Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with and convicted of numerous sex crimes, including using a computer to solicit a parent to consent to sexual conduct of a child, traveling to engage in sexual conduct with a minor, and attempted lascivious and lewd battery. Following his conviction, he appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective in that he made unreasonable promises about the likelihood of success at trial and caused the defendant to reject a favorable plea deal. He further argued that if he accepted the plea deal, he would not have had to register as a sex offender.

Reportedly, however, during the evidentiary hearing on the issue, the court limited the defendant’s questioning to statements and advice provided by trial counsel, refusing to allow the defendant to admit evidence regarding the defendant’s mental health, potential defenses, and trial strategy. The defendant appealed, arguing he was denied a fair and full evidentiary hearing. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s conviction and ruled that the conduct of the post-conviction court was proper during the evidentiary hearing.

Evidence Admissible at a Post-Conviction Evidentiary Hearing

Under Florida law, a trial court has discretion as to what evidence will be admitted, within the constraints of the rules of evidence and the principles of stare decisis. If a court excludes evidence that it deems irrelevant, it does not deprive a criminal defendant of a fair and full hearing. Rather, courts have wide latitude to regulate hearings in the manner they believe is required to achieve an orderly and dignified administration of justice. Thus, a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

In the subject case, the appellate court found that there was no merit to the argument that the defendant was not afforded a fair and full hearing because his mother’s testimony regarding his mental health issues was deemed irrelevant. Further, the court noted that the defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice because the defendant testified regarding his meetings with trial counsel and his reasons for rejecting a plea agreement, which was sufficient to sustain his conviction.

Meet with a Capable Criminal Defense Attorney

If you live in Sarasota and are charged with committing on offense of a sexual nature, it is advisable to meet with a capable attorney to discuss your available defenses. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a capable Sarasota sex crime defense attorney who can advise you of your alternatives for seeking the best outcome available under the facts of your case.  You can contact Mr. Hanlon at 941-462-1789 or through the form online to schedule a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidence in a Post-Conviction Hearing for Sex Crimes appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous sex offenses, including attempted sexual battery, by attempting to penetrate the victim’s genitals with his genitals. He was convicted on all counts, after which he appealed on several grounds. The court deemed the majority of the defendant’s arguments meritless but addressed the issue of whether the trial court committed a fundamental error by issuing an improper jury instruction.

Fundamental Errors Due to Incorrect Jury Instructions

In most cases, a defendant must object to a jury instruction prior to when the jury retires for deliberation to preserve the right to appeal based on an improper jury instruction. In the subject case, the defendant did not make any objection to the instructions. As such, the court was required to determine whether the improper instruction given to the jury constituted a fundamental error. In other words, whether the error affected the validity of the trial as a whole, to the extent that the jury would not have reached a guilty verdict without the assistance of the error.

Here, the instruction given to the jury defined a sexual battery as the sex organ of the defendant having a union with or penetrating the sex organ of the victim. The information charging the defendant, however, only charged him with attempted sexual battery through penetration. The court noted that prior cases in Florida established that a fundamental error is committed when a jury is instructed on the elements of a crime that the defendant was not charged with in the charging document. Further, the court clarified that under Florida law, a fundamental error will not be found where the State does not rely on the improper instruction and does not present any evidence in support of the instruction. In the subject case, however, the State presented evidence in support of a crime the defendant was not charged with and argued that the jury could convict him of the crime. Thus, the court found there was a fundamental error and reversed the defendant’s conviction on the sexual battery charge.

Discuss Your Charges with a Proficient Sex Crime Defense Attorney

If you reside in Sarasota and faced with charges that you committed sexual battery or another sex crime, it is prudent to meet with a proficient Sarasota sex crime defense attorney to discuss your case and what defenses you may be able to argue. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a sex crime defense attorney who is adept at aiding people charged with sex crimes in the pursuit of a favorable outcome. You can reach Mr. Hanlon at 941-462-1789 or through the online form to set up a complimentary and confidential consultation to discuss your charges.

The post Florida Court Discusses Improper Jury Instructions in Sex Crime Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.