Legal Process Category Archives — Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog Published by Sarasota, Florida Criminal Lawyer — Hanlon Law

Florida Court Examines Evidence in Support of a Request for Compassionate Release

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:44:49 +0000

In federal criminal cases, motions for compassionate release require courts to assess whether extraordinary and compelling reasons justify modifying a defendant’s sentence. These motions are governed by a narrow legal framework, and defendants bear the burden of proving their eligibility. Recently, a Florida court examined these principles in a case where the defendant sought compassionate release based on health conditions and changes in sentencing law. If you are navigating federal sentencing issues or seeking post-conviction relief, consulting an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney is crucial to understanding your options.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged in 2017 with multiple offenses, including seven counts of controlled substance distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), as well as possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The defendant pleaded guilty to the drug charges but proceeded to trial on the firearm offenses, where a jury found him guilty.

Reportedly, during sentencing, the court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report’s conclusion that the defendant qualified as both an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Based on these designations and other factors, the court imposed a sentence of 210 months.

It is alleged that in 2024, the defendant filed a pro se motion for compassionate release, citing two primary arguments. First, the defendant alleged that his medical conditions—specifically asthma and heart problems—warranted a sentence reduction. Second, he contended that recent changes in sentencing laws would result in a significantly shorter sentence if imposed today. These changes included reclassification of certain offenses and adjustments to ACCA and career offender designations.

Evidence Needed to Support a Request for Compassionate Release

The district court evaluated the defendant’s motion under the framework set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). To grant compassionate release, the court must find that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, the defendant has exhausted administrative remedies, and the requested reduction aligns with applicable policy statements. The court also considers the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

It is reported that the court first addressed the defendant’s medical claims. The defendant argued that his asthma and heart conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. However, the court noted that under the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, medical conditions must either be terminal or substantially impair the defendant’s ability to care for himself in custody. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet this standard, offering only bare assertions without supporting medical records. Citing precedent, the court concluded that chronic conditions alone do not warrant compassionate release absent evidence of severe incapacity or terminal illness.

Next, the court considered the defendant’s claims regarding changes in sentencing law. The defendant argued that intervening legal developments would result in a shorter sentence if imposed today. However, the court emphasized that compassionate release is not a substitute for resentencing and does not apply retroactively to changes in sentencing law unless explicitly stated by Congress. Moreover, the court found that the defendant’s prior convictions for aggravated assault and drug offenses still supported his ACCA designation and career offender status. Consequently, the original sentence remained valid.

Ultimately, the court denied the defendant’s motion, holding that he failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. The court also found that the sentencing factors under § 3553(a), including the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public, weighed against granting the motion.

Speak to a Trusted Sarasota Defense Attorney Today

Navigating post-conviction motions and sentence modifications can be complex, particularly in federal cases. If you are considering filing for compassionate release or pursuing other post-conviction relief, the Sarasota criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can help. Our experienced team understands the nuances of federal sentencing law and will provide the guidance and advocacy you need. Contact us today at 941-462-1789 or via our online form to schedule a consultation and discuss your case.

The post Florida Court Examines Evidence in Support of a Request for Compassionate Release appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Examines the Right to a Speedy Trial in Criminal Matters

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:54:20 +0000

The right to a speedy trial is a cornerstone of the American criminal justice system, as it ensures that defendants are not subject to unnecessary delays in the legal process. If a criminal defendant found guilty of a crime believes that their right to a speedy trial was violated, they might be able to successfully argue that their conviction should be vacated. As illustrated in a recent Florida ruling delivered in a drug crime case, however, it can be challenging to demonstrate that delays in criminal proceedings are unjust and unreasonable. If you are charged with a drug-related offense, it is smart to talk to a Sarasota drug crime criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with and convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of a controlled substance. He was convicted and sentenced to 235 months in prison. He appealed on numerous grounds, including the assertion that the trial court violated his right to a speedy trial.

