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 14

Published on: | by

A Florida sex crime conviction is a serious situation that can have significant and lasting consequences. If you get arrested again, you may be looking at more severe penalties. As a recent decision out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit shows, a court has the right to impose penalties related to the original sex crime, even if they are not directly related to the second conviction.

Defendant was convicted of car-jacking and sentenced to federal prison following an undisclosed incident. He was eventually given a supervised release. As part of the terms of that release, a federal judge ordered Defendant to participate in a sex-offender treatment program and to refrain from having unsupervised contact with minors. The judge noted that Defendant had previously been convicted of sex crimes against a child under the age of 12 and that he’d undergone psychological treatment for about two years prior to the car-jacking offense. The court also noted that Defendant didn’t tell his psychologist about the sex offenses during that treatment.

Defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the terms of his release were not reasonably related to the car-jacking offense for which he was convicted. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision. The court said the treatment and other requirements were sufficiently related to Defendant’s overall criminal history and could be considered reasonable for public safety purposes. It also said the forced treatment and restrictions on contact with minors were justified based on the “heinous nature” of Defendant’s sex offenses.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In order to be convicted of a crime in Florida, a judge or jury has to find beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the specific offense with which you have been charged. That means the burden is on prosecutors to prove each individual element of an offense, including specific intent in many cases. Florida’s First District Court of appeal recently explained that shoplifting, for example, involves a different type of intent than fraud. The decision is important because a person can’t be convicted of a crime for which he or she hasn’t been charged, unless it’s considered a “lesser included offense.”Defendant was charged with participating in a scheme to defraud, stemming from a series of alleged Wal-Mart shoplifting incidents in Live Oak. Prosecutors alleged that on various occasions Defendant entered the store, loaded items into a shopping cart, and then ran out of the store with those items without paying. Defendant argued that he should be acquitted of the charge because prosecutors didn’t show that he acted with the intent to defraud or that he made any misrepresentations as part of the alleged thefts. Prosecutors countered that Defendant misrepresented that he was “a lawful paying customer” every time he left the store without paying for the items.

The trial judge denied Defendant’s motion for acquittal. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to three years in prison and another two years of probation. Defendant later appealed the conviction.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Florida criminal cases involving a defendant with mental and emotional conditions can raise a number of complicated legal issues. The state’s First District Court of Appeal made clear in a recent sex crime case that there are certain circumstances in which a judge is required to hold a hearing to determine whether a person is competent to stand trial and to issue a written decision on that question before proceeding to trial.Defendant was charged with sexual battery of a person under twelve years of age and lewd or lascivious molestation of a person under twelve years of age, stemming from an undisclosed incident. Before trial on those charges, Defendant’s lawyer asked the judge to first determine whether Defendant was sufficiently competent to stand trial.

One court-appointed expert concluded that Defendant wasn’t able to adequately understand the charges against him, but a second court-appointed expert said Defendant was competent to participate in the case. After a competency hearing, the trial court found that Defendant was sufficiently competent to proceed to trial. The judge made that decision orally, but didn’t issue a written ruling on the competency issue.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Technological enhancements give police officers stronger tools to investigate Florida crimes, track suspects and gather evidence. They also raise new questions about protections against unlawful searches and seizures, as a recent case out of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal makes clear.Defendant was charged with a wide variety of Florida criminal offenses, including sexual battery and possession of child pornography, following an investigation by the Polk County Sheriff’s Office. Police officers traced an internet protocol address used to download child pornography to a home in the county. When they searched the home, the officers found that none of the computers in the house that were connected to a home Wi-Fi network had been used to download illicit materials.

They also noticed that the Wi-Fi network wasn’t protected, and could therefore potentially be accessed by others outside of the home. So the cops, with the homeowner’s permission, set up a computer in the home that would allow them to remotely access and monitor the Wi-Fi network. They found the local IP address and a separate MAC address for a computer that was accessing the Wi-Fi network and using it to download pornography. The officers then used a Yagi antenna—a highly directional and shortwave antenna—to determine that the computer was inside Defendant’s motorhome. The officers obtained a warrant to search the home, where they located the computer. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to consecutive life sentences.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Probation is an alternative to prison time in which a person convicted of a Florida crime is allowed to remain free if he or she complies with various terms and restrictions of the release. The requirements usually include meeting regularly with a probation officer and keeping the officer aware of where you are living. A recent case out of Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal shows just how serious judges take those requirements, even if you’re homeless.Defendant was charged with burglary of an unoccupied conveyance and third-degree grand theft in 2016. He eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a certain unidentified time in prison, followed by two years of probation. Defendant was released on probation in April 2016. Two months later, his probation officer filed an affidavit alleging that Defendant had already violated his probation. The officer said Defendant had failed to report, as directed, changed his residence without getting the probation officer’s prior approval, and failed to complete a recidivism prevention program. The probation officer also noted that Defendant had been charged with two crimes since his release: two counts of grand theft.

