In criminal trials, it is essential for judgments to align with the jury’s findings, ensuring defendants are sentenced according to the actual charges proven in court. If they do not, it may result in an unjust outcome and may be grounds for pursuing an appeal. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling that illustrated how procedural missteps in the judicial process can result in severe sentencing errors. If you are facing criminal charges, working with an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney is critical to ensuring your rights are protected throughout the legal process.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with lewd molestation after reportedly touching the victim in a lewd or lascivious manner during a swimming pool incident at his home. The prosecution alleged the victim was under the age of 12 at the time, elevating the charge to a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment under section 800.04(5)(b) of Florida Statutes.

It is reported that during the trial, the victim consistently testified to being 12 years old at the time of the incident, making the appropriate charge of lewd or lascivious molestation on a victim aged 12 or older but less than 16. This charge constitutes a second-degree felony with a maximum sentence of 15 years under section 800.04(5)(c). The jury was instructed on and ultimately convicted the defendant of this lesser offense.

The post Florida Court Discusses Fundamental Errors During Sentencing appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with numerous sex crimes involving minors, including creating, distributing, and possessing child pornography and transferring obscene materials to a minor. He entered guilty pleas to all of his charges without a plea agreement. Prior to sentencing, a presentence investigation report (PSI) was prepared describing his conduct. Specifically, it noted that he created videos of children being sexually abused, distributed them, and attempted to meet with up someone he thought was a thirteen year old child.

Reportedly, the advisory guidelines range the defendant’s charges was set at the statutory maximum of 960 months’ imprisonment, with a statutory minimum term of 180 months’ imprisonment. The defendant sought a downward variance from the guideline range to the statutory minimum, citing his difficult personal background marked by his mother’s alcoholism, mental health issues, and struggles with substance abuse. He argued that his mitigating circumstances warranted a lower sentence.

Allegedly, despite the defendant’s arguments, the district court imposed a downward variance, sentencing him to 600 months’ imprisonment, emphasizing the seriousness of his behavior. The defendant appealed, objecting to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Determining Whether a Sentence is Reasonable

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s sentence. The court noted that the defendant argued that his 600-month sentence, which fell below the guideline range, was substantively unreasonable as it exceeded what was necessary to protect the public and serve the goals of sentencing. He further contended that considering his mitigating factors, such as his difficult personal history and improvements since his arrest, a sentence between the statutory minimum and the probation-recommended term would have been more appropriate. Additionally, he claimed that his sentence resulted in an unwarranted disparity.

The court explained that it reviews the reasonableness of sentencing decisions under an abuse-of-discretion standard, considering relevant factors and statutory requirements. Despite the defendant’s arguments, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 600-month sentence. In doing so, it noted that the sentence was well below both the guideline range and the statutory maximum, which supported the assertion that it was reasonable. Thus, the court ultimately affirmed the sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the need for adequate punishment and deterrence, particularly in cases involving child sex crimes.

Meet with a Capable Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

People faced with sex offense charges are often worried about the impact such charges may have on their lives, but many people accused of sex crimes are ultimately found not guilty. If you are charged with a sex offense, it is smart to meet with an attorney regarding your defense. The capable St. Petersburg sex crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law understand the complexities of these cases, and we can assess the details of your situation and help you build a strong defense strategy. You can use our online form or call us at 727-897-5413 to schedule a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Determining Whether a Sentence is Reasonable appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

The court went on to note that should the evidentiary hearing confirm an error in the scoresheet, the sentencing court must then consider whether to issue a new sentence, employing the “would-have-been-imposed.” Thus, the trial court’s responsibility extends beyond the initial assessment of the contested convictions; it encompasses the potential need for resentencing with the revised scoresheet. Based on the foregoing, the court reversed the trial court ruling and remanded for further proceedings. The remaining issues raised on appeal were affirmed without comment.

Meet with a Seasoned Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

People charged with sex crimes can face significant penalties if they are found guilty, especially if they have prior convictions. If you are accused of committing a sex offense, it is essential to meet with an attorney to determine what steps you can take to protect your interests. The seasoned

St. Petersburg sex crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law have ample experience defending people charged with serious crimes in the Florida courts, and if we represent you, we will fight to help you seek a favorable outcome. You can contact us to set up a conference by calling us at 727-897-5413 or using our online form.

