Criminal Defense Category Archives — Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog Published by Florida Defense Lawyer — Hanlon Law

Florida Court Discusses Free Speech Versus Criminal Threats

Hanlon Law, PA — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 20:17:40 +0000

Criminal cases involving alleged threats of mass violence increasingly test the boundary between protected expression and criminal conduct, particularly in the context of online speech. Courts must carefully distinguish between artistic or hyperbolic expression and statements that constitute a legally actionable “true threat.” In a recent Florida decision, the court examined whether a defendant’s social media video, which included disclaimers and references to fiction, nevertheless supported a conviction for making a written threat of violence. If you are facing charges involving alleged threats or other serious criminal allegations, it is critical to consult an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss your potential defenses.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant created and posted a video on social media and a personal website in which he appeared alongside firearms and described a plan to target a nearby middle school by firing multiple rounds into the building. The video included statements expressing frustration with societal conditions and referenced an intent to attack a government-related target. The defendant also included disclaimers asserting that the video was fictional and constituted an artistic expression.

It is reported that a school administrator viewed the video, believed the described location matched a real school, and contacted law enforcement. Authorities investigated, located firearms consistent with those depicted in the video, and arrested the defendant. The State charged the defendant with making a written or electronic threat to commit a violent act under Florida law.

Reportedly, the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the State introduced the video, witness testimony, and evidence of the defendant’s prior conduct and communications. The defense moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the statements did not constitute a true threat and that the disclaimers negated any intent to threaten. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury found the defendant guilty. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by probation, and then appealed the conviction.

Free Speech Versus Criminal Threats

On appeal, the court reviewed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal de novo, considering whether competent, substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. The court focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant made a threat and intended it to be perceived as a true threat.

The court first addressed whether the statements in the video qualified as a threat under the applicable statute. It explained that a threat includes communications expressing an intent to commit violence or an act of terrorism. The court concluded that the defendant’s detailed description of targeting a specific school, combined with his display of weapons and explanation of a plan of attack, provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that he made a threat of unlawful violence.

The court then analyzed the requirement that the threat be a “true threat,” which distinguishes criminal conduct from protected speech. Drawing on precedent, the court explained that a true threat involves a serious expression of intent to commit violence, rather than mere hyperbole or artistic expression. The court emphasized that determining intent is generally a question for the jury and may be established through circumstantial evidence.

Importantly, the court rejected the argument that disclaimers automatically negate criminal intent. It reasoned that a jury need not accept disclaimers at face value and may instead view them as attempts to avoid legal consequences. The court pointed to evidence that the defendant selected a real and nearby target, described a specific plan, and made statements indicating that he was aware his conduct could cause concern. This context supported the jury’s inference that the defendant intended the communication to be perceived as a genuine threat.

Ultimately, the court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings on both the existence of a threat and the defendant’s intent. As a result, it affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Meet with an Experienced Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney at Hanlon Law

If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is essential to work with a knowledgeable attorney who understands how courts evaluate intent, evidence, and constitutional protections. The experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law can assess your case and help you pursue the most favorable outcome possible. You can reach us at 727-897-5413 or via our online form to schedule a consultation to discuss your case.

The post Florida Court Discusses Free Speech Versus Criminal Threats appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Court Discusses Grounds for Compassionate Release in Florida

Hanlon Law, PA — Sat, 07 Jun 2025 21:46:35 +0000

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 →

The post Court Discusses Grounds for Compassionate Release in Florida appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Scoring Out-of-State Convictions During Sentencing

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 06 Nov 2023 20:33:38 +0000

In Florida, people convicted of sex crimes may be sentenced to lengthy terms in prison. Additionally, if they have a history of prior convictions, their sentence may be increased. As discussed in a recent Florida opinion, this is true regardless of whether the convictions were imposed by another state. If you are faced with sex crime charges, it is smart to talk to a Clearwater sex crime defense attorney promptly.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was found guilty by a jury of sexual battery, domestic battery, and harassing a witness. Following sentencing, the defendant filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), alleging errors in scoring several Ohio convictions on the sentencing scoresheet. The trial court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, choosing not to resentence the appellant. The defendant then appealed.

Scoring Out-of-State Convictions During Sentencing

On appeal, the defendant raised concerns about the scoring of the Ohio convictions and the application of a sentencing multiplier for a sex crime committed in front of a child. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the second issue without discussion. Regarding the first issue, the court considered the scoring of the Ohio aggravated robbery conviction. The defendant argued that only the elements of the out-of-state crime should be considered when determining its analogy to a Florida statute for scoring purposes.

