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

| by

In the federal criminal justice system, defendants are entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against them, the legality of their indictment, and the procedural and substantive fairness of their sentence. However, these challenges must meet stringent standards, especially on appeal. A recent decision from a Florida federal court highlights the importance of preserving arguments at trial and illustrates the rigorous legal framework governing charges for assaulting federal officers. If you are facing violent crime charges, an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help ensure your rights are preserved at every stage of your case.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant, who was an inmate at the time of the offense, was convicted in the Middle District of Florida of assaulting two federal correctional officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b), as well as possessing a weapon while incarcerated. The defendant was sentenced to 137 months in prison. During a confrontation, the defendant physically assaulted one officer, then used a weapon to inflict bodily harm on a second officer. Multiple witnesses testified that the defendant attacked the officers on separate occasions and that video surveillance corroborated their testimony.

Allegedly, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish he was the person who committed the assaults. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant subsequently testified in his own defense. The defendant appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In federal sentencing, defendants with certain prior felony convictions face enhanced penalties under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. When a defendant qualifies as a “career offender,” the resulting guideline range can substantially increase. Whether a prior offense qualifies as a predicate “crime of violence” is a critical legal issue that may shape a defendant’s sentence. Recently, a Florida court addressed this question in the context of a Florida statute criminalizing the act of resisting an officer with violence. If you are charged with a serious federal offense and have prior convictions, a knowledgeable Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help you evaluate whether enhancements may apply and advocate for a fair sentence.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) and sentenced to 144 months in prison. At sentencing, the district court applied the “career offender” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, citing the defendant’s two prior convictions for crimes of violence. One of those convictions was for resisting an officer with violence under Florida Statutes § 843.01.

Allegedly, the defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that his prior Florida conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. He asserted that the statute could be violated in ways that do not necessarily involve the use of violent physical force. The defendant contended that because the offense might be committed with a reckless mental state, it should not qualify under the “elements clause” of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, which requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In federal criminal sentencing, enhancements under the United States Sentencing Guidelines can significantly increase a defendant’s prison term, especially when firearms are involved in drug-related offenses. For example, courts may impose an enhancement if they find a defendant possessed a firearm “in connection with” another felony offense. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling, this guideline provision is not ambiguous and does not require courts to defer to agency commentary unless specific criteria are met. If you are facing federal charges involving firearms or drugs, a knowledgeable Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help you understand what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The conviction stemmed from an August 2022 incident in Fort Myers, Florida, where detectives observed the defendant engaging in suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions while wearing a cross-body bag. After following the vehicle he entered, officers conducted a traffic stop and searched the car.

It is alleged that during the search, law enforcement officers discovered a firearm and ammunition inside the cross-body bag the defendant had been seen wearing. They also recovered a separate bag in the backseat containing approximately 15 grams of fentanyl and other controlled substances. A presentence investigation report (PSI) recommended a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), asserting that the firearm was possessed “in connection with” a drug trafficking offense.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Federal white-collar crime cases often do not end with a conviction and prison sentence. Many defendants are subject to supervised release following incarceration, and violations of these terms can result in significant consequences, including additional imprisonment. A recent opinion issued by a Florida court in a white-collar crime case demonstrates that federal courts retain jurisdiction over unresolved violations of supervised release, even after initially revoking supervision and imposing a sentence. If you are accused of violating the conditions of your release, it is critical to speak with a Sarasota white-collar crime defense attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights and freedom.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of multiple white-collar crimes, including bank fraud and identity theft. He was sentenced to 24 months and one day of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. After completing his custodial sentence, the defendant was released under supervision. During the term of supervised release, the government filed a petition alleging seven violations. These included unauthorized travel, failure to provide truthful reports, lying to a probation officer, associating with individuals involved in criminal conduct, and new charges involving identity theft and unlawful possession of ammunition.

It is alleged that at a revocation hearing, the defendant admitted to three of the violations. The court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to five months in prison, followed by 54 months of renewed supervision. The remaining violations were not dismissed, however. Instead, the district court agreed to hold them in abeyance while the government conducted further investigation. On the date the defendant completed the five-month sentence, the district court reconvened to address the remaining allegations. The court found that the defendant had unlawfully possessed ammunition, imposed an additional four months in prison, and ordered a new term of 48 months of supervised release. The defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›

| by

Criminal defendants in Florida have the constitutional right to be apprised of the charges against them with sufficient specificity to prepare a defense. This right extends not only to the charged offense but also to any lesser-included offenses that may be presented to the jury; if such rights are violated, there may be grounds for vacating any subsequent conviction. A recent Florida ruling illustrates the consequences of failing to adhere to this bedrock principle of due process, as the court reversed a conviction for aggravated battery, finding that the charging document failed to allege all of the statutory elements necessary to support the jury’s verdict. If you are accused of battery or another violent crime, it is smart to meet with a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney to assess your options.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant engaged in a violent confrontation that culminated in an attempted stabbing of the victim. The State charged the defendant by amended information with attempted second-degree murder but did not specify that a deadly weapon was used. The charging document merely stated that the defendant attempted to kill the victim “by stabbing” without alleging the use of a knife or any object likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

