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 » Page 11

Published on: | by

In Florida, as in all states, defendants need to be competent in order to stand trial. If a defendant is not sufficiently competent enough to meaningfully participate in their own defense, then they are not constitutionally allowed to stand trial. In a case that was recently heard by the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, a defendant argued that his conviction should be overturned because the court did not make a competency determination before trial.

Competency Hearings

A defendant’s qualified Clearwater sex crimes defense attorney can make a motion for a competency evaluation under Florida Rule 3.210. In this motion, the defense attorney explains the reasons behind asking for an evaluation, including expert reports, statements by family members, and any attorney observations. However, all parties, including the judge and prosecutor, have a responsibility to inquire into the defendant’s competence if they have reason to suspect that the defendant might not be fully competent.

Once a competency hearing is ordered, the court will appoint experts to interview and examine the defendant. The experts will then offer opinions of the defendant’s competency. If the defendant is not found to be competent to stand trial at that time, they are then moved to a locked facility. These facilities are specialized to help defendants regain competency so they are able to stand trial. Once the defendant’s competency is restored then the trial can proceed.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Florida has specific sentencing laws that govern the sentence for those convicted of crimes. There are a number of different ways that sentencing laws come into play, including mandatory minimums and increasing penalties for subsequent crimes of the same nature (think of DUI, for example). Your skilled Clearwater criminal defense attorney can help you to minimize the amount of time you need to serve by taking advantage of statutory opportunities to reduce the sentence.

Consecutive vs. Concurrent

Another example of a way that sentencing laws can affect the amount of time actually served is whether a sentence is served consecutively or concurrently. Let’s say someone is convicted of two crimes arising out of the same incident, with minimum penalties of five years each. The judge can order the defendant to serve the sentences consecutively, which would lead to a total of ten years in prison, because the sentences are served one after the other. However, in many circumstances, the judge can order the sentences to be served concurrently. Concurrent sentences mean that the sentences for all the crimes are served at the same time. So in this example it would be a total of five years, because both charges’ sentences would be served concurrently.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Florida law allows a defendant to have their sentence reduced in certain specific situations. This is called a “downward departure.” Generally, defendants are eligible for a downward departure in their sentence when there has been a specific extenuating circumstance that makes a downward departure just. Your knowledgeable Clearwater criminal defense attorney can tell you whether you may be eligible for a downward departure based on the circumstances of your case.

Florida Downward Departure Law

When someone is convicted of a felony in Florida, they are sentenced using guidelines in the Florida Criminal Punishment Code. Essentially, the code has a scoresheet that it uses to determine the amount of prison time that someone should serve. However, in some cases with extenuating circumstances, the court may want to sentence the defendant to less than the minimum sentence determined by the code. This is called a downward departure. Courts can issue a downward departure provided that two conditions are met.

The first thing that the court must find for a downward departure is that there is evidence of mitigating circumstances that supports a downward departure. The code lays out 14 circumstances that may be considered mitigating for a downward departure. These include: the defendant was a relatively minor accomplice, the departure comes from a plea bargain, the defendant’s capacity was substantially impaired, the defendant requires specialized mental health treatment, or the defendant was going to be sentenced as a youthful offender.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

The Constitution guarantees that all criminal defendants get a “speedy trial.” If you are familiar with the law, you will know that speedy is relative. If a defendant is denied a speedy trial, then they may be able to be released. The definition of what constitutes “speedy” will vary depending on the circumstances, and your knowledgeable Clearwater criminal defense attorney can help you to determine whether the speedy trial provision of the Constitution was violated in your case.

Clothing and Prejudice

While this case revolves centrally around a speedy trial issue, it is also about clothing. Defendants have a right to a speedy trial, and they also have a right to a fair and unbiased jury. One of the things that can prejudice the jury is when the defendant appears in front of them in jail clothing. In this case, a defendant was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. He was on pretrial release when he was brought back into custody after allegedly committing another offense.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Rape shield laws were created to help protect sexual assault victims from invasive inquiries into their sex life. Florida law prohibits the defense from entering into evidence any specific instances of consensual sex between the victim and anyone other than the defendant. In this case, the victim allegedly had consensual sex with her ex-boyfriend before going to a party with him. At the party she allegedly had too much alcohol and passed out. While her ex-boyfriend was gone getting more alcohol, three of the partygoers – including the defendant – allegedly sexually assaulted her. At trial, the defendant was convicted of sexual battery with specified circumstances by multiple perpetrators.

Evidence of Prior Consensual Sex

The defendant in this case alleged several grounds for appeal. One of the grounds for appeal was that the judge did not allow him to admit evidence of the victim’s consensual sex with her ex-boyfriend before the party. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal relied on the rape shield law explained above to uphold the conviction on this argument. The court explained that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser can come into play if there are unreasonable limits placed on a defendant’s right to cross examine witnesses.

