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.

History of the Case

It is reported that the two defendants were both employed by a health services company. The first defendant served as the chief operating officer, while the second defendant was the executive director. Charges stemmed from their involvement in back-billing Medicaid for services that were never provided to patients. Both were charged with Medicaid provider fraud and grand theft. Following a joint trial, the jury convicted the first defendant of Medicaid provider fraud and grand theft with a value below $20,000, while the jury convicted the second defendant of Medicaid provider fraud and grand theft with a value above $20,000.

Allegedly, both defendants moved to vacate their grand theft convictions based on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that all elements of grand theft were encompassed within Medicaid provider fraud. The court trial court agreed and granted the defendants’ motions. The State then appealed.

Vacating Convictions on Double Jeopardy Grounds

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to vacate the grand theft convictions. Prior to doing so, the court applied the Blockburger test to determine if each offense required proof of an element that the other did not.

Despite the State’s argument that specific intent to deprive or appropriate property was required for grand theft but not for Medicaid provider fraud, the court disagreed. It cited Florida statutes, which define “knowingly” as requiring specific intent to commit Medicaid provider fraud, including the intent to submit a false claim for payment.

As such, the court concluded that the elements of grand theft were subsumed within Medicaid provider fraud, as they both required proof of specific intent. This interpretation aligned with previous rulings where offenses were deemed to violate double jeopardy protections when all elements of the lesser offense were included in the greater offense. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to vacate the grand theft convictions for both defendants.

Consult an Experienced St. Peterburg Criminal Defense Attorney

Although theft crimes generally do not cause bodily harm, the courts regard them as serious offenses, and people found guilty of such acts may face significant penalties. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is in your best interest to consult an attorney as soon as possible. The experienced St. Petersburg violent crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law are adept at helping people fight to protect their interests in criminal matters, and if we represent you, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact us using our form online or call us at 727-897-5413 to arrange a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Vacating Convictions on Double Jeopardy Grounds 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.

The Defendant’s Charges

Allegedly, the police searched the defendant’s home pursuant to a warrant and found firearms, weapons paraphernalia, evidence of fraud, and electronic identity theft devices. The defendant was subsequently charged with aggravated identity theft and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of federal law. He moved for suppression of the evidence obtained via the warrant. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that the court deny the motion. The defendant filed objections in response to the recommendation. The court ultimately found the defendant’s objections unavailing and denied his motion.

Reasonable Suspicion in Criminal Cases

Under the Fourth Amendment, warrants will not be issued absent probable cause, supported by an affirmation or oath that specifically describes the place to be searched and the things or people to be seized. Probable cause to issue a search warrant is present when the circumstances, taken as a whole, demonstrate that there is a fair likelihood that evidence of a crime or contraband will be found in a particular case.

In the subject case, the crux of the defendant’s argument was that the supporting affidavit lacked probable cause to issue a search warrant. The court was not persuaded by this argument, however, noting that the defendant posted a video to his social media account ten days prior to the search warrant application that depicted a convicted felon holding a firearm. Thus, the court found that the affidavit in support of the warrant did not lack probable cause and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Speak to a Knowledgeable St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

Simply because the government has evidence that a person committed a crime does not mean it will be able to introduce the evidence at trial. If you are charged with theft or any other offense, it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a knowledgeable St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney with the skills and resources needed to help you seek a favorable outcome, and if you hire him, he will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Hanlon at 727-897-5413 or via the form online to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Reasonable Suspicion in Criminal Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.