Avvo Rating badge
NACDL badge
Expertise badge
Avvo Rating badge
Expertise Best Criminal Attorneys in St. Petersburg
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Home » Page 6

Posted In: | By

People incarcerated in federal prisons typically have to serve the entirety of their sentences unless they are eligible for parole or get credit for good behavior. In some instances, though, federal prisoners may be able to obtain a compassionate release. Only reasons enumerated by statute qualify for release, however, as explained in a recent Florida case in which the court denied the request for compassionate release of a defendant convicted of robbery. If you are accused of robbery or another theft crime, it is prudent to consult a Tampa theft offense defense attorney to determine what measures you can take to protect your rights.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was convicted of numerous robbery-related crimes and sentenced to 270 months in federal prison. In addition to his robbery offenses, he had previously been arrested for several other crimes. He subsequently filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to federal law on the grounds that he had multiple medical conditions and was exposed to an increased risk of COVID-19.

It is reported that the government opposed the defendant’s motion, noting that the defendant’s claimed conditions did not qualify as one of the medical conditions set forth in the statutory guidelines that constitute grounds for granting compassionate release. The court agreed with the government’s reasoning and denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Many criminal defendants unwaveringly assert their innocence, but others choose to plead guilty in hopes of obtaining a favorable plea deal. State and federal law allows defendants to enter guilty pleas, as long as they do so willingly and with a clear understanding of the consequences of their decision, but if they do, they typically have limited chances to withdraw their plea. Recently, a Florida court analyzed when permitting a criminal defendant to change their guilty plea is appropriate in a case in which the defendant pled guilty to numerous crimes involving sex with a minor. If you are charged with a sex crime, you may face substantial penalties if convicted, and it is in your best interest to talk to a Tampa sex crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant lived with his girlfriend and her teenage son and daughter. For approximately one year, the defendant had sex with the daughter, who was sixteen at the time. The daughter cooperated with law enforcement and made calls to catch the defendant scheduling sex acts. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with recruiting and soliciting a minor to engage in a commercial sex act.

It is reported that the defendant pleaded not guilty at his arraignment but requested a change of plea hearing a few months later, during which he requested to change his plea to guilty. The magistrate noticed he was hesitant and ended the hearing. The defendant requested a second change of plea hearing a week later, during which he stated that no one compelled him to plead guilty. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

People with an extensive criminal history may face greater penalties if they are convicted for another offense pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Only certain offenses qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA, though. Recently, a Florida court explained what constitutes a violent offense under the ACCA’s elements clause, in which it deliberated whether a prior conviction for aggravated assault could sustain the defendant’s enhanced sentence under the ACCA. If you are charged with assault, it is wise to confer with a Tampa assault defense lawyer to determine your options for seeking a good outcome.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant pleaded guilty to a federal charge of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Due to the defendant’s four prior convictions for violent crimes, the court ruled that the defendant should be sentenced to increased penalties under the ACCA and sentenced him to 211 months in prison.

Allegedly, the court relied on the conclusion that aggravated assault with a deadly weapon qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA. The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, and the court affirmed. He filed a petition for rehearing, and the court certified his questions to the Florida Supreme Court. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

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 ›

Posted In: | By

Generally, when imposing sentences for crimes, the courts are bound by the sentencing guidelines. They may issue sentences at the high or low end of the guidelines, however, and in some instances, they can deviate from the guidelines. The courts will consider numerous factors in determining an appropriate sentence but have the discretion to assign greater weight to some factors than others, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the court rejected the defendant’s assertion that his sentence for gun crimes was unreasonable in light of his personal characteristics. If you are charged with a weapons offense, you may face serious penalties, and it is advisable to confer with a Tampa gun crime defense attorney about your possible defenses.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant, who is a convicted felon, was arrested for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon following a shooting at an apartment complex and a high-speed chase. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge against him pursuant to a plea agreement in which the government agreed to recommend that the court impose a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range.

Reportedly, a United States probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report in which he offered recommendations for the defendant’s sentence. He made a series of increases based on the nature of the defendant’s offense and the defendant’s extensive criminal history; based on the total offense level and criminal history, the probation officer calculated the sentencing guidelines range to be 84 to 105 months in prison. The court sentenced the defendant to 96 months in prison, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In addition to issuing prison sentences, federal courts have the right to order people convicted of certain crimes to pay restitution. Such amounts generally must reflect the actual damages caused, however; otherwise, defendants may be able to argue that they are unconstitutional. Recently, a Florida court examined what constitutes appropriate restitution in an identity theft case in which it ultimately rejected the defendant’s argument that the amount imposed was excessive. If you are accused of committing a theft crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Tampa theft crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the federal government indicted the defendant with aggravated identity theft, mail fraud, and other offenses. He entered into a written plea agreement, agreeing to plead guilty to two of the counts and to make full restitution to the victims of his crimes. Further, he acknowledged that the restitution amount determined by the court would be in excess of $260,000 and that he waived the right to appeal the sentence imposed unless it exceeded the sentencing guideline range or statutory maximum or violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

It is reported that the court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea and the plea agreement, sentenced him to approximately 250 months in prison, and ordered him to pay restitution in excess of $440,000. He appealed, arguing that the government failed to offer evidence of loss sufficient to support the restitution amount. Continue Reading ›

By
Posted in: Theft
Posted In:
Updated:

Posted In: | By

People convicted as juveniles and sentenced to more than twenty years in prison are entitled to a sentence review after they have been imprisoned for twenty years. The sentencing court is not required to orally advise the defendant of such rights or set forth information regarding the right to review in the sentencing order, however. As such, the failure to do so will not constitute an error, as explained in a recent Florida opinion issued in a matter in which the defendant appealed his conviction. If you are charged with a crime, it is in your best interest to talk to a Tampa criminal defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Procedural History

It is reported that when the defendant was 16 years old, he was charged with multiple crimes after he allegedly attacked his foster mother. He was convicted on all counts. Prior to sentencing, he sought a downward sentence due to the fact that he needed specialized treatment for a medical condition. The state opposed the imposition of a departure sentence on the grounds that the defendant had a lengthy criminal past and his criminal conduct was escalating.

Allegedly, the court rejected the defendant’s request for a downward departure and sentenced him to a total of 35 years imprisonment. It did not mention the right to a sentence review or set forth anything about such rights in the written sentence. The defendant moved to correct a sentencing error, arguing that because he was a juvenile at the time of his conviction, he was entitled to judicial review after he completed twenty years of his sentence. His motion was deemed denied, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Generally, Florida law dictates that crimes must be prosecuted within a certain amount of time. Thus, if the state fails to prosecute a person for an offense within the statute of limitations, it may waive the right to do so. Some offenses can be prosecuted at any time, however, as explained in a recent Florida ruling issued in a sexual battery case. If you are charged with sexual battery or any other sex crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should meet with a Tampa sex crime defense lawyer promptly.

History of the Case

It is reported that in January 2010, a 15-year-old girl reported to the police that a man with the same name as the defendant gave her alcohol and then raped her. She was transported to a medical facility where a vaginal swab was obtained using a sexual assault kit. Approximately three months later, Florida law enforcement determined that DNA obtained from the vaginal swab belonged to the appellant. He was arrested in March 2019 and charged with sexual battery. He was convicted, after which he moved to vacate his conviction on the grounds that the statute of limitations expired on the sexual battery offense. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In criminal cases, whether a defendant is found guilty typically hinges on the jury’s perception of them and the facts presented at trial. Thus, it is critical that the jury is comprised of impartial people