Two Prosecutions Following One Reentry

According to the Court’s statement, the defendant was indicted in 2020 for being found in the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He pleaded guilty, served his prison sentence, and began supervised release. A condition of that release expressly prohibited him from leaving the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

It is reported that while he remained on supervision, officers stopped him in Heavener, Oklahoma. He was arrested and prosecuted again under the same statute. A jury convicted him, and the court imposed another term of imprisonment and supervised release. His challenge concerned a second prosecution arising from his continued presence in the country, rather than a new departure and reentry.

Allegedly, the Tenth Circuit rejected his double jeopardy argument. As the Supreme Court statement explained, the appellate court interpreted the statute to allow separate prosecutions without requiring a separate reentry for each charge. The defendant then asked the Supreme Court to review that result.

The Constitutional Concern Identified by Two Justices

The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. Applying that protection requires identifying what counts as the same offense. When conduct continues over time, the question may be whether prosecutors have identified a genuinely separate crime or simply divided a single continuing offense into different periods.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, questioned whether the statutory phrase covering a person found in the United States fairly encompasses someone whom the government has already located and required to remain under supervision. She also argued that, even if the statute could be read that way, the second conviction presented serious constitutional problems.

Her reasoning focused on the uninterrupted nature of the conduct. The defendant’s presence continued after the first conviction, and the government’s own restrictions prevented him from leaving. In her view, selecting a later date on which officials encountered him did not transform that continuing conduct into a separate offense. She drew on prior Supreme Court decisions rejecting efforts to divide one continuous crime into multiple prosecutions based on time or location.

Why the Denial of Review Matters

The Supreme Court denied review on October 13, 2026. Justice Sotomayor explained that she agreed with that disposition because she hoped the circumstances were unusual and because the defendant had since been removed from the United States. She nevertheless urged courts confronting similar facts to give full effect to the protection against double jeopardy.

The distinction between the Court’s action and the accompanying statement is essential. The Court did not overturn the conviction or issue a majority ruling adopting the two justices’ analysis. Their statement identifies an argument for courts to consider; it does not establish that every later charge under the same statute is unconstitutional.

For someone facing successive charges, a useful review begins with the earlier charging document, judgment, release conditions, and the dates and conduct alleged in the new case. Those records can reveal whether the prosecution depends on a distinct event or a disputed attempt to punish the same continuous conduct again.

Review New Charges With a St. Petersburg Defense Attorney

A new prosecution can require a careful comparison with what happened in an earlier case. The St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can review the charging history, identify potential constitutional objections, and explain the available defense options. Call 727-289-0222 to arrange a consultation.

The post Supreme Court Justices Question Prosecution for Same Continuous Conduct appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Case Setting

Allegedly, a cloud-storage provider alerted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that a user had uploaded suspected child sexual abuse material. The center forwarded a CyberTip with a phone number to law enforcement. A detective connected the account to a Florida address and sought a state warrant to search it. The affidavit identified the tip’s source, the suspected offense, the account to be searched, and the material to be seized, but did not describe the images or explain exactly how anyone identified them.

Reportedly, a judge issued the warrant after a police legal adviser reviewed the application. The search uncovered images that led investigators to additional warrants, a victim, the defendant’s arrest, and further material on a phone. Federal prosecutors charged the defendant with sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography.

It is reported that the defendant moved to suppress the first search and all evidence derived from it. The district court viewed the affidavit as conclusory, criticized unrelated definitions in it, and concluded no reasonable officer could rely on the warrant. It excluded the evidence from the cloud account and subsequent searches. The government appealed, arguing that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule allowed the evidence even if the affidavit did not establish probable cause.

Good Faith Exception to Warrantless Searches

On appeal, the government did not ask the panel to decide whether the warrant actually rested on probable cause. The court therefore assumed a deficiency without deciding that constitutional question. It focused on whether the affidavit was so devoid of probable-cause indicators that reliance on the judge’s warrant was entirely unreasonable.

The affidavit gave more than an unsupported assertion of suspicion. It identified a provider with access to the account, a CyberTip routed through a congressionally established clearinghouse, and a link between the suspect account and the suspected material. The panel acknowledged that an image description or additional investigation would have improved the application. Still, information from an identifiable, potentially reliable source can supply some basis to believe evidence will be found. Unrelated technical definitions were sloppy but did not show that the issuing judge had been misled.

