Articles Posted in Violent crimes

Evidentiary rulings frequently shape the trajectory of serious felony cases by influencing what jurors learn about motive, credibility, and the sequence of events. A recent decision issued by a Florida court in a murder case demonstrates how courts review such rulings in cases involving competing theories of culpability and disputes over third-party motive evidence. If you are charged with murder or any other violent offense, it is smart to consult a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney who can help you protect your interests.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant, the victim, and the girlfriend lived together as roommates. The girlfriend previously dated the defendant, but during his incarceration, she began a relationship with the victim. Two days after the defendant returned home following his release, he found the victim and the girlfriend together in bed and killed the victim.

Reportedly, the defendant and the girlfriend attempted to conceal the homicide by disposing of the body and cleaning the residence. Investigators located the victim’s body in a dumpster, recovered portions of a blood-soaked mattress, and found gloves and other items containing DNA from the defendant, the victim, and the girlfriend. Cell site data showed the defendant’s and the girlfriend’s movements matched the disposal route described by investigators.

In the federal criminal justice system, defendants are entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against them, the legality of their indictment, and the procedural and substantive fairness of their sentence. However, these challenges must meet stringent standards, especially on appeal. A recent decision from a Florida federal court highlights the importance of preserving arguments at trial and illustrates the rigorous legal framework governing charges for assaulting federal officers. If you are facing violent crime charges, an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help ensure your rights are preserved at every stage of your case.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant, who was an inmate at the time of the offense, was convicted in the Middle District of Florida of assaulting two federal correctional officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b), as well as possessing a weapon while incarcerated. The defendant was sentenced to 137 months in prison. During a confrontation, the defendant physically assaulted one officer, then used a weapon to inflict bodily harm on a second officer. Multiple witnesses testified that the defendant attacked the officers on separate occasions and that video surveillance corroborated their testimony.

Allegedly, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish he was the person who committed the assaults. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant subsequently testified in his own defense. The defendant appealed.

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 ›

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.

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.

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.