History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation involving a minor under the age of sixteen, based on accusations made by the victim, who claimed that the defendant, her mother’s partner, engaged in inappropriate conduct. The defense theory centered on the claim that the accusations were fabricated to influence custodial arrangements.

The post Florida Court Examines Voir Dire Questioning in Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the State charged the defendant by information with solicitation to commit prostitution in violation of section 796.07(2)(f), Florida Statutes. The charge alleged that the defendant solicited another person to engage in prostitution by sexual intercourse.

Reportedly, the case proceeded to trial in county court, where the trial judge provided the jury with instructions addressing the charged offense. The instructions also referenced solicitation to commit lewdness and assignation, which were not separately charged in the information.

It is alleged that the defendant did not object to the jury instructions at trial. The instructions were included among those collectively identified by the court as the proposed jury instructions, and the defense raised no contemporaneous challenge to their content.

It is reported that the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of solicitation to commit prostitution as charged. The verdict form specifically identified the offense and cited the applicable statute, reflecting that the jury found the defendant guilty only of the crime alleged in the information.

Reportedly, the defendant appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on uncharged offenses. The defendant asserted that the inclusion of those references created a risk that the jury convicted him based on an improper theory not alleged by the State.

Jury Instructions in Florida Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court examined whether the challenged jury instruction constituted fundamental error, which is the only basis for reversal when an alleged error was not preserved by objection at trial. The court acknowledged the State’s preliminary argument that the issue may have been waived but determined that it was unnecessary to resolve waiver because the instruction did not amount to fundamental error.

The court analyzed Florida precedent governing instructional errors that reference uncharged offenses. Fundamental error occurs when a jury instruction is so flawed that it undermines the validity of the verdict or makes it impossible to determine whether the defendant was convicted of the charged crime rather than an uncharged offense. This concern often arises in cases involving general verdicts, where the verdict does not specify the theory or offense on which the jury relied.

In this case, the court emphasized the importance of the verdict form. The jury expressly found the defendant guilty of solicitation to commit prostitution, the precise offense charged in the information. Because the verdict form identified the charged crime and statutory citation, there was no uncertainty regarding the basis of the conviction.

The court relied on prior decisions holding that when the record demonstrates the jury convicted the defendant only of the charged offense, the inclusion of references to uncharged crimes in jury instructions does not constitute fundamental error. The court explained that due process concerns arise only when it is impossible to know whether the jury convicted the defendant of an uncharged offense or theory.

Applying that standard, the court concluded that the partially erroneous instruction did not affect the validity of the verdict. The jury’s specific finding eliminated any risk that the defendant was convicted of solicitation to commit lewdness or assignation rather than solicitation to commit prostitution. Because no fundamental error occurred, the defendant was not entitled to relief on appeal. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

Speak with an Experienced Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case

Appellate challenges based on jury instructions require careful analysis of trial records, verdict forms, and preservation rules. The experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law understand how Florida appellate courts evaluate claims of fundamental error and instructional defects. If you have been convicted of a criminal offense or believe trial errors affected your case, Hanlon Law can review the record and advise you on potential appellate or post-conviction options. You can reach us online or t 941-462-1789 to schedule a confidential consultation.

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

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.

The post Florida Court Examines What Constitutes a Crime of Violence appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with brandishing a firearm during a carjacking. Prior to trial, the prosecution indicated that it intended to introduce evidence of the defendant’s three prior convictions: a 2009 conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and possession of other weapons and two convictions from 2018 and 2022 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The prosecution argued that these prior convictions were admissible in the current case to demonstrate that the defendant’s alleged brandishing of a firearm during the offense was done “knowingly and intentionally” and was not a result of a mistake or accident.

Evidence of Prior Crimes in Florida Criminal Trials

Reportedly, in response, the defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude such evidence on the grounds that it only served to portray the defendant as having a bad character. The defendant noted that in United States v. Gray, a similar case, the district court allowed the introduction of the defendant’s prior convictions for armed carjacking, armed robbery, and car burglary. However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence under a “lack-of-accident-or-mistake theory.”

Further, he argued that, like in the Gray case, his defense as not that he accidentally brandished a firearm while committing a carjacking but rather that he was not the person who committed the carjacking. Therefore, he contended that the prior convictions should not be admitted as they would invite propensity reasoning that the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit.

The court noted that the prosecution cited cases in which the Eleventh Circuit upheld the admission of prior firearm-related convictions in subsequent firearm-related prosecutions. Those cases, however, dealt with charges of “being a felon in possession of a firearm” and whether such possession was knowing, which was not the issue in the subject case. Thus, the court ultimately adopted the defendant’s reasoning and granted his motion in limine, barring the prosecution from introducing evidence of his prior convictions.

Talk to a Seasoned Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

A defendant’s criminal history should not be used to establish their guilt in a subsequent criminal proceeding, and if it is, the defendant may have grounds for vacating their conviction. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your options. The seasoned Sarasota theft crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law have ample experience helping people protect their rights in criminal matters, and if you hire them, they will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach Hanlon Law by calling 941-462-1789 or using the online form to set up a meeting.

The post Court Examines Evidence of Prior Crimes in Florida Criminal Trials appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

In Florida, when sentencing a person convicted of a crime, the courts will generally rely on statutory guidelines. The courts have the discretion to deviate from the guidelines, however, if the party seeking an upward or downward sentence demonstrates that a departure is warranted. In a recent opinion issued in a Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of multiple crimes following a deadly accident, the court discussed when a downward departure sentence is appropriate. If you are charged with manslaughter or any other crime following an accident, it is in your best interest to talk to a Sarasota criminal defense attorney about your rights.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with manslaughter and numerous other crimes after she was involved in a fatal car accident. A jury ultimately found her guilty of driving without a license causing serious bodily injury or death. She moved for a downward departure sentence, arguing that she was not the proximate cause of death as the other driver caused the accident. The trial court denied her motion, however, stating that it did not have the discretion to issue a downward departure sentence based on comparative liability for the injuries. Consequently, the defendant was sentenced to the minimum scoresheet of approximately 15 years in prison. She appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that it was prohibited from considering her comparative fault as a potential basis for a downward departure sentence.

