Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

Home » Page 19

Prosecutors’ Burden of Proof in Florida Auto Theft Cases – VG v. State

Posted In: December 20, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

One of the most important things that anyone charged with a Florida theft crime should know is that the burden is at all times on prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. That means they have to prove more than just a hunch, and they have to do more than show that you probably committed the crime. As the state’s Second District Court of Appeals recently explained, that means in auto theft cases that prosecutors have to show that the car in which the person charged was caught is the car that was stolen.One afternoon in May 2016, a man drove a silver Dodge Dart to his aunt’s house in Tampa. He came to retrieve some paperwork from his cousin. He left keys in the car – a rental – along with his cell phone, his wallet, and a bag of clothes. He also left the car windows down. The car was gone when he returned a few minutes later. He contacted police but wasn’t able to remember the vehicle’s license plate number.

The following night, a Tampa police officer observed a silver Dodge Dart roll through a stop sign, make a quick lane change, and make several quick turns before running another couple of stop signs. The three people inside the car – two men and one woman – jumped out and started running away when the officer approached. The officer eventually apprehended the woman, identified in court documents as “VG.” She was arrested and charged with grand theft auto and burglary, among other charges.

VG appealed the conviction, arguing that prosecutors never proved that the car from which she fled was the same vehicle that was stolen from the man. She said she didn’t know who owned the car and simply fled because the man behind the wheel said “we gotta jump out.” VG’s lawyer also pointed out that the prosecutors did not match the car’s license plate or Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) with the rental car. The Second District agreed.

Florida Felon Gets Federal Time for Sunshine State Gun Possession

Posted In: December 13, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

State and federal criminal laws often overlap and intertwine, particularly when it comes to drugs and guns. Law enforcement of every stripe takes these cases very seriously, but federal laws tend to be significantly harsher. In a recent Central Florida gun crime case, a federal district court upheld the U.S. government’s right under the Constitution to impose those penalties, as long as the feds can prove some very minimal connection to interstate commerce.The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a federal crime. He was eventually sentenced to five years in jail, a sentence that was increased because he had previously been convicted of drug trafficking. He later appealed the sentence, arguing that the feds didn’t have the authority to charge him under the circumstances. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed.

The Court explained that the federal law banning felons from having guns stems from the federal government’s power under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. That clause directly authorizes the feds “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” It has been read broadly to give the government wide enforcement authority over anything that has some connection to commerce between states.

“The statute is constitutional as applied so long as the government proves some minimal nexus to interstate commerce,” the court explained. The government can establish that connection “by demonstrating that the firearm traveled in interstate commerce through testimony that the firearm was manufactured in a different state.”

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

Posted In: December 6, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

If a police officer wants to stop you on the street, he or she has to have a reasonable suspicion to believe that you have committed or are committing a crime. A recent case out of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals involving an alleged Tampa burglary crime is a good example of just how seriously judges take that requirement.The case stemmed from an incident on the University of South Florida campus. A man testified that he was driving near the campus when he noticed two people fighting. He said he observed a young man in a white tank top and jeans on a bicycle trying to get away from a young woman pulling on his tank top and yelling “he stole my phone.” The man on the bike swung his arms at the woman and was able to shake her off and get away.

A USF police officer later responded to the scene and said she noticed three suspects on bikes in the area. She said one of the suspects was wearing a white tank top and shorts. The officer flashed her vehicle’s police lights and yelled “stop, police,” but the man in the tank top fled the scene. A Tampa police officer later apprehended a person whom the court called “B.M.” in a shed in a residential backyard. The USF officer identified B.M. as the person who had fled. He was charged with resisting an officer and burglary. The officers did not recover the missing phone. B.M. was eventually convicted on both charges and sentenced to juvenile probation.

Juvenile’s Conviction Overturned on Appeal After Florida Court Rules that Prosecution Failed to Present Evidence on an Element of Assault

Posted In: November 22, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

At trial, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of the crime charged against the defendant. A Fourth District Court of Appeals decision, J.S., a Child v. State of Florida, analyzed whether the prosecution had met its burden of proof in convicting a juvenile of a Florida assault crime.

In the early morning hours, the victim went outside to investigate a noise. He saw one of the trucks that was part of his auto-repair business being touched by the defendant. As the victim approached the truck, he saw a second person at another vehicle. The burglar approached, and the victim pulled out his concealed handgun, which scared off one of the burglars. He approached the defendant, who was lying on the ground and appeared to be moving his hand toward something. The victim removed what appeared to be a pellet gun from the defendant’s waist. He held the defendant on the ground at gun point until the police arrived.

