Avvo Rating badge
NACDL badge
Expertise badge
Avvo Rating badge
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Published on:

By

If the state or government believes a person tried to lure a minor to engage in a sexual relationship, the person can be charged with attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, which is a crime, despite the fact that no actual contact between the person and minor ever occurred. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently evaluated what constituted sufficient evidence of an attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in a case arising out of a Florida District Court. If you live in St. Petersburg and are charged with a sex crime, it is wise to meet with a St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney to discuss the charges you face and the evidence the state may use against you.

The Defendant’s Alleged Crimes and Conviction

It is alleged the defendant had online communications with an undercover agent posing as a 13-year-old girl. The defendant and the agent communicated through multiple social media applications, where the agent used the name JMK. The conversations were graphic and sexually explicit. The defendant stated that he liked that JMK was young and described the sexual acts he wanted to perform with JMK. The defendant also sent JMK pornographic videos and pictures, including child pornography, and asked her if she wanted to perform the acts depicted in the videos. He also frequently told JMK he was old enough to be her father.

Reportedly, the defendant then stated he wanted to be with JMK regardless of whether her mother was home and stated he did not care what society thought. They began discussing the defendant traveling to Florida to have sex with JMK and the details of his visit. The defendant never traveled to Florida but was arrested at his home once the agent determined his identity. He was charged with multiple crimes, including attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, which he appealed arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove he took substantial acts towards the offense.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As with all criminal defendants, a defendant who is charged with sex crimes is protected by the rule against double jeopardy, which protects defendants from multiple convictions for the same criminal act. The Supreme Court of Florida recently addressed the issue of whether convictions for the unlawful use of a communication device and use of a computer to solicit a minor were based upon the same conduct as traveling after solicitation of a minor and violated double jeopardy. If you are a St. Petersburg resident and are facing charges of a sex crime, it is in your best interest to meet with an experienced St. Petersburg sex crimes defense attorney as soon as possible to discuss available defenses to the charges you face.

Alleged Facts

Reportedly, the defendant placed an ad on a website, seeking a casual sexual encounter with a male under 25 years old. An investigator responded to the ad on the suspicion that it was an attempt to solicit a minor. The investigator informed the defendant he was a 14-year-old boy. Over the following two weeks, the “boy” and the defendant exchanged emails in which the defendant suggested that they engage in sexual activity. The defendant then asked the “boy” to meet in person. When the defendant arrived at the agreed upon location, he was arrested. Medication to treat erectile dysfunction was found in his van.

The defendant was charged with: traveling after solicitation of a minor to engage in sexual acts; solicitation of a minor; and use of a two-way communication device to facilitate the commission of a felony. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the charges of solicitation of a minor and unlawful use of a communication device violated double jeopardy. The court denied the motion and the case proceeded to trial. The defendant was convicted of all charges, after which he appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Criminal defendants are protected from being tried or convicted more than once for the same crime by the rule against Double Jeopardy. The rule only applies in limited circumstances, however.

For example, a Florida District Court of Appeal recently ruled that dual battery convictions did not violate double jeopardy, despite the fact that the charges both arose out of the same set of facts. If you are a St. Petersburg resident charged with a crime, you should retain an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to analyze the facts of your case and assist you in developing a strong defense.

Factual Background

Reportedly, the defendant was arrested following a fight in the parking lot of a restaurant. He was charged with several crimes, including burglarizing a conveyance with assault or battery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Following a trial, he was convicted of burglarizing a conveyance with assault or battery, and the jury specifically determined that he had committed both an assault and a battery during the course of the burglary. He was also convicted of the included lesser offense of battery for the aggravated battery charge. He appealed, arguing in part that the convictions for both battery offenses violated double jeopardy. On appeal, the court affirmed his convictions.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

All criminal offenders are not the same in the eyes of the law when it comes to sentencing. If a person who is convicted of a crime has certain prior convictions, he or she may be deemed a career offender and be subject to enhanced penalties. Only enumerated crimes, crimes of violence and certain drug crimes count toward career offender status, however. Whether a crime is a crime of violence is frequently debated in the Florida courts.

Recently, the District Court for the Eleventh Circuit rejected a defendant’s argument that kidnapping was not a violent crime, affirming his enhanced sentence. If you live in St. Petersburg and face criminal charges, it is important to know how any prior convictions may affect your case and possible sentence. You should consult a knowledgeable St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to discuss the facts of your case and any defenses to the charges you face.

Facts Surrounding the Defendant’s Arrest and Prior Convictions

It is reported that the defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamines and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, to which he pled guilty. He was previously convicted of kidnapping, armed assault or battery with a weapon, and possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute. As such, the trial court designated him a career offender and sentenced him to 160 months in prison. He appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in designating him a career offender because a Florida kidnapping conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence. On appeal, the court affirmed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

While no criminal charges should be taken lightly, a conviction for a sex crime can result in a lifelong designation as a sexual predator. While there are laws in Florida that require a mandatory sexual offender designation in certain circumstances, the laws also allow for the Florida Parole Commission to impose sexual predator restrictions based on its discretion.