The detective’s experience investigating similar tips and the legal adviser’s review further supported objectively reasonable reliance. The court saw no evidence of intentional misstatements or concealed facts. It therefore held the good-faith exception applied, reversed the suppression order, and remanded for further proceedings.

Consult a St. Petersburg Sex Crime Defense Attorney

Challenges to digital evidence require careful attention to the first warrant and every search that followed. If you are charged with a sex crime based on digital evidence, it is wise to consult an attorney about your possible defenses. The St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate search procedures and develop a defense tailored to your record. Call 727-289-0222 or use the online contact form to request a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Examines Good Faith Exception to Warrantless Searches appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

Allegedly, federal prosecutors charged the defendant with abusive sexual contact of a child and aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Before trial, the defense asked for a hearing under the rules governing the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. A magistrate judge denied that request, but the defendant did not seek review by the district judge within the required procedure.

Reportedly, a jury convicted the defendant on both charges, and the district court imposed life imprisonment. The court applied a guideline enhancement for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct involving a minor, relying on the jury’s findings that the offenses involved two separate occasions.

It is reported that the defendant appealed the convictions and sentence. The appellant challenged the absence of an expert-evidence hearing, asserted that prosecutors withheld favorable or discoverable information involving family information, a victim’s sexual conduct, and telephone records, and argued that judicial factfinding could not support the guideline enhancement.

Evidence and Disclosure in Sex Crime Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, disclosure questions under the appropriate de novo or prejudice standards, and constitutional sentencing issues de novo. It first concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s denial of a hearing because the appellant never appealed that order to the district judge. Federal criminal procedure also treats the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive ruling as a waiver of review.

The court then examined the disclosure claims. Due process requires prosecutors to disclose favorable, material evidence, including impeachment information. A defendant seeking a new trial must show that the government possessed favorable evidence, the defense could not obtain it with reasonable diligence, the government suppressed it, and timely disclosure probably would have changed the outcome. Federal discovery rules similarly cover requested materials within the government’s possession, custody, or control when they are material or intended for use at trial.

The defendant did not identify particular favorable materials that the government possessed and withheld. Speculation that more information existed could not establish suppression, prejudice, or a discovery violation. Finally, the enhancement affected only the advisory guideline range, not the statutory minimum or maximum. The Sixth Amendment therefore permitted the sentencing court to make guideline findings under a preponderance standard. In any event, the jury’s two convictions supplied the required separate occasions. Finding no reversible error, the court affirmed the convictions and life sentence.

Protect Your Rights with a Dedicated St. Petersburg Sex Crime Defense Attorney

Early, careful litigation can determine whether an objection remains available on appeal and whether the government meets its disclosure obligations. If you are charged with a sex offense, the dedicated St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can analyze the evidence, preserve critical challenges, and advocate for your rights. Call 727-289-0222 or complete the firm’s online contact form to schedule a confidential consultation about your case.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidence and Disclosure in Sex Crime Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Criminal prosecutions depend not only on the evidence presented at trial but also on the accuracy of the charges filed at the beginning of the case. When the allegations in a charging document do not match the proof introduced in court, a conviction may not withstand appellate review, even if the evidence establishes that a defendant committed a different offense. A recent ruling issued by a Florida court highlights the importance of this principle and reinforces the State’s obligation to prove the precise offense it chooses to charge. If you are facing felony drug charges, you should talk to a St. Petersburg drug crime defense attorney as early as possible to assess your options.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant was a backseat passenger in an Uber when law enforcement officers conducted a traffic stop. After a K-9 alerted to the presence of narcotics, deputies searched a satchel the defendant was wearing and discovered a prescription pill bottle containing a white powdery substance.

It is reported that laboratory testing later determined that the substance consisted of approximately 6.26 grams of xylazine and para-Fluorofentanyl, a Schedule I fentanyl derivative under Florida law. Despite those laboratory findings, the State charged the defendant with trafficking in fentanyl or a mixture containing fentanyl, identifying the controlled substance listed in the Schedule II portion of Florida’s drug statutes.

The post Florida Court Addresses Charging Documents in Drug Trafficking Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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 St. Petersburg 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.