The defendant was charged with burglary with assault or battery while armed. The trial court found the defendant delinquent on the charge. The juvenile defendant appealed and argued that the conviction of burglary of conveyance with assault while armed should be reversed.

Florida Appeals Court Rules on Statutory Prohibition of “Engaging in a Criminal Activity” under State’s Stand Your Ground Law

Posted In: November 15, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law gives criminal defendants immunity against prosecution if they meet the following three elements: the use of deadly force was (i) reasonable because deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the defendant or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; (ii) used while the defendant was not engaged in a criminal activity; and (iii) used in a place where the defendant had a right to be. A recent Florida gun crime case, decided on November 15, 2017, considered the second element, whether the defendant was engaged in a criminal activity at the time the alleged self-defense occurred.

The defendant testified at an evidentiary motion to dismiss the second-degree murder charges against him that on the day of the shooting, he took a few hundred dollars out of his pocket when the eventual victim told him that she shouldn’t walk around with that amount of cash because of the reputation of the neighborhood. The defendant informed the eventual victim that he had “protection.” The defendant then continued talking with his friends. The defendant was then attacked from behind and hit on the left side of his face and knocked up against a car. The eventual victim reached for the defendant’s side and made contact with the defendant’s gun. The defendant then grabbed his gun and pulled the trigger. The victim did not fall to the ground. They both ran in different directions, although the victim eventually died of his gunshot wounds.

The defendant presented evidence at a pre-trial hearing that corroborated his account of the event. The trial court ruled that as a result, the defendant was entitled to immunity and dismissed the second-degree murder charge against the defendant. The State appealed because the court did not discuss in the written order whether the defendant was engaged in a criminal activity at the time of the shooting, even though both the prosecutor and defense counsel argued this issue at the hearing.

Proposed Florida Law Gives Judges More Discretion in Sentencing Drug Offenders

Posted In: November 8, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

In what is described as an emerging trend by the Tampa Bay Times, lawmakers are starting to either repeal mandatory minimum sentences or pass “safety valve” laws. The latter provides judges with more discretion in imposing a variety of punishments in minor drug cases, if certain conditions are met. These new laws could change the way that courts deal with Florida drug crimes, or at least change the length of jail time imposed at sentencing.

The proposed law is a Senate bill brought forth by a pair of Florida legislators. SB 694 permits a court to sentence a drug offender to a sentence less than a mandatory minimum sentence if the following conditions are met: (i) the person did not engage in a criminal enterprise as defined in Florida Statutes Section 893.20(1) (a continuing criminal enterprise); (ii) the person did not use or threaten violence or use a weapon during the commission of the crime; and (iii) the person did not cause a death or serious bodily injury.

The Florida House of Representatives version is very similar to the one proposed in the Senate but with a few key differences. The court is required to at least impose a sentence of imprisonment that is “no less than one-third of the sentence prescribed” by the mandatory minimum sentencing statute. Separately, the drug offender cannot have certain prior convictions, including a crime of violence as defined in Florida Statutes Section 784.046(1)(a).

Man Charged under Florida Computer Crime Law for Allegedly Destroying Company Information After Being Fired

Posted In: November 1, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

As workplaces adopt paperless record retention policies, electronic records are increasingly becoming the norm. These files are held on computer networks, and often only a few trusted employees have access to these records. These employees help companies ensure that their records are maintained in compliance with laws, rules, regulations, or court orders and may relate to sensitive information, such as financial records, employees, and company customers.

Florida criminal law addresses the destruction or hacking of computers, computer systems, computer networks, and electronic devices to help protect companies from the actions of bad actors. The Tampa Bay Times reported on 11/1/2017 that a company’s former employee was arrested for allegedly destroying his former employer’s computer data after he was fired. The alleged costs to the company were substantial.

Florida Statutes Section 815.06 criminalizes offenses against users of computers, computer systems, computer networks, and electronic devices. The various crimes range from a first-degree misdemeanor to first-degree felonies. An example of a third-degree felony under this statute is destroying a computer network or electronic device with the specific intent to do so. An example of a first-degree felony under this statute is to disrupt a computer network associated with medical equipment or the direct administration of medical care.

Florida Court Decision Outlines the Procedures Required to Seal Criminal Record

Posted In: October 25, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

If you have a criminal record with one or more convictions, it can hinder your career prospects, financial opportunities, and even ability to qualify for certain loans. Florida criminal law allows individuals, under certain circumstances, to have their criminal record sealed. A Florida court issued a decision, showing that both the applicant and the State have to follow statutory procedures before granting or denying a certificate of eligibility to seal a criminal record.In Lazard v. State, the defendant had a child in his care. During this time, the defendant struck the child with an extension cord. The State charged the defendant with aggravated child abuse, and he ultimately pled guilty to the crime of contributing to the dependency of a child, a misdemeanor. Later, the defendant made an application to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to seal his criminal record. The FDLE denied his request because his criminal history related to an act of domestic violence, which, according to the FDLE, rendered him ineligible for sealing his record.

Florida Statutes Section 943.059 outlines the procedures for having a criminal record sealed. In short, the applicant must first receive a certificate of eligibility from the FDLE and then file a petition to seal the record with the court. The court will conduct a hearing and evaluate evidence before making its determination. By law, the FDLE is obligated to issue a certificate of eligibility if the applicant meets the statutorily defined criteria.

The court observed that although the applicant met the criteria to receive a certificate of eligibility, the FDLE did not furnish him with the certificate. Instead, the court held that the FDLE should have followed the following procedure: (i) issue the certificate because the defendant satisfied the first prong of the criminal history sealing statute, and (ii) hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s offense related to an act of domestic violence, which would have acted as a basis to deny his request to seal his criminal history. The court ruled that the FDLE’s refusal to issue the certificate without an opportunity to hold an evidentiary hearing was erroneous and overturned the FDLE’s ruling.

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

Posted In: October 17, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

In a recent Tampa gun crime case, a woman and her son met who they thought were potential buyers of their vehicle in a Tampa-area parking lot. The plan was to meet in person and negotiate the car transaction with the two prospective buyers, two teenagers. When everyone arrived at the designated location, the teens pulled firearms and demanded that her son give up the keys to the vehicle. The mother gave up the keys, but as they were driving away, she fired a shot that hit one of the teenagers. He was later pronounced dead from the gunshot wound at the hospital.The surviving teen is being charged with second-degree murder and armed robbery. Under Florida felony murder laws, the alleged carjacker, as a co-conspirator, can be charged under the felony murder statute, if he participated in a felony and another person died in the commission of the felony.

Under these circumstances, the prosecution might allege that the driver of the vehicle was in the act of committing armed robbery when he was driving away and his co-conspirator was killed. The felony murder statute applies when another “human being is killed” and does not require that the person who died not be a co-conspirator.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Aggravated Battery Conviction but Overturns Conspiracy to Deliver Cannabis Conviction

Posted In: October 10, 2017 | By Hanlon Law, PA

The punishments for Florida drug crimes are often harsh. The legislature has not only criminalized the possession of illegal drugs but also has criminalized a plan, or conspiracy, to sell illegal drugs. As shown in a recent Tampa drug crime case, law enforcement attempted to convict a defendant for conspiracy to deliver cannabis, even though there was likely never any intent to actually make a drug sale.Three friends from the Tampa area made arrangements to meet the defendants to acquire cannabis. One of the passengers called the co-defendant multiple times to find out where to meet. When they arrived at the designated meeting spot, there was no one to meet them. After five or six minutes, the passenger called again. The conversation was suspicious, and the passengers continued to wait in the car. The defendants walked up to the vehicle, where one of the passengers held cash out of the door. The defendant approached the vehicle with a square piece of paper to distract one of the passengers. Instantaneously, the co-defendant pulled a gun from his waistband. The driver sped away but only made it a few feet before the co-defendant fired and shot one of the passengers in the face, causing serious permanent injuries. Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s aggravated battery conviction but overturned his conspiracy to deliver cannabis conviction.

Although the co-defendant physically committed the battery offense, Florida law criminalizes accomplices to a battery. The State is required to prove that the defendant intended for the battery to occur and did some act or said some words that assisted or furthered the battery.

The court of appeals found the evidence at trial to be sufficient. It was possible that both defendants created the cannabis sale as a ruse to commit another crime. The defendant also acted as a distraction so that the co-defendant had time to retrieve his firearm from his pants and shoot one of the victims. It appeared as though it were a pre-planned, coordinated effort in which the defendant intended to participate.