The court acknowledged this principle but noted that when the scoring of an out-of-state conviction is contested, the trial court may consider the out-of-state judgment and, if necessary, the charging document to determine its elements for comparison with a relevant Florida statute.

The defendant, however, did not seek an evidentiary hearing to challenge the scoring of the Ohio convictions or provide proof of the elements of the Ohio aggravated robbery conviction. The court concluded, therefore, that the defendant failed to show the trial court erred in considering the scoresheet points for the Ohio conviction without proper evidence.

Further, the court explained that even if the court agreed with the defendant’s argument, the error was harmless. The court applied the “would-have-been-imposed” test and found that, after reviewing the sentencing proceeding, the trial court would have imposed the same sentences even with the requested correction for the Ohio aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court, in justifying the sentences, focused on the severity of the appellant’s attack on the victim and the presence of their minor child during the assault. As such, the court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion and the appellant’s sentences, remanding only for the entry of a corrected scoresheet as ordered in the partial grant of the motion.

Talk to a Skilled Clearwater Attorney

Convictions for sex crimes carry significant penalties, and the punishments imposed may be increased if the defendant has an extensive criminal history. If you are charged with a sex offense, it is wise to talk to an attorney about your potential defenses. The skilled Clearwater sex crime defense attorneys of Hanlon Law can inform you of your rights and aid you in taking the steps necessary to protect your interests. You can reach Hanlon Law by using our online form or by calling us at 727-897-5413 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Scoring Out-of-State Convictions During Sentencing appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Examines the Sufficiency of Evidence in Weapons Crime Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 08 Aug 2023 13:23:41 +0000

In the context of criminal proceedings, the defendant’s guilt typically hinges on the interpretation of circumstantial rather than direct evidence. When viewed in its entirety, if the evidence in question does not demonstrate the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant should be able to avoid a conviction. In a recent Florida ruling issued in a weapons crime case, the court discussed what constitutes adequate evidence to sustain a conviction, ultimately upholding the jury’s guilty verdict. If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is in your best interest to talk to a Clearwater gun crime defense attorney about your rights.

Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was indicted for knowingly possessing ammunition as a felon, a federal offense. During the trial, an FBI special agent described a search of the defendant’s family residence. During the search, ammunition was discovered in various locations, including a black backpack in the defendant’s closet. The jury found him guilty, and he appealed, arguing that the evidence presented during the trial failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for possessing ammunition as a felon.

Evaluating the Sufficiency of Evidence in Weapons Crime Cases

On appeal, the court ruled that the evidence put forth during the trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for possessing ammunition as a felon. In doing so, the court explained that the test for determining whether evidence is adequate is the same regardless of whether the evidence is circumstantial or direct. While no greater weight is given to either type of evidence when the state relies on circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences, not mere speculation, are necessary to support a conviction.

In order to convict an individual charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition, the prosecution is required to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant was aware of possessing a firearm or ammunition, that the defendant had a prior felony conviction, and, that the firearm or ammunition was connected to interstate commerce. Possession, for the purposes of this offense, can be either actual possession or constructive.

In the subject case, the court called attention to the proximity of the ammunition to the defendant’s personal belongings, particularly the black backpack found in his closet. Further, the court explained that the defendant’s admission of using a similar backpack, coupled with the presence of a laundry receipt bearing his name near the backpack, provided reasonable grounds for a jury to infer constructive possession. As such, despite the defendant’s claims of ignorance, the court determined that a reasonable jury could conclude otherwise based on the evidence presented and affirmed the jury’s verdict.

Confer with a Dedicated Clearwater Attorney

If you are charged with a gun crime, you should confer with an attorney to discuss your options. The dedicated Clearwater gun crime defense attorneys of Hanlon Law can gather the evidence needed to help you build a strong defense to aid you in pursuing the best legal outcome possible under the facts of your case. You can contact Hanlon Law by calling us at 727-897-5413 or using our online form to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Examines the Sufficiency of Evidence in Weapons Crime Cases appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Explains Self-Defense in the Context of Forcible Felonies