The Right to a Speedy Trial in Criminal Matters

After careful analysis, the court found that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and upheld his conviction. The court explained that the Speedy Trial Act establishes guidelines for expediting criminal trials while allowing for justifiable delays. The Act excludes certain periods of delay stemming from proceedings involving the defendant, including delays caused by pretrial motions from filing through disposition.

Additionally, delays resulting from the district court’s grant of a continuance for the sake of justice are also excluded, provided that the court explains its rationale. The Act furnishes a non-exclusive list of factors that judges must consider when deciding to grant a continuance. One such factor pertains to cases where an arrest precedes indictment, allowing for delays if it’s unreasonable to expect prompt indictment due to the circumstances.

When assessing whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, the courts will review legal questions are reviewed de novo, while factual inquiries are assessed under the clearly erroneous standard.

In the subject case, the court found that the delays in the defendant’s trial between September 2019 and May 2021 did not infringe on his speedy trial rights. Instead, the court explained, the delays during this period were legitimate and permissible due to the necessity of addressing pending motions, ongoing pandemic-related emergencies, efforts to secure replacement counsel and responses to motions concerning Double Jeopardy and speedy trial concerns. The district court appropriately granted these continuances in the interest of justice. As such, the court upheld the trial court rulings.

Meet With a Trusted Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

It is paramount that the courts uphold criminal defendants’ right to a speedy trial, and if they fail to do so, it may constitute grounds for vacating a conviction. If you are charged with a drug crime or any other offense, it is important to meet with an attorney to discuss your rights. The trusted Sarasota drug crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law are well-versed in what it takes to prevail in criminal proceedings, and if you hire us, we 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 conference.

The post Florida Court Examines the Right to a Speedy Trial in Criminal Matters appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Court Discusses Severance of Charges in Florida Criminal Trials

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:24:17 +0000

Typically, when a person faces numerous charges arising out of a single incident, they will be tried for all of the offenses in one trial. In some instances, though, a defendant may be able to successfully demonstrate that certain charges should be severed, as a trial on all charges at once would be prejudicial. In a recent ruling, a Florida court discussed what evidence a defendant must offer to show severance is warranted in a case in which the defendant was found guilty of possessing a firearm as a violent career criminal. If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is advisable to speak to a Sarasota weapons crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant had an altercation with the victim, who was his girlfriend, at the victim’s house. The altercation became physical, and the defendant brandished a gun and fired multiple shots into the air. He was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, burglary with battery, assault, and possession of a firearm as a violent career criminal.

Allegedly, the defendant moved to sever the gun possession charge from the other offenses, arguing that severance was necessary for a fair trial. The court denied his motion but bifurcated the hearing; during the first phase, the jury found that the defendant possessed a firearm, and during the second, it found that he qualified as a violent career criminal. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison, and he appealed.

Severance in Criminal Cases

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever and that the error violated his constitutional rights. The court did not agree and affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Under Florida law, courts should liberally grant severance when a denial of a request for severance would likely result in prejudice. The trial courts have ample discretion with regard to motions for severance, though, and their rulings will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.

In the subject case, the court ruled that the offenses requiring proof of the defendant’s criminal record had to be weighed separately from the other crimes. The court found, though, that as the jury did not learn of his prior convictions until the second phase of the trial, that effect was achieved. Thus, it affirmed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Trusted Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

While most people can lawfully possess firearms, people convicted of certain offenses may be charged with a gun crime if they are found with a weapon in their possession. If you are accused of a weapons offense, it is smart to meet with an attorney. The trusted Sarasota criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law are proficient at helping people accused of crimes protect their interests, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach Hanlon Law through the online form or by calling 941-462-1789 to set up a meeting.

The post Court Discusses Severance of Charges in Florida Criminal Trials appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Process During COVID-19

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:32:50 +0000

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically modified many aspects of daily living, including how courts handle the process of handling criminal hearings and trials. Criminal defendants have many rights under the state and federal constitutions, but some of them have been altered or impinged by COVID-19 orders, and it is critical for people charged with criminal offenses to understand how their cases will proceed during the pandemic. If you are accused of a crime, you should meet with a skillful Sarasota criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options.

