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 criminal conviction does not always end the legal process. Florida law allows convicted defendants to seek postconviction relief when constitutional violations, including ineffective assistance of counsel, may have affected the fairness of a trial. A recent Florida decision demonstrates that courts must carefully evaluate claims alleging that trial counsel failed to investigate or present critical expert testimony. When a defendant raises a legally sufficient claim that is not conclusively disproven by the record, an evidentiary hearing may be required before relief can be denied. If you are charged with a crime, it is wise to consult an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney about your rights.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful sexual battery involving a minor and received a 15-year prison sentence followed by two years of probation. After the defendant’s direct appeal was unsuccessful, the defendant sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising numerous claims that trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Constitutional challenges involving firearm offenses can reshape how criminal statutes are enforced and interpreted. A recent Florida ruling examined whether the state could prohibit otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from carrying a concealed firearm solely because of their age. The court’s ruling addressed important questions regarding the scope of the Second Amendment and the constitutional limits on age-based firearm restrictions. If you have been charged with a firearm offense, it is smart to speak to a Tampa gun crime defense attorney to determine how to protect your interests.

History of the Case

Allegedly, law enforcement responded to a report that an individual had displayed a handgun toward a vehicle. Officers located the defendant, who matched the description provided by the caller, conducted a pat down, and discovered an unholstered handgun concealed on the defendant’s person. Because the defendant was 18 years old, the State charged the defendant with carrying a concealed firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm.

Reportedly, the defendant moved to dismiss the concealed firearm charge, arguing that Florida’s statutory scheme unconstitutionally prevented otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from exercising their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense. The prosecution argued that requiring individuals to satisfy licensing requirements and restricting concealed carry for certain persons served legitimate public safety interests. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the licensing provisions were designed to ensure that only responsible citizens could lawfully carry concealed firearms. The defendant subsequently entered a no-contest plea while specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of the dispositive motion to dismiss.

Second Amendment Rights Under Florida Law

The court reviewed the constitutional challenge de novo because the case presented a pure question of law involving the validity of a statute. Applying the analytical framework established by the United States Supreme Court, the court first considered whether the plain language of the Second Amendment protects the conduct at issue. The court concluded that adults between the ages of 18 and 20 are included among “the people” referenced in the Second Amendment and therefore possess the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The court next examined whether Florida demonstrated that its age based restriction was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Looking to decisions from the United States Supreme Court and several federal appellate courts, the court determined that historical evidence did not support categorically denying otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 the ability to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense. While historical regulations recognized restrictions involving convicted felons, mentally ill individuals, and persons who posed credible threats to others, the court found no comparable historical tradition treating all young adults as a prohibited class.

The court also rejected arguments that modern public safety concerns alone could justify the restriction. It explained that under current Second Amendment jurisprudence, the government must establish that the challenged regulation aligns with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rather than relying solely on policy considerations. Because the challenged statute barred adults aged 18 to 20 from qualifying for concealed carry solely on age grounds, the court concluded that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden on a protected constitutional right.

Accordingly, the court held that the challenged statutory provision was facially unconstitutional as applied to adults aged 18 to 20. It vacated the defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Meet with an Assertive Tampa Gun Crime Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a gun offense, it is important to meet with an attorney to discuss your potential defenses. The assertive Tampa gun crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are dedicated to helping people protect their interests in criminal proceedings, and if you hire us, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. Contact Hanlon Law through our online form or call 813-228-7095 to set up a confidential meeting.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Federal sentencing proceedings often involve disputes over guideline enhancements that can substantially increase a defendant’s prison exposure. In many cases, the outcome depends not only on the underlying facts but also on whether those facts are properly challenged at sentencing. A recent decision from a Florida federal court demonstrates how a defendant’s failure to object to factual findings in a presentence report can significantly limit appellate arguments and ultimately determine the outcome of a sentencing appeal. If you are facing federal criminal charges, including firearm-related offenses, it is essential to consult an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney to ensure that your rights are protected at every stage of the proceedings.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the defendant pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony. Following the guilty plea, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report to assist the court in determining an appropriate sentence.

Reportedly, the presentence report concluded that the firearm involved in the offense was capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. Based on that finding, the report recommended application of a sentencing enhancement under the federal sentencing guidelines. At the sentencing hearing, the court asked whether either party objected to the findings contained in the report. No objections were raised by the defense. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By
A defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent is one of the most fundamental protections in the criminal justice system. Courts carefully scrutinize comments that may suggest a defendant should testify or explain his or her actions, as such remarks can improperly influence jurors and undermine the fairness of a trial. A recent Florida decision highlights the challenges that arise when prosecutors discuss a defendant’s decision not to testify and illustrates how these issues can become the basis for postconviction proceedings. If you are facing sex crime allegations, it is important to consult an experienced Tampa sex crime defense attorney who can safeguard your constitutional rights throughout the process.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted by a jury of sexual battery and battery following a criminal trial in circuit court. After his convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal, the defendant sought postconviction relief, arguing that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance in several respects.

