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.

Reportedly, the district court rejected this argument, relying on Eleventh Circuit precedent that categorically defined federal bank robbery as a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c). The defendant was sentenced to 420 months in prison, combining mandatory minimums for his firearm offenses and terms for the underlying robberies. The defendant appealed, and the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit following its decision in United States v. Taylor, which clarified the definition of a crime of violence for attempted Hobbs Act robbery.

Crimes of Violence Under Federal Law

On remand, the court revisited Armstrong’s convictions in light of United States v. Taylor. The court first examined whether federal bank robbery under the federal statute constitutes a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s use-of-force clause. Using the categorical approach, the court reaffirmed its prior holdings that bank robbery by intimidation inherently involves the threat of physical force. The court emphasized that intimidation entails conduct leading a reasonable person to fear bodily harm, meeting the definition of a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A).

Further, the court analyzed whether aiding and abetting bank robbery and attempted bank robbery similarly qualified as crimes of violence. The court applied the modified categorical approach to the divisible statute and reviewed Shepard documents, including the indictment and plea agreements, to determine the specific offenses committed. It concluded that both aiding and abetting bank robbery and attempted bank robbery categorically require proof of conduct involving force or intimidation, satisfying the use-of-force clause.

The court rejected the defendant’s vagueness arguments against § 924(c), distinguishing the residual clause invalidated in United States v. Davis from the elements clause. It noted that the statutory language and binding precedent sufficiently defined crimes of violence to provide clear notice to defendants. The appellate court ultimately affirmed Armstrong’s convictions and sentence, maintaining the mandatory consecutive terms for the § 924(c) offenses.

Speak to a Trusted Clearwater Defense Attorney Today

If you face federal theft charges, you should speak with a criminal defense attorney about your options as soon as possible. The trusted Clearwater theft defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are dedicated to protecting the rights of those accused of federal crimes, and if we represent you, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact us today at 727-897-5413 or via our online form to schedule a consultation to discuss your case.

The post Florida Court Explores What Constitutes Crimes of Violence appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was indicted and charged with numerous crimes, including Hobbs Act robbery in violation of federal law, and carrying a firearm which was used during the robbery, which was deemed a crime of violence. He pleaded guilty to those two charges, after which he was sentenced to fifty-seven months imprisonment for the robbery charge and one-hundred-and-eighty months imprisonment for the related firearm charge. He subsequently filed a motion, arguing that his conviction of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence was unconstitutional, as Hobbs Act robbery was not categorically defined as a crime of violence under the relevant statute. The court found that the defendant’s claims were without merit and denied his motion.

Crimes of Violence Under Florida Law

The court explained that the relevant statute stated that it was a crime for anyone to use a firearm during the commission of, or to possess a firearm in furtherance of, a crime of violence. Under the elements clause of the law, an offense is considered a crime of violence if it is a felony that has an element of the use or threatened or attempted use of force against another person or property.

Under the residual clause of the statute, a crime of violence can also be a crime that, by its very nature, involves a significant risk that physical force will be used against another person or against a property. As the residual clause was deemed unconstitutional, a court must determine whether a crime meets the definition under the elements clause, to determine whether a defendant’s conviction is valid. Here, the Hobbs Act defined robbery as the unlawful taking of property from another person by means of threatened or actual force. Thus, it constituted a crime of violence, and the defendant’s conviction was upheld.

Meet with a Trusted Clearwater Attorney

If you live in Clearwater and are charged with theft or another crime, it is advisable to speak to a lawyer to discuss what arguments you may be able to set forth in your defense. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a trusted Clearwater criminal defense attorney with ample experience defending people charged with a variety of offenses, and he will work tirelessly to help you seek the best outcome possible under the facts of your case. Mr. Hanlon can be reached through the form online or by calling 727-897-5413 to schedule a meeting to discuss your charges.

The post Florida Court Explains Crimes of Violence Under Federal Law appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Defendant was charged with armed robbery, aggravated battery with a firearm, and the use of a firearm during the commission of a felony following a drug deal gone wrong. He admitted to going to a house to buy marijuana and shooting one of the men inside, but Defendant said he was acting in self-defense. He said two men tried to rob him when he got to the house. The person who was shot, however, claimed that Defendant tried to steal the marijuana without paying for it and fired the weapon at the men when they chased after him.

Prosecutors eventually decided not to charge Defendant with use of a firearm during a felony. After the case went to trial, a jury found him not guilty on the armed robbery charge and deadlocked on the aggravated battery charge. Prosecutors decided to retry Defendant on the aggravated robbery charge. They also tacked on a new charge of using a firearm during the commission of a felony. Defendant asked a judge to dismiss the charge, arguing that it was part of the same criminal episode as the armed robbery charge for which he was previously found not guilty. The trial court rejected that request.

