Avvo Rating badge
NACDL badge
Expertise badge
Avvo Rating badge
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Published on:

By

Prior convictions can have a detrimental impact on a defendant’s punishment scoresheet. As such, if there are grounds for calling a prior conviction into question, they should be asserted, as it could ultimately result in a reduced sentence. In a recent opinion delivered in a sex crime case, a Florida court discussed the procedure for evaluating whether a prior conviction should be considered valid for the purposes of sentencing. If you are charged with a sex offense, it is smart to speak to a St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney to assess what defenses you may be able to assert.

The Case Background

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with two counts of sexual battery on a mentally defective victim, one count of lewd and lascivious behavior, and one count of unlawful sexual activity with a minor. He was convicted and sentenced.  Following his sentencing, he filed a motion to correct a sentencing error in which he contested three prior convictions that contributed to his scoresheet. Among these convictions were two counts of burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, a conviction for lewd or lascivious molestation on a person under 12 years of age, and a grand theft auto conviction. The trial court failed to issue a ruling on the motion within the mandated 60-day period, though, and it was deemed denied pursuant to Florida law. The defendant appealed.

Contesting Prior Convictions in Florida Criminal Matters

On appeal, the court explained that in cases where a defendant contests the veracity of their prior convictions, the State is required to provide competent evidence corroborating these convictions. Unfortunately, in this instance, the trial court did not demand such evidence despite the defendant’s assertions that his prior convictions were improper. As such, the court determined that an evidentiary hearing was warranted to assess the contested prior convictions. The goal of the hearing is to ascertain whether the appellant’s scoresheet requires correction based on the accuracy of the prior convictions. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

While a person charged with a crime does not have to offer evidence in their defense at trial, it would be prudent to introduce any information that may exonerate them. Generally, all evidence must be exchanged prior to trial, and if a party fails to introduce evidence, they waive the right to do so. There are exceptions, however, such as when exculpatory evidence is not discovered until a later date. Recently, a Florida court explained when a conviction should be set aside due to newly discovered evidence in a murder case in which it ultimately denied the defendant’s request for relief. If you are accused of murder, it is in your best interest to talk to a  St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorney to evaluate your possible defenses. 

Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping and sentenced to 100 years in prison and death. He filed a postconviction motion, resulting in the vacation of his death sentence and the ordering of a new penalty phase. The defendant then filed a second motion, claiming newly discovered evidence based on an alleged jailhouse confession. An evidentiary hearing was conducted, during which the defendant presented testimony from witnesses, including the individual to whom the alleged confession was made.

Allegedly, the court denied the defendant’s motion for relief, concluding that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the claim of a jailhouse confession and would likely be inadmissible under the Florida Rules of Evidence. Consequently, the defendant appealed the court’s decision. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Under Florida law, the courts have discretion with regard to sentencing people convicted of crimes. Their discretion is not boundless, however, as in some cases, they are bound by statutory limitations. If a court issues a sentence that fails to abide by a directive in a sentencing statute, the sentence may be deemed illegal, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant appealed the penalties imposed on him following a DUI conviction. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it would benefit you to meet with a St. Petersburg DUI defense attorney to assess what measures you can take to protect your rights.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the State charged the defendant with a DUI offense. He subsequently agreed to plead nolo contendere to reckless driving as part of a plea deal. The trial court subsequently placed him on probation for twelve months. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was illegal.

Sentencing for Misdemeanor Crimes

On appeal, the court agreed with the defendant’s argument that his sentence was illegal. In doing so, it explained that a first-time reckless driving offense is a misdemeanor, as it is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of ninety days. Further, the Florida Statutes state that a defendant placed on probation following a misdemeanor conviction should be supervised for a maximum of six months. As such, the trial court’s order of one year of probation was illegal. Continue reading →

By
Posted in: DUI
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The Florida courts and legislature treat juvenile offenders differently than adults who commit crimes. For example, if a juvenile offender receives a sentence of over twenty years in prison, they are entitled to judicial review. The right to judicial review was the subject of a recent Florida opinion delivered in a grand theft auto case, and the trial court’s failure to elucidate that right in the sentencing order constituted grounds for remand. If you are a minor charged with a crime, it is smart to speak to a St. Petersburg juvenile crime defense attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes arising out of the theft of a vehicle and the burglary of a dwelling. He entered an open guilty plea, after which he was convicted of the charged offenses. He received a prison sentence of 35 years, followed by 16 years of probation. He then appealed.

The Right to Judicial Review in Juvenile Cases

The defendant raised multiple grounds on appeal. The court rejected each of his arguments in turn but remanded the matter for two specific purposes. First, the court noted that the trial court must enter a written order that allows for the judicial review of the defendant’s sentence after twenty years, as required by the Florida Statutes. Although the topic of judicial review was discussed during the sentencing hearing, the court failed to provide a written order to that effect. Therefore, the court held that it was necessary for the trial court to rectify this omission by issuing a written order. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pursuant to federal law, people convicted of certain offenses may be deemed career offenders and may face enhanced penalties if they are subsequently convicted of other offenses. One example of an offense that permits a career offender enhancement is a crime of violence. It is not always clear what falls under the umbrella of violent crime, however. In a recent case, a Florida court evaluated whether a Montana conviction for assaulting a police officer constituted a violent crime, ultimately ruling that it did. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is prudent to confer with a St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorney who can help you formulate a compelling defense.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with an assault offense and unlawful possession of a weapon arising out of an incident that occurred when he was in a federal correctional institution. He pled guilty to the assault charge in exchange for the dismissal of the second offense. The defendant’s presentence investigation report included, in pertinent part, his Montana conviction for assaulting a police officer.

Reportedly, the sentencing court ultimately deemed the defendant a career offender under federal law, in part due to his Montana conviction being deemed a crime of violence. The defendant objected to the classification of the Montana assault as a crime of violence. The court overruled his objection and sentenced him to 96 months in prison. The defendant then appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

DUI offenses are not merely traffic violations; instead, they are crimes that can carry significant penalties. There are limitations to the penalties a court can impose for a DUI offense, though, and if a court imposes a sentence over the maximum permitted, it may be unlawful. This was demonstrated recently when a Florida court vacated a sentence for DUI manslaughter on the grounds that it did not include a mandatory probationary component. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is important to retain a St. Petersburg DUI defense lawyer who can assist you in fighting to protect your rights.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with and convicted of DUI manslaughter. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years in prison, with a four-year mandatory term. The defendant appealed, but his conviction and sentence were confirmed without an opinion. He then filed a petition, alleging his appellate counsel was ineffective in that he failed to argue that the defendant’s fifteen-year sentence for DUI manslaughter lacked the probationary component required under Florida law. In support of his argument, he referred to a recent Florida decision that held that when a defendant is convicted of a DUI offense, the total sentence cannot exceed fifteen years, which includes the appropriate probationary period. The court agreed with the defendant’s assertions and, therefore, reversed his conviction.

Florida’s DUI Sentencing Laws

To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a defendant must show that the appellate attorney’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result. Appellate counsel can be ineffective for failing to raise issues of merit based on law decided during the pendency of a direct appeal. Continue reading →

By
Posted in: DUI
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Although there are sentencing guidelines for violations of both state and federal law, the courts have significant leeway when determining what constitutes an appropriate sentence. The penalties they deliver must be reasonable, however, and if they are not, they may be overturned. In a recent Florida opinion issued in an identity theft case, the court discussed factors weighed in determining the reasonableness of a sentence. If you are accused of a theft offense, it is important to understand the penalties you may face if you are convicted, and you should speak to a St. Petersburg theft crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with multiple counts of aggravated identity theft and having fifteen or more unauthorized access devices in violation of federal law. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of aggravated identity theft and one count of possessing unauthorized access devices under a plea agreement.

It is reported that the presentence report stated that during his arrest, the defendant destroyed multiple devices that contained evidence of his theft and that the funds he diverted included COVID unemployment benefits. The Government sought a sentence of 51 months due to the egregiousness of the defendant’s crimes, his destruction of evidence, and his prior criminal history, while the defendant argued that the court should impose a 45-month sentence. The court agreed with the Government and sentenced the defendant to 51 months in prison, after which he appealed, arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Under Florida law, people can avoid criminal prosecution for assault if they can establish that they used force in self-defense. The defense is not available to people who act as the initial aggressor, however. Further, all affirmative defenses must be asserted in a timely manner, otherwise, they may be rejected. In a recent Florida opinion issued in an aggravated battery case, the court discussed self-defense immunity under Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, ultimately determining that it did not apply. If you are accused of battery or another violent offense, it is prudent to talk to a St. Petersburg violent offense defense attorney about what defenses you may be able to assert.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the State charged the defendant with aggravated battery with a firearm causing substantial bodily harm. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information on the grounds that he was immune from prosecution under Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing but denied the defendant’s motion.

Reportedly, approximately four months later and less than two weeks before his trial, the defendant filed an emergency petition for a writ of prohibition. The court stayed proceedings to allow the parties to address the defendant’s delay in filing the petition. The defendant argued that his delay was not inordinate but was reasonable. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pursuant to state and federal law, people cannot be convicted more than once of the same offense, as it violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. While in some instances, it is clear that a conviction constitutes double jeopardy, in others, it is less obvious. For example, a Florida court recently clarified that multiple DUI convictions arising out of a single individual’s harm constitute the same criminal offense and, as such, constitute double jeopardy. If you are charged with a DUI, it is wise to meet with a St. Petersburg DUI defense lawyer to evaluate your possible defenses.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with three DUI offenses arising out of one incident: driving under the influence and causing serious bodily injury to victim one, driving under the influence and causing serious bodily injury to victim two, and driving under the influence and causing damage to the property of victim one.

It is reported that the case proceeded to trial before a jury, and the defendant was found guilty. She was sentenced to a total of nine years in prison and one year of probation. She appealed, arguing that her convictions and sentences for the crimes involving victim one violated her protections against double jeopardy. Continue reading →

By
Posted in: DUI
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

It is not uncommon for people to be charged with multiple crimes. While the judge or jury determining guilt in a criminal matter has the right to find a defendant committed one crime but not the other, the verdicts must be consistent. In other words, if one verdict negates the elements needed to convict the defendant of another charge, the verdicts will be deemed inconsistent and most likely will be reversed, as shown in a recent Florida case in which the defendant was charged with felony murder and other crimes. If you are accused of committing a violent offense, it is in your best interest to talk to a St. Petersburg violent crime defense lawyer about your options for seeking a just result.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the state charged the defendant with robbery and first-degree felony murder. The state asserted that the defendant killed the victim while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a robbery and that he attempted to rob the victim with a firearm. Additionally, in both counts, the state alleged that the defendant had and discharged a gun, causing the victim’s death.

It is reported that following a trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of the first-degree felony murder charge and specifically found that he had and discharged a firearm during the commission of the crime, causing great bodily harm or death. The jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted robbery, however. As such, the defendant moved for arrest of judgment based on an inconsistent verdict. The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed. Continue reading →