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.

The post Florida Court Discusses Predicate Offenses Under the Armed Career Criminal Act appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

It is alleged that the defendant argued the motion was timely because the information constituted newly discovered evidence that could not have been uncovered earlier through due diligence. In support, the defendant attached an affidavit from a private jury investigation company describing how it located the information through public records searches and online resources.

It is reported that the postconviction court summarily denied the motion as untimely, concluding that the newly discovered evidence exception did not apply. The court also denied a subsequent motion for rehearing or reconsideration.

Reportedly, the defendant appealed the summary denial, contending that he could not have discovered the juror’s nondisclosures within the two-year time limit and relying heavily on Florida Supreme Court precedent addressing concealed juror information.

Newly Discovered Evidence in Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court applied de novo review to the summary denial of the postconviction motion. The court reiterated that Rule 3.850 imposes a strict two-year deadline for filing postconviction motions, subject only to limited exceptions, including newly discovered evidence that could not have been ascertained through due diligence.

The court examined the legal standard governing newly discovered evidence claims and emphasized that the inquiry focuses not on when a defendant actually discovered the information, but on whether the information was discoverable within the permissible time frame through reasonable efforts. The court distinguished between information that is inherently undiscoverable without voluntary disclosure and information available through public records.

In evaluating the defendant’s reliance on prior precedent, the court compared cases in which juror misconduct claims were allowed to proceed outside the time bar with those in which they were deemed procedurally barred. The court explained that when concealed information involves public arrest records, addresses, or family relationships that can be traced through official databases, due diligence requires a timely investigation.

The court carefully reviewed the investigative methods described in the affidavit attached to the motion. Those methods included searching clerk of court databases, corrections records, law enforcement reports, and publicly available social media information. The court concluded that these same methods were available well before the filing deadline and did not depend on the existence of a particular investigative company.

The court rejected arguments based on financial inability to retain investigators, noting that the lack of resources does not excuse compliance with procedural rules. It further clarified that neither the defense nor the State has an affirmative duty to investigate jurors, but defendants who intend to raise juror misconduct claims must do so within the established timeframe.

Based on this analysis, the court held that the defendant failed to establish an applicable exception to the time bar. Because the motion was untimely as a matter of law, the court affirmed the summary denial without reaching the merits of the alleged juror bias.

Talk to a Skilled Sarasota Violent Crime Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a violent offense, it is critical to talk to an attorney about what defenses you may be able to assert to avoid a conviction.  The skilled Sarasota violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can assess your case and help you seek the best possible legal outcome.  You can contact our Sarasota office online or call 941-462-1789 to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Court Weighs Juror Misconduct Claims in Florida Postconviction Proceedings appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidentiary Rulings in Murder Case appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

The post Florida Court Explains Evidence Needed to Prove an Indictment is Multiplicitous appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

The post Florida Court Examines What Constitutes a Crime of Violence appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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).

It is reported that the jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and the trial court imposed a sentence of 21 months in prison followed by six months of probation. The defendant appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the charging document and arguing that the State failed to allege all elements necessary to support the permissive lesser-included offense for which he was ultimately convicted.

Sufficiency of Charging Documents

On review, the court framed the central issue as whether a trial court may instruct the jury on a permissive lesser-included offense when the accusatory pleading does not allege all the elements of that offense. Florida law distinguishes between “category one” necessary lesser-included offenses, which are always encompassed in the greater offense, and “category two” permissive lesser-included offenses, which require that both the charging document and the trial evidence support the offense. The offense of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon is a category two offense with respect to attempted second-degree murder.

The court emphasized that due process mandates that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime not charged by the State. The purpose of the information is to give the defendant fair notice of the accusations to prepare a defense. The court held that the amended information’s vague reference to a “stabbing” was insufficient to allege the use of a deadly weapon as required under section 784.045(1)(a)(2). Notably, the information did not mention any object used, did not cite the applicable statute, and failed to indicate that the object was employed in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

As such, the court concluded that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and permitting a conviction on that basis. Because the statutory elements of the offense were not alleged in the information, the instruction was improper under the controlling authority of Watkins v. State and Von Deck v. State. The court, therefore, reversed the conviction and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment for simple battery, a lesser-included offense supported by the information and the evidence, and to resentence the defendant accordingly.

Consult a Skilled Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney Today

When facing serious criminal charges, particularly those involving violent offenses, it is critical to ensure that all aspects of your constitutional rights are protected throughout the proceedings. The experienced Sarasota violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are committed to providing vigorous advocacy for our clients and ensuring that the State is held to its constitutional obligations. If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges, contact our Sarasota office at 941-462-1789 or fill out our online form to schedule a consultation today.

The post Florida Appeals Court Reverses Conviction for Aggravated Battery appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

The Williams Rule and Its Application

On appeal, the court examined the use of evidence from collateral crimes under Florida’s Williams Rule, codified in Florida Statute § 90.404. This rule permits evidence of prior bad acts to establish material facts like motive, opportunity, or identity, provided the probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. Here, the State introduced evidence linking the firearm used in the defendant’s alleged crime to other incidents, including witness testimony and forensic findings.

The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that the evidence was relevant to the issue of identity and did not unduly prejudice the defendant. The court emphasized that the trial judge gave repeated instructions to the jury regarding the limited purpose of the evidence. Moreover, the court noted that the evidence was introduced with restraint and remained focused on corroborating the defendant’s identity as the assailant.

The defendant also argued that his dual convictions for attempted felony murder and attempted premeditated murder violated Florida’s double jeopardy protections, which prohibit multiple punishments for the same offense. The court rejected this argument, relying on recent precedent from the Florida Supreme Court that clarified the distinct nature of these charges. Specifically, the court held that each offense required proof of a unique element, making dual convictions permissible under Florida law.

Talk to an Experienced Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are accused of a serious crime, understanding the legal issues surrounding evidence and potential defenses is critical to ensuring a fair trial. The experienced Sarasota violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are well-versed in Florida’s criminal statutes and can provide the guidance needed to protect your rights. Contact us online or call 941.462.1789 to arrange a confidential consultation today.

The post Florida Court Discusses Admission of Prior Bad Acts Evidence in Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

The post Florida Court Addresses Social Media Evidence in Criminal Matters appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

The post Florida Court Discusses Legality of Sentences for Reoffenders appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

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.

The post Florida Court Discusses Establishing Double Jeopardy Violations  appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.