Federal firearms charges in federal court carry harsh penalties, particularly when prosecutors allege that a weapon was used to further drug trafficking activity. A single evidentiary misstep can dramatically increase a defendant’s sentencing exposure, making strict compliance with trial rules essential. A recent ruling from a Florida court demonstrates how improper reliance on unadmitted firearm-related evidence during a closing argument can invalidate a conviction, even when other aspects of the government’s case survive scrutiny. If you are charged with a firearm offense, it is smart to talk to a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney about your case.

History of the Case

Allegedly, law enforcement officers conducted a traffic stop in which the defendant was a passenger and discovered a firearm, controlled substances, and a large amount of cash. Following the arrest, officers searched the defendant’s cellphone and uncovered digital evidence that the government later characterized as consistent with drug distribution activity.

Reportedly, officers later executed a search warrant at an apartment associated with the defendant. During that search, law enforcement located additional firearms, including one equipped with a conversion device, ammunition, cellphones, and small quantities of drugs. Officers also recovered a distribution amount of marijuana from a vehicle connected to an associate of the defendant.

The post Florida Court Discusses Sufficiency of Evidence in Firearm Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Numerous factors can impact sentences issued in firearm cases, including a defendant’s prior convictions. When defendants challenge the application of firearm prohibitions or enhanced penalties under the Armed Career Criminal Act, courts must balance recent decisions against binding precedent and strict standards of review. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how unpreserved constitutional and sentencing arguments are analyzed and why timing, prior convictions, and procedural posture can determine the outcome of an appeal. If you are facing federal gun charges or the possibility of an enhanced sentence, it is critical to speak with a St. Petersburg federal criminal defense attorney who can help you protect your rights.

History of the Case

Allegedly, law enforcement officers responded to a call after a witness reported that the defendant had pointed a firearm at his girlfriend and threatened to kill her. Officers located the defendant near multiple firearms, and further investigation revealed that he had previously been convicted of several felony offenses. Based on this conduct, federal authorities charged the defendant with possessing a firearm as a felon.

Reportedly, the defendant entered a guilty plea to the firearm charge. A presentence investigation report was prepared and recommended an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act based on three prior convictions that qualified as violent felonies or serious drug offenses. Without that enhancement, the statutory maximum sentence would have been ten years, but the enhancement increased the mandatory minimum sentence to 15 years.

The post Court Explains Sentencing Enhancements in Florida Firearm Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

In federal criminal proceedings, a guilty plea must be entered knowingly, voluntarily, and with an understanding of its consequences. If a defendant later seeks to undo that plea, appellate courts will closely examine the trial record to determine whether proper procedures were followed. Recently, a Florida federal court addressed the validity of guilty pleas in a case where a defendant convicted of firearm possession claimed that his plea was invalid. If you are charged with a firearm offense or are considering a plea, a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and explain the consequences of each decision.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). During the change-of-plea hearing, the defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement negotiated with the government. As part of the plea colloquy under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the court informed the defendant of the nature of the charge, the statutory penalties, and the constitutional rights he would waive by entering a guilty plea. The court also confirmed that the defendant had not been coerced into pleading guilty and that he understood the consequences of the plea.

It is alleged that the defendant acknowledged under oath that he had previously been convicted of a felony offense and knowingly possessed the firearm described in the indictment. The court accepted the plea and later sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. After sentencing, the defendant filed a direct appeal, arguing that the guilty plea was not valid because the court had failed to explain certain aspects of his sentence, including the possibility of supervised release.

The post Florida Court Explains Determining Whether a Guilty Plea is Valid 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.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant broke into a storage facility in 1997 and stole from ten separate units. He was subsequently charged with and convicted of ten counts of burglary. In 2014, a police officer entered the defendant’s home and observed the defendant with a rifle in his possession. He was then charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. The defendant was found guilty and determined to be an armed career criminal under the Act, due to his ten prior robbery convictions. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, after which he appealed. The appellate court affirmed his sentence, and he filed a writ of certiorari.

Criminal Convictions in the Context of the Career Criminal Act

The issue the Supreme Court addressed was whether crimes that are committed sequentially as part of a single event occur on different occasions for purposes of imposing a sentence enhancement under the Act. The Court ruled that they did not, and reversed the lower court ruling.

The Court noted that, under the Act, people who have three or more prior convictions for specified felonies that were committed on different occasions from one another are considered armed career criminals. It then explained that the ordinary meaning of the word occasion did not mean an occurrence at a precise moment in time. In other words, one might say that the defendant committed numerous crimes on one occasion, but not that on numerous occasions he burglarized a storage unit.

Further, the defendant’s unlawful acts occurred in a single, continuous course of conduct. The Court noted that its interpretation of the word occasion was supported by the history of the Act, as Congress modified that act to state that the prior offenses must happen on occasions that are different from one another.

Talk to a Trusted Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

People accused of violent crimes face substantial penalties if they are convicted. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney about your potential defenses. The trusted St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law possess the skills and resources needed to help you seek a favorable outcome, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact us at 727-897-5413 or via the form online to set up a conference.

