Avvo Rating badge
NACDL badge
Expertise badge
Avvo Rating badge
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Home

Posted In: | By

A federal firearm charge is one of the most serious situations a defendant can encounter. A single conviction can mean years in federal prison, especially when a judge imposes a sentence above the recommended guidelines. Defendants often believe that a guilty plea ends their chances of defending themselves, but post-conviction motions and appeals can sometimes provide a second opportunity to challenge unfair rulings. A recent decision from a Florida court shows how courts approach these challenges and why building a strong defense early is essential. If you are accused of illegally possessing a firearm, a Tampa federal criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and fight for the best possible outcome.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a road rage incident in January 2023 in which he exchanged gunfire with another driver. Allegedly, during the altercation, the defendant mistakenly fired into a third vehicle occupied by two adolescents, narrowly missing their heads and injuring one of them with shattered glass.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida, certain repeat offenders may be sentenced more harshly under the state’s “violent career criminal” statute. When prior convictions are used to enhance a sentence, disputes often arise over whether those convictions qualify under the law. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision that clarifies how courts interpret predicate offenses in violent career criminal cases, particularly where juvenile escape convictions are involved. If you are facing serious firearm charges or enhanced penalties, it is critical to consult with a Tampa criminal defense attorney who can evaluate your record and protect your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted by a jury of being a violent career criminal in possession of a firearm. The incident arose in 2019 after the defendant allegedly brandished a firearm during an argument and discharged multiple rounds into the air.

Allegedly, the State sought to establish the defendant’s status as a violent career criminal by presenting evidence of three prior convictions: aggravated battery in 2012, burglary in 2005, and escape in 1995. The defendant did not dispute that the aggravated battery and burglary convictions qualified as predicate offenses under the statute. However, the defense challenged the use of the 1995 conviction, arguing it arose under the juvenile code and did not meet the statutory definition of “escape” for violent career criminal purposes. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

When a defendant’s mental competence is in question, Florida law requires trial courts to make an independent determination before allowing a case to proceed. Competency proceedings safeguard a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial, and failure to follow these procedures can result in a conviction being overturned. A recent ruling issued by a Florida court in a theft case demonstrates how critical these protections are and illustrates the consequences when trial courts fail to properly address competency concerns. If you are facing criminal charges and have questions about your rights, it is critical to speak to a Tampa criminal defense lawyer promptly.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with grand theft auto. Before trial, the court appointed an expert to evaluate the defendant’s competence to proceed. This appointment was made after reasonable concerns were raised regarding the defendant’s mental condition. The record showed that the trial court had sufficient grounds to question whether the defendant fully understood the proceedings or could adequately assist in his defense.

It is alleged that despite appointing an expert, the trial court did not make an independent determination of the defendant’s competence before allowing the case to move forward. The case proceeded to trial, and the defendant was convicted and sentenced for grand theft auto. Following his conviction, the defendant argued that the trial court’s failure to make a required finding on his competency constituted fundamental error. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Facing federal charges for sex trafficking or the enticement of minors is one of the most serious legal challenges a defendant can encounter. In order to obtain convictions for such crimes, the government must prove each element of the charged offense. If it fails to do so, there may be grounds for challenging a conviction, but as demonstrated in a recent Florida opinion, establishing that a conviction should be overturned can be difficult. If you are accused of a sex crime, it is essential to speak to a Tampa sex crime defense attorney about what you can do to protect your rights and future.

Case Background

It is reported that in early 2022, federal agents posted fake advertisements on a website known for sex trafficking. The defendant allegedly responded to one of these ads, seeking what he described as a “unique experience” with young girls. Over a series of text messages and calls, federal agents posing as traffickers informed the defendant that the two girls available were fifteen and thirteen years old. The defendant reportedly did not object to their ages and instead negotiated additional “services” for which he agreed to pay more money.

It is alleged that the defendant ultimately agreed to pay $550 in exchange for access to the minors and the extra services. He purportedly withdrew the cash from a bank and traveled to a hotel in Florida, where he met with an undercover agent. During this meeting, the defendant was again told that the girls were minors, but he nonetheless exchanged money for a room key. Federal agents arrested him in the hotel parking lot shortly thereafter. A grand jury indicted him on two counts of attempted sex trafficking of a minor and one count of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In federal criminal cases, the government must prove that a defendant knowingly possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in order to secure a conviction. At trial, proper jury instructions and fair evidentiary rulings are critical to ensure that the defendant receives a constitutionally sound proceeding. A recent decision by a Florida federal court demonstrates how courts review claims involving evidentiary exclusions and the interpretation of federal firearm statutes. If you are charged with a drug or firearm offense in federal court, it is vital to speak with a Tampa criminal defense attorney who understands the complex interplay between evidentiary law and constitutional protections.

Case Setting

It is reported that the defendant was indicted on several counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The charges arose after the defendant was stopped by police while traveling with a co-defendant. Law enforcement officers searched the vehicle and discovered methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, digital scales, and a loaded firearm. The government introduced evidence linking the defendant to both the vehicle and the controlled substances.