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.

Court Explains the Evidentiary Concept of “Opening the Door” in Florida Criminal Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:12:50 +0000

In Florida, the law affords a person suspected of a crime certain rights and protections. For example, the State is prohibited from introducing evidence of bad acts that are not related to the offense charged against a criminal defendant at trial, unless an exception to the rule applies. Recently, a Florida appellate court upheld a conviction where the defendant was convicted of solicitation to commit murder, finding that the trial court did not err in permitting evidence of bad acts under the evidentiary principle of “opening the door.” If you are charged with solicitation to commit murder or any other violent crime in Sarasota, it is important to retain the services of a skilled Sarasota criminal defense attorney who will work vigorously to preclude any evidence that should not be admitted against you.

The Defendant’s Alleged Criminal Acts

Allegedly, the defendant’s boyfriend approached the police and advised them that the defendant intended to kill her husband. The boyfriend agreed to be an informant for the police. Subsequently, the police recorded conversations between the defendant and her boyfriend and between the defendant and an undercover police officer, who the defendant believed was a hit man. The undercover officer agreed to kill the defendant’s husband. The police then faked a crime scene and informed the defendant that her husband was murdered. The defendant was ultimately charged with solicitation to commit first degree murder. Due to various issues, the defendant ultimately underwent three trials.

The post Court Explains the Evidentiary Concept of “Opening the Door” in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Explains Circumstances that Warrant Dismissal of an Appeal

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:56:47 +0000

The Florida legislature drafted criminal rules of procedure and appellate rules of procedure that a defendant must follow in defending against the charges he or she faces or appealing a conviction. It is essential to comply with the obligations set forth under the rules of procedure, as the failure to do so can adversely affect your case. In only the most extreme circumstances, however, will a failure to comply with rules of appellate procedure result in the dismissal of an appeal.

A Florida district court recently quashed a trial court’s dismissal of an appeal for failure to file a brief in a timely manner, and in doing so explained when dismissal of an appeal may be warranted. If you reside in Sarasota and are charged with a crime, it is important to retain an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney to assist you in protecting your rights.

The Defendant’s Case

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted of two misdemeanor crimes. He appealed the verdict and his sentence. On appeal, the defendant failed to file a brief in support of his appeal within the time set forth by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court issued a warning to the defendant and set forth an order stating that if he did not file his brief within thirty days, his appeal would be dismissed. Thirty days after the court’s order the defendant’s attorney filed a motion for an extension of time to file the brief. The defendant’s attorney explained that the delay in filing the brief was caused by the fact that she did not yet have the trial transcript. The court denied the motion and dismissed the defendant’s appeal. The defendant appealed the dismissal of his appeal to the District Court.

Grounds for Dismissal of an Appeal

On appeal, the defendant averred that the trial court departed from an essential requirement of law in dismissing his appeal. The court explained that a court departs from an essential requirement of law when it disregards a clearly defined legal principle, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. On review, the court agreed with the defendant, noting that under Florida law, it was well established that dismissing an appeal is an extreme penalty that is only to be imposed where there is a flagrant violation of the rules of appellate procedure.

The court stated that a dismissal of an appeal was not justified unless the defendant was warned his case may be dismissed if he did not file his brief in a timely manner. Even where a defendant is warned of possible dismissal, as in the subject case, dismissals have been overturned where a delay in filing the brief was not due to misconduct or intentional disregard of the rules. The court found that the defendant’s delay in filing the brief was not due to misconduct, and his attorney was not unreasonable in requesting an extension for time to file the brief. Therefore, the court quashed the trial court order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Meet with a Trusted Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney to Discuss your Case

If you live in Sarasota and are currently facing criminal charges, it is in your best interest to meet with a trusted Sarasota criminal defense attorney to discuss your case. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is Sarasota criminal defense attorney with the knowledge and experience needed to assist you in seeking a favorable legal result under the facts of your case. You can contact Mr. Hanlon at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to schedule a confidential and free meeting.

The post Florida Court Explains Circumstances that Warrant Dismissal of an Appeal appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.