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.

Downward Departure Sentencing Decisions

The Florida Supreme Court focused on whether district courts have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s denial of a downward departure. The court examined the Florida Constitution, applicable statutes governing criminal appeals, and prior decisions interpreting appellate jurisdiction. It emphasized that sentencing orders are final orders and that criminal defendants possess a constitutional right to seek direct appellate review of those final orders unless the Legislature has clearly imposed a lawful limitation.

The court also reviewed Florida’s established two-step framework for downward departure requests. Under that analysis, a trial court first determines whether a legally recognized mitigating circumstance exists and whether sufficient evidence supports it. If that threshold is satisfied, the court then exercises its discretion to determine whether a downward departure is the appropriate sentencing option under the particular facts of the case. Here, the sentencing court declined to make findings on the first step and instead concluded that the defendant’s risk of reoffending made a downward departure inappropriate regardless of any mitigating factors.

After analyzing the constitutional and statutory framework, the court rejected the First District’s earlier conclusion that appellate courts lacked authority to review such sentencing decisions. The court held that Florida law permits appellate review of a trial court’s denial of a downward departure sentence because sentencing orders are final, appealable orders, and no statute expressly removes that authority. It therefore quashed the First District’s earlier decision, approved the contrary decisions from other district courts, and remanded the matter for additional proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Speak with a Skilled St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

Sentencing decisions can have life-changing consequences, and preserving your appellate rights is essential if you believe legal errors affected the outcome of your case. The skilled St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and help you to take the steps necessary to protect your interests. You can contact us at 941-462-1789 or through our online form to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Downward Departure Sentencing Decisions appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

The post Florida Court Explains Challenges of Postconviction Claims appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

On review, the court focused on whether the defendant exhausted state court remedies and whether the claims were procedurally barred. The court reiterated that federal habeas corpus relief requires exhaustion of state remedies, meaning the defendant must present the federal nature of the claim in state courts through a complete round of appellate review.

In the subject case, the court found that the defendant failed to exhaust state remedies for several claims and dismissed those claims as procedurally barred. Specifically, the court dismissed the claims under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, insufficient evidence for manslaughter, and indictment deficiencies due to the lack of state court exhaustion and procedural default.

For the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court determined that the defendant did not seek post-conviction relief in state court and, despite the court’s warnings, failed to demonstrate cause and actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice to overcome the procedural default. Consequently, the court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the habeas corpus petition.

Talk to a Skilled St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are accused of murder or any other crime involving violent acts, it is important to understand your rights and potential defenses, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The skilled St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can aid you in pursuing the best possible outcome given the specifics of your situation. Contact Hanlon Law through our online form or by calling 727-897-5413 to schedule a discussion.

The post Violent Crimes in St. Petersburg appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

Evidence Needed to Support a Conviction

The first issue the defendant raised on appeal was whether the information supported his conviction for the permissive lesser included offense. The court noted that the issue was not preserved as the defendant raised it for the first time in a motion under rule 3.800(b)(2), which typically addresses sentencing errors.

Even though other cases allowed for preserving issues related to sentencing enhancements via this type of motion, the court noted that in this case, the motion concerned the sufficiency of the information for the lesser included offense, not a sentencing enhancement, and was, therefore, improper. While the defendant argued that burglary of an occupied structure was not properly charged in the information, the court found that the defendant had ample notice of the charge and opportunity to object to the incorrect information during trial and failed to do so. Thus, the trial court did not commit a fundamental error by convicting him under the lesser included charge.

As for the discovery violation, the court found that even if one occurred, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. The defendant had been offered additional time to prepare after receiving discovery, and he failed to demonstrate how earlier access to the materials would have affected his trial preparation. Therefore, finding no reversible error, the court affirmed the defendant’s judgment and sentence.

Talk to a Knowledgeable St. Peterburg Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are accused of a violent crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The knowledgeable 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 Evidence Needed to Support a Conviction 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.

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.

Crimes of Violence Under Federal Law

The primary issue on appeal was whether the defendant’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon categorically qualified as a “crime of violence” under the force clause of the applicable federal statute. The court looked into how the government had charged the VICAR offense against the defendant by examining the indictment and jury instructions. Because the government incorporated state law elements into both, the court needed to determine if Florida’s aggravated assault statute qualified as a “crime of violence” under federal law.

Ultimately, the court found that Florida’s definition of aggravated assault required, at a minimum, the threatened use of physical force. As a result, the defendant’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of the VICAR statute categorically qualified as a “crime of violence” and served as a proper predicate for his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The court also pointed to Eleventh Circuit precedent, which had previously established that Florida’s aggravated assault statute qualified as a “violent felony” and a “crime of violence” under other procedural contexts. Therefore, the court denied the defendant’s motion, confirming his conviction.

Contact an Experienced Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

Federal courts take a hard stance against violent crimes, and people convicted of such offenses often face lengthy prison terms. If you are accused of committing a violent offense, you should contact an attorney to assess your possible defenses. The experienced St. Petersburg violent crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and advise you of your options for seeking a favorable result. You can use our online form or call us at 727-897-5413 to schedule a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Crimes of Violence Under Federal Law appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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. 

Setting Aside a Conviction Due to Newly Discovered Evidence 

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. In its opinion, it explained that to set aside a conviction based on newly discovered evidence, two requirements must be met: (1) the evidence must not have been known at the time of trial and could not have been discovered with due diligence, and (2) the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably result in an acquittal on retrial by weakening the case against the defendant to raise a reasonable doubt about their guilt.

In the subject case, the court found that the defendant satisfied the first requirement, as the evidence in question was not known at the time of trial. Since the court ultimately determined that the alleged confession did not occur, however, it held that the defendant failed to meet the second requirement. Thus, the court upheld the trial court ruling.

Talk to a Dedicated Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

Murder and other violent offenses carry substantial punishments, including, in some cases, the death penalty. If you are charged with murder or another violent crime, it is critical to talk to an attorney about what strategies you can employ to protect your interests. The dedicated St. Petersburg criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law are well-equipped to help people charged with violent crimes seek favorable outcomes, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach us to set up a meeting by calling us at 727-897-5413 or using our online form.

The post Florida Court Discusses Setting Aside a Conviction Due to New Evidence  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.

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.

Inconsistent Verdicts in Criminal Cases

The Florida appellate courts review inconsistent verdict claims de novo. As factually inconsistent verdicts arise out of a jury’s authority to acquit, they are permitted under Florida law; legally inconsistent verdicts, though, are not. The court explained that a verdict is legally inconsistent if a finding of not guilty on one charge negates one or more necessary elements for a conviction on another charge.

In the subject case, the state conceded that the verdicts returned by the jury were truly inconsistent because by finding the defendant not guilty of the attempted robbery charge, they essentially acquitted him of the necessary element of a felony for the felony murder count. As such, the court reversed the defendant’s first-degree felony murder conviction and remanded the matter for the trial court to adjudicate him guilty of a lesser included offense.

Talk to a Trusted Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

The prosecution must prove a defendant committed each of the crimes they are charged with, and in some instances, a not guilty verdict for one charge will necessitate the same verdict for another. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your possible defenses as soon as possible. The trusted St. Petersburg criminal defenseattorneys of Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and help you to pursue the best legal result available under the facts of your case. You can reach us at 727-897-5413 or through the form online to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Vacates Inconsistent Verdicts in a Criminal Case appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.