Drug prosecutions frequently involve multiple charges arising from the same investigation, and defendants can face substantial prison sentences when prosecutors allege possession, distribution, trafficking, or related offenses. While the State may pursue multiple counts in a single case, constitutional protections prevent a defendant from being punished more than once for the same criminal conduct. A recent Florida decision illustrates how courts analyze overlapping drug charges and determine whether convictions violate double jeopardy principles. If you are facing drug trafficking, possession, or distribution charges, it is essential to consult an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney who can identify potential defenses and constitutional challenges.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with numerous offenses involving the possession, sale, distribution, and trafficking of opioid-related controlled substances. The charges stemmed from multiple incidents occurring during August 2022 and resulted in several separate counts under Florida’s drug laws.

Reportedly, the State alleged in two counts arising from the same date that the defendant knowingly sold, delivered, or possessed with intent to sell hydromorphone while simultaneously charging the defendant with simple possession of the same substance. Similar allegations were brought in another pair of counts relating to a separate incident involving hydromorphone approximately one week later.

The post Florida Court Rules Multiple Drug Charges Violate Double Jeopardy appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Constitutional protections and evidentiary boundaries often intersect in criminal cases in which a defendant seeks to justify conduct based on perceived rights. Courts must carefully distinguish between legally relevant evidence and generalized beliefs that do not bear directly on the elements of an offense. A recent Florida opinion illustrates this tension, particularly where a defendant attempted to rely on public statements about Second Amendment rights to support a defense-of-property theory. If you are facing assault charges, it is critical to speak with a St. Petersburg assault crime defense attorney to evaluate how you can protect your interests.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant resided at an apartment complex where vehicle regulations prohibited inoperable or covered cars. A leasing agent identified the defendant’s vehicle as noncompliant and placed a visible notice warning that it would be towed if not corrected. The defendant was informed of the violation during a phone call with the leasing office, but dismissed the concern.

Reportedly, several days later, a towing contractor arrived at the complex to remove vehicles pursuant to an existing agreement with management. While the contractor was towing the defendant’s covered vehicle, the defendant exited his apartment, holding a firearm, and confronted the contractor. The defendant used aggressive language, demanded the vehicle be released, and, according to testimony, threatened violence while pointing the weapon. During the encounter, the defendant entered the tow truck without permission and removed the keys from the ignition.

The post Florida Court Assess Evidence in Assault Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Federal sentencing disputes often turn on nuanced constitutional questions and technical compliance with statutory requirements, both of which can significantly alter the outcome of a criminal case. When courts impose enhanced sentences or include probation conditions that extend beyond what the law permits, defendants may have strong grounds for appellate relief. A recent Florida decision highlights how these issues intersect, particularly where a trial court relies on judicial fact-finding to enhance a sentence and includes probation terms that were never properly pronounced in open court. If you are facing criminal charges or questioning the legality of a sentence, it is essential to speak with a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to protect your rights and evaluate your legal options.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted in the trial court of grand theft of a motor vehicle and received a split sentence of imprisonment followed by probation. The trial court also imposed a habitual felony offender enhancement based on the defendant’s prior convictions, which increased the defendant’s sentencing consequences. After sentencing, the defendant sought appellate review of both the enhanced sentence and certain probation conditions contained in the written order.

Habitual Offender Enhancements

The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by making the factual findings necessary to support the habitual felony offender enhancement instead of submitting those issues to a jury. The defendant further asserted that a condition in the probation order included requirements that were not orally pronounced at sentencing and therefore could not properly be imposed through the written order alone. 

The post Florida Court Discusses Enhanced Sentences and Probation Conditions appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Federal drug trafficking prosecutions that involve maritime activity often turn on complex jurisdictional questions and evidentiary disputes that can shape the entire course of a trial. Courts must carefully balance the government’s authority to prosecute conduct on the high seas with the defendant’s right to a fair trial, particularly when determining admissibility of testimony and the scope of information presented to a jury. A recent Florida decision highlights how these issues arise before trial and how courts apply evidentiary rules to preserve fairness while allowing the government to proceed. If you are facing federal criminal charges, it is critical to speak with a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to understand how pretrial rulings may impact your case.

Factual History and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, federal authorities interdicted a vessel on the high seas and initiated a prosecution under federal drug trafficking laws, asserting jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The government subsequently sought a judicial determination confirming that the vessel was within the United States’ jurisdiction at the time of the interdiction.

Reportedly, in advance of trial, the government filed multiple pretrial motions, including a motion requesting that the court formally determine jurisdiction over the vessel and a motion in limine seeking to prevent the defendants from informing the jury about potential penalties if convicted. The defendants did not substantively oppose these motions, although they preserved objections for appellate purposes.

The post Court Evaluates Evidence in Federal Drug Crime Case appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.