Articles Posted in Violent Crime

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from incriminating themselves. In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Fifth Amendment to require that a criminal suspect be verbally advised of their right to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney prior to being questioned by the police. If a criminal defendant chooses to waive their Miranda rights, however, any information that they provide law enforcement agents can be used against them. Recently, a Florida court discussed what evidence is needed to demonstrate a voluntary and knowing waiver of Miranda rights in a matter in which the defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes. If you are accused of a violent offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a Tampa violent offense defense lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant walked into a home in which an eighteen-year-old and five other children were sleeping. One of the children recognized the defendant from a social media website. The defendant fired a gun multiple times, striking the eighteen-year-old and two of the children; the eighteen-year-old died from his wounds. The police arrested the defendant and transported him to a homicide office.

It is reported that the defendant advised the police that he could read and write English and was not under the influence of drugs. He was then given a form listing his constitutional rights and verbally advised of his right not to make statements or answer questions and of his right to an attorney. He stated he understood his rights and answered the detective’s questions. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and four other crimes. He moved to suppress the statements he made during the initial investigation, arguing he did not validly waive his Miranda rights. The trial court denied his motion, and a jury convicted him as charged. He then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Florida courts generally use sentencing guidelines when determining what constitutes an appropriate penalty for a criminal conviction. The courts have discretion with regard to sentencing in some instances, however. For example, if they deem a defendant a violent career criminal, they can impose sentencing enhancement. They can only do so in cases in which the defendant meets the criteria to qualify as a violent criminal, however. In a recent Florida ruling, a court discussed whether the crime of battery on a person over the age of 65 is a qualifying offense, ultimately ruling that it is not. If you are charged with battery or any other violent crime, it is smart to talk to a Tampa violent crime defense lawyer about your potential defenses.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, which was a felony. During sentencing, the judge determined that the defendant met the criteria to be sentenced as a violent career criminal due to his prior convictions for aggravated assault and battery of a person over the age of 65. Pertinent to the subject case, the sentencing judge found that the crime of battery of a person over the age of 65 constituted a qualifying offense because it was a felony battery. He then sentenced the defendant to fifteen years in prison. The defendant appealed

Violent Career Criminal Sentencing Enhancements

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in deeming him a violent career criminal because the offense of battery on a person over the age of 65 was not a forcible felony for purposes of violent career criminal sentencing. The state did not disagree with the defendant’s argument. Instead, it acknowledged a prior ruling issued by the Florida Supreme Court in which battery crimes that did not necessarily involve violence or physical force could not be considered forceable felonies. Continue Reading ›

Battery is a violent crime, and in some instances, the court will consider a person charged with felony battery to be a risk to society and will deny them bail. If a person that remains in jail throughout the pendency of their trial is ultimately convicted, they may be granted a credit towards their sentence on account of the time they already served. Not all time spent in jail counts towards a sentence, however, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling issued in a case in which the defendant appealed his sentence for a felony battery conviction. If you were charged with felony battery, it is smart to consult a skilled Florida violent crime defense lawyer to discuss your options.

Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with and convicted of felony battery and misdemeanor assault. Following his conviction, he was sentenced to serve time in prison, and the trial court granted him credit for the time he spent in jail before he was sentenced. He moved to correct his sentence, and the court denied his motion. He filed three similar motions, which were also denied. He subsequently appealed his judgment and sentences.

Credit for Time Served

On appeal, the sole issue was whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s fourth motion to correct a sentencing error. The court explained that when the defendant was sentenced in 2018, he was granted credit for time served prior to his sentencing hearing. From the time he was sentenced until he was transported to prison; however, he spent an additional forty days in jail. Continue Reading ›

If a defendant is convicted of a crime, the court will typically weigh a variety of factors in determining an appropriate sentence. While there are many things that a court is permitted to evaluate in making an assessment, if a court is influenced by inappropriate information in developing a sentence, it may lead to an unjust result. In a recent Florida ruling in a case in which the defendant was convicted of arson, a court discussed the evaluation of the reasonableness of a sentence under the prevailing law. If you are accused of arson or another crime of violence, it is advisable to speak to a seasoned Tampa violent crime defense lawyer about your options.

The Defendant’s Sentence

It is reported that the defendant was charged with arson after he took part in the burning of a car that was used in a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of another person. He was initially charged with multiple crimes related to a racketeering conspiracy and was later charged with murder. He ultimately pleaded guilty to the arson charge, which carries a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of twenty years. He was sentenced to twelve years in prison, after which he appealed, arguing that his sentence was unreasonable and the court relied on inappropriate information in determining his sentence.

Evaluating the Reasonableness of a Sentence

A court assessing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence must weigh the totality of the circumstances, including whether there was any deviation from the sentencing guidelines. A court may deem a sentence substantively unreasonable if it was based on impermissible factors, if the sentencing court failed to weigh appropriate factors, or if it was selected arbitrarily. The appellate court in the subject case noted, however, that a matter will only be remanded for re-sentencing in cases in which the court is left with a firm and clear conviction that the sentencing court committed a definite error in judgment in evaluating the relevant factors, which resulted in a sentence that lies outside of the scope of reasonable sentences as dictated by the facts of the case. Continue Reading ›

In order to stand trial, the defendant must be competent. The bar for competency is pretty low in a criminal proceeding, however. The defendant needs to be able to have enough rational understanding to be able to aid their lawyer in their own defense, and they must have a rational or factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Keep in mind that this is different from using an “insanity defense.” Competency has to do with the defendant’s mental state at trial, while an insanity defense relates to the defendant’s mental state during the commission of the crime. The law can be complicated, but your experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney can help you understand how the law applies in your case.

Stipulation to Competency

In a case recently heard by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, the court addressed when it’s allowable for the defendant’s attorney to stipulate to the defendant’s competency. In the case at issue, the defendant was originally charged with second degree murder and two counts of dealing in stolen property. The trial court appointed an expert to determine the defendant’s competency to stand trial. At the hearing, the judge stated that they had the competency report in the file and it said the defendant was competent. The defense attorney then offered to stipulate to competency. A stipulation means that they agreed to the determination. Thus, the court found the defendant competent.

Most of the time, when a defendant pleads guilty, they are unable to later take back their plea and decide to go to trial. However, there are some circumstances when Florida law will allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea that they have already given and allow the defendant to have a trial. One of those circumstances is when new evidence is discovered. However, in order to get a new trial on the basis of new evidence, the case must meet specific requirements. Your skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney can tell you whether your case meets these circumstances.

Trial Due to Newly Discovered Evidence

Typically, defendants will plead guilty only when they believe that they do not have much of a chance of being found not guilty when the case goes to trial. In other words, defendants make these decisions based in large part on the evidence that the state has against them. So when new exculpatory evidence arises, some defendants may want to take back their guilty plea and go to trial. Florida has developed case law that explains in what circumstances the court will allow defendants to do this.