The post Court Discusses Contesting Prior Convictions in Florida Criminal Matters appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

Determining the Reasonableness of a Sentence

The federal courts employ a two-step process to determine if a sentence is unreasonable. The first step is to evaluate whether the sentence is sound procedurally. If it is, the court will then assess whether the sentence is substantively reasonable in consideration of the sentencing factors set forth under federal law and the totality of the circumstances. Throughout the process, the party objecting to the sentence bears the burden of proving it is unreasonable.

In the subject case, the court found that the sentence was procedurally proper in that there was no evidence that the court made a significant procedural error. On the contrary, the court considered the relevant factors and the sentencing range and issued a sentence based on the facts agreed on by the parties. Further, the court found that the sentence was substantively reasonable, as it did not lie beyond the range of what is deemed a reasonable sentence when considering the relevant facts and circumstances. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s sentence.

Confer with an Experienced Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

People found guilty of committing identity theft may be sentenced to years in prison, but merely because a person is charged with a crime does not mean a conviction is inevitable. If you are accused of a theft offense, it is in your best interest to confer with an attorney about your potential defenses. The experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law understand what it takes to obtain favorable verdicts in theft crime cases, and if you engage our services, we will advocate zealously 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 Determining the Reasonableness of a Sentence appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts Regarding the Underlying Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with over thirty counts of controlling, possessing, or intentionally viewing photographs depicting sexual conduct involving a child. The defendant pleaded guilty to three of the counts, and the State agreed not to prosecute the remaining counts. The defendant was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment for eighteen months, to be followed by ten years of supervised sex offender probation. One of the conditions of the defendant’s probation was that he was barred from having any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of eighteen.

Allegedly, in 2018, over a year after the probationary sentence was imposed, the defendant filed a motion asking the court to clarify the condition regarding unsupervised contact with a child. Essentially, the defendant’s motion asked the court to remove the condition as a term of his probation so that he could reside with his wife and two minor children following his release from prison. The court held a hearing, after which it granted the defendant’s motion. The State appealed.

A Court’s Jurisdiction to Modify a Sentence

Under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court is permitted to modify or reduce a sentence it imposed within sixty days after the sentence is imposed. The court may modify the sentence on its own volition or pursuant to a motion filed by the defendant. Courts are not permitted to modify sentences once the sixty-day time period has elapsed, however. In the subject case, the defendant did not seek a modification of his sentence until more than a year had passed since the sentence was imposed. Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence, and the court’s order was improper. As such, the court reinstated the original sentence.

Consult a Trusted Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a sex crime can impair your rights for the rest of your life. If you are faced with charges of a sex crime, it is wise to meet with a trusted St. Petersburg sex crime attorney regarding your charges and your potential defenses. The zealous criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law are proficient at helping people protect their rights in criminal matters, and if you hire us, we will aggressively advocate on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law through the online form or at 727-897-5413 to schedule a meeting regarding your charges.

The post Florida Court Discusses Sentence Modifications appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

In a recent Florida appellate case, the court ruled that a defendant who pleaded guilty to sex crimes did not meet the burden of proof required to show he should be permitted to change his plea following sentencing. If you are charged with a sex crime in St. Petersburg, it is in your best interest to meet with a capable St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to discuss your case and available defenses.

Facts Regarding the Defendant’s Alleged Crime

Reportedly, the defendant engaged in sexual activity with his 13-year-old stepdaughter. He was charged with sexual battery by a person in familial authority and lewd or lascivious molestation. He pleaded guilty to the charges in exchange for concurrent terms of time served to be followed by sex offender probation. Following his sentencing, however, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, due to the fact that he was not advised that he would be subject to electronic monitoring as part of his probation. The trial court denied his motion, after which the defendant appealed.

Standard for Permitting Withdraw of a Guilty Plea After Sentencing

On appeal, the court noted that the Florida statutes regarding probation for sex offenders defined terms of probation that are deemed standard and do not require oral pronouncement. Among the terms is the requirement that the trial court order mandatory electronic monitoring. While the parties agreed that the defendant was not orally advised that he would be required to submit to electronic monitoring they disputed whether the failure to advise him of the monitoring requirement was a sufficient basis to allow him to withdraw his plea.