It is alleged that during the charge conference, the State requested jury instructions not only on the charged offense of attempted second-degree murder but also on the lesser-included offenses of attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon under section 784.045(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. The trial court agreed and gave the requested instructions, though it did not include aggravated battery based on great bodily harm under subsection (1)(a)(1). Continue Reading ›

| by

Juvenile defendants have constitutional rights that protect them from unfair prosecutions, including the right to due process and proper notice of the charges against them. When these rights are violated, it can lead to wrongful adjudications and unfair sentences. Fortunately, Florida provides recourse for juveniles who have been improperly convicted, as demonstrated in a recent Florida opinion in which they overturned a conviction due to procedural errors. If you or a loved one is facing delinquency charges, it is crucial to consult an experienced Sarasota juvenile crime defense attorney to protect your interests.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the juvenile and another individual approached the victim in a public park, demanding the return of a bicycle they claimed belonged to them. Reportedly, both individuals were wearing ski masks and brandished knives as they advanced toward the victim. The victim allegedly responded with a defensive gesture, at which point the individuals fled the scene before being apprehended by law enforcement.

It is reported that the State charged the juvenile with attempted robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon. However, at trial, the court found that the State failed to prove the requisite intent for robbery, as evidence suggested that the juvenile believed he was reclaiming his own property. Allegedly, despite this failure, the trial court convicted the juvenile of aggravated assault, a lesser-included offense of the original charge.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In federal criminal cases, motions for compassionate release require courts to assess whether extraordinary and compelling reasons justify modifying a defendant’s sentence. These motions are governed by a narrow legal framework, and defendants bear the burden of proving their eligibility. Recently, a Florida court examined these principles in a case where the defendant sought compassionate release based on health conditions and changes in sentencing law. If you are navigating federal sentencing issues or seeking post-conviction relief, consulting an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney is crucial to understanding your options.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged in 2017 with multiple offenses, including seven counts of controlled substance distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), as well as possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The defendant pleaded guilty to the drug charges but proceeded to trial on the firearm offenses, where a jury found him guilty.

Reportedly, during sentencing, the court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report’s conclusion that the defendant qualified as both an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Based on these designations and other factors, the court imposed a sentence of 210 months.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under Florida law, theft charges carry significant legal consequences, particularly when the value of the property allegedly stolen elevates the crime to grand theft. In such cases, the prosecution must prove each element of the offense, including the market value of the stolen items, beyond a reasonable doubt. A recent Florida decision highlights the importance of this requirement, as the court vacated a defendant’s grand theft conviction due to insufficient evidence of property value. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is in your best interest to talk to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney regarding your potential defenses as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant was charged with grand theft from a dwelling in a Florida court. Allegedly, during the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant stole property from a residence, claiming that the value of the stolen items exceeded $100. The trial court found the defendant guilty of grand theft. However, it is alleged that the defense argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish the market value of the stolen items, a necessary element to uphold the grand theft conviction. The defendant subsequently appealed the conviction, asserting that the trial court erred in finding the value of the stolen property exceeded the statutory threshold for grand theft.

Elements of Theft Offenses

On appeal, the court reviewed the case and the trial record, focusing on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grand theft conviction. It is reported that the State conceded that it failed to present adequate evidence to prove that the market value of the stolen items exceeded $100, a requirement for a grand theft conviction under Florida law.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In Florida criminal cases, courts often grapple with the balance between ensuring justice and protecting a defendant’s rights, particularly concerning the admission of evidence. Recently, in a high-profile Florida case, the court addressed the admissibility of prior bad acts under the Williams Rule and its implications on a fair trial. If you are charged with a serious crime, it is essential to consult a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney to safeguard your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with attempted felony murder and attempted premeditated murder arising from a single criminal episode. The charges stemmed from a November 2013 incident in which the victim, while riding his bicycle late at night, was approached by an assailant demanding money. Reportedly, the assailant shot the victim multiple times before fleeing when alerted by a neighbor. The victim survived but required extensive hospitalization.

It is reported that the case remained unsolved for years until forensic analysis linked the firearm used in the shooting to two other crimes. Based on these findings, the State sought to introduce evidence of the collateral crimes to establish the defendant’s identity. The trial court allowed the evidence under the Williams Rule, which permits the use of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove issues such as identity or intent. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant on both counts, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence improperly became the focus of the trial and that his dual convictions violated double jeopardy principles.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Since the dawn of social media, law enforcement agents will often seek evidence from criminal suspects’ social media accounts when investigating crimes. They generally cannot do so without a warrant, however, and if they do, any evidence obtained may be deemed inadmissible, as discussed in a recent Florida murder case. If you are accused of committing a violent crime, it is critical to understand your potential defenses, and you should contact a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney promptly to discuss your charges.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter following the shooting death of a young girl who was killed by a stray bullet during an altercation. The altercation occurred between the defendant’s girlfriend and her aunt, during which the girlfriend made threats, stating she would have her “baby daddy” come and shoot them. Shortly afterward, the defendant arrived, and gunfire ensued. A stray bullet struck and killed the young girl as she sat in a car with her parents.

It is alleged that the defendant denied being involved in the shooting, testifying that he left the scene because he had children in his car and was not the person referenced by his girlfriend as the “baby daddy.” Both the defendant and his girlfriend were charged with first-degree murder, among other offenses. During the investigation, law enforcement obtained evidence from the defendant’s Facebook account without securing a warrant specific to the shooting. The trial court admitted this evidence under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, leading to the defendant’s conviction. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The defendant subsequently appealed.

Continue Reading ›