Federal sentencing laws often impose steep penalties on individuals with prior convictions, especially in firearm cases. When a person is classified as an armed career criminal, the mandatory minimum sentence can be decades of imprisonment. While defendants may later seek relief through post-conviction motions, federal courts closely scrutinize such claims, particularly when based on new Supreme Court precedent. A recent Florida decision highlights the challenges defendants face when seeking to overturn long-standing convictions. If you are facing a firearm charge, it is vital to consult with a Clearwater criminal defense attorney to understand your options at each stage of the process.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. Because of three prior Florida drug convictions, he was sentenced as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). That designation triggered a mandatory minimum of 180 months, which the court imposed in September 2018.

Allegedly, the defendant did not appeal but later sought more time to file a § 2255 motion. The court denied that request, explaining the one-year deadline set by statute. He pursued other forms of relief, including motions for compassionate release and sentence reductions, but all were denied.

The post Florida Court Discusses Sentencing Challenges appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

Sentencing Errors in Florida Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court affirmed the revocation of probation but vacated the defendant’s sentences on the probation violations. The court began its analysis by clarifying that Florida’s sentencing framework distinguishes between habitual felony offender sentencing and sentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code (CPC). Under Florida law, habitual offender sentencing is separate from and not subject to the CPC. Accordingly, a conviction punished under the habitual offender statute should not appear on a CPC scoresheet.

The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by including the arson offense, which was sentenced under the habitual offender statute, on the CPC scoresheet used to calculate the sentences for the probation violations. This inclusion inflated the lowest permissible sentence beyond the five-year statutory maximum applicable to the third-degree felonies. Because Florida law mandates that the CPC scoresheet must not include habitual offender sentences, the resulting prison terms of 64.95 months were deemed illegal.

The court also rejected the State’s argument that the defendant had waived his right to challenge the sentence by failing to object at the sentencing hearing. The defendant had filed a motion to preserve the sentencing error for appeal, and the court concluded that passive acquiescence to a scoresheet error did not amount to invited error. The panel unanimously agreed that the error required reversal and remanded the case for resentencing using a properly prepared scoresheet that excluded the arson offense.

Speak to a Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case

Sentencing errors can have profound and lasting consequences for individuals involved in the Florida criminal justice system. If you are facing a sentencing or probation violation hearing in Florida, it is critical to work with an attorney who understands the intricacies of Florida’s sentencing laws and will protect your rights from beginning to end. The experienced Clearwater criminal defense lawyers at Hanlon Law are ready to review your case and help you pursue the best possible outcome. Call us today at 727-897-5413 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Overturns Sentencing Based on Improper Scoresheet appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

The federal legislature aims to prevent people with extensive criminal histories from continuing to violate the law. Thus, they enacted statutes that allow the federal courts to impose greater penalties on career offenders. Only people convicted of certain crimes will qualify as career offenders, though, as explained in a ruling recently issued in a Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of numerous violent offenses. If you are dealing with accusations that you committed a crime of violence, it is wise to talk to a Clearwater violent crime defense attorney to assess your options for protecting your interests.

The Defendant’s Criminal History

It is alleged that when the defendant was serving a sentence in a Florida prison, he sent threatening letters to the state attorney’s office. He was subsequently charged with threatening to use weapons of mass destruction and mailing threatening communications in violation of federal law. He pleaded guilty to all charges.

It is reported that the probation office then issued a report classifying the defendant as a career offender on the grounds that he had at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence. Specifically, he was previously convicted of robbery, aggravated battery, and mailing threatening letters. The defendant objected to the report, arguing that only one of his prior convictions was for a violent crime and, therefore, he was not a career offender. The court overruled his objection and applied the career offender enhancement, sentencing the defendant to ten years in prison. The defendant appealed.

Career Offenders as Defined by Federal Law

The post Florida Court Examines Career Offenders as Defined by Federal Law appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and convicted of armed sexual battery in 2016, for offenses he committed when he was fifteen years old. He was subsequently sentenced to fifty years imprisonment. The defendant then filed a motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, after which the defendant appealed.

Evaluating Whether a Sentence is Unjust

On appeal, the defendant argued that because he was a nonhomicide juvenile offender, his sentence violated Florida law, and he was entitled to relief. Upon review, the court noted that under Florida law, the constitutional prohibition against unusual and cruel punishment comes into play when a nonhomicide juvenile offender’s sentence does not afford him or her any meaningful chance for release based on demonstrated rehabilitation and maturity. The law is based on the position that imprisonment for a juvenile is qualitatively different than a comparable term for any adult. In further defining juvenile offenders’ rights with regards to sentencing, the Florida courts ruled that any lengthy term of years sentence imposed on a juvenile offender, which means any sentence longer than twenty years, does not provide a true opportunity for early release and may be vacated.

Further, the court noted that to qualify as a meaningful chance for early release, the courts must ensure that a nonhomicide juvenile offender is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment that only provides for a release at the end of his or her sentence or at a time that is beyond his or her natural life or does not include early release for rehabilitation or maturity. In the subject case, the court noted that the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that exceeded twenty years without an opportunity for judicial review or early release. Thus, the court found he was entitled to a new sentence and reversed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Trusted Sex Crime Attorney

If you are charged with sexual battery or any other sex crime in Clearwater, it is wise to retain an attorney who will fight to protect your rights throughout the duration of your case. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a knowledgeable Clearwater sex crime attorney who will zealously advocate on your behalf to help you obtain the best result available in your case. You can reach Mr. Hanlon via the form online or by calling 727-897-5413 to set up a complimentary and confidential consultation.

The post Court Discusses a Florida Juvenile Offender’s Sentencing Rights appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual Background

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with and pleaded to guilty three separate charges of sexual battery with a deadly weapon, arising out of separate acts. Prior to pleading guilty, the defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State, in which his collective sentences were not to exceed 100 years. The court disregarded the agreement, however, and sentenced the defendant to three concurrent 90-year sentences. The defendant filed a motion to correct the sentences, arguing that as sexual batteries were life felonies, but the court did not impose life sentences, the maximum term he could be sentenced for each offense was 40 years.

Reportedly, the court subsequently issued an order stating that the defendant withdrew his motion. The defendant filed a second motion, but it was never ruled on. Finally, the defendant filed a third motion to correct his sentence. The court denied the motion stating that the issue had previously been ruled upon, and the defendant appealed.

Maximum Sentence for Life Felonies Under Florida Law

Under Section 794.011(3) of the Florida Statutes, sexual battery with a weapon is a life felony. Further, Section 775.082(3)(a) stipulates that a defendant who is convicted of a life felony may be sentenced to either life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment that does not exceed 40 years. Finally, if a trial court does not impose a life sentence, it may not impose a prison sentence of more than 40 years.

In the subject case, the court noted that numerous Florida courts have held that sentences for more than 40 years for a life felony conviction are illegal, and correctable via a motion. The court found that the defendant’s 90-year sentences exceeded the 40-year maximum, and therefore, were illegal. Thus, the court reversed the sentences and remanded the case to the trial court.

Meet with an Experienced  Criminal Defense Attorney

Even if a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, he or she is afforded rights under the law, including the right to a fair sentence. If you reside in Clearwater and are faced with sex crime charges, it is crucial to retain an experienced Clearwater sex crime defense attorney who will work diligently to help you seek a fair result.  Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned sex crime defense attorney who will set forth a compelling defense on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Hanlon at 727-897-5413 or through the form online to schedule a confidential and free meeting regarding your case.

The post Court Discusses Maximum Sentences for Florida Life Felonies appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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.

As a Florida appellate court recently explained, once credit for time served has been awarded, Florida courts are not permitted to retract the award, even if it was given in error.  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.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged with kidnapping and robbery in case 2010-CF-109 to which he pleaded no contest. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment followed by 3 years of probation. He received a credit of 460 days for time served. The plea agreement, however, credited the time served to case number 2010-CF-010, another case under which the defendant was charged. As such, the defendant received credit for time served under both cases.

Allegedly, during the probationary period for 2010-CF-109, the defendant violated his probation. He entered an open plea and was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and 5 years of probation, with 1,915 days credited for time served. The time credited did not include the 460 days which were previously awarded, because the trial court found that it was served while he was in custody for 2010-CF-100. The defendant filed a motion arguing the court erred in retracting the credit that had previously been awarded. The court granted the motion in part, but only awarded credit for 45 days on the grounds the remainder of the days were earned under case 2010-CF-100, not 2010-CF-109. The defendant appealed.

Florida Rules Regarding Credit for Time Served

Under Florida law, a court is not permitted to retract credit for time served, even if the credit was awarded erroneously. Florida courts have held that permitting a court to rescind previously awarded jail credit imposes an increased penalty and constitutes a violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy. Moreover, the court noted that credit for time served cannot be withdrawn when a defendant is resentenced for a probation violation.

Rather, unless a defendant expressly and specifically agrees to waive credit for time served as a term of a plea agreement, any credit must be given at a probation violation resentencing hearing. Thus, the court found that the trial court erred in failing to award the defendant the credit for time served he was previously awarded, regardless of whether he was legally entitled to the credit. As such, the court reversed the trial court ruling and remanded the case so that the defendant’s sentence could be amended.

Discuss your case with an Experienced Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney

The State is required to comply with certain sentencing guidelines and cannot retract credit for time served, even if it was awarded in error. If you reside in Clearwater and face criminal charges, it is in your best interest to discuss your case with an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney to evaluate your available defenses.  Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned Clearwater criminal defense attorney who can provide you with a thorough and vigorous defense. Mr. Hanlon can be reached at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to schedule a meeting.

More Blog Posts:

Court Overturns Death Sentence Based on US Supreme Court’s Finding that Florida’s Prior Capital Penalty Laws Were Unconstitutional, January 14, 2019, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Florida Court Rules Credit for Time Served Cannot be Retracted appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

As noted in a recent Florida appellate court case, however, an exception arises when a court considers impermissible factors during sentencing. If you are a resident of Clearwater and are presently facing criminal charges, it is in your best interest to consult a knowledgeable Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss the charges you face.

The Defendant’s Charges and Convictions

It is reported that the defendant shot two victims outside of a bar. He was subsequently charged with first-degree murder with a firearm, attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, and aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of aggravated assault and the lesser included offenses of second-degree murder and attempted manslaughter. He was sentenced to forty years imprisonment for second-degree murder, fifteen for attempted manslaughter and three for aggravated assault. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that the jury found that the defendant reflected on his actions when he committed the crimes and that he spent time thinking about his intended crimes and nonetheless proceeded to commit them. The defendant appealed his sentence on the grounds that the court erred in considering any “reflection” he undertook in committing the crimes since he was not convicted of first-degree murder or attempted first-degree murder.

Sentence Based on Impermissible Factors

On appeal, the court noted that while sentences within the statutory guidelines are typically not subject to review, an exception arises when the court relies on impermissible factors during sentencing, thereby violating a defendant’s right to due process. The court stated that it is a violation of due process for a court to rely on conduct for which the defendant has been acquitted when determining a sentence. Further, the court explained, when the judge that sentences a defendant makes comments that indicate the sentence was based in part on factors the court was not permitted to consider, the sentence must be reversed.

In the subject case, the court found that a review of the trial court’s remarks during the sentencing hearing in light of the jury instructions showed that the trial court relied on conduct for which the defendant had been acquitted in determining his sentence. Specifically, the jury instruction for first-degree murder stated that the defendant must have an intent to kill and enough time for reflection before acting on the intent. As the jury did not convict the defendant of first-degree murder or attempted first-degree murder, he was acquitted of the element of premeditated conduct or reflection. Thus, the court reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Confer with a Skilled Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney

The State has a duty to adhere to the sentencing guidelines, and a deviation from the guidelines may be grounds for the reversal of a sentence. If you are a resident of Clearwater and are charged with a criminal offense, you should consult a proficient Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss your case and the possible sentences for the crimes you are charged with committing. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a proficient Clearwater criminal defense attorney who will provide a vigorous defense to the charges you face. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to set up a conference.

More Blog Posts:

Court Rules a Judge can Consider an Arrest Without a Conviction During a Florida Community Control Revocation Hearing, February 4, 2019, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Florida Court Reverses Sentence Based on Impermissible Factors appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.