The court stated that if a defendant wants to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing, the defendant must show that a withdraw is necessary to correct a patent injustice. A defendant can show manifest injustice by producing evidence his or her plea was not entered into voluntarily. The court noted that whether a defendant voluntarily entered a plea depends on whether he or she is aware of the direct consequences of the plea. The court clarified, however, that a failure to advise a defendant of collateral consequences of a plea did not make the plea involuntary. In determining where a consequence is direct or collateral, the court looks at the manner in which it affects the range of the defendant’s punishment.

Here, the court found that requiring a defendant to submit to electronic monitoring did not affect the range of the punishment and was not a direct consequence of the defendant’s plea.  Thus, the court found that the defendant had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show he should be allowed to withdraw his plea, and affirmed the trial court ruling.

Consult a Knowledgeable St. Petersburg Sex Crime Defense Attorney

If you are a St. Petersburg resident charged with a sex crime, you should consult a knowledgeable St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney to discuss your options. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney who can assist you in determining how you should proceed under the facts of your case. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to schedule a meeting.

More Blog Posts:

Court Explains What Constitutes a Substantial Step Towards a Sex Crime in Florida Case, February 14, 2019, St. Petersburg Sex Crimes Lawyer Blog

The post Court Explains Standard for Allowing a Defendant to Withdraw a Guilty Plea Post Sentencing in a Florida Sex Crime Case appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

For example, a Florida District Court of Appeal recently vacated a life sentence that was imposed following a conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, on the grounds that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that a sentencing enhancement was proper. If you are a St. Petersburg resident and are facing criminal charges, it is in your best interest to speak with an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to assist you in fighting to retain your rights.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Sentence  

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm. The jury found that the defendant had actual possession of a firearm and discharged the firearm, inflicting great bodily harm on his victims under both counts. The court subsequently sentenced the defendant to two concurrent life sentences under section 775.087(2), often referred to as the 10-20-Life statute, due to the fact that he was a prison releasee reoffender. The defendant filed a motion to correct the life sentence imposed on him as to the battery count, on the grounds that the sentence was illegal. The trial court denied his motion, after which the defendant appealed.

Enhanced Mandatory Sentence under the 10-20-Life Statute

On review, the court noted that if a defendant is convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm, he or she faces a minimum mandatory sentence under the 10-20-Life Statute. The statute provides that if a person actually possessed a firearm, he or she will be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years. If the person discharged the firearm during the commission of the crime, and as a result caused another person to suffer great bodily harm or death, he or she will be sentenced to a minimum of 25 years imprisonment and may face a sentence up to life in prison.

For an enhanced mandatory sentence to be imposed under the 10-20-Life statute, the State must precisely set forth the grounds for enhancing the sentence in the charging document. The failure of the State to precisely set forth the elements in the charging document cannot be cured by a jury’s factual findings. Further, if the State seeks to provide notice of the intent to seek an enhanced sentence by referring to a law in the charging document, the State has to indicate the specific provision that subjects the defendant to an enhanced sentence. In the subject case, the charging document alleged only that the defendant possessed a firearm, not that he discharged the firearm.  As the State failed to set forth grounds for the enhancement in the charging document, the enhanced sentence was illegal. Therefore, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings.

 Schedule a Conference with a Skilled St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a crime in St. Petersburg, it is important to know what penalties you may face if you are convicted and to retain a skilled St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney who will aggressively advocate on your behalf. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney who will work tirelessly to help you pursue a successful outcome under the facts of your case. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to schedule a conference.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Court Finds 1000 Year Sentence with Parole Eligibility Provides A Meaningful Chance for Release within the Offender’s Life, December 28, 2018, St. Petersburg Sex Crimes Lawyer Blog

The post Court Vacates Enhanced Sentence as Illegal Following Florida Aggravated Battery Conviction appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The Supreme Court of Florida recently ruled in Franklin v. State, that the Graham holding did not prohibit a court from imposing a 1,000-year sentence with parole eligibility. If you are a juvenile charged with a crime in St. Petersburg, it is in your best interest to meet with an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to assess the potential penalties for the crime you are charged with and help you to formulate a defense.

