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

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 →

Published on: | by

In Florida criminal cases, the law generally prohibits the prosecution from introducing evidence that the defendant previously committed crimes or other bad acts in order to establish guilt for the charged offense. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling issued in a gun crime case, such evidence can be offered for other reasons, such as demonstrating intent. If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is prudent to consult a Clearwater gun crime defense lawyer about your options.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is alleged that the defendant was charged and convicted of knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of federal law. The events leading to his arrest occurred in February 2020, when Miami police officers responded to the sound of gunshots. As the officers neared the source of the shooting, they observed a silver car speeding away, leading to a high-speed chase through city streets. The vehicle drove recklessly, running red lights and stop signs before ultimately crashing. Inside the car, the officers found the defendant in the backseat. Firearms and ammunition were recovered from the vehicle’s rear floorboard. The car belonged to the defendant’s mother.

Reportedly, investigators linked the gunfire to a nearby apartment complex, where a man had been shot in the head. Spent cartridge casings from the scene matched the firearms found in the vehicle. Surveillance footage from the apartment complex also showed gunshots being fired from the back of a car resembling the silver car. Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the defendant’s left hand. Before trial, the government filed a motion to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior felony convictions for firearm possession in 2011 and 2014 to demonstrate his knowledge and intent. The defendant sought to exclude this evidence but was unsuccessful, and he was subsequently convicted. He then appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

People convicted of felonies in Florida often not only have to serve sentences but also usually lose certain rights and privileges, including the right to vote. As such, if they subsequently vote in a state or national election, they may be charged with additional crimes. Recently, a Florida court clarified which government agencies in Florida have the right to prosecute such offenses in a matter in which the state appealed the dismissal of charges related to voter fraud. If you are accused of a crime of fraud, it is smart to speak with a Clearwater fraud crime defense lawyer about your options.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged with providing a false affirmation on a voter registration application and voting as an unqualified elector. The charges stemmed from his conviction in 1989 for violating Florida Statutes, which caused him to lose his voting rights under the Florida Constitution. Despite not having his voting rights restored, the defendant submitted voter registration applications in 2019 and 2020, affirming on both that he was either not a convicted felon or that his voting rights had been restored.

Allegedly, the defendant subsequently voted by mail in the 2020 election. The Office of Statewide Prosecution (OSP) charged him with violating voter registration and voting laws. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the OSP lacked jurisdiction because the alleged crimes occurred solely in Broward County and did not affect two or more judicial circuits as required for OSP jurisdiction. The trial court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the charges, finding that the OSP did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the case. The state appealed.

Continue reading →

by
Posted in: Fraud
Published on:
Updated: