Constitutional protections and evidentiary boundaries often intersect in criminal cases in which a defendant seeks to justify conduct based on perceived rights. Courts must carefully distinguish between legally relevant evidence and generalized beliefs that do not bear directly on the elements of an offense. A recent Florida opinion illustrates this tension, particularly where a defendant attempted to rely on public statements about Second Amendment rights to support a defense-of-property theory. If you are facing assault charges, it is critical to speak with a St. Petersburg assault crime defense attorney to evaluate how you can protect your interests.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant resided at an apartment complex where vehicle regulations prohibited inoperable or covered cars. A leasing agent identified the defendant’s vehicle as noncompliant and placed a visible notice warning that it would be towed if not corrected. The defendant was informed of the violation during a phone call with the leasing office, but dismissed the concern.

Reportedly, several days later, a towing contractor arrived at the complex to remove vehicles pursuant to an existing agreement with management. While the contractor was towing the defendant’s covered vehicle, the defendant exited his apartment, holding a firearm, and confronted the contractor. The defendant used aggressive language, demanded the vehicle be released, and, according to testimony, threatened violence while pointing the weapon. During the encounter, the defendant entered the tow truck without permission and removed the keys from the ignition.

The post Florida Court Assess Evidence in Assault Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida law provides mechanisms for correcting illegal sentences; however, such challenges must adhere to strict procedural and substantive requirements. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in which the court addressed a defendant’s attempt to use a procedural motion to contest the validity of his underlying conviction for burglary, reaffirming that such efforts are impermissible. If you face burglary charges, it is critical to consult a St. Petersburgh theft crime defense attorney to understand your legal options.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Correcting Sentences appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Procedural Setting of the Case

It is alleged that the State of Florida appealed an order dismissing its information charging the defendant with battery. The original information alleged that the defendant committed a battery on February 7, 2020, in Tampa during a Super Bowl tailgating party. However, during trial, the State recognized an error in the date and sought to amend the information to reflect the correct date of the alleged offense as February 7, 2021. The defendant opposed the amendment, asserting that the defense would be prejudiced because it had prepared for trial based on the incorrect date. The trial court denied the State’s request to amend and, instead, granted the defendant’s oral motion to dismiss. A written order of dismissal was subsequently entered.

The post Florida Court Discusses Correcting Incorrect Dates on Criminal Information appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

Violent Crimes as Defined by Federal Law

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Under Federal law, a crime of violence is any offense that has an element of the use or attempted or threatened use of physical force or is one of the enumerated crimes, including aggravated assault.

To evaluate whether a crime is a crime of violence, the courts employ a categorical approach, meaning that instead of focusing on the facts that lead to the conviction, they consider whether the underlying offense includes an element of the use or threatened or attempted use of physical force against another person. The court further explained that physical force is akin to violent force; in other words, force that has the potential to cause injury or pain.

In the subject case, the Montana statute defining assault of a police officer provided that a person commits the offense by causing bodily injury to a peace officer or creating a reasonable fear of such injury. Thus, the court found it to be a crime of violence and affirmed the defendant’s sentence.

Meet with an Experienced Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

Violent crimes not only carry significant penalties, but they can also result in sentence enhancement for subsequent convictions. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is in your best interest to meet with an attorney to discuss your possible defenses. The experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law are well-versed in what it takes to achieve favorable outcomes in criminal matters, and if you hire us, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can contact us at 727-897-5413 or through the form online to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Violent Crimes as Defined by Federal Law appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

Self Defense Immunity Under Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law

After reviewing the evidence, the court denied the defendant’s petition. The court explained that under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, a person that uses force in self-defense, as permitted by other Florida laws, is immune from civil action or criminal prosecution for the use of such force. Criminal defendants can file motions to dismiss pursuant to the Stand Your Ground law, after which the courts must conduct evidentiary hearings.

The court explained that case law dictates that a petition for a writ of prohibition is the proper tool for challenging an order denying a defendant’s assertion of self-defense immunity. In the subject case, though, the court found that the delay between the time the order denying immunity was issued and the defendant’s filing of the petition was sufficient grounds for denying the petition.

Even if it was not delayed, however, the court stated it would deny the petition. The court elaborated that the defendant argued that the trial court’s order was devoid of factual findings and did not set forth the rationale for its motion to dismiss, but there was no requirement that the court makes such findings of fact. Further, there was no evidence that the defendant was entitled to use or threaten to use deadly force; instead, the evidence showed that he was the initial aggressor. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Trusted  Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

While people charged with battery and other violent crimes are not required to prove their innocence, in some instances, they can avoid convictions by asserting affirmative defenses. The trusted St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law have ample experience defending people in the Florida courts, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach us at 727-897-5413 or through the form online to set up a conference.

The post Court Looks at Self Defense Immunity Under Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with possession of ammunition and a firearm as a felon. He entered a guilty plea. He was then sentenced to fifteen years in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (the Act). He appealed, arguing that his prior convictions for battery, robbery, and resisting an officer were not considered violent felonies under the Act. He further asserted that the enhanced mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the Act violated his protections against double jeopardy.

Violent Offenses Under Florida Law

The court rejected the defendant’s reasoning and affirmed his sentence. The court explained that it reviewed whether a crime categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the Act de novo, while double jeopardy claims were reviewed for clear error. Under the Act, a minimum of a fifteen-year term of imprisonment must be imposed for anyone convicted of certain federal gun crimes if they have three prior violent felony convictions. Violent felonies include crimes that have the use or attempted or threatened use of physical force as an element.