The post Supreme Court Discusses Criminal Convictions in the Context of the Career Criminal Act appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant attempted to purchase a rifle from a gun shop in Pensacola. As part of the process of buying the gun, he was asked to undergo a background check, which he failed. Thus, he was denied the right to purchase the gun.

Allegedly, a review of the form the defendant completed for the background check revealed that he lied on a question regarding whether he was subject to any order restraining him from stalking, harassing, or threatening an intimate partner. Thus, the defendant was charged with making a false statement to an arms dealer in violation of federal law. He entered a guilty plea but later appealed his sentence arguing that the State did not establish that the sentencing enhancements were warranted.

Grounds for Imposing Sentencing Enhancements in Weapons Crime Cases

In cases in which a defendant challenges a factual basis for a sentence enhancement, the government bears the burden of proving the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence. This burden of proof requires them to establish that the existence of a fact is more likely than its nonexistence.

A sentencing court’s findings of fact may be based upon facts admitted by the defendant’s guilty plea, undisputed statements in the pre-sentencing report, or evidence presented at the sentencing hearing. The court may also make reasonable inferences from the evidence offered.

The subject guidelines suggested a certain base offense level for making false statements to a firearms dealer if the offense involved a semiautomatic weapon that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine, which includes, in part, firearms that are in close proximity to more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. Here, the court found that the evidence presented showed that the enhancement was warranted. Thus, the sentence was affirmed.

Meet with an Experienced St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

Gun crimes can result in significant penalties, but in many instances, a defendant may be able to prove there are no grounds for imposing a lengthy prison sentence. If you are accused of a weapons crime, you should meet with an attorney about your potential defenses. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and aid you in pursuing the best legal outcome under the facts surrounding your charges. You can contact Mr. Hanlon at 727-897-5413 or through the form online to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Imposing Sentencing Enhancements appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with numerous gun crimes after he was observed in a crowded casino with a backpack containing loaded firearms. The defendant had an extensive criminal history that included numerous convictions for weapons offenses, theft, attempted robbery, and probation violations. Following his arrest, a pre-trial detention hearing was held, during which the court determined the defendant posed a danger to the community. Thus, an order of detention was issued. The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in ordering pre-trial detention.

Grounds for Ordering Pre-Trial Detention

The court explained that if pre-trial detention is ordered by a magistrate judge or a person other than a court having original jurisdiction over the case, the defendant may file a motion with the court that has original jurisdiction, requesting a revocation and amendment of the order. In the subject case, the order was issued by a magistrate court. Thus the matter was filed with the district court.

The defendant argued that he suffered from multiple chronic conditions, had contracted COVID-19, and was at risk of contracting it again, and therefore should be granted release. The magistrate court noted that the defendant’s motion ignored the fact that he had a substantial criminal past and potentially could harm others, which was the reason the detention order was issued. Further, the magistrate court explained that there was convincing and clear evidence that no conditions of pre-trial release could reasonably ensure that the defendant would not pose a threat to the safety of the public at large. Therefore, the magistrate court stated that the defendant failed to establish that the order should be revoked, and recommended that it be upheld by the district court.

Speak to an Experienced St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

It is beneficial for people charged with gun crimes to be released prior to trial, but in some cases, the court will deem pre-trial detention necessary. If you are accused of committing gun crimes, it is in your best interest to speak to a lawyer about your rights. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced criminal defense attorney who can aid you in pursuing the best result available under the facts of our case. You can contact Mr. Hanlon via the form online or at 727-897-5413 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Imposing Pre-Trial Detention appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendants, collectively, operated an organization engaged in drug trafficking in Florida. Many of them carried guns while they kidnapped, beat, and murdered people. They were charged with and convicted of participating in a racketeering conspiracy under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, drug trafficking conspiracy, gun crimes, and other offenses. Following their convictions and sentencing, they appealed on several grounds, including the issue of whether RICO conspiracy is a crime of violence.

RICO Conspiracy Is Not a Crime of Violence

Under federal law 18 U.S.C. 924(c), a crime of violence is a felony that includes as one of its elements the use, or attempted or threatened use, of physical force against another person or property, or that by its nature, involves a significant risk that physical force will be used in the commission of the offense. After the statute was enacted, the clause regarding a significant risk of force was deemed unconstitutional. Thus, in determining whether an act constitutes a crime of violence, the court must look to the elements of the crime.

A court will employ a categorical approach when assessing whether a criminal offense is a crime of violence. In other words, it will look at whether the statutory elements of the predicate offense require, at the very least, an attempt or threat to use force. In the subject case, the court explained that to establish a RICO conspiracy crime, the prosecution must show that the defendants objectively manifested an agreement to participate in the conduct of the affairs of the criminal enterprise by committing two or more predicate crimes.

RICO conspiracy does not require proof of the commission of an act or of an agreement to commit individual predicate acts. In other words, the focus is on whether the parties agreed to commit a crime, which does not require the existence of a threat or attempt to use force. As such, the court found that RICO conspiracy is not a crime of violence.