Hanlon Law, PA — Sun, 06 Feb 2022 04:50:33 +0000

Under Florida law, the use of force is acceptable in certain circumstances. As such, a person charged with a crime involving the use of deadly force may be able to argue that the actions out of which the charges arose were justifiable self-defense. Self-defense is not justified if a person was committing or trying to commit a forceable felony when the act occurred, however. In a recent Florida case, a court issued an opinion discussing what forcible felonies preclude a defendant from arguing he acted in self-defense, in a case where the court ultimately affirmed the defendant’s convictions for third-degree murder and other offenses. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is smart to speak to a skilled Clearwater violent crime defense lawyer regarding your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the state charged the defendant with numerous offenses after he shot a man who threatened his friend on social media. The man ultimately died as a result of his wounds. Following a trial, a jury convicted the defendant of third-degree murder with a weapon, grand theft of an automobile, and two counts of false imprisonment with a gun. The defendant appealed, arguing in part that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction regarding the justifiable use of force and that the homicide was self-defense. The appellate court rejected his assertions and affirmed his convictions.

Self-Defense in the Context of Forcible Felonies

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court made a fundamental error by instructing the jury regarding the justifiable use of deadly force where there was no independent forcible felony and that in doing so, the trial court prevented the jury from accepting his self-defense argument. The forcible felony instruction provided stated that deadly use of force is not permitted if the defendant was attempting to commit or committing numerous crimes, including third-degree murder.

It is an error to provide a jury with a forcible felony instruction if the defendant is not charged with a forcible felony outside of the actions taken in self-defense. As such, the defendant claimed that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as it did because he was not charged with felonies other than the ones listed in the instruction. The appellate court found, however, that no fundamental error was committed. Specifically, the error did not so greatly impact the trial that a guilty verdict could not have been reached without the assistance of the error. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Meet with an Experienced Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a violent offense can result in a lengthy jail sentence, but there are often defenses a defendant can assert to avoid a guilty verdict. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is in your best interest to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. The experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law can assess the facts of your case and advise you of your options for seeking a favorable outcome. You can reach Hanlon Law through the online form or by calling 727-897-5413 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Explains Self-Defense in the Context of Forcible Felonies appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses the Evidence Needed to Convict a Defendant

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 05 Nov 2021 19:21:07 +0000

In Florida, people can be charged with assault and other violent crimes, even if they simply intend to damage property. Regardless of the nature of the crime a defendant is accused of committing, though, the State must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, the defendant should not be found guilty. Recently, in a matter where the defendant was accused of committing multiple offenses after he hit a mail truck, a Florida court issued an order clarifying the evidence the state must produce to show guilt for assault and criminal mischief. If you’ve been charged with assault or another violent offense, it is in your best interest to speak with a reputable Florida criminal defense lawyer about your options.

The Alleged Crime

Allegedly, the victim was in the driver’s seat of a mail truck when the defendant hit the truck with a large board. At the moment of the initial strike, the victim was sorting mail and heard a loud bang. When he looked up, he saw the defendant strike the truck with the plank a second time. When the victim began to drive the vehicle away, the defendant struck the truck with the plank once more. The victim dialed 911 once he was at a safe distance. The defendant was eventually apprehended and charged with criminal mischief in the first degree, aggravated assault, and other charges. He sought a dismissal of the assault and criminal mischief charges, but his motion was denied, and he was found guilty. He then filed an appeal.

Evidence Needed to Convict a Defendant Charged With Assault

The defendant’s conviction for assault was upheld on appeal. The court was not persuaded by the defendant’s contention that the State did not offer evidence sufficient to prove that he committed an act that was significantly likely to put the victim in fear of imminent harm. Instead, the court determined that the evidence, when assessed in a light most favorable to the state, was adequate to show that the defendant knew the victim was in the truck when he hit it. Specifically, he struck the truck three times at the driver’s side door, the third strike coming after the truck had gone forward.

However, the court agreed with the defendant that his conviction for criminal mischief should not be upheld on the basis that the State neglected to provide proof of the cost of the vehicle damage as required to sustain a first-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief conviction. As a result, in the absence of the required proof, the court reduced the criminal mischief conviction to a lesser offense.

Contact a Knowledgeable Clearwater Attorney

Attempting to damage property can result in serious criminal consequences. If you’ve been charged with assault you should contact an attorney to discuss your potential defenses. The knowledgeable Clearwater criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law can gather advise you of your rights and set forth compelling arguments on your behalf to provide you with a strong chance of a favorable outcome. You can contact Hanlon Law via the online form or by calling 727-897-5413 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses the Evidence Needed to Convict a Defendant appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

What is a Felony in Florida?

