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

Battery and other crimes involving violent acts often carry substantial penalties, especially if the person charged has one or more prior convictions. As discussed in a recent Florida opinion, though, the courts generally cannot impose habitual offender penalties under multiple statutes to run concurrently. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is wise to confer with a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney about your case.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant was convicted of felony battery, a third-degree felony, and sentenced to ten years in prison by the trial court. The sentence was structured so that the defendant would serve five years as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), followed by another five years as a habitual felony offender (HFO). The defendant challenged the legality of this sentence on two grounds. First, he argued that the trial court could not impose equal sentences under both the PRR and HFO statutes. Second, he contended that the two consecutive five-year sentences exceeded the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony, which is typically five years.

It is reported that the defendant submitted the written judgment and sentence to support his claim, but he did not include the sentencing transcript. The postconviction court denied both claims. It acknowledged that an equal HFO sentence running concurrently with a PRR sentence would be illegal but dismissed the first claim because the trial court had imposed the sentences consecutively. As for the second claim, the postconviction court ruled that the HFO statute allowed for an extended sentence of up to ten years for a third-degree felony. The defendant then appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

In a DUI case, the State will often rely on a defendant’s BAC to establish guilt. The prosecution must support any assertions of a BAC with competent evidence; otherwise, statements regarding the defendant’s BAC level may be deemed inadmissible. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling, though, even if such statements are admitted, it may not be sufficient to demonstrate a mistrial. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak with a Sarasota DUI crime defense lawyer regarding what evidence the State may try to use against you.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that this case arose out of a collision that resulted in multiple injuries and one fatality. The defendant, driving a pickup truck, attempted to pass a rental van carrying fifteen family members returning from a spring training baseball game. The collision caused the van to veer off the road, flip, and roll over, ejecting several passengers. Witnesses reported the defendant’s erratic driving before the crash, noting that he appeared to be focused on a phone. A traffic homicide investigation revealed that the defendant’s truck had been traveling at an average speed of 86 miles per hour.

Allegedly, two bottles of rum, one partially empty, were found in the truck, and the defendant admitted to driving. The defendant was charged with multiple DUI crimes. The State provided substantial evidence of the injuries sustained by the fourteen surviving van occupants. During the trial, the prosecution initially claimed that the defendant’s BAC was 0.17 at the time of the crash, but the expert witness refused to conduct a retrograde extrapolation to confirm this figure. The defendant was ultimately convicted of DUI manslaughter and multiple counts of DUI-related injuries and property damage. He was sentenced to 396.6 months in prison, followed by one year of probation. The defendant moved for a mistrial, but his motion was denied. He then appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Although white-collar crimes are not implicitly violent, they are often harshly penalized due to the financial losses they frequently cause. It is not uncommon for convictions for such offenses to result in years of imprisonment, as demonstrated in a recent Florida Medicaid theft case in which the court ultimately rejected the defendant’s challenge to his sentence. If you are accused of theft, it is prudent to talk to a Sarasota theft crime defense lawyer about your options for seeking a positive outcome.

 

History of the Case

 

Allegedly, the defendant worked for a company that provided medical billing and credentialing services, giving him access to financial, medical provider, and patient information. He was tasked with submitting claims to Florida Medicaid for services rendered by a specific physician. Between February 2017 and October 2018, the defendant allegedly submitted around 1,700 fraudulent claims, resulting in a payment of over $2.25 million. The defendant did not report or underreported these fraudulent earnings to the IRS, leading to a total tax loss of close to $800,000 over the tax years 2017-2019. Additionally, from April 2019 to September 2019, the defendant worked for another company, diverting over $55,000 into his personal account and underreporting this income on his 2019 tax return.

 

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to multiple counts of defrauding a healthcare benefits program, aggravated identity theft, and failing to file an income tax return, as well as a count of filing a fraudulent tax return. A presentence investigation report grouped his offenses into two main categories: healthcare fraud and tax offenses, with separate adjustments for each group’s offense level. The district court sentenced the defendant to a total of 65 months’ imprisonment, with a three-year term of supervised release and a set of standard conditions for supervised release, including Standard Condition 12, which the defendant did not object to initially. The defendant then appealed his sentence.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under the Florida and United States Constitution, people cannot be convicted more than once for the same crime. As such, if a defendant is found guilty of committing numerous offenses that all stem from the same incident and require the same proof, it may violate their double jeopardy rights, as demonstrated in a recent Florida battery case. If you are charged with a violent offense, including battery, it is wise to meet with a Sarasota violent crime defense lawyer to assess your rights.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant, while incarcerated in a county jail, punched another inmate, fracturing his jaw. As a result, he faced two charges: detainee battery and felony battery. Following a trial, the jury found him guilty of detainee battery but acquitted him of felony battery based on causing great bodily harm, instead finding him guilty of the lesser offense of simple battery.