The defendant here argued that he wanted to introduce this evidence to show that the victim wanted to get back together with her ex-boyfriend. Therefore, the defendant argued, she lied about the sex being consensual at the party in order to preserve her relationship with her ex-boyfriend. However, the appeals court here held that there was adequate other evidence that was introduced at the trial to show the relationship between the victim and her ex-boyfriend. Thus, on this ground the conviction could stand.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

The justice system understands that sometimes an individual needs to use deadly force against another in order to defend themselves. “Self-defense” is what is called an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense means that the defendant is acknowledging that they committed the crime they are charged with, but that they had a reason that is legally sufficient to make them not culpable. In other words, typically the prosecution is the only side that needs to prove something. However, with an affirmative defense, the defense also has a burden now to prove the elements of the defense. This case addresses what specifically the defense needs to prove, and the jury instructions around this proof. If you are involved in a situation where you needed to use self-defense to protect yourself or another, you should contact a knowledgeable Clearwater violent crimes defense attorney to help you with your defense.

Facts of the Case

The defendant was charged with the first-degree murder of his employer/landlord and the attempted first-degree murder of a neighbor. There was a confrontation between the defendant and his landlord and he began shooting. The defendant alleges that he acted in self-defense based on his landlord reaching for a dark object in his pocket and previous threats by his landlord. The defendant also alleged that the neighbor threatened him as well and attempted to throw a microwave at him. The neighbor survived the shooting but the landlord did not.

The state’s version of events differed. They alleged that the defendant was the aggressor and that both of the victims were unarmed. Under this version of events, self-defense would not be an applicable affirmative defense, since it cannot be used when the defendant was the aggressor.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

When a defendant is charged with a crime, at trial the only evidence that should usually be put forward by the state is evidence related to those crimes charged. However, sometimes there are circumstances for the crimes alleged that require explanation. In some of those situations, the state will need to bring in evidence of other crimes that were committed in order to help the jury understand the circumstances in which the charged crimes were committed. This may seem confusing, and it can be, which is why you should consult an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney to help you understand whether it is proper for collateral crimes evidence to be introduced during your trial.

Collateral Crimes

An example may help make the concept of collateral crimes more understandable. In a case that was recently heard by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, a man appealed his conviction for attempted second-degree murder with a deadly weapon, witness tampering, and criminal mischief. One of the errors he alleges is that the court impermissibly admitted evidence of a collateral armed robbery allegedly committed earlier in the day by the defendant.

The prosecution alleges that the defendant went to the home of his ex-girlfriend a few hours before the incident that the charges came from. He is alleged to have held her up at gunpoint and demanded her phone from her. The defendant returned to her house with her phone a few hours later, and then began shooting. The attempted murder and other charges that he was convicted of all stem from this shooting.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed all the elements of the crime. Specifically, the prosecution has the burden to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. In a case recently heard by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, the court reversed a conviction after the prosecution was found to have impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. Your knowledgeable Clearwater criminal defense attorney can help you understand exactly what the court needs to prove in your situation.

Facts of the Robbery

A woman was walking home from the grocery store when she was hit from behind. She turned around and was hit again. The man who hit her took her cell phone and ran off. A couple of weeks later when she was walking home from her son’s school, the woman saw the man that she believes robbed her. The defendant in this case testified that he was at school in band practice when the assault happened.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney…” You have probably heard this recitation on legal procedural TV shows dozens (or hundreds) of times. This is called the “Miranda” warning. The purpose is to give potential criminal defendants an understanding of their rights. It was named after the Supreme Court case that mandated that law enforcement give this announcement before questioning defendants.

Florida Miranda Requirements

Florida law requires that police give the Miranda warning when a defendant is arrested or taken into custody. It is such an important requirement, in fact, that any information admitted by the defendant before the Miranda warning is given may not be admissible in court. However, there are some exceptions to this general rule.

Initially, Miranda warnings only need to be given to potential defendants after someone is taken into custody. So if the police stop you on the street and ask you questions – and you are free to leave at any time – they do not need to give you the warning. However, if you are arrested and brought into the station, then your Miranda rights need to be given to you before you are interrogated. Keep in mind that this does not necessarily apply to statements that you make voluntarily and without being asked.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Many people who are convicted of crimes in Florida will have to serve a term of probation as part of their sentence. Probation is a punishment somewhat in between incarceration and freedom. The specifics can differ depending on the individual and their charges, but when someone is on probation they may be subject to drug testing, curfew, mandated counseling, or any other requirement that the court imposes. Many defendants prefer probation over incarceration for obvious reasons, but if someone violates the conditions of their probation they may face a longer jail sentence than they would have initially. If you are offered a plea deal that includes probation, you will want to make your decision in consultation with your knowledgeable Florida criminal defense attorney.

Probation Violation in Florida

Probation can make otherwise lawful activity unlawful. For example, while of course it is usually legal for adults to be out of their home after 9pm, if being home by 9pm is a condition of your probation, you can be arrested for being out later than that. Another interesting aspect of probation is that the standard of proof is different than with criminal court. In order to prove a violation of probation, the state does not have to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. Those charged with a violation of probation will also not have the opportunity to go in front of a jury but will instead be subject to the judge’s ruling. If a judge finds that a defendant has violated their probation, they can be sentenced to the maximum amount of time permitted for the underlying charge. The court will look at the conviction which led to the probation, not the conduct that violated the probation.

Continue reading →