Articles Posted in Violent crimes

| by

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.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Criminal defendants in Florida have the constitutional right to be apprised of the charges against them with sufficient specificity to prepare a defense. This right extends not only to the charged offense but also to any lesser-included offenses that may be presented to the jury; if such rights are violated, there may be grounds for vacating any subsequent conviction. A recent Florida ruling illustrates the consequences of failing to adhere to this bedrock principle of due process, as the court reversed a conviction for aggravated battery, finding that the charging document failed to allege all of the statutory elements necessary to support the jury’s verdict. If you are accused of battery or another violent crime, it is smart to meet with a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney to assess your options.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant engaged in a violent confrontation that culminated in an attempted stabbing of the victim. The State charged the defendant by amended information with attempted second-degree murder but did not specify that a deadly weapon was used. The charging document merely stated that the defendant attempted to kill the victim “by stabbing” without alleging the use of a knife or any object likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

It is alleged that during the charge conference, the State requested jury instructions not only on the charged offense of attempted second-degree murder but also on the lesser-included offenses of attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon under section 784.045(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. The trial court agreed and gave the requested instructions, though it did not include aggravated battery based on great bodily harm under subsection (1)(a)(1). Continue Reading ›

| by

In Florida criminal cases, courts often grapple with the balance between ensuring justice and protecting a defendant’s rights, particularly concerning the admission of evidence. Recently, in a high-profile Florida case, the court addressed the admissibility of prior bad acts under the Williams Rule and its implications on a fair trial. If you are charged with a serious crime, it is essential to consult a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney to safeguard your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with attempted felony murder and attempted premeditated murder arising from a single criminal episode. The charges stemmed from a November 2013 incident in which the victim, while riding his bicycle late at night, was approached by an assailant demanding money. Reportedly, the assailant shot the victim multiple times before fleeing when alerted by a neighbor. The victim survived but required extensive hospitalization.

It is reported that the case remained unsolved for years until forensic analysis linked the firearm used in the shooting to two other crimes. Based on these findings, the State sought to introduce evidence of the collateral crimes to establish the defendant’s identity. The trial court allowed the evidence under the Williams Rule, which permits the use of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove issues such as identity or intent. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant on both counts, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence improperly became the focus of the trial and that his dual convictions violated double jeopardy principles.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Since the dawn of social media, law enforcement agents will often seek evidence from criminal suspects’ social media accounts when investigating crimes. They generally cannot do so without a warrant, however, and if they do, any evidence obtained may be deemed inadmissible, as discussed in a recent Florida murder case. If you are accused of committing a violent crime, it is critical to understand your potential defenses, and you should contact a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney promptly to discuss your charges.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter following the shooting death of a young girl who was killed by a stray bullet during an altercation. The altercation occurred between the defendant’s girlfriend and her aunt, during which the girlfriend made threats, stating she would have her “baby daddy” come and shoot them. Shortly afterward, the defendant arrived, and gunfire ensued. A stray bullet struck and killed the young girl as she sat in a car with her parents.

It is alleged that the defendant denied being involved in the shooting, testifying that he left the scene because he had children in his car and was not the person referenced by his girlfriend as the “baby daddy.” Both the defendant and his girlfriend were charged with first-degree murder, among other offenses. During the investigation, law enforcement obtained evidence from the defendant’s Facebook account without securing a warrant specific to the shooting. The trial court admitted this evidence under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, leading to the defendant’s conviction. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The defendant subsequently appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Battery and other crimes involving violent acts often carry substantial penalties, especially if the person charged has one or more prior convictions. As discussed in a recent Florida opinion, though, the courts generally cannot impose habitual offender penalties under multiple statutes to run concurrently. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is wise to confer with a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney about your case.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant was convicted of felony battery, a third-degree felony, and sentenced to ten years in prison by the trial court. The sentence was structured so that the defendant would serve five years as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), followed by another five years as a habitual felony offender (HFO). The defendant challenged the legality of this sentence on two grounds. First, he argued that the trial court could not impose equal sentences under both the PRR and HFO statutes. Second, he contended that the two consecutive five-year sentences exceeded the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony, which is typically five years.

It is reported that the defendant submitted the written judgment and sentence to support his claim, but he did not include the sentencing transcript. The postconviction court denied both claims. It acknowledged that an equal HFO sentence running concurrently with a PRR sentence would be illegal but dismissed the first claim because the trial court had imposed the sentences consecutively. As for the second claim, the postconviction court ruled that the HFO statute allowed for an extended sentence of up to ten years for a third-degree felony. The defendant then appealed.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Under the Florida and United States Constitution, people cannot be convicted more than once for the same crime. As such, if a defendant is found guilty of committing numerous offenses that all stem from the same incident and require the same proof, it may violate their double jeopardy rights, as demonstrated in a recent Florida battery case. If you are charged with a violent offense, including battery, it is wise to meet with a Sarasota violent crime defense lawyer to assess your rights.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant, while incarcerated in a county jail, punched another inmate, fracturing his jaw. As a result, he faced two charges: detainee battery and felony battery. Following a trial, the jury found him guilty of detainee battery but acquitted him of felony battery based on causing great bodily harm, instead finding him guilty of the lesser offense of simple battery.