This was demonstrated in a recent case decided by a Florida appellate court, where the court found that sexual predator conditions imposed on a defendant were proper, even though he was not a sexual predator under the statutory guidelines. If you are a resident of St. Petersburg and are currently charged with a sex crime, it is essential to retain the services of a skilled St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney, to aid you in your fight to retain your liberties and protect your future.

Facts Regarding Defendant’s Sex Crime Charges and Conviction

Reportedly, in 1997 the defendant entered a plea to charges of fondling a minor under the age of sixteen and sexual battery. The stipulated year of his offenses was 1991. The trial court designated the defendant a sexual predator. The designation was subsequently reversed, however, based on the appellate court’s finding that the Florida sexual predator statute applied only to a conviction for sex crimes committed on or after October 1, 1993.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In all sex crime cases, the state bears the burden of proving that a defendant committed a crime. In pointing out the weaknesses in the state’s case at trial, however, it is essential to consider how any question posed to the state’s witnesses will affect what evidence the state can introduce in rebuttal.

For example, a Florida district court recently ruled that a defendant “opened the door” to questioning regarding his refusal to submit to a DNA test, where the defendant’s attorney questioned the state’s witnesses regarding DNA evidence.  If you live in St. Petersburg and are facing charges of a sex crime, you should retain a seasoned St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney to help you analyze any evidence the state can introduce against you and preclude any evidence that should not be admitted.

Charges and Trial Testimony

It is reported that the state charged the defendant with capital sexual battery, lewd or lascivious molestation, attempted capital sexual battery, and false imprisonment, for his alleged sexual relationship with a 10-year-old girl. At the trial, the alleged victim’s mother testified that the victim had two positive pregnancy tests, after which she informed her mother and grandmother of sexual activity between her and the defendant. The victim testified regarding the defendant’s alleged sexual activity with her at the trial as well. A doctor who examined the victim in the emergency room for a possible miscarriage testified that she tested negative for the pregnancy hormone, which she should test positive for if she was pregnant, but the doctor admitted he had never examined a potentially pregnant 10-year-old.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The criminal legal system treats juvenile defendants differently than adult defendants. Juveniles are generally granted more protection of their rights and are often subject to different sentencing. For example, the United States Supreme Court held in Graham v. Florida that any life sentence imposed on a juvenile offender who was convicted of a non-homicide offense must provide a meaningful chance for the offender to be released before the end of the sentence.

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.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

If you are charged with a sex crime, it is important to understand what evidence the state will attempt to use against you. Evidence that is obtained via an unreasonable search may be precluded, but proving a search is unreasonable can be difficult, and it is important to understand what constitutes an unreasonable search.

A Florida court recently clarified when a warrantless search is valid, in a case in which they permitted the state to admit evidence found in the defendant’s home absent a warrant. If you face sex crime charges in St. Petersburg, it is in your best interest to meet with a skilled St. Petersburg sex crimes defense attorney who will vigorously fight to preclude evidence obtained without a valid search warrant.

Evidence Against the Defendant

Allegedly, the police began investigating the defendant after a woman contacted the police department and reported the defendant was having sex with the woman’s sister, who was a minor. A child protective team interviewed the minor, who explained that she and the defendant exchanged sexual messages through text, and via two different messaging applications, and eventually began a sexual relationship. The police found messages on the minor’s phone from the defendant in one application, but could not retrieve messages from the other application. The police then obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s phone.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It is important for any defendant who pleads guilty to or is convicted of a crime to understand how previous convictions for sex crimes may be weighed against him or her. In the Florida courts, prior to sentencing, a Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) is issued, setting forth a defendant’s criminal and personal history. The PSI aides judges in determining an appropriate sentence. It is essential that the court accurately understand information in a PSI, as an incorrect assessment of prior convictions can result in an inappropriate sentence.

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.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

To convict a defendant of a crime, the state is required to prove each element of the crime. Many crimes require the state to prove the defendant’s state of mind at the time the crime was allegedly committed. For example, to convict a defendant of trespass in an unoccupied conveyance, also known as a car, the state must prove that the trespass was willful, meaning the defendant either knew or should have known the car was stolen.  If the state does not produce sufficient evidence the trespass was willful, a conviction for trespass in an unoccupied conveyance will not stand.

In T.A.K. v. Florida, a recent case arising out of a Florida Court of Appeals, the court held that hiding from the police in a stolen car is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant knew the car was stolen. If you are a juvenile facing criminal charges in St. Petersburg, it is essential that your attorney understands the state’s burden in proving its case against you to help you prepare a strong defense.

Factual Scenario

Allegedly, the owner of a car reported her car was missing and denied giving anyone else permission to take her car. The police tracked down the car to a nearby apartment building. When the officers first saw the car, they observed a man reclining in the driver’s seat. They did not notice any movement in the car or see anyone leave the car. When the officers approached the car, they opened the passenger door and saw only a man in the passenger seat. The police officers then opened the driver’s side door and noticed the defendant on the floor in the back of the vehicle, in between the front and back seats. The defendant was subsequently charged with trespass in an unoccupied conveyance. At the close of the state’s case, the defendant moved for the dismissal of the charges against him, on the grounds the state failed to show he knew or should have known the car was stolen. The court denied the defendant’s motion and he was convicted of the charges and placed on juvenile probation. The defendant subsequently appealed.

Continue reading →