Alleged Facts Regarding Crimes and Sentencing

Allegedly, the defendant committed several violent crimes when he was seventeen. He was charged with several crimes in three separate cases, including kidnapping, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. During the trial in one of his cases, a physician who treated the victim testified the victim suffered the most severe injuries he had ever witnessed.

The defendant was convicted of all charges in each case, and sentenced to three concurrent 1,000-year sentences, with eligibility for parole. The Parole Commission conducted the defendant’s initial and subsequent parole hearings and determined a possible parole date of 2352. After the United States Supreme Court ruling in Graham v. Florida, the defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentence, averring that it violated the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. The trial court denied his motion and the District Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon discretionary review, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed that the sentence did not violate Graham, and the defendant was not entitled to resentencing.

The Graham Ruling

On review, the court explained that the Graham ruling held that the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits any imprisonment for life without parole of a juvenile offender convicted of a non-homicide crime. Additionally, Graham stated that any life sentence imposed on a juvenile offender for a non-homicide crime must provide a meaningful chance for the offender to be released if he or she demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. The court noted, however, that Graham did not require an actual release of a juvenile offender sentenced to life in prison. In a subsequent case, the Graham ruling was enlarged to prohibit life sentences without parole for juvenile homicide offenders.

Further, the Supreme Court of Florida admitted that in Atwell v. State, it held that a juvenile homicide offender’s sentence of life in prison with eligibility for parole violated the Graham ruling, as the presumptive parole date was well beyond the offender’s life expectancy. The court noted, however, that subsequent decisions from the United States Supreme Court illustrated the Atwell ruling was improper. Thus, the court held that the Florida parole process provided a meaningful chance for an offender to obtain a release within the duration of his or her life. As the defendant’s sentence offered the chance of parole, the court found it did not violate Graham.

Meet with an Experienced St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are a minor living in St. Petersburg and are currently facing criminal charges, you should meet with an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to assist you in seeking a favorable outcome under the facts of your case. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney who will vigorously advocate on your behalf. Contact our offices at 727-897-5413 or via the online form to schedule a meeting.

Additional Blog Posts:

Florida Court Explains Factors Indicating Voluntary Consent to a Warrantless Search December 20, 2018, St. Petersburg Sex Crimes Lawyer Blog

Appeals Court of Florida Finds Trial Court Erred in Requiring a Defendant to Register as a Sex Offender and in its Sentencing December 10, 2018, St. Petersburg Sex Crimes Lawyer Blog

Florida Law and Withholding Adjudication October 3, 2018, St. Petersburg Sex Crimes Lawyer Blog

The post Florida Court Finds 1000 Year Sentence with Parole Eligibility Provides A Meaningful Chance for Release within the Offender’s Life appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

This was illustrated in a recent Florida appellate court case, where the court found that the trial court committed an error of law in requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender and imposing a greater than guideline sentence due to a misunderstanding of the information in the PSI and the applicable law. If you were previously convicted of a sex crime and currently face criminal charges in St. Petersburg, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced St. Petersburg sex crimes defense attorney as soon as possible.

Defendant’s Sentencing Hearing

Purportedly, the defendant pled guilty to bank robbery and taking a hostage during a bank robbery. Prior to his sentencing, a PSI was issued that included information regarding the defendant’s prior adjudication as a juvenile for sexual misconduct. The sexual misconduct conviction was based on the defendant allegedly forcing a seven-year-old girl to have oral sex with him when he was thirteen.

The defendant was adjudicated as a delinquent when he was fourteen. The defendant did not object to the PSI and the court adopted the PSI’s findings and guidelines at the sentencing hearing. The court ultimately determined that a sentence greater than indicated by the sentencing guidelines was appropriate, based in part on the defendant’s prior sexual misconduct conviction. The court described the sexual misconduct crime and horrific and cited it as evidence that the defendant callously disregarded other people’s rights. In doing so, the court erroneously stated the defendant was fourteen when he committed the crime.

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with 240 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release. He was also directed to register as a sex offender following his release from prison. The defendant subsequently appealed his above-guideline sentence. On appeal, the court found the trial court committed a reversible error and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing.

