Articles Posted in Robbery

| by

Criminal defendants in federal court are protected both by the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. These protections require that the government bring charges and proceed to trial within specified time limits, unless continuances are properly justified and granted. When defendants believe their rights have been violated, they may move to dismiss the indictment or argue on appeal that delays undermined the fairness of the proceedings. A recent Florida decision issued in a robbery case illustrates the limits of such arguments, affirming that not all delays are attributable to the government and that defendants cannot obtain dismissal without showing actual prejudice. If you are charged with a theft crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested on state charges before being transferred to federal custody, at which point he was indicted for six counts of Hobbs Act robbery. Reportedly, the defendant’s trial began approximately fourteen months after his federal arrest and ten months after his indictment.

It is reported that the defendant attempted to preserve a claim under the Speedy Trial Act by filing a pro se motion to dismiss, even though he was represented by appointed counsel at the time. Under the Southern District of Florida’s local rules, defendants represented by counsel are not permitted to file pro se motions, and the district court later replaced the public defender with private counsel. However, the new attorney did not renew the motion to dismiss.

It is alleged that the delays in the case were due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicated grand jury proceedings and halted jury trials in the district court for a period. It is further reported that the defendant himself requested three continuances, which accounted for approximately seven months of the total delay. The jury convicted the defendant, after which he appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The state and federal constitutions prohibit Double Jeopardy, which essentially means that a person cannot be tried or convicted for the same offense more than once. As such, if a defendant is convicted for numerous offenses that require proof of the same elements, it may violate Double Jeopardy. In a recent opinion, a Florida court discussed the proof required to demonstrate a Double Jeopardy violation in a case in which the defendant appealed his convictions for robbery and aggravated assault. If you are charged with robbery, it is smart to contact a skilled Sarasota robbery defense lawyer to discuss your potential defenses.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant broke into a home and robbed a drug dealer at gunpoint. He was arrested at the scene of the crime and charged with robbery and aggravated assault with a weapon. A jury convicted him of both offenses, after which he appealed, arguing in part that his attorney was ineffective for failing to argue that his convictions violated Double Jeopardy.

Proving a Conviction Violates Double Jeopardy

The court explained that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Florida and United States Constitutions provides that no one shall twice be put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. The Double Jeopardy clause prohibits, among other things, multiple punishments for the same crime. Continue Reading ›