Allegedly, the State subsequently presented evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions, leading the jury to convict him of felony battery based on a previous conviction. The trial court sentenced him to the maximum of five years in prison for each count, to run consecutively. The defendant then appealed his convictions, arguing that the sentences for both convictions constituted double jeopardy.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under federal law, people convicted of certain crimes lose privileges granted to most citizens. For example, people convicted of felonies constituting crimes of violence typically cannot lawfully carry or own firearms. As such, if a law enforcement agent stops a convicted felon and finds a gun in their possession, it could result in criminal charges. As discussed in a recent Florida case, the sentence for gun crime depends, in part, on the seriousness of the defendant’s prior convictions. If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is sensible to speak to a Sarasota gun crime defense lawyer to evaluate your options for protecting your interests.

Case Setting

Reportedly, in September 2019, the defendant was arrested for domestic violence battery, during which law enforcement discovered a loaded pistol in his possession. He was indicted for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, to which he entered guilty pleas. The presentence investigation report revealed the defendant’s two previous convictions for Florida felonies that were considered crimes of violence: aggravated assault in 2014 and felony battery in 2011.

It is alleged that in the felony battery case, the defendant was initially charged with several offenses, including possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but eventually pleaded no contest to felony battery. The report of the defendant’s arrest detailed an altercation where the defendant allegedly strangled their partner. In the aggravated assault case, the defendant briefly left an argument to retrieve a handgun from their vehicle and returned to frighten the roommate of an acquaintance. The defendant contested the classification of these convictions as crimes of violence during sentencing.

Continue Reading ›

| by

People charged with serious violent crimes often fear that they will be found guilty and sentenced to serve a lengthy term in prison, especially if they have prior convictions. There are limitations as to what sentences the courts can impose, however, and if they deviate from the sentencing scheme without just cause, there may be grounds for objecting to the sentence, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of attempted manslaughter and felony battery. If you are faced with accusations that you committed a violent crime, it is critical to speak to a Sarasota violent crime defense lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with attempted first-degree murder with a weapon and aggravated battery with a weapon. She was subsequently convicted of attempted manslaughter with a weapon, which was a lesser included offense of the murder charge, and felony battery, which was a lesser included offense of the battery crime. Following her sentencing, she appealed both her convictions and her sentence.

Grounds for Revising Sentences

On appeal, the defendant set forth numerous arguments. The court rejected the defendant’s first five arguments, affirming her convictions without discussion. The court then addressed the two remaining arguments the defendant asserted contesting her sentences.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Pursuant to Florida law, while the courts have some discretion when sentencing people convicted of crimes, the sentences they administer must fall within the range dictated by the statutory guidelines. Accordingly, if a sentence exceeds a statutory maximum, it may be illegal and, therefore, may be subject to reversal. A Florida court recently discussed the grounds for reversing illegal sentences in a Florida case in which it granted the defendant’s request to vacate his sentences for aggravated battery and aggravated assault. If you are charged with assault, battery, or any other violent offense, it is smart to talk to a Sarasota violent crime defense lawyer to determine your rights.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the defendant faced convictions for two counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The charges stemmed from an altercation where the defendant allegedly indiscriminately fired shots into a crowd, injuring multiple individuals.

Reportedly, witness testimony during the trial implicated the defendant as the perpetrator of the shooting. He was subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to 36 years in prison for each aggravated battery conviction and 36 years with a 20-year mandatory minimum for aggravated assault. The defendant appealed, challenging multiple aspects of his convictions and sentences, including the admission of certain evidence, jury instructions, and the legality of his sentences. Continue Reading ›

| by

Florida law regulates the possession and concealment of firearms. For example, people are permitted to carry concealed weapons, but only under certain circumstances. As such, if a person is caught by the police with a concealed gun in their possession, they may face criminal charges. As explained by a Florida court in an opinion recently issued in a gun crime case, the law permitting concealed weapons in a private vehicle does not permit people to carry such weapons on their person. If you are charged with a gun crime, it is advisable to meet with a Sarasota weapons crime defense lawyer to discuss your possible defenses.

