men opened the package later that evening. Agents set up surveillance around the residence and secured a warrant. After entering the home, agents located cocaine and other drug-related evidence. The driver was arrested at the scene, while the defendant avoided apprehension. Continue reading →

Published on: | by
Defendants in Florida criminal cases have important constitutional protections, including the right to confront witnesses who testify against them. This right becomes especially significant in cases relying heavily on forensic or scientific evidence. When the prosecution uses substitute experts or introduces reports from unavailable witnesses, courts must ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are not violated. A recent decision issued in a Florida case provides critical insight into how these confrontation rights apply in sexual battery prosecutions. If you are accused of a sexual offense, it is essential to consult a Clearwater criminal defense attorney who understands how to challenge improperly admitted forensic evidence and protect your rights at every stage of the process.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with sexual battery on a minor between the ages of twelve and eighteen. The allegations arose from an incident on January 1, 2017. According to testimony, the defendant had been in an on-and-off relationship with the victim’s mother. Although that relationship had ended, the defendant allegedly entered the mother’s apartment without consent while the sixteen-year-old victim was home alone. The defendant reportedly asked to borrow the victim’s phone, saw photographs of her with her boyfriend, and became angry.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Federal sentencing laws often impose steep penalties on individuals with prior convictions, especially in firearm cases. When a person is classified as an armed career criminal, the mandatory minimum sentence can be decades of imprisonment. While defendants may later seek relief through post-conviction motions, federal courts closely scrutinize such claims, particularly when based on new Supreme Court precedent. A recent Florida decision highlights the challenges defendants face when seeking to overturn long-standing convictions. If you are facing a firearm charge, it is vital to consult with a Clearwater criminal defense attorney to understand your options at each stage of the process.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. Because of three prior Florida drug convictions, he was sentenced as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). That designation triggered a mandatory minimum of 180 months, which the court imposed in September 2018.

Allegedly, the defendant did not appeal but later sought more time to file a § 2255 motion. The court denied that request, explaining the one-year deadline set by statute. He pursued other forms of relief, including motions for compassionate release and sentence reductions, but all were denied.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Federal criminal trials often raise high-stakes questions about fairness and constitutional rights. From how a jury is selected to how evidence is weighed at sentencing, each stage can shape the outcome of a case. When a defendant is accused of participating in a wide-reaching drug conspiracy, these issues become even more critical. A recent Florida decision highlights how courts balance trial errors against the broader record, illustrating the limits of what defendants can achieve on appeal in complex drug trafficking prosecutions. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is crucial to talk to a Clearwater drug crime defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your interests.

Factual Allegations

It is reported that the defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury on multiple charges arising from his alleged participation in a multi-state marijuana trafficking operation. The indictment included numerous counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, as well as possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He was also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, possessing a weapon in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and illegal reentry.

Allegedly, the prosecution maintained that the defendant and his codefendants coordinated shipments of marijuana and proceeds between California and Georgia, using various methods to conceal the illicit activity. The government also alleged that firearms were possessed in connection with the distribution scheme. The defendant pleaded guilty to the count of illegal reentry but denied involvement in the remaining charges, which proceeded to a jury trial.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida, defendants accused of fraud-related offenses have the right to challenge whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to support a conviction. However, courts will uphold a conviction when a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the record. This was illustrated in a recent Florida case in which the court reviewed whether the State had provided sufficient evidence to support a conviction for organized fraud. The court ultimately affirmed the conviction, reinforcing that circumstantial evidence and patterns of conduct can establish fraudulent intent. If you are accused of fraud or theft, it is critical to speak with a Clearwater white collar crime defense attorney to evaluate your legal options.

Allegations and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged and convicted of organized fraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct involving multiple transactions, during which she unlawfully appropriated funds from an account over which she had access but no rightful claim. The prosecution asserted that the conduct at issue reflected a systematic and ongoing scheme, rather than an isolated incident.

It is further alleged that the State introduced evidence that each transaction undertaken by the defendant involved transferring or withdrawing funds from an account in a manner inconsistent with lawful entitlement. The prosecution presented records documenting these transactions and argued that the defendant’s conduct amounted to an ongoing course of deceitful behavior designed to convert money for personal use.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In federal sentencing, courts have limited discretion to reduce a sentence once it has been imposed. One exception allows for compassionate release in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. However, this relief is not easily obtained. A recent decision from a Florida court demonstrates the rigorous analysis federal courts apply to such motions, especially when public safety and sentencing integrity are at stake. For defendants seeking to challenge their sentences post-conviction, this case highlights the significant legal hurdles involved. If you are considering pursuing a reduction in sentence, a Clearwater federal criminal defense attorney can help you understand your options and assess whether compassionate release may be appropriate.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was sentenced to 420 months in prison in 2005 following convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. These offenses arose out of a drug trafficking operation that involved firearms and violence. The defendant, who is 51 years old, is projected to be released in 2034.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida criminal sentencing, trial courts must strictly follow procedural and statutory requirements when calculating prison terms, particularly when a sentence includes both habitual offender penalties and probation revocation. If they fail to do so, it may result in errors on sentencing scoresheets that can result in unlawful sentences, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case. If you are facing sentencing or resentencing in a Florida criminal case, a Clearwater criminal defense attorney can help you ensure that your rights are protected at every stage of the proceedings.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was originally placed on probation following convictions for two third-degree felonies: felony battery and robbery by sudden snatching. The trial court imposed concurrent five-year probation terms for these offenses in 2021. While on probation, the defendant was arrested and later convicted of arson, a first-degree felony under Florida law. Following his conviction, the court held a combined hearing to address both the probation revocation and sentencing for the arson offense. The defendant was adjudicated guilty of violating his probation based on the new arson conviction.

It is further reported that during the sentencing hearing, the State submitted a single scoresheet that listed the arson conviction as the primary offense and included the two prior third-degree felonies as additional offenses. The court found that the defendant qualified as a habitual felony offender and imposed a life sentence for the arson conviction under Florida’s habitual offender statute. The court then imposed concurrent sentences of 64.95 months for the two prior offenses based on the scoresheet, which calculated this as the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence for the probation violations was illegal. Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida criminal cases involving multiple charges, whether or not those charges are tried together can have a significant impact on a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Defendants frequently seek to sever unrelated charges to prevent prejudicial spillover from one count to another, particularly in serious felony cases. However, when crimes are factually and temporally connected, courts often view them as part of a single criminal episode, allowing for joint prosecution. A recent Florida decision issued in a violent crime case exemplifies how courts evaluate and uphold such joinders, even when the charges involve multiple homicides, a police chase, and firearm evidence. If you are charged with one or more violent crimes, it is essential to consult a Clearwater violent crime defense attorney who can help you seek a favorable outcome.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a violent crime spree that unfolded over a single evening in August 2016. Allegedly, the defendant was driving a silver rental car with several passengers, including a witness who later testified for the prosecution. During the first event, the defendant reportedly fired several shots into another vehicle, killing one individual and narrowly missing another. Witnesses described the encounter as stemming from a road rage incident.

Continue reading →