Sex Offender Registration Requirements

The court noted that although the defendant failed to object to the trial court stating he was fourteen when he committed the crime or the requirement that he register as a sex offender both were obvious errors that compelled consideration. The court then noted that the law requires individuals convicted of sex offenses are required to register as sexual offenders, but only if they were fourteen years or older at the time they committed the crime.

Here, as the defendant was thirteen when he allegedly committed sexual misconduct, the mandatory registration law did not apply to him. Further, the court noted his prior sexual misconduct conviction was a substantial factor in determining that an above sentence guideline was appropriate. The court stated that the for some purposes there is a material difference between committing the crime at thirteen as opposed to fourteen, and therefore, it could not rule out the possibility the trial court’s incorrect determination as to the defendant’s age when he committed the prior crime weighed in favor of an increased sentence. As such, the court reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Meet with a Skilled St. Petersburg Sex Crime Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a crime in St. Petersburg, you should meet with a skilled sex crimes defense attorney to discuss how previous convictions for sex crimes may be weighed against you. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is adept at defending St. Petersburg residents charged with sex crimes and will vigorously defend your rights.  Contact our offices at 727-897-5413 or via the online form to set up a meeting.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Court Clarifies What Constitutes an Overt Act in an Attempted Sex Crime November29, 2018, St. Petersburg Sex Crimes Lawyer Blog

Florida Appeals Court Hears Video Voyeurism Case November 11, 2018, St. Petersburg Sex Crimes Blog

Florida Appeals Court Hears Sixth Amendment Sexual Battery Case October 25, 2018, St. Petersburg Sex Crimes Blog

The post Appeals Court of Florida Finds Trial Court Erred in Requiring a Defendant to Register as a Sex Offender and in its Sentencing appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Withholding Adjudication

Florida law has a statute that allows judges to withhold adjudication in some circumstances. When adjudication is withheld, the defendant will usually have some kind of penalty, but since it is not a conviction it will not be on their record. The penalties vary but frequently include some kind of diversion program, counseling, probation, and/or community service hours. Of course the defendant needs to complete all of the requirements imposed by the court or else they will be convicted.

The main benefit of a withholding of adjudication is that the defendant will still have a clean record if this is their first offense. This can be a huge benefit when looking for employment, as many employers will ask applicants whether they have been convicted of a crime. If your adjudication has been withheld, you can honestly answer “no.” However, applicants should read the question closely because sometimes potential employers will ask instead whether applicants have been arrested, which defendant would then have to answer “yes” even if the conviction was withheld.

Conditions for Withholding of Adjudication

Obviously not all crimes qualify for withholding, while others may be withheld but the offense will still appear on your record. Typically, withholdings are granted only when it is a defendant’s first offense. While DUIs can be withheld, they will still appear on your record. The most serious felonies – capital, life, and first degree – also cannot be withheld. Second degree felony convictions can only be withheld if certain conditions are met.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently heard a case that addressed the statute that governs when adjudications can be withheld. In that case, the defendant was charged with aggravated assault, which is a third-degree felony. He asked the court to withhold the adjudication. However, the defendant had already been granted withholdings for two third degree felonies in a case more than 20 years old. The court here held that the statute did not allow them to grant the defendant a withholding in this case.

The statute that addressed withholdings does not allow the court to grant a withholding for a third degree felony if the defendant has two or more withholdings for felonies that did not arise from the same events as the current offense. The defense here argued that since the two prior withholdings came from the same series of events that they should only be counted as one. The court disagreed. Using the plain language of the statute they found that the statute prohibits them from granting another withholding even when the prior two withholdings are from the same events.

Contact an Experienced St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney Today!

Experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys may be aware of ways to help dispose of your charges in a way that limits the consequences to your life. The attorneys at Hanlon Law Firm can help you to understand all of your potential options. Call our offices at (727) 897-5413 or contact us online to speak with our attorneys about your case today.

See Related Posts:

Florida High Court Affirms Death Sentence

Juvenile Convicted of Sexual Battery Gets Resentencing Hearing in Florida

The post Florida Law and Withholding Adjudication appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.