Defendant was found guilty on the use of a firearm during a felony charge, but the jury again deadlocked on the armed robbery charge. He was sentenced to supervised release.

Overturning the conviction on appeal, the First District said Defendant couldn’t be charged with the use of a firearm during a felony. It explained that Florida law generally bans prosecutors after a trial from later charging a person on related crimes, unless the prosecutors were originally unable to get sufficient evidence to support the new charge the first time around.

“The rule is intended to protect defendants from successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct,” the court said. “Offenses are related for purposes of the rule if they are triable in the same court and are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more connected acts or transactions.”

In this case, the court said use of a firearm during a felony charge was “inextricably intertwined” with the other alleged crimes, which “occurred during a single ten-minute criminal episode.” As a result, it reversed Defendant’s conviction on that charge.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced defense lawyer. Clearwater criminal defense attorney Will Hanlon is a seasoned lawyer who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of crimes. Call our offices at (727) 897-5413 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.

More blog posts:

Confidential Informants in Florida Drug Cases

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

New Stand-Your-Ground Law at Issue in Tampa Murder Trial

The post Florida Prosecutors Can’t Retry Botched Drug Deal Case appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The defendant later appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him to consecutive sentences for two separate offenses that were part of the same criminal episode. The First District agreed.

“Consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged,” the court said, citing the Florida Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Williams v. State. It also explained that consecutive sentencing “is permissible but not mandatory” in cases in which multiple crimes are committed at the same time and multiple victims are shot at.

In this case, the Court said there was no claim that the defendant ever actually fired the weapon.  It also found that the offenses for which he was convicted all happened as part of the same criminal episode. It noted that he allegedly pointed the gun at each victim and demanded money from each of them over the course of no more than five minutes. The court said the incident was similar to other cases in which the First District previously found that consecutive sentencing wasn’t appropriate. That included a case in which a person brandished a weapon in a funeral home filled with people but pointed it at only one person.

“We hold that [the defendant’s] course of conduct occurred within a single criminal episode, and because the firearm was not discharged, the consecutive sentences are impermissible,” the court concluded.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a gun crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced defense lawyer. Clearwater criminal defense attorney Will Hanlon is a seasoned lawyer who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of crimes. Call our offices at (727) 897-5413 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.

More blog posts:

Confidential Informants in Florida Drug Cases

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

New Stand-Your-Ground Law at Issue in Tampa Murder Trial

The post Florida Court Scraps Consecutive Sentences for Parking Lot Robbery appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The police tracked down the defendant and the others by using the “find my phone” application on one of the iPhones stolen from the house. They put out a “be on the lookout” alert with the general location of the iPhone and a description of the three people who committed the crime. A cop patrolling the area pulled over Jackson’s car after seeing three people in it who matched the description. The officer removed all three people from the car and handcuffed them while she did a protective sweep of the car. She also checked the trunk, according to a police policy to look for people hiding in the trunk of any car stopped under suspicion of a felony. The officer found marijuana and a hand gun with an altered serial number.

Other officers brought the robbery victims to the scene, where they identified the defendant and the others as the perpetrators of the crime. The cops arrested the trio and searched the rest of the car, this time finding the iPhone and various other items that had been stolen from the home.

At trial, the judge said the cops didn’t have the authority to search the car’s trunk as part of the traffic stop. The judge said the cops did, however, have the right to detain the defendant and the others to be identified by the crime victims. The First District affirmed that decision on appeal.

“An officer may conduct an investigative stop when he or she has reasonable suspicion that the occupants have committed or are committing a crime,” the court explained. “An officer need not personally observe the events giving rise to reasonable suspicion, so long as facts are communicated to him by another officer or a reliable third party.”

In this case, the court said the officer who stopped the defendant’s car had a reasonable suspicion to do so, based on the description of the suspects and the tracking information from the stolen iPhone. It noted that the stop happened just 15 minutes after the crime occurred. Once the victims showed up and identified the defendant and the others, the cops not only had probable cause to arrest him but also to search the car for evidence of the crime, the court said.

As a result, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

As this case shows, a number of complicated legal issues often come up in Florida criminal cases. If you or a loved one has been charged with burglary or a related crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced defense lawyer. Clearwater criminal defense attorney Will Hanlon is a seasoned lawyer who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of offenses. Call our offices at (727) 897-5413 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.

More blog posts:

Confidential Informants in Florida Drug Cases

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

New Stand-Your-Ground Law at Issue in Tampa Murder Trial

The post How Cell Phone Data Led to a Robbery Conviction in a Florida Criminal Case appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.