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.

Factual Background

It is reported that following an incident in a dressing room at a thrift store, the police conducted an investigation regarding the defendant’s alleged videotaping of children. The police ultimately uncovered numerous photographs and videos of the defendant’s sister-in-law and her minor daughter, in which both the sister-in-law and daughter were nude. The police also found photographs in which the defendant’s penis was touching the minor daughter’s face and other photographs that depicted the defendant touching the child when she was asleep. The defendant was charged with approximately twenty sex crimes, including seven counts of sexual performance by a child. During the trial, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The motion was denied, and he was convicted on all charges, after which he appealed the denial of his motion.

Grounds for Granting a Motion for Acquittal

Under Florida law, a defendant filing a motion for judgment of acquittal may either argue that the State failed to present legally sufficient evidence that the defendant committed each element of the charged offense or in cases where the evidence is wholly circumstantial, that the State’s evidence is not inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence. To preserve either ground for seeking a judgment of acquittal, the defendant must identify the elements of the crime for which he or she alleges the State’s evidence is lacking, or in cases involving circumstantial evidence must outline the theory of his or her defense and explain why it is not inconsistent with the evidence presented.

In the subject case, the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal argued that there was no proof that he induced or authorized the victim to engage in sex acts. On appeal, however, the defendant argued that the child was asleep in the photographs and that a sleeping victim cannot engage in sexual conduct. The court found that the defendant failed to preserve this argument, but rejected it nonetheless. Specifically, the court found that sexual conduct was defined broadly and did not require active participation by the victim. Thus, the court found no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

Meet with a Diligent Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are a resident of Sarasota currently charged with child pornography or a similar type of sex crime, it is wise to meet with a diligent defense attorney regarding your potential defenses. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a proficient Sarasota sex crime attorney who will work tirelessly to help you seek the best outcome available under the facts of your case. You can contact Mr. Hanlon at 941-462-1789 or via the form online to schedule a complimentary and free meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses the Standards for Granting an Acquittal in a Sex Crime Case appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.