Reportedly, one of the defendant’s claims focused on statements made by the prosecutor during jury selection. According to the defendant, the prosecutor repeatedly discussed reasons why a defendant might choose not to testify and engaged prospective jurors in a conversation regarding the exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent. The defendant maintained that trial counsel should have objected to these comments because they improperly highlighted his decision not to testify.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Plea agreements play a central role in the criminal justice system, as they can often resolve serious charges without trial. However, disputes sometimes arise when a defendant seeks to undo a plea after appellate proceedings alter part of the case, such as a sentence. A recent Florida decision addressed a sex crime case, which addressed whether a defendant may withdraw a plea for good cause after a sentence is vacated on appeal, but before resentencing. If you are charged with a sex offense, it is smart to consult a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney to evaluate your legal options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant picked up a victim and, instead of taking her home, drove her to a secluded location where he used threats and force to compel multiple sexual acts. The defendant then transported the victim to another location, continued the assault, and recorded portions of the incident before the victim ultimately escaped and alerted law enforcement.

Reportedly, the State charged the defendant with multiple serious offenses, including several counts of armed sexual battery, kidnapping, and aggravated battery. The defendant entered a no-contest plea to all charges. At sentencing, the defendant sought a downward departure, but the trial court imposed multiple life sentences along with an additional term of imprisonment.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Access to confidential medical records often sits at the intersection of privacy rights and the State’s need to investigate serious criminal allegations. Courts must carefully balance these competing interests, particularly when the records may bear directly on issues such as intoxication or culpability. In a recent Florida ruling issued in a DUI case, the court addressed whether a trial court properly allowed the State to subpoena a criminal defendant’s medical records despite objections grounded in privacy and competency concerns. If you are charged with a DUI, it is important to know your rights, and you should speak with a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant was involved in a serious motor vehicle collision that resulted in significant injuries to one individual and the death of another. Law enforcement suspected that the defendant operated the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and directed emergency personnel to perform a blood draw at the scene. Medical staff later conducted an additional blood draw at a hospital after transporting the defendant for treatment.

Reportedly, the State charged the defendant with multiple serious offenses, including first-degree murder and DUI manslaughter, and sought the death penalty. Shortly after the indictment, the State issued subpoenas to obtain the defendant’s medical records, including the results of the blood draws. The defendant objected, asserting a privacy interest in the records and challenging their relevance to the prosecution.

Continue Reading ›

By
Posted in: DUI
Posted In:
Updated:

Posted In: | By

Juvenile delinquency proceedings often present unique jurisdictional questions, particularly when courts modify or extend probation following violations. Determining whether a trial court retains authority to act can significantly affect a young defendant’s rights and the validity of subsequent rulings. A recent Florida court ruling addresses whether a court retains jurisdiction to revoke probation after an original probationary term appears to have expired, offering important guidance on how statutory provisions governing juvenile jurisdiction operate in practice. If your child is facing juvenile charges, you should consult a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney to assess how these legal principles may apply to your circumstances.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant, a minor, faced charges in multiple juvenile cases, including possession of cannabis and domestic battery, and entered no contest pleas in both matters. The trial court withheld adjudication and imposed consecutive probationary terms, with the second term to begin after the first.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Criminal prosecutions often raise complex questions about the scope of prosecutorial discretion and the constitutional protections afforded to defendants. One recurring issue involves how courts address double jeopardy concerns when multiple convictions arise from closely related conduct. A recent Florida decision highlights the limits of the State’s authority to dismiss charges after a jury has already rendered its verdict, underscoring the importance of procedural precision in criminal cases. This ruling serves as a critical reminder that even well-intentioned efforts to correct legal errors must comply with established constitutional and procedural rules. If you are charged with a crime, you should consult an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney to protect your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with multiple offenses arising from conduct involving a minor, including traveling to meet a minor and attempted lewd or lascivious battery. The charges proceeded to trial, where a jury evaluated the evidence presented by both parties.

Reportedly, the jury returned guilty verdicts on several counts, including a charge involving the use of a computer to solicit or entice a minor to engage in unlawful activity. Following the verdict, the parties and the trial court recognized that one of the convictions raised a double jeopardy concern because it overlapped with other offenses.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Sentence-reduction motions under federal law often require courts to balance evolving sentencing reforms with the finality of criminal judgments. Defendants frequently invoke statutory changes and constitutional developments in an effort to obtain relief, but courts apply strict standards when determining whether a reduced sentence is warranted. A recent Florida ruling issued in a drug crime case demonstrates how difficult it can be to meet the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” requirement, particularly when the underlying sentencing framework remains unchanged. If you are charged with a drug crime, you should speak with a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney to understand your available options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant had a lengthy criminal history that included multiple state convictions for drug offenses and violent crimes spanning several years. These prior convictions ultimately played a significant role in the defendant’s later federal sentencing.

Reportedly, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on charges including conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The defendant entered a guilty plea to these charges.

Posted In: | By

Motions challenging allegedly inconsistent jury verdicts arise frequently in Florida criminal cases, particularly when a jury makes detailed factual findings that appear to conflict with a conviction. Courts must then determine whether the verdict reflects a permissible inconsistency or a legally impermissible contradiction that undermines an essential element of the offense. A recent Florida decision issued in a battery case highlights how narrowly courts define “true inconsistency” and reinforces the principle that not all conflicting findings justify reversal. If you are charged with battery or another violent offense, you should speak with a knowledgeable Tampa violent crime defense attorney to evaluate your options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged in a Florida circuit court with attempted aggravated battery arising from an incident involving a firearm. The prosecution asserted that the defendant took overt steps toward committing a violent battery using a deadly weapon but failed to complete the act.

Reportedly, during the trial, the State presented evidence that the defendant possessed a firearm and attempted to use it in a manner capable of causing serious bodily harm. The jury heard testimony suggesting that the weapon malfunctioned, preventing it from firing as intended. Continue Reading ›