Case Setting

It is reported that in June 2022, police officers pulled over the defendant for a traffic infraction. Upon approaching the defendant’s vehicle, the officers noticed a handgun in the car’s glove compartment. They also detected the smell of marijuana. They asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. When he complied, the officers saw that he had a crossbody bag over his shoulder and chest, which was zipped closed. Upon searching the bag, the officers found a loaded handgun, leading to the defendant’s arrest for carrying a concealed firearm.

Allegedly, the defendant was subsequently arrested for carrying a concealed firearm in violation of section 790.01(2) of the Florida Statutes. The defendant argued for dismissal, contending that under section 790.25(5), he was allowed to possess the concealed firearm as it was securely encased within a private conveyance. The trial court agreed with the defendant’s argument and dismissed the charge. The State appealed the decision.

The Right to Carry a Concealed Firearm in Florida

Upon review, the court reversed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the charge against the defendant. It was argued by the State that the trial court’s ruling was erroneous because it overlooked a crucial sentence in section 790.25(5), which expressly stated that the subsection should not be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm “on the person.”

The court agreed with the State’s argument, noting that the defendant’s interpretation, allowing possession of a firearm even if carried on the person as long as it was securely encased within a vehicle, was inconsistent with the plain language of the statute. The court also emphasized that section 790.25(5) limits the right to possess a firearm in a vehicle to those that are securely encased or not immediately accessible for use and are not carried on the person.

Therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the information and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that even a securely encased weapon does not fall under the private conveyance exception if it is carried on the person.

Talk to a Skilled Criminal Defense Attorney

Under Florida law, most people are lawfully permitted to possess weapons, but if a gun owner does not comply with the terms of applicable firearm laws, they may be charged with gun crimes. If you are charged with a gun offense, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney about your rights. The skilled Sarasota gun crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and help you to seek the best result possible under the facts or your case. You can reach Hanlon Law by calling 941-462-1789 or using the form online to arrange a conference.

Continue Reading ›

| by

People sentenced to supervised release in federal cases must comply with the terms of their release; otherwise, their release may be revoked. As demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a Florida case, the state’s burden of proof in revocation hearings is lower than in criminal trials, and the federal rules of evidence regarding hearsay do not necessarily apply. If you are accused of violating the terms of your probation, it is smart to consult a Sarasota probation violation defense attorney about your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the lower court revoked the defendant’s supervised release after determining that he violated the conditions of his release by committing the offense of simple battery. During the hearing, the government introduced evidence in the form of a text message exchanged between the victim and her 16-year-old daughter via the testimony of M.M.’s mother, Reyna Morales. The defendant objected to the admission of the text message, asserting that it violated his right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The court overruled his rejection. After his supervised release was revoked, he appealed.

Grounds for Revoking Supervised Release

On appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court violated his due process rights by admitting a text message containing hearsay at his revocation hearing. The court disagreed, affirming the lower court ruling. The court explained that supervised release could be revoked if the district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release. The court noted that the preponderance of the evidence standard requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact was more probable than its nonexistence.

Continue Reading ›

| by

There are numerous statutes and rulings that prevent criminal defendants from unjust convictions. For example, in many cases, a unanimous jury verdict is necessary to convict a person of a crime. When a single offense can be committed through alternative acts, though, unanimity is not necessary, as explained in a recent Florida ruling issued in a petit theft case. If you are accused of theft, it is in your best interest to meet with a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney about your rights.

Case Background

Allegedly, in July 2021, the victim contacted the police to report a break-in at her apartment by the defendant. The two had a prior romantic relationship. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with six crimes, including petit theft. The petit theft charge pertained to the defendant allegedly obtaining or using the victim’s purse and/or wallet, intending to deprive her of the property.

Reportedly, during the trial, the victim testified that the defendant forcibly entered her apartment, demanding his phone and wallet. Despite her denial and attempts to show she didn’t possess his belongings, the defendant took her purse, containing the phone, wallet, and medication. The trial court instructed the jury to determine whether the defendant knowingly obtained the victim’s purse or wallet, and the jury found him guilty of petit theft, valuing the stolen property at less than $750. The defendant appealed.

Continue Reading ›