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 06 May 2021 13:02:45 +0000

Many people are aware that, in Florida, crimes are classified as misdemeanors and felonies. Few people truly understand the ramifications of being charged with or convicted of felony offenses, however. Fortunately, Florida law explicitly explains what constitutes a felony and the potential punishments that may be imposed on people convicted of such offenses. If you are charged with a felony, it is critical to speak to a skillful Clearwater criminal defense lawyer to evaluate your options and potential defenses.

What is a Felony in Florida?

While all criminal charges deserve attention, felonies are more serious crimes than misdemeanors. In Florida, felonies are classified as life or capital felonies and felonies of the first, second, and third-degree.

Capital felonies are the most serious offenses and are punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. First-degree murder is likely the crime that is most commonly charged as a capital felony. The second most serious offenses are life felonies, which are punishable by a fine of up to $15,000 and life imprisonment.

A conviction for a felony of the first degree can result in up to thirty years in prison and fines of up to $10,000. A conviction for a felony of the second degree can result in a fine of up to $10,000 as well, but the prison sentence for such offenses is limited to fifteen years. Felonies of the third degree can result in a penalty of up to five years in prison and fines of up to $5,000.

Sentencing in Cases Involving Felonies

People convicted of felony crimes are sentenced under Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code (CPC), which is often referred to as a score sheet. Pursuant to the CPC, felonies are given numerical values that are based on a ranking system established by the Florida legislature. More serious crimes are given higher rankings, which results in a greater CPC score sheet score.

If the score for a person convicted of a felony is less than 44 points, it is within the court’s discretion as to whether a sentence to a term of imprisonment is appropriate. People who have scores of 44 points or more, however, will be sentenced to imprisonment.

Additionally, the courts take into consideration whether a person who is convicted of a felony has two or more prior felony convictions when determining an appropriate sentence pursuant to Florida Statute § 775.084. Specifically, if the court finds that a person is a “habitual violent offender” as defined by the law, it can impose a greater prison sentence. Only certain felony convictions are taken into consideration under the terms of the law, however.

Speak to a Trusted Criminal Defense Attorney in Clearwater

Felonies are serious crimes that carry significant penalties, but many people charged with such offenses are able to obtain favorable verdicts. If you are charged with a felony, it is smart to speak to an attorney regarding your rights. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a trusted Clearwater criminal defense attorney who can develop a plan to help you seek the best legal result possible under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Hanlon through the form online or by calling 727-897-5413 to set up a conference.

The post What is a Felony in Florida? appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Factors a Court May Consider in Issuing Sentences

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:55:45 +0000

When a person is convicted of committing a crime, the court will rely on numerous factors in determining an appropriate sentence. While the court is permitted to consider some information outside of the facts relating to the present conviction, if a court considers certain evidence, such as crimes for which the defendant was not convicted, the sentence may be improper. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant successfully argued that his sentence for two separate sex crimes involving minors should be overturned. If you are accused of committing a sex crime against a child, it is critical to meet with a knowledgeable Clearwater sex crime defense attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes involving sex acts with minors. He was found guilty of two of the charges and subsequently sentenced. The defendant then filed an appeal, arguing in part that the trial court judge improperly relied upon conduct the defendant was found not guilty of committing to determine an appropriate sentence. The appellate court found in favor of the defendant and remanded the case for a new sentence.

Factors Weighed in Determining a Sentence

Under Florida law, a judge may not rely on or consider conduct for which a defendant was acquitted when assessing what sentence to issue. In other words, it is well-established law that when the record demonstrates that the trial court relied upon previous acquittals in determining an appropriate sentence, the State bears the burden of proving that the judge’s consideration of the prior acquittals played no part in the assessment of a sentence.

In the subject case, during the sentencing hearing, the judge made numerous comments regarding the crimes for which the defendant was charged but found not guilty of committing. Specifically, he commented on the crimes of sexual battery and showing obscene materials to minors multiple times. Then, immediately after making the comments, the judge sentenced the defendant to two life sentences that were to run concurrently.