Speak with an Experienced St. Petersburg Attorney

If you live in St. Petersburg and are accused of committing federal drug crimes, it is essential to engage an attorney who will fight tirelessly on your behalf. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced St. Petersburg drug crime defense attorney who is adept at defending people charged with serious federal crimes and he will work tirelessly to help you seek a successful outcome. Mr. Hanlon can be reached via the online form or at 727-897-5413 to schedule a meeting.

The post Florida Court Rules RICO Conspiracy Is Not a Crime of Violence appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts Regarding the Defendant’s Arrest

Allegedly, the police conducted a traffic stop on a speeding car. When the car stopped, the driver exited the car and began running towards an apartment complex. The officer started to chase the driver and heard something metallic hit the pavement. The officer was unable to describe the man other than to give his height and race. The officer then noticed that the object the man dropped was a gun. The officer remained at the scene because he did not want to leave the gun and car unattended. A short time later, a woman who was later identified as the defendant’s girlfriend came out of the apartment complex and advised the police that the car was hers. The defendant was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

It is reported that DNA testing was conducted on the gun and the magazine inside of the gun. During the trial, the State called two DNA experts as witnesses. The experts testified that the defendant’s DNA was found on the magazine. The experts also offered testimony as to how DNA can be transferred without a person touching an object. Specifically, DNA can be transferred when a person shakes hands with another person who then touches the object, sneezing, or the object coming into contact with the person’s clothes. After the State rested, the defendant moved for an acquittal based on two reasonable hypotheses of his innocence: that his DNA may have been on the gun due to a secondary transfer, or that he touched the magazine on a different date. The court ultimately granted the motion, after which the State appealed.

Hypothesis of Innocence

On appeal, the court stated that the trial court appropriately applied the circumstantial evidence standard, because the State’s evidence, namely that the defendant’s DNA was on the gun, did not prove his involvement in the crime. Thus, the court explained, because the State’s evidence was wholly circumstantial it must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypotheses of innocence. Here, the court found that the defendant’s hypotheses were not reasonable since they relied upon stacked inferences. Further, the court found the hypothesis that the defendant’s DNA was inside of the magazine in the gun due to secondary transfer to be illogical. The court explained that while possession of the gun was an essential element of the crime, the defendant’s arguments regarding the deposit of his DNA on the magazine that was within the gun did not create a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. As such, the court reversed the defendant’s acquittal and remanded for a new trial.

Consult an Experienced St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are a resident of St. Petersburg charged with the crime of possession of a firearm by a felon, you should consult an experienced St. Petersburg defense attorney to discuss your case and your available defenses.  William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a proficient St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney with experience defending convicted felons charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to schedule a conference to discuss your case.

The post Florida Court Discusses What Constitutes a Reasonable Hypothesis of Innocence for the Crime of Possession of a Firearm by a Felon appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The appellant was involved in a verbal dispute with a woman at a convenience store. During the course of the argument, the appellant drew a gun and said he had a bullet for the woman and her fiance. The woman left and joined her family at the park. The appellant followed the woman and threatened to kill her and her family. He later fired shots at the woman and her aunt as they attempted to drive away. The appellant was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder in this Florida gun crime case.

The defense counsel requested an instruction on the improper exhibition of a firearm as a lesser included offense of attempted first-degree murder. The Florida jury instructions identify lesser included offenses, and, if requested, the court must instruct the jury on a lesser included offense of the crime charged against the accused, as long as it is supported by the information and evidence. Improper exhibition of a firearm was a lesser included offense in this case. However, the lower court did not allow the instruction, and the appellant appealed his conviction.

The elements of improper exhibition of a firearm are:  (1) having or carrying a firearm; (2) exhibiting the firearm in an aggressive, violent, or unwarranted manner; and (3) exhibiting the firearm in the presence of at least one other person. The court held that the appellant’s actions, firing a gun at other people while yelling at them while they were leaving by vehicle, met each element of the lesser included crime.

The result was that the failure to instruct the jury regarding the improper exhibition of a firearm offense constituted a per se reversible error.

If you are arrested, charged, or prosecuted for improper exhibition of a firearm or for any gun crime in St. Petersburg, consider hiring an experienced lawyer to assist you with your charges. Will Hanlon at Hanlon Law has over two decades of experience defending people charged with gun crimes in St. Petersburg. He strives to obtain favorable outcomes for his clients, including dismissals, reductions in the charges, or an acquittal. Do not hesitate; Hanlon Law can be reached by phone at 727-897-5413 or online via our website’s form.

More Blog Posts:

Competency Evaluation is a Due Process Right and Cannot be Waived Once Raised by Court, Rules Florida Appeals Court, Clearwater & St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog, October 27, 2017

Florida Senate Introduces Proposed Good Samaritan Law, Criminalizing Social Media Activity Under Certain Circumstances, Clearwater & St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog, October 16, 2017

Florida Gun Crime Decision Discusses Meaning of “Possessing” a Firearm, Clearwater & St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog, August 30, 2017

The post Defendant’s Conviction Reversed on Appeal After Prosecution Failed to Instruct Florida Jury on a Lesser Included Offense appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.