Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog
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.
Proving an Indictment is Multiplicitous
On appeal, the defendant raised several arguments, including claims that the indictment was multiplicitous, the district court committed procedural sentencing errors, and his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The first addressed the defendant’s challenge to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. The court emphasized that, where a defendant testifies after such a motion is denied, he generally waives appellate review of the ruling. Nonetheless, the court reviewed the record and found that the evidence, including the defendant’s own admissions and corroborating testimony from multiple officers, was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
The court next considered the argument that the indictment was multiplicitous, meaning it charged the same offense in more than one count. Under the Blockburger test, each count must require proof of an element that the other does not. The court noted that although the assaults involved more than one federal officer, they were based on separate acts of violence, and therefore did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Citing Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent, the panel found no plain error in the indictment or the trial court’s failure to consolidate or dismiss the charges.
The court then examined the procedural reasonableness of the sentence. The defendant argued that the district court erred by applying enhancements for both aggravated assault and bodily injury, amounting to impermissible double counting. The court rejected this claim, noting that double counting is permissible when the Sentencing Guidelines treat the adjustments as conceptually separate and cumulatively applicable. In this case, the base offense level for aggravated assault was properly increased due to the presence of serious bodily injury and the use of a dangerous weapon. The court explained that each enhancement served a distinct purpose and that the cumulative application was consistent with the Guidelines.
Finally, the court reviewed the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s weighing of the factors, including the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence. The court noted that the district court had explicitly considered the parties’ arguments and found no indication that the sentence was arbitrary or excessive.
Speak to a Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case
Federal criminal convictions, particularly those involving violent crimes, can carry severe penalties and involve complex legal issues. If you are charged with a violent offense in violation of federal law, you need an attorney who understands the nuances of federal law and sentencing. The skilled Sarasota criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are ready to protect your rights and help you build a strategic defense. Call our office today at (941) 462-1789 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.