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.

The post Florida Court Assesses Speedy Trial Rights in Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

The component of Double Jeopardy that protects against cumulative penalties is designed to ensure that a court’s discretion with regard to sentencing is confined to the limits set forth by the legislature. As such, the question of whether punishments are “multiple” under the Double Jeopardy clause is essentially one of legislative intent. In this regard, legislative intent usually depends on whether each crime requires proof of an element that the other does not.

In analyzing whether a conviction violates Double Jeopardy, the courts are limited to considering only the statutory elements of the offenses in question and may not evaluate the proof or allegations in a particular case. Here, the defendant argued that his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm should be vacated because he was convicted of this crime as the lesser included offense of burglary with an assault.

The court explained that if the defendant was convicted of armed burglary with an assault, his aggravated assault conviction might have been subsumed into the home-invasion robbery conviction. As he was not, however, his argument failed. In other words, the court found that the statutory elements for home-invasion robbery while carrying a firearm and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon differed so that a person could be convicted of both crimes without violating double jeopardy. Thus, the court denied his appeal.

Speak to a Trusted Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

Criminal defendants have numerous frights, and if their rights are violated, they may be able to argue that their convictions should be vacated. If you are accused of robbery, it is advisable to speak to an attorney regarding your rights. The trusted Sarasota criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law are skilled at helping criminal defendants obtain favorable verdicts, and if we represent you, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law via the online form or at 941-462-1789 to set up a consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses Proving a Conviction Violates Double Jeopardy appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.