Based on the trial judge’s remarks immediately prior to issuing the sentence, the appellate court found that the record supported the finding that the trial judge improperly considered charges for which the defendant was not convicted in setting forth the sentence. Further, the appellate court noted that the State had not provided any evidence that would persuade the court that the trial judge did not consider the defendant’s acquittals during sentencing. As such, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Meet with a Trusted Clearwater Attorney

If you live in Clearwater and are accused of engaging in unlawful sex acts, it is critical to retain an attorney who will fight vigorously to protect your rights. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a trusted Clearwater sex crime defense attorney who proudly helps criminal defendants fight for a just outcome, and if you retain his services, he will advocate tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Hanlon by calling 727-897-5413 or via the form online to schedule a free and confidential meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Factors a Court May Consider in Issuing Sentences appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Affirms Sentence Despite Discrepancies in the Information Charging the Defendant

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:13:53 +0000

When a person is charged with a crime in Florida, the State sets forth the charges in an information. An information must set forth the facts regarding the alleged crime and the statute of the offense charged. An information is not immune from human error, and in some cases, the State will set forth the wrong statute, or indicate different statutes on which the charge is based in the heading and the body of the information. A Florida appellate court recently analyzed whether an inaccurate information was grounds for reversal of a conviction for driving with a revoked license, ultimately ruling that it was not. If you are a resident of Clearwater and face charges of driving with a suspended or revoked license, it is prudent to retain a capable Clearwater criminal defense attorney to help you formulate a defense.

The Charges as Set Forth in the Information

Allegedly, the defendant was stopped by a police officer for failing to wear his seat belt. When the officer asked the defendant for his driver’s license, the defendant stated that his license was suspended. The officer investigated the defendant’s identity and learned that the defendant’s license was in fact revoked due to three charges of driving while his license was suspended and charges of failing to appear. Additionally, the defendant was considered a habitual traffic offender.

Continue reading →

The post Florida Court Affirms Sentence Despite Discrepancies in the Information Charging the Defendant appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Court Discusses Burden of Recognizing Incompetence in Florida Criminal Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 01 Mar 2019 18:51:23 +0000

Florida law provides criminal defendants with certain rights and protections, in an effort to avoid unjust convictions. One example of these protections is that a defendant must be mentally competent to proceed with a trial. If a defendant is incompetent, or his or her competence is not adequately evaluated prior to a criminal hearing, it may result in a dismissal of any conviction.

In a recent case decided by a Florida appellate court, the court discussed the burden of recognizing incompetence in criminal cases. If you are charged with a criminal offense and you live in Clearwater, you should meet with a trusted Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss your case and possible defenses to the charges you face.

Alleged Facts Regarding the Defendant’s Competence

Reportedly, the defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. He filed a motion to vacate his conviction alleging, in part, that his attorney was ineffective for failing to obtain a competency evaluation. Specifically, he alleged that his attorney obtained an order authorizing a mental health evaluation, but did not make sure an evaluation was completed. The defendant further alleged that he could not adequately communicate with his attorney or exercise his right to a fair trial due to his incompetence. The post-conviction court denied the defendant’s claim, after which he appealed. On appeal, the court granted his motion.

Burden of Proving Incompetence

On appeal, the court held that the post-conviction court erred in placing the burden on the defendant of recognizing his own incompetence and bringing it to the court’s attention, despite the fact he was represented by counsel. Specifically, the appellate court noted the post-conviction court stated that the defendant did not raise the issue of his incompetence in a motion seeking new counsel or during his plea colloquy or motion to withdraw his plea. Further, while the post-conviction court stated that the defendant signed a written agreement stating he was not under the influence of any mental condition, it did not address the fact that he was not questioned regarding his competence.

The court found that the defendant’s attorney was aware of the defendant’s mental illness, as evidenced by his request for a mental health evaluation. No evaluation was ever conducted, however, and the court did not discuss the defendant’s mental health during the colloquy. Thus, the court found that the defendant sufficiently asserted a claim that he was prejudiced by alleging he was incompetent and could not communicate effectively with his attorney. The court remanded the case for the post-conviction court to conduct a hearing on the defendant’s claim.

Meet with a Capable Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney

In most cases, a person charged with a crime is not aware of all of the defenses available to the charges he or she faces. If you are a Clearwater resident and are currently charged with a crime, it is essential to retain a capable Clearwater criminal defense attorney who will advocate aggressively on your behalf. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a skilled Clearwater criminal defense attorney who will assess the facts of your case and determine what defenses you can assert under the law, in an effort to help you obtain a successful outcome. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to set up a consultation.

More Blog Posts:

Competency Evaluation is a Due Process Right and Cannot be Waived Once Raised by Court, Rules Florida Appeals Court, October 27, 2017, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Court Discusses Burden of Recognizing Incompetence in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.