Allegedly, the State subsequently presented evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions, leading the jury to convict him of felony battery based on a previous conviction. The trial court sentenced him to the maximum of five years in prison for each count, to run consecutively. The defendant then appealed his convictions, arguing that the sentences for both convictions constituted double jeopardy.

Continue Reading ›

| by

People charged with serious violent crimes often fear that they will be found guilty and sentenced to serve a lengthy term in prison, especially if they have prior convictions. There are limitations as to what sentences the courts can impose, however, and if they deviate from the sentencing scheme without just cause, there may be grounds for objecting to the sentence, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of attempted manslaughter and felony battery. If you are faced with accusations that you committed a violent crime, it is critical to speak to a Sarasota violent crime defense lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with attempted first-degree murder with a weapon and aggravated battery with a weapon. She was subsequently convicted of attempted manslaughter with a weapon, which was a lesser included offense of the murder charge, and felony battery, which was a lesser included offense of the battery crime. Following her sentencing, she appealed both her convictions and her sentence.

Grounds for Revising Sentences

On appeal, the defendant set forth numerous arguments. The court rejected the defendant’s first five arguments, affirming her convictions without discussion. The court then addressed the two remaining arguments the defendant asserted contesting her sentences.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Pursuant to Florida law, while the courts have some discretion when sentencing people convicted of crimes, the sentences they administer must fall within the range dictated by the statutory guidelines. Accordingly, if a sentence exceeds a statutory maximum, it may be illegal and, therefore, may be subject to reversal. A Florida court recently discussed the grounds for reversing illegal sentences in a Florida case in which it granted the defendant’s request to vacate his sentences for aggravated battery and aggravated assault. If you are charged with assault, battery, or any other violent offense, it is smart to talk to a Sarasota violent crime defense lawyer to determine your rights.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the defendant faced convictions for two counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The charges stemmed from an altercation where the defendant allegedly indiscriminately fired shots into a crowd, injuring multiple individuals.

Reportedly, witness testimony during the trial implicated the defendant as the perpetrator of the shooting. He was subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to 36 years in prison for each aggravated battery conviction and 36 years with a 20-year mandatory minimum for aggravated assault. The defendant appealed, challenging multiple aspects of his convictions and sentences, including the admission of certain evidence, jury instructions, and the legality of his sentences. Continue Reading ›

| by

In Florida, driving is a privilege, and drivers must comply with certain laws in order to maintain that privilege. If they fail to do so, they may not only lose their right to drive but may face criminal charges as well. As demonstrated in a recent Florida case, people convicted of crimes involving vehicles may be charged with battery and, if convicted, may be sentenced to decades in prison. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is smart to talk to a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney about your options.

Case Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes involving his use of a vehicle, including aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, fleeing law enforcement, driving with a revoked license, leaving the scene of an accident, and tampering with a witness. He was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to thirty years in prison. He moved for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Grounds for Reversing Criminal Convictions

On appeal, the defendant raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a double jeopardy violation. The court applied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring a showing of deficient performance and resulting prejudice. In the first claim, the defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to an amended information filed after the speedy-trial period. The court found that the defendant had waived his speedy-trial rights by requesting a continuance before the amendment, rendering the objection meritless and his counsel’s performance reasonable.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The Florida courts take allegations of domestic violence seriously and will order injunctions for protection in matters in which they believe the petitioners present credible evidence of acts that constitute domestic violence. People that subsequently violate such injunctions may be subject to criminal penalties. The prosecution must establish each element of the crime of violating an injunction for protection in order to obtain a conviction; however, if it cannot, the defendant should be found not guilty. Recently, a Florida court vacated a defendant’s conviction for violating a protection order on the grounds the prosecution failed to establish each element of the crime. If you are charged with a domestic violence crime, you should speak to a Sarasota domestic violence defense attorney to determine what defenses you may be able to set forth.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the state charged the defendant by information with stalking and violating an injunction for protection against repeat violence. During the trial, the state presented evidence that the alleged victim had sought and obtained an injunction against stalking against the defendant. The state did not present evidence of any other injunctions.

It is alleged that the defendant then moved for acquittal on the grounds that the state failed to establish the issuance of either an injunction against repeat violence or an injunction for protection against domestic violence. The trial court denied his motion, and he was found guilty as charged. The defendant then appealed.

Continue Reading ›