A judge eventually determined that Defendant willfully violated the terms of the probation. As a result, the judge revoked Defendant’s probation and sent him back to prison for 10 years. Defendant appealed that decision.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

A Florida appeals court recently said an Orlando priest doesn’t have to testify about what a local woman told him about being sexually abused when she was younger. The decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal attempts to draw a line between prosecutors’ needs in Florida sex crime cases and religious protections under state law.An Orlando man in 2017 was charged with four counts of sex crimes against a minor. Police initially launched an investigation after a 17-year-old girl told her mother that the man had abused her when she was between the ages of seven and 13. State prosecutors signaled ahead of trial that they intended to introduce out-of-court statements that the victim allegedly had made to a local Catholic priest when she was 15 years old. They said the girl disclosed to the priest that she had been abused while performing the rite of confession.

The priest didn’t want to testify, however. He asked a court to issue a protective order to keep him from being hauled into court. The priest argued that being forced to disclose the conversation would violate the “sacred seal of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation.” As a result, he argued that dragging him into court to blab about the discussion would violate his religious freedom rights under First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He also said it would violate the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (FRFRA).

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

If a jury is going to be expected to decide on whether a person is guilty or innocent in a Florida criminal case, it first has to first be properly instructed on the criminal offense with which the person is charged. A recent decision out of Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in an attempted murder case is a good example of how critical jury instructions are in a criminal case.Defendant was 17 years old when he was charged with the attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, attempted robbery with a firearm, and aggravated assault with a firearm. Prosecutors alleged that Defendant was attempting to commit an armed robbery at an apartment complex when an officer patrolling the area noticed. Defendant, according to the prosecutors, fired his gun at the officer (but missed) when the officer intervened. He was later apprehended at a nearby convenience store.

He argued mistaken identity, claiming that he was not the person who committed the crimes. Defendant said he was visiting friends at the apartment complex when he got into an argument over a basketball game. He said he was surprised when the cops approached him at the convenience store. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to 33 years in prison.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

A recent case of alleged exposure on a beach in North Florida is a good example of how Florida sex crime cases often come down to one person’s word against another’s. It also shows just how serious judges and juries take these cases and the criminal punishments that come with them.The defendant was charged with lewd or lascivious exhibition after he allegedly exposed himself to a girl on a beach in the Florida panhandle. The victim testified at trial that she was running along the beach when she heard the defendant call to her from a nearby condo apartment. When she turned her head, the victim said she saw the defendant staring at her and fondling himself with his pants down. The victim called the police and ran down the beach. She told her sister and mother about the incident and pointed the defendant out to them when he later drove by in a truck. The victim also identified the defendant to police officers when they arrived on the scene.

At trial, the defendant claimed that the incident was all part of a joke gone awry. He said a friend—an adult woman—had taken off her top and flashed him, so he responded by removing his pants. The defendant said he wasn’t aware that any children were in the area and he denied touching himself. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, followed by 10 years of sex offender probation.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

A Florida appeals court recently asked the state’s Supreme Court to answer a question that could have big implications for anyone who argues self-defense in a Florida criminal case. The issue concerns who bears the burden of proof in self-defense cases.Defendant was charged with felony battery stemming from an incident with his girlfriend in a McDonald’s parking lot. The couple argued about who should drive to their next destination, according to the court. Defendant’s girlfriend said he punched her twice in the face after she refused to get in the car. Defendant, however, said he was the one who wouldn’t get in the vehicle. He said his girlfriend then threatened him with a gun. Defendant said he was shot in the arm in the ensuing scuffle.

At the time of the trial, Florida law put the burden on Defendant to prove self-defense. A trial judge said he didn’t meet that burden. Defendant later appealed the decision. While the appeal was pending, the state legislature updated the self-defense law. Under the amended version, the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove self-defense once the person charged with the crime makes a facially sufficient self-defense claim. That threw the Second District for a loop.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

A person charged with a sex crime in Florida has a few options when it comes to entering a plea in court. In addition to pleading “guilty” or “not guilty,” the person can also plead “no contest.” This option means the person is not saying that he or she is guilty, only that he or she won’t contest the charges. As a recent case out of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal shows, it is important to be fully aware of the potential penalties you’re facing before you enter a plea.

Defendant was charged with various counts of lewd and lascivious molestation of a victim under 16 years of age, lewd and lascivious exhibition to a victim under 16 years of age, battery, possession of child pornography, and use of a computer server to seduce, solicit, or entice a child. He eventually pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 40 years behind bars. Defendant later appealed the convictions, arguing that he wouldn’t have pleaded no contest if the trial judge had adequately explained to him that he was facing as much as 101 years in prison on the charges.

Although the judge may have told Defendant about the maximum penalty for each of the offenses, he said he wasn’t aware that those penalties could be imposed consecutively (back-to-back) rather than concurrently (at the same time). The trial judge sided with state prosecutors, who argued that the judge met his responsibility by simply informing Defendant of the maximum penalties per offense. The judge rejected Defendant’s request to withdraw his plea.

Continue reading →