It is alleged that the prosecution argued the firearm was used to facilitate the drug trafficking operation, and that the firearm’s presence in close proximity to the drugs supported a conviction under § 924(c). The case proceeded to trial, and the jury convicted the defendant. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that included a mandatory consecutive sentence for the firearm offense. The defendant appealed his conviction, asserting that the jury instructions on the firearm count were deficient and that the trial court improperly excluded certain defense evidence. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida criminal trials, multiple charges may be joined in a single case only if they are sufficiently related in time, place, or circumstance. When charges are improperly joined, it can result in unfair prejudice that undermines a defendant’s right to a fair trial. A recent decision from a Florida court the limits of joinder in a sex offense prosecution involving both molestation and possession of child sexual abuse material, and emphasizes that separate and unrelated charges cannot be tried together merely because they involve similar subject matter. If you are charged with multiple criminal offenses, a Tampa criminal defense attorney can advise you on whether a motion to sever may be appropriate to protect your rights.

Procedural History and Factual Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged in a 64-count amended information, including one count of lewd or lascivious molestation of his daughter, several counts of promoting sexual performance of a child, and dozens of counts of possession of child sexual abuse material. The molestation and promotion counts arose from alleged contact with a specific victim, while the possession counts were based on digital images stored on electronic devices found at the defendant’s home. The charges were tried together, and the defendant was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison for the molestation count and received concurrent terms on the remaining offenses. The judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.

It is alleged that the defendant later challenged the propriety of the trial court’s decision to allow all 64 charges to be tried in a single proceeding. He contended that the charges stemmed from different acts and circumstances and should not have been joined under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150. He argued that joining the molestation charges involving a known victim with the unrelated possession charges involving unidentified minors created undue prejudice and improperly influenced the jury’s verdict.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida criminal cases, changes in substantive criminal law do not automatically apply to defendants whose convictions became final before the change occurred. This principle often limits the availability of post-conviction relief for individuals seeking to benefit from newly enacted legislation. A recent Florida decision highlights how courts evaluate whether statutory amendments apply retroactively and what procedural barriers defendants must overcome to obtain a new hearing. If you are seeking post-conviction relief based on a change in the law, a Tampa criminal defense attorney can help you determine whether your claim is timely and legally viable.

Procedural History and Factual Background

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in Miami-Dade County of sexual battery involving a victim under the age of twelve, and that his conviction became final several years prior to 2023. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief through multiple prior motions, the defendant filed a successive motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing that a 2023 legislative amendment to Florida Statutes § 794.011(2)(a) entitled him to relief. Specifically, the defendant relied on an October 2023 statutory change that reclassified certain sexual battery offenses as capital crimes and altered jury and procedural requirements.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In federal firearms prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government must prove not only that the defendant possessed a firearm, but also that the defendant knew at the time of possession that he was prohibited from doing so due to a prior felony conviction. This knowledge requirement was clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Rehaif v. United States in 2019. A recent decision from a federal court sitting in Florida illustrates how courts evaluate cases tried before Rehaif and whether a missing jury instruction on the knowledge element requires reversal. If you are facing a firearm charge under federal law, a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney can assess whether your constitutional rights were upheld during trial and sentencing.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The charge stemmed from an incident in which law enforcement officers found a loaded pistol during a search of the defendant’s vehicle following a traffic stop. The defendant had previously been convicted of multiple felonies and was prohibited from possessing firearms.

Allegedly, the trial in this case occurred before the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, which held that the government must prove the defendant knew of his felony status when he possessed the firearm. At trial, the court instructed the jury that to convict, it must find that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm, but the instruction did not include the requirement that the defendant knew he was a convicted felon. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In serious criminal cases, especially those involving potential capital offenses, the size and composition of the jury can raise important constitutional and statutory questions. Florida law historically permits six-person juries for most felony trials, but capital cases require twelve-person juries under both statutes and procedural rules. In a recent Florida sex crime case in which the defendant challenged the use of a six-person jury the court discussed what steps defendants must take to preserve their right to challenge jury decisions. If you are charged with a serious felony in Florida, a skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney can help you understand your trial rights and advocate on your behalf throughout the legal process.

Case History

It is reported that the defendant was charged with a series of serious sexual offenses that allegedly took place between 2007 and 2019. The charges included multiple counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve, sexual battery on a child between the ages of twelve and eighteen by a person in familial or custodial authority, and lewd or lascivious molestation. The alleged victim was the defendant’s daughter, who testified that the abuse began when she was five years old.

It is alleged that the case proceeded to trial before a six-person jury, consistent with Florida practice for non-capital felonies. The defendant did not object to the jury size or request a twelve-person jury. The jury convicted the defendant on nearly all counts, and the court imposed multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole.

It is further reported that on appeal, the defendant raised two main arguments. First, he argued that his convictions for certain counts violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, as he was charged under a statutory definition of sexual battery that was amended after the alleged offenses occurred. Second, he argued that he was entitled to a twelve-person jury under Florida law and the United States Constitution because he was charged with capital felonies. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In federal firearm and drug cases, defendants often face enhanced penalties if their criminal history includes certain violent or drug-related felonies. The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) imposes mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, and courts regularly review whether a defendant’s past convictions meet the statute’s criteria. A recent Florida decision demonstrates how courts approach challenges to ACCA designations, especially when defendants argue that prior Florida convictions were improperly classified. If you are facing federal sentencing enhancements, a skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney can help you explore ways to challenge the underlying legal findings.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon The district court sentenced the defendant to 216 months in prison after determining that he qualified as an armed career criminal under the ACCA based on three prior Florida convictions: aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and cocaine possession with intent to distribute. The defendant appealed, arguing that each of these prior convictions was improperly used to enhance his sentence under the ACCA.

Continue Reading ›