Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

Published on:

By

Sentencing is often one of the most important stages of a criminal case because it determines whether a defendant receives the minimum punishment permitted by law or a reduced sentence based on mitigating circumstances. When a trial court refuses to impose a downward departure sentence, defendants may believe they have no meaningful opportunity to challenge that decision. A recent Florida opinion clarifies that courts have the authority to review those rulings, reinforcing important protections within Florida’s criminal justice system. If you are facing felony charges, it is in your best interest to consult a Sarasota criminal defense attorney.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted of sexual battery with force, battery, and false imprisonment after an incident involving his foster mother. At sentencing, the defendant requested a downward departure from the lowest permissible sentence under Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code. He argued that he qualified for sentencing as a youthful offender and that he required specialized treatment for a mental disorder unrelated to substance abuse. The State opposed the request, pointing to the defendant’s criminal history, escalating conduct, and perceived risk of reoffending. The trial court concluded that a downward departure was not appropriate and imposed a 30-year prison sentence for the sexual battery conviction, along with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

Reportedly, the defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his request for a downward departure sentence. The First District Court of Appeal dismissed that portion of the appeal after determining it lacked jurisdiction to review a trial court’s refusal to grant a downward departure. Because other Florida district courts had reached the opposite conclusion, the issue ultimately came before the Florida Supreme Court to resolve the conflict among the appellate courts.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By
In Florida, prisoners sentenced to death often attempt to raise postconviction claims based on newly discovered evidence or alleged constitutional violations. However, courts closely scrutinize such filings, particularly when a defendant files successive motions decades after conviction. A recent decision by a Florida court illustrates how difficult it can be for a prisoner to prevail on such claims when the evidence was available at the time of trial or when the record otherwise refutes the allegations. If you are facing a serious criminal charge, an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and present a full defense at trial.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and sexual battery stemming from the 1992 death of a two-year-old child. The prosecution’s evidence showed that the child suffered severe blunt force injuries while in the defendant’s care, and the medical examiner concluded that the cause of death was a cerebral hemorrhage resulting from four separate blows to the head. The defendant, however, testified that the child experienced a medical emergency while another person was present in the apartment and that he accidentally dropped her in the shower while attempting to revive her. The jury rejected this account and recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

People convicted of violent offenses will typically be sentenced to years in prison. Not all convictions are based on adequate evidence, though, and in many cases, there are grounds for challenging a jury’s verdict. People who wish to seek appellate or habeas relief must comply with the proper procedure, though, otherwise their challenges may be denied on procedural grounds. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in which the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss a habeas corpus petition, in part due to the defendant’s procedural defects. If you are accused of committing a violent crime,  it is prudent to talk to a St. Petersburg violent crime defense lawyer about your case.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant was indicted for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. The jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser offenses of manslaughter and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, resulting in sentences of eleven years and five years in prison, respectively. The defendant appealed the convictions, but the state appellate court affirmed the decision. The defendant did not seek post-conviction relief in state court.

Reportedly, the defendant filed a federal habeas corpus petition raising several claims: that the trial court violated his federal rights by denying motions to dismiss under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence, and because the indictment did not allege all crime elements. Additionally, the defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to sever the charges and for failing to raise issues on appeal. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Under Florida law, people accused of committing crimes have the right to know the elements of the charged offense and the evidence the prosecution intends to introduce against them. As such, if the prosecution fails to provide them with such information and they are subsequently convicted, they may have grounds for pursuing an appeal. As illustrated in a recent Florida case, however, they must abide by the procedural rules, and if they fail to do so, their appeal will likely be denied. If you are accused of a violent offense, it is wise to meet with a St. Petersburg violent crime defense lawyer to develop a strategy for pursuing a good outcome.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with burglary of a structure with assault or battery but was convicted of the permissive lesser included offense of burglary of an occupied structure. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that dismissal was proper due to the state’s failure to provide him with discovery. The state had provided discovery for one of his other pending cases but not for the subject matter. At a hearing, the state explained the oversight, provided the defendant with additional discovery, and the trial court conducted a Richardson hearing to address the discovery violation. The trial court found a discovery violation but ruled it was not willful or intentional, offering the defendant additional time to prepare for trial, which he refused, insisting on a speedy trial.

Reportedly, during the trial, evidence showed that the defendant forcibly entered a business chased the owner’s stepdaughter inside, resulting in her injury. The trial court found him guilty of the lesser included offense of burglary of an occupied structure and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. The defendant filed a motion to correct sentencing error, arguing that the information was insufficient to support the conviction. The trial court denied the motion, finding the information sufficient. The defendant appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Florida, the State will often charge a person with a crime via an information. The information must set forth details regarding the alleged offense, including the date when it was committed. If the information contains inaccurate details, the State may be granted leave to amend it, as discussed in a recent battery case. If you are faced with charges of battery or another violent crime, it is advisable to speak with a St. Petersburg violent crime defense lawyer to determine your rights.

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Pursuant to federal law, the act of garnishing a firearm to commit a crime of violence is an indictable offense. In order to convict a person of such a crime, the prosecution must establish, among other things, that the underlying crime in question constitutes a violent offense. Recently, a Florida court explained what is considered a violent felony under Florida law in a case in which it ultimately affirmed the defendant’s conviction. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is wise to confer with a St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorney about your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes, including assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of the federal VICAR (violent crimes in aid of racketeering) statute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and multiple drug crimes. The government presented evidence during the trial that the defendant and his codefendants were members of a narcotics dealers’ group operating as a criminal organization from 2008 to 2014 and that they had committed an armed robbery, discharging a firearm during their escape.

Allegedly, the defendant moved for an acquittal after the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. The court denied the motion, and the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant then filed a motion to vacate his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

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

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

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

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 →