Determining Whether a Downward Departure Sentence is Appropriate

The court explains that determining the appropriateness of a downward departure sentence involves a two-step process. First, the court must ascertain whether there is a valid legal ground for the departure, as set forth in a statute or case law, and supported by facts proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Second, if a valid legal ground exists, the court must determine whether the departure is the best sentencing option by evaluating the totality of the circumstances.

The post Court Discusses Downward Departure Sentences in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

There are numerous measures in place at the state and federal levels that aim to protect people from unjust convictions. Among other things, people convicted of crimes have the right to file an appeal if they believe they were improperly convicted. If they fail to raise an argument on appeal, however, they cannot attempt to do so via a collateral challenge, as discussed in a recent opinion issued in a Florida case in which the defendant sought to overturn his conviction for drug trafficking and other offenses. If you are accused of committing a drug crime, it is smart to meet with a Sarasota drug crime defense attorney to assess your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon, using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possessing 50 or more grams of methamphetamine in violation of federal law. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and was sentenced to 160 months in prison. He did not appeal his conviction or sentence. He then moved to vacate his conviction for using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in light of a recent ruling that invalidated the relevant statute’s residual clause pertaining to crimes of violence.

The Right to Appeal Criminal Convictions

The court denied the defendant’s request for relief on the grounds that his argument lacked merit and was procedurally defaulted. The court explained that collateral challenges could not do the work of an appeal. In other words, once a defendant has exhausted or waived the change to appeal, the courts are entitled to presume that the defendant’s conviction is fair and final. As such, claims that the defendant could avail themselves of but did not raise in a previous proceeding are procedurally defaulted and typically are barred from consideration on collateral review.

The post Florida Court Discusses the Right to Appeal Criminal Convictions appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

In order to convict someone of a DUI, the State generally must prove the person was driving while intoxicated, which it usually does through the introduction of evidence of the individual’s blood alcohol concentration. Thus, if the police improperly obtained a blood test and the results of the test are deemed inadmissible, the State may be unable to prove culpability. Recently, a Florida court discussed when the results of chemical testing should be suppressed in a case in which the defendant was charged with DUI manslaughter. If you are charged with a DUI crime, you could face significant penalties, and it is smart to meet with a trusted Sarasota DUI defense attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a collision that resulted in the death of another person. The police officer investigating the accident believed that the defendant was intoxicated and asked him if he would submit to a blood test. The defendant declined, after which the officer obtained a search warrant that allowed him to obtain two blood samples an hour apart. After securing the warrant, the officer obtained two vials of blood from the defendant via a single draw and did not collect a second sample. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of the test, arguing the police failed to comply with the warrant. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed.

Grounds for Suppressing Evidence Obtained Via a Search Warrant

The trial court relied on established Florida law stating that the purpose of requiring specificity in the description in a warrant of the things to be seized is to prevent general searches. The duty of an officer to explicitly describe the objects that will be taken under the warrant bars general searches and avoids an officer from confiscating one thing when another thing is described in the warrant. In other words, the requirement that a warrant must be particular limits the discretion of the officer that is conducting a search pursuant to the warrant by preventing an exploratory search under a general warrant.

The post Florida Court Discusses Specificity of Search Warrants appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Process During COVID-19

Throughout the pandemic, many Florida courts have been operating under modifications based on local public health information in an effort to stop the spread of the coronavirus. For example, some courts have temporarily halted non-jury and in-person jury trials, while others have limited the number of trials they are allowing to proceed.

Criminal defendants have numerous rights, though, including the right to a speedy trial. Specifically, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, a criminal trial must begin within ninety days of a person’s arrest if the crime charged is a misdemeanor. If the underlying offense is a felony, the trial must commence within one hundred and seventy-five days of the defendant’s arrest. In some cases, a defendant may be able to file a demand for a speedy trial, in which case the trial must commence within fifty days.

Typically, the right to a speedy trial is staunchly protected. Rule 3.191 does allow for the extension of the trial timelines when necessary due to exceptional circumstances, which includes the unavoidable or unforeseeable absence, illness, or incapacity of a person needed for the trial, such as a witness. It is pursuant to this exception that the Florida Supreme Court issued an order suspending trials at the beginning of the pandemic. The court recently issued another order, allowing for remote criminal trials in certain circumstances.

Specifically, they are permissible in cases in which the defendant orally consents on the record to a remote trial. The defendant must consent in writing as well, and the consent must be intelligent, voluntary, and knowing. If the defendant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must state on the record that he or she has discussed the possible advantages and detriments of a remote trial with the defendant and determined that the defendant’s consent is informed, voluntary, and knowing. The court may consider the prosecution and victim’s input as well before deciding whether to proceed remotely.

Meet with a Trusted Criminal Defense Attorney in Florida

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted most parts of people’s lives, including how criminal trials are handled. If you are charged with a crime, it is prudent to speak to a lawyer to understand your rights and what you can expect with regard to the court process during the pandemic. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a trusted Sarasota criminal defense attorney who is skilled at helping people charged with crimes fight to protect their interests, and if you hire him, he will zealously pursue the best outcome available in your case. You can contact Mr. Hanlon through the form online or at 941-462-1789 to schedule a meeting.

The post Florida Court Process During COVID-19 appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.