Badge - Avvo Rating 10, Superb
Badge - Natitonal Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Expertise badge
Badge - Avvo Rating, Top Attorney
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Home

Published on: | by

Federal criminal trials often raise high-stakes questions about fairness and constitutional rights. From how a jury is selected to how evidence is weighed at sentencing, each stage can shape the outcome of a case. When a defendant is accused of participating in a wide-reaching drug conspiracy, these issues become even more critical. A recent Florida decision highlights how courts balance trial errors against the broader record, illustrating the limits of what defendants can achieve on appeal in complex drug trafficking prosecutions. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is crucial to talk to a Clearwater drug crime defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your interests.

Factual Allegations

It is reported that the defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury on multiple charges arising from his alleged participation in a multi-state marijuana trafficking operation. The indictment included numerous counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, as well as possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He was also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, possessing a weapon in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and illegal reentry.

Allegedly, the prosecution maintained that the defendant and his codefendants coordinated shipments of marijuana and proceeds between California and Georgia, using various methods to conceal the illicit activity. The government also alleged that firearms were possessed in connection with the distribution scheme. The defendant pleaded guilty to the count of illegal reentry but denied involvement in the remaining charges, which proceeded to a jury trial.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida, defendants accused of fraud-related offenses have the right to challenge whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to support a conviction. However, courts will uphold a conviction when a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the record. This was illustrated in a recent Florida case in which the court reviewed whether the State had provided sufficient evidence to support a conviction for organized fraud. The court ultimately affirmed the conviction, reinforcing that circumstantial evidence and patterns of conduct can establish fraudulent intent. If you are accused of fraud or theft, it is critical to speak with a Clearwater white collar crime defense attorney to evaluate your legal options.

Allegations and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged and convicted of organized fraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct involving multiple transactions, during which she unlawfully appropriated funds from an account over which she had access but no rightful claim. The prosecution asserted that the conduct at issue reflected a systematic and ongoing scheme, rather than an isolated incident.

It is further alleged that the State introduced evidence that each transaction undertaken by the defendant involved transferring or withdrawing funds from an account in a manner inconsistent with lawful entitlement. The prosecution presented records documenting these transactions and argued that the defendant’s conduct amounted to an ongoing course of deceitful behavior designed to convert money for personal use.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In federal sentencing, courts have limited discretion to reduce a sentence once it has been imposed. One exception allows for compassionate release in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. However, this relief is not easily obtained. A recent decision from a Florida court demonstrates the rigorous analysis federal courts apply to such motions, especially when public safety and sentencing integrity are at stake. For defendants seeking to challenge their sentences post-conviction, this case highlights the significant legal hurdles involved. If you are considering pursuing a reduction in sentence, a Clearwater federal criminal defense attorney can help you understand your options and assess whether compassionate release may be appropriate.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was sentenced to 420 months in prison in 2005 following convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. These offenses arose out of a drug trafficking operation that involved firearms and violence. The defendant, who is 51 years old, is projected to be released in 2034.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida criminal sentencing, trial courts must strictly follow procedural and statutory requirements when calculating prison terms, particularly when a sentence includes both habitual offender penalties and probation revocation. If they fail to do so, it may result in errors on sentencing scoresheets that can result in unlawful sentences, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case. If you are facing sentencing or resentencing in a Florida criminal case, a Clearwater criminal defense attorney can help you ensure that your rights are protected at every stage of the proceedings.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was originally placed on probation following convictions for two third-degree felonies: felony battery and robbery by sudden snatching. The trial court imposed concurrent five-year probation terms for these offenses in 2021. While on probation, the defendant was arrested and later convicted of arson, a first-degree felony under Florida law. Following his conviction, the court held a combined hearing to address both the probation revocation and sentencing for the arson offense. The defendant was adjudicated guilty of violating his probation based on the new arson conviction.

It is further reported that during the sentencing hearing, the State submitted a single scoresheet that listed the arson conviction as the primary offense and included the two prior third-degree felonies as additional offenses. The court found that the defendant qualified as a habitual felony offender and imposed a life sentence for the arson conviction under Florida’s habitual offender statute. The court then imposed concurrent sentences of 64.95 months for the two prior offenses based on the scoresheet, which calculated this as the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence for the probation violations was illegal. Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida criminal cases involving multiple charges, whether or not those charges are tried together can have a significant impact on a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Defendants frequently seek to sever unrelated charges to prevent prejudicial spillover from one count to another, particularly in serious felony cases. However, when crimes are factually and temporally connected, courts often view them as part of a single criminal episode, allowing for joint prosecution. A recent Florida decision issued in a violent crime case exemplifies how courts evaluate and uphold such joinders, even when the charges involve multiple homicides, a police chase, and firearm evidence. If you are charged with one or more violent crimes, it is essential to consult a Clearwater violent crime defense attorney who can help you seek a favorable outcome.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a violent crime spree that unfolded over a single evening in August 2016. Allegedly, the defendant was driving a silver rental car with several passengers, including a witness who later testified for the prosecution. During the first event, the defendant reportedly fired several shots into another vehicle, killing one individual and narrowly missing another. Witnesses described the encounter as stemming from a road rage incident.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

People convicted of federal white-collar offenses will often pursue multi-pronged appeals, raising both evidentiary and procedural challenges. However, the standards governing such appeals are highly deferential to the government, and courts are generally reluctant to overturn jury verdicts absent clear error. A recent Florida decision highlights the difficulty of reversing white-collar convictions, even where the defendant raises issues such as sufficiency of the evidence, variance from the indictment, and allegedly improper conduct by the prosecution. If you are accused of a white-collar crime and have questions about your rights, it is smart to confer with a Clearwater white-collar crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant served as an agent of a Florida charter school that received significant federal funds. It is reported that during two one-year periods, the defendant embezzled or misappropriated funds belonging to the school, converting the money to personal use. Allegedly, the amount exceeded $5,000 in each instance, triggering federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A), which prohibits theft or bribery involving federally funded programs.

It is further alleged that, in addition to the theft charges, the defendant engaged in a broader scheme to defraud, resulting in 18 counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Reportedly, the wire fraud involved the transmission of fraudulent claims or documents with the intent to secure funds to which the defendant was not lawfully entitled. Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida, people accused of crimes have numerous protections, including the right to be free from being tried or convicted more than once for the same offense. This does not mean that people cannot be charged with multiple offenses from a single criminal episode, though, if the legislature explicitly authorizes separate punishments, as explained in a recent Florida decision where the defendant challenged multiple convictions stemming from the same incident. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is smart to consult an experienced Clearwater violent crime defense attorney to protect your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant entered a dwelling and committed acts of violence against the victim, who was his girlfriend. Reportedly, the defendant engaged in physical aggression, including punching, choking, kicking, and stabbing the victim. The victim allegedly suffered significant injuries, including a stab wound to her thigh, three fractured ribs, and multiple bruises.

It is reported that the State charged the defendant with burglary with assault or battery, aggravated battery using a deadly weapon, and felony battery causing great bodily harm. Allegedly, the trial court convicted the defendant of all charges and imposed a sentence of 99.150 months in prison for the aggravated battery and burglary counts, followed by eighteen months of probation. The court also sentenced the defendant to 99.150 months for felony battery, to run concurrently with the other sentences.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida criminal cases, convictions for attempted second-degree murder often hinge on whether the defendant’s actions meet the statutory definition of acting with a “depraved mind.” This determination plays a crucial role in evaluating a defendant’s mental state, particularly when circumstantial evidence is involved. Recently, a Florida court explored these legal principles in a case where the defendant faced serious charges following a domestic dispute that escalated into violence. If you are accused of a violent crime, consulting an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney is essential to protect your rights and explore your legal options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant, who lived with the victim in a camper trailer, committed attempted second-degree murder during an incident following a domestic dispute. The defendant consumed a substantial amount of alcohol while the victim used methamphetamine. The couple began arguing when the victim became upset about the defendant’s phone conversation with an ex-spouse. Allegedly, the defendant became enraged, picked up a firearm, and intentionally shot at the victim through a privacy curtain separating the camper’s bathroom from the living space.

It is reported that the victim suffered life-threatening injuries when a fragmented bullet struck her head. The defendant claimed he only intended to “get her attention” and did not intend to harm her. However, he failed to call emergency services and later described himself to law enforcement as the “baddest” individual in the area.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In federal criminal cases, convictions often hinge on whether the charged offense meets the statutory definition of a predicate crime. This definition impacts sentencing enhancements, particularly for crimes involving firearms. Recently, a Florida court explored whether various offenses, including bank robbery, qualify as crimes of violence under federal law. If you are accused of robbery or any other crime, it is essential to seek the advice of an experienced Clearwater theft defense attorney to determine your rights.

Case Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple offenses stemming from a series of incidents, including Hobbs Act robbery, bank robbery, and related firearms charges. Specifically, Armstrong faced counts for 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) for bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting attempted bank robbery. He ultimately pleaded guilty to several counts.

Allegedly, during sentencing, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the classification of certain predicate offenses as crimes of violence. He argued that these offenses, particularly bank robbery, could be committed in non-violent ways, such as through intimidation, which does not involve the use of physical force.
Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In Florida, defendants accused of sexual offenses have the right to a fair trial, which includes proper jury instructions and limits on prejudicial testimony. As such, if improper instructions are offered, it may violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. Recently, a Florida court addressed whether testimony about grooming behavior and jury instructions on lesser-included offenses were appropriately handled in a sexual offense case. If you are accused of a sexual offense, it is essential to meet with a Clearwater sex crime defense attorney to explore your possible defenses.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation and exhibition involving a minor under the age of 12, stemming from an incident in which the defendant allegedly lured the victim into a secluded area of his vehicle. Allegedly, the defendant exposed himself and initiated inappropriate physical contact. Evidence presented at trial included the victim’s testimony, a video interview conducted by a forensic investigator, and witness accounts of the defendant’s interactions with the victim.

It is alleged that during the trial, the State presented testimony from a forensic investigator who explained the concept of “grooming” behaviors often associated with sexual abuse. The defendant objected to this testimony, arguing it was improperly admitted as expert testimony and unfairly prejudiced the jury. The defendant also requested that the court instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense of “unnatural and lascivious acts,” which the court denied. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant on both counts, and he appealed. Continue reading →