Articles Posted in Violent crimes

| by

Self-defense often becomes the central issue in violent crime prosecutions, particularly when conflicting witness testimony leaves jurors to decide whether a defendant reasonably believed deadly force was necessary. Even when evidence supports a self-defense claim, an incorrect jury instruction can unfairly undermine that defense and affect the outcome of a trial. A recent Florida decision demonstrates how critical accurate jury instructions are when self-defense is at issue. If you have been charged with murder or another violent offense in the Sarasota area, speaking with an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney as soon as possible can help you protect your rights and build the strongest defense available.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant accompanied a friend to an apartment where the friend planned to sell cannabis to two individuals. According to the evidence, the buyers instead orchestrated a plan to steal the drugs by disguising a router as a bundle of cash. After the exchange began, the transaction quickly deteriorated into a violent confrontation. Witnesses offered conflicting accounts regarding who initiated the violence. The defendant maintained that one individual attacked his friend while the other reached for what appeared to be a firearm or knife, causing the defendant to fire his weapon because he feared for his life and the life of his companion. One participant survived multiple gunshot wounds, while the other died.

Reportedly, the defendant was convicted of third-degree murder and attempted felony murder. Throughout the trial, his defense centered entirely on Florida’s justifiable use of deadly force statutes. Defense counsel objected to several proposed jury instructions, arguing that certain language regarding the forcible felony exception could improperly negate the defendant’s self-defense claim. The trial court nevertheless gave the challenged instruction, denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, and entered judgment. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and multiple jury instructions.

Continue Reading ›

| by
In federal criminal cases involving sentence enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), courts must carefully determine who decides key factual issues that can dramatically increase a defendant’s sentence. A recent Florida ruling reinforces the constitutional requirement that juries, not judges, must resolve certain factual determinations that expose defendants to heightened penalties. If you are facing federal firearm charges or potential sentence enhancements in Florida, it is critical to consult a Sarasota criminal defense attorney who can help you take the measures necessary to protect your rights during every phase of your case.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, law enforcement officers encountered the defendant at a motel in Jacksonville after the property manager reported repeated trespassing. Officers attempted to remove the defendant from the premises, but when the defendant refused to comply, they placed him under arrest. During the arrest, officers discovered a loaded firearm in the defendant’s possession, leading to federal charges for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Continue Reading ›

| by

Postconviction challenges based on juror misconduct strike at the core of a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury, yet Florida law places strict limits on when those claims may be raised. When allegations surface years after a verdict, courts closely scrutinize whether the information qualifies as newly discovered evidence or could have been uncovered through a timely investigation. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how narrowly courts interpret the due diligence requirement and why even serious claims of juror nondisclosure may be barred if raised too late. If you are accused of a violent crime, you should talk to a Sarasota criminal defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon and received life sentences on both counts following a jury trial in circuit court. The convictions became final after the appellate court affirmed them by mandate more than a decade earlier.

Reportedly, years after the judgment became final, the defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion alleged juror misconduct based on a juror’s failure to disclose information during voir dire, including the criminal histories of close family members and the juror’s proximity to the crime scene. Continue Reading ›

| by

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.

Continue Reading ›

| by

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.

Continue Reading ›

| 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 ›