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

Florida Court Discusses the Right to a Speedy Trial

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 07 Nov 2025 16:35:14 +0000

Federal drug and firearm cases often hinge on the government’s ability to investigate efficiently while respecting the constitutional protections guaranteed to every defendant. When delays occur between indictment and arrest, courts must determine whether those delays undermine the integrity of the prosecution or violate fundamental rights. A recent ruling from a Florida court illustrates how judges address these concerns in complex narcotics investigations marked by long investigative gaps and disputed law enforcement efforts. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should speak with a Clearwater drug crime defense attorney who can help you protect your interests at every stage of the process.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, federal agents intercepted a package containing cocaine and orchestrated a controlled delivery to a Tampa address in September 2019. A woman received the package and later handed it to two men, identified as the driver and the defendant, who placed it in a vehicle and traveled to an Orlando residence.

Reportedly, the men opened the package later that evening. Agents set up surveillance around the residence and secured a warrant. After entering the home, agents located cocaine and other drug-related evidence. The driver was arrested at the scene, while the defendant avoided apprehension.

It is alleged that federal authorities made repeated attempts to locate the defendant beginning in early 2024. The court requested status updates, and the government reported that Homeland Security conducted recurring database checks and maintained ongoing investigative efforts. The defendant was eventually arrested in April 2025 on unrelated drug charges, at which point officials discovered the outstanding federal warrant.

Allegedly, the government charged the defendant in a five-count indictment involving conspiracy to import cocaine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, aiding and abetting distribution, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant sought dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, asserting that the multi-year delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The Right to a Speedy Trial

The court began its analysis by recognizing that the more than five-year delay between indictment and arrest was sufficient to trigger a full constitutional inquiry under the governing speedy trial framework. While such a delay creates a presumption of prejudice, the presumption alone does not resolve the issue. The court therefore evaluated the remaining factors, which include the reasons for the delay and the defendant’s assertion of his rights.

In assessing the government’s justification, the court emphasized that law enforcement must show reasonable diligence rather than perfection. The government presented evidence that agents conducted national database checks using multiple identifiers, employed facial recognition searches, reviewed various information sources, and periodically conducted surveillance at the residence associated with the defendant’s family. These efforts were undermined by the defendant’s failure to update his driver’s license, his use of inaccurate or incomplete personal information, and his statements describing himself as homeless or unemployed. The court concluded that these circumstances made it difficult to locate the defendant despite genuine investigative efforts.

The court also noted that law enforcement measures resembled investigative steps previously deemed sufficient by appellate courts, including cases in which officers repeatedly checked crime databases and physically visited last-known addresses. Although additional investigative avenues may have been conceivable, the court found that the government pursued the defendant with adequate diligence throughout the relevant period.

Because the government’s efforts did not reflect negligence of a degree that would shift the burden toward establishing presumed prejudice, the defendant was required to show actual harm caused by the delay. The court found no such evidence. As a result, the defendant failed to meet the constitutional standard required for dismissal. The motion to dismiss the indictment was denied.

Consult a Skilled Clearwater Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

If you face federal drug charges or believe investigative delays may affect your constitutional protections, you should seek immediate legal advice. The experienced Clearwater federal criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and develop a strategy tailored to your circumstances. Contact Hanlon Law online or call 727-897-5413 to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses the Right to a Speedy Trial appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Evidence of Prior Bad Acts in a Gun Crime Case

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 07 Oct 2024 15:16:06 +0000

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.

Evidence of Prior Bad Acts

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior firearm possession convictions and in applying sentencing enhancements related to attempted murder and reckless flight from law enforcement.

The court first reviewed the trial court’s decision to admit prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which permits evidence of prior crimes when relevant to issues other than character. In doing so, the court found that the probative value of the prior firearm possession convictions outweighed any potential prejudice, as they were closely related to the charges at hand and demonstrated the defendant’s knowledge and intent regarding illegal firearm possession.

The court also upheld the application of the sentencing enhancement for attempted murder, as the evidence—including the matching casings, gunshot residue, and surveillance footage—strongly indicated that the defendant participated in the drive-by shooting, which resulted in serious bodily injury.

Additionally, the court determined that any error in applying the reckless flight sentencing enhancement was harmless, as the defendant’s guideline sentence remained unchanged. As such, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Meet with a Skilled Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are accused of committing a weapons offense, it is smart to meet with an attorney to determine what defenses you may be able to assert. The skilled Clearwater gun crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and advise you regarding what measures you can take to protect your rights. You can contact Hanlon Law through our online form or by calling 727-897-5413 to arrange a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidence of Prior Bad Acts in a Gun Crime Case 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.

Court Overturns Florida Gun Charge Conviction Where the Police Search Exceeded the Scope of Consent

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 23:05:10 +0000

If a person is suspected of a crime, he or she nonetheless has rights under the law, including the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Even if a person consents to a search, any evidence obtained during the search may be tainted if the consent was not properly obtained or if the search exceeded the scope of the consent.

A Florida district court of appeals recently discharged a defendant’s conviction based on a firearm found during a search, on the grounds that the state could not prove the weapon was found within the areas the defendant gave the police permission to search. If you were charged with a crime after the police searched your home, you should consult a knowledgeable Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss whether you may be able to preclude evidence found during the search.

Facts Regarding the Search of the Defendant’s Property

Allegedly, the police responded to a call that shots had been fired at the defendant’s apartment. Upon arriving at the scene, the police did an initial security sweep, in which they found shell casings and smelled gunpowder. The police escorted the defendant’s girlfriend and children out of the home, and the area was sealed until detectives arrived to conduct a shooting investigation. A detective arrived shortly thereafter and entered the home to secure the scene and begin the investigation. He later testified that this entry was not part of the protective sweep.

Reportedly, a second detective then approached the defendant to obtain consent to search the home. The defendant initially refused, but ultimately signed the consent form. He verbally indicated the consent was only for the front bedroom and living room and wrote the words “just for” on the form. At some point during the investigation, an assault rifle was found under the bed in the master bedroom. The defendant was charged with possession of a firearm as a felon. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the firearm, arguing that the initial unauthorized search by the detective tainted the second search and that his consent was not voluntarily given. The trial court denied his motion and the defendant was convicted. Following his conviction, he appealed.

Exigent Emergency Permitting Unauthorized Search

An unauthorized search is permitted in circumstances where there is an emergency that requires the police to assist or aid individuals. Here, the court found that the initial sweep and securing of the home was proper due to the exigent circumstances presented by a possible shooting, but that after the initial sweep and securing of the home, the exigent circumstances ended. As such, the police needed either a warrant or consent to further search the home.

Determining if Consent was Lawfully Obtained

Under Florida law, the State bears the burden of proving consent was validly obtained. Here, the court noted that the detective’s search after the initial sweep violated the Fourth Amendment and constituted illegal police activity. Consent obtained after illegal police activity will be presumed to be involuntary unless there is clear and convincing proof of a break in the chain of illegality that is sufficient to dissipate the taint of the illegal activity. The factors weighing in whether consent is invalid are the time elapsed between the illegal activity, whether there are intervening circumstances and the purpose of the illegal conduct.

In the subject case, the court found that the illegal activity was not flagrant and the illegal search was not used to obtain consent. As such, the State overcame the rebuttable presumption the consent was invalid. The court also found, based on the circumstances surrounding the consent, that the consent was voluntarily obtained. The court held, however, that the scope of the search exceeded the consent given. Specifically, the defendant only consented to the search of two rooms and the gun was found in a third room. As such, the court found that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress, and reversed the conviction and remanded for discharge.

Meet with an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Clearwater

If you are a Clearwater resident charged with a crime, you should meet with an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss the facts of your case. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a Clearwater criminal defense attorney who will fight vigorously on your behalf to help you retain your rights. He can be contacted at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to set up a conference.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Felon Resentenced After Error, November 5, 2018, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

Concurrent vs. Consecutive Prison Time in Florida Criminal Cases, May 15, 2018, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Court Overturns Florida Gun Charge Conviction Where the Police Search Exceeded the Scope of Consent appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court of Appeals Affirms Eyewitness Testimony is Sufficient Evidence to Support a Conviction for a Crime

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:38:56 +0000

Some people mistakenly believe that circumstantial evidence is insufficient to convict a defendant of a crime. Direct evidence a defendant committed a crime is not required to support a conviction, however. In certain cases, what seems like trivial evidence can support a conviction for serious crimes. For example, in a recent case, the First District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida held that eyewitness testimony alone was sufficient to convict a defendant of multiple felony charges. If you are a resident of Clearwater and are charged with a crime, you should consult an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss your case.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the victim and his cousin were sitting in a car outside of a nightclub when two men with guns opened the car doors and robbed the victim and his cousin and then shot and killed the victim. The cousin left with another relative and called 911. Later that evening, the defendant asked two women if he could use their phone. The defendant was sweaty and covered in grass, and reportedly told the women he was involved in an altercation in the nightclub and subsequently “unloaded a whole clip” into someone. The defendant proceeded to make phone calls with the phone borrowed from the women. A short time later, one of the women got a phone call from one of the victim’s friends and the defendant ran away. The women called 911 and the defendant was arrested based on their description. The women identified the defendant as the man who used her phone. Additionally, the victim’s cousin identified the defendant in a photographic lineup as the man who opened the rear car door.

Continue reading →

The post Florida Court of Appeals Affirms Eyewitness Testimony is Sufficient Evidence to Support a Conviction for a Crime appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Felon Resentenced After Error

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 17:06:13 +0000

Florida has specific sentencing laws that govern the sentence for those convicted of crimes. There are a number of different ways that sentencing laws come into play, including mandatory minimums and increasing penalties for subsequent crimes of the same nature (think of DUI, for example). Your skilled Clearwater criminal defense attorney can help you to minimize the amount of time you need to serve by taking advantage of statutory opportunities to reduce the sentence.

Consecutive vs. Concurrent

Another example of a way that sentencing laws can affect the amount of time actually served is whether a sentence is served consecutively or concurrently. Let’s say someone is convicted of two crimes arising out of the same incident, with minimum penalties of five years each. The judge can order the defendant to serve the sentences consecutively, which would lead to a total of ten years in prison, because the sentences are served one after the other. However, in many circumstances, the judge can order the sentences to be served concurrently. Concurrent sentences mean that the sentences for all the crimes are served at the same time. So in this example it would be a total of five years, because both charges’ sentences would be served concurrently.

Continue reading →

The post Florida Felon Resentenced After Error appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Throws Out Gun Recovered in Stop and Frisk

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 29 May 2018 16:05:01 +0000

The U.S. Constitution and Florida law protect people from unlawful searches and seizures by police officers. That includes stops and frisks on the street. Cops must have a reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity is afoot to stop someone in the first place and then have a separate reasonable suspicion to believe that you are armed and dangerous to frisk you for weapons, as Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently explained in a Florida gun crime case.A defendant was on probation when he was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was also hit with a new charge for violating the terms of his probation. The charges stemmed from an incident in which a worker at a restaurant called local police to tell them that a customer appeared to have a gun in his waistband. The employee said she never actually saw the gun and told the cops she wasn’t sure what the object in the waistband was. She pointed out the defendant as the customer in question when police arrived on the scene.

An officer who approached the defendant later told a judge that he saw a “bulge” in his waistband that appeared to be a gun. The officer didn’t know that he was a convicted felon at the time and didn’t ask whether he had a permit for a weapon. The officer instead proceeded to pat the defendant down. He found a gun on him in the process. A trial judge rejected the defendant’s request that the evidence be excluded from the case against him, arguing that the officer didn’t have a reasonable suspicion to frisk him at the time the weapon was recovered. The trial judge denied that request, but the Fifth District sided with the defendant on appeal.

The court explained that it uses a two-pronged approach to consider whether a police stop and frisk is lawful. First, it said it would look at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to believe that “criminal activity may be afoot” in order to stop the person on the street. Then, it looks at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to believe that “the person stopped is armed and dangerous” in order to frisk the person. A reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts,” rather than a mere hunch, the court said.

In this case, the court noted that neither the restaurant employee nor the police officer saw the defendant brandish the gun. It also observed that the officer wasn’t aware that he was a convicted felon or on probation at the time. There was also no evidence showing that he was acting suspiciously or that he tried to flee when the officer arrived on the scene.

“There must be something about the circumstances, when considered in total, that reasonably raises a suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed,” the court said. Since there was no such suspicion in this case, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime such as firearm possession by a convicted felon in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced defense lawyer. Clearwater gun crime 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 Throws Out Gun Recovered in Stop and Frisk appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Concurrent vs. Consecutive Prison Time in Florida Criminal Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 15 May 2018 15:56:50 +0000

There are several stages to a criminal prosecution and therefore several different opportunities to limit the impact of a conviction. Even if you are convicted of a crime, it is important to fight aggressively at the sentencing hearing to try to reduce jail times, fines, and other penalties. For instance, one question that may come up for a person convicted of multiple offenses is whether any jail time imposed for each offense should be done concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (one after the other). Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal recently looked at that question in a Pinellas County gun crime case.A defendant was charged with aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with the use of a firearm, stemming from an incident in which Pinellas County police officers were attempting to arrest him on separate charges. The cops were after him for a number of robberies, one of which allegedly happened with the use of a stolen gun. He was eventually convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and sentenced to 20 years in prison for that crime. The judge said the prison time was to be served consecutively, or after the defendant finished his time on the robbery charges.

The judge rejected the defendant’s argument that the sentences should be concurrent (at the same time) because the incident with the police was part of the same criminal sequence as the robberies, which happened a day earlier. The judge said he was required under the law to impose consecutive sentences.

The Second District disagreed on appeal. The court said Florida’s 10-20-Life law blocks judges from imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in firearm cases arising from the same criminal episode, if the gun isn’t fired. In cases of multiple firearm offenses in which the defendant shoots at one or more victims, however, consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. Since a gun was fired in the robberies in the defendant’s case, the judge was permitted to impose consecutive sentences. That said, the court explained that the judge was wrong in thinking that he was required to make the sentences consecutive.

“Here, it is clear from the record that the trial court believed that consecutive sentencing was mandatory rather than permissible,” the court said. “Accordingly, we must reverse [the defendant’s] sentence and remand for resentencing.”

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 gun crime attorney Will Hanlon is a seasoned lawyer who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of offenses. Mr. Hanlon represents clients throughout the region in gun crime cases and a wide range of other cases. 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 Concurrent vs. Consecutive Prison Time in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

How Cell Phone Data Led to a Robbery Conviction in a Florida Criminal Case

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:01:05 +0000

Search and seizure issues are often critical elements of Florida theft crime cases. The state’s First District Court of Appeal recently explained one way in which cops can use cell phone data and victim descriptions to track down criminal suspects. The court also said the police properly used the same information to establish the reasonable suspicion and probable cause necessary to justify pulling over a car, detaining its occupants, and searching its interior.A defendant was charged with burglary, assault, and armed robbery following an incident in which he and two other people allegedly broke into a home and held the four people inside at gunpoint. The defendant claimed that he went to the house simply to reclaim some marijuana that he’d been shorted during a recent transaction. Prosecutors said the group took turns holding the people inside the home at gunpoint, while the others collected various valuables.

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.

Florida Robbery Conviction Means Steeper Penalties for Gun Possession

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:33:17 +0000

Gun offenses are serious crimes in Florida, under both state and federal laws. In a recent case out of Pinellas County, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit explained that the feds have the right to impose strict penalties for gun crimes. The court also made clear that those penalties may be even more harsh when the person charged has a prior criminal record.A defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery in Pinellas County in 2008. Seven years later, he was charged with possessing a firearm. Federal law bans convicted felons from owning or possessing guns. After he pleaded guilty to the crime, prosecutors asked a federal judge to give him a longer stint behind bars because of his previous robbery convictions, which the prosecutors characterized as crimes of violence. Federal sentencing guidelines provide for an enhanced sentence when a person has previously been convicted of such a crime.

The court took the prosecutors’ advice, but it also said it would account for the fact that the defendant admitted his guilt. The court sentenced him to 30 months in prison and another three years of supervised release, near the high end of the recommended penalty. He later appealed the decision, arguing that the court wrongly determined that his previous convictions were for crimes of violence.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the defendant on appeal. The court noted that the guidelines define crimes of violence as those that entail “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” or the “burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involved use of explosives, or [a crime that] otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” More importantly, the court said the guidelines list robbery among a number of crimes that fall within this definition. The Eleventh Circuit also pointed to its 2011 decision in U.S. v. Lockley, in which the appeals panel said Florida robbery should be considered a crime of violence.

The court also made clear that the federal government is authorized to make gun possession by a convicted felon a federal crime. The panel explained that the government’s authority stems from the Constitution’s commerce clause, giving the feds the right to regulate anything “in or affecting commerce.” In this case, the defendant’s gun was manufactured outside the state and brought into Florida. That was enough of a tie to interstate commerce to bring it under the federal government’s authority, the court said.

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 gun crime 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:

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

Tampa Woman Guns Down Teen who Carjacked her Son, Raising Stand Your Ground and Felony Murder Issues

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

The post Florida Robbery Conviction Means Steeper Penalties for Gun Possession appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.