With regard to the defendant’s robbery conviction, the court noted that the Florida Supreme Court previously held that robbery under Florida law qualified as a violent felony under the Act, and as the precedent had direct application in the case, the court was bound to follow it. Similarly, the court had previously held that the crime of resisting an officer with violence was a violent felony under the Act.

The court noted that the defendant argued that the previous case was wrongfully decided but stated that even if it agreed with him, it was bound to follow the prior decision as binding precedent. As the defendant had one prior robbery conviction and two prior convictions for resisting an officer with violence, the court found that it was not necessary to determine whether his prior conviction for battery qualified as a violent offense. Thus, the court upheld his sentence.

Consult a Trusted Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a gun crime can result in significant penalties, especially if the defendant has prior violent offense convictions. If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is in your best interest to talk to a lawyer as soon as possible. The trusted St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law can analyze the facts of your case and advise you of your options for seeking a good outcome. You can reach us at 727-897-5413 or through the form online to set up a conference.

The post Court Discusses Violent Offenses Under Florida Law appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

What is domestic violence, and what are the different types of abuse involved?

There are many different types of domestic violence one can be accused of, which can be physical, emotional, or sexual. Physical abuse is intentional harm inflicted on someone, such as punching, slapping, or choking. Emotional abuse is any verbal or nonverbal behavior that harms someone’s self-esteem or wellbeing. Sexual abuse includes unwanted touching or coercing someone into sexual activity.

The post A Comprehensive Guide on Why it’s Important to Hire a Domestic Violence Attorney in St. Petersburg, FL if you have been Accused of Domestic Violence appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Procedural History of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with multiple crimes, including domestic battery. The instructions given to the jury during his trial failed to mention domestic violence in any way, however. Instead, the instruction merely referred to the general battery statute.  The jury nonetheless convicted the defendant of domestic violence battery. The sentencing court subsequently treated the battery charge as a crime of domestic violence and sentenced the defendant accordingly. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was improper.

Sentencing for Florida Battery Crimes

The appellate court agreed with the defendant and ruled that he was entitled to resentencing. The appellate court explained that, under Florida law, battery may be considered a first-degree misdemeanor if it is the offender’s first conviction. In order for battery to be weighed under the domestic violence statute, it must include the death or physical injury of one household or family member by another household or family member.

Further, the court noted that domestic violence designations trigger mandatory sentences under Florida law. The appellate court pointed out that the jury only received a charge on misdemeanor battery and was not asked to make findings regarding the victim’s status as a family or household member of the defendant or their injury or bodily harm. Thus, it determined that the defendant was convicted of misdemeanor battery, not domestic battery, regardless of the fact that the jury was given the domestic battery charge.

The appellate court ruled, therefore, that the trial court should not have sentenced the defendant using the domestic battery designation. Based on the foregoing, it reversed the defendant’s sentence and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with its ruling.

Discuss Your Charges with a Capable Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

Battery is considered a violent crime, and people convicted of battery offenses can face significant penalties. If you are charged with battery or any other criminal offense, it is wise to meet with an attorney to develop a strategy to protect your interests. The capable St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law are proficient at helping people charged with crimes mount compelling defenses, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach us at 727-897-5413 or via the form online to set up a conference.

The post Court in Florida Reverses Sentence for Domestic Battery appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant and a friend visited the home of another woman in August 2016. The friend, who was homeless, sometimes stayed at the woman’s home with her children. The defendant and the woman left the home but returned later that evening. The defendant then reportedly engaged in illegal acts and was driven out of the home by the friend. He was subsequently charged with numerous offenses.

Reportedly, one week prior to trial, the State filed an amended information, setting forth a burglary with assault or battery charge against the defendant. The State also identified three additional witnesses two days later. The defendant filed a motion to continue the trial to afford him additional time to prepare his defense. The court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted, after which he appealed.

Denial of a Motion for Continuance

Under Florida law, criminal defendants are entitled to a sufficient amount of time to prepare for trial. Thus, when a court denies a defendant’s motion for a continuance, the decision will be reversed if the defendant can establish a demonstrable abuse of discretion. The common element in cases in which an appellate court finds the trial court committed an error in denying a motion to continue is the denial of the defendant’s reasonable opportunity to prepare possible defenses and investigate the State’s claim.

Thus, in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for continuance, a court will weigh whether it resulted in injustice, whether the moving party could have foreseen the underlying impetus for the motion or is engaging in dilatory tactics, and whether injustice will occur to the party opposing the motion if the motion is granted. Here, the court found that while the State had the right to amend the information, it was amended within a week of the trial and arose out of different facts than the prior charges. Thus, the court found that the denial of the motion was likely to result in an unjust outcome. As such, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction for burglary with assault and battery and remanded for further proceedings.

Meet with a Seasoned St. Petersburg Attorney

If you are a resident of St. Petersburg currently faced with charges that you committed an assault and battery, it is critical to retain an attorney who will aggressively defend your rights. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned battery defense attorney who is well-versed in what it takes to obtain successful results in criminal matters, and if he represents you, he will work tirelessly to help you pursue just results. You can contact Mr. Hanlon at 727-897-5413 or via the form online to set up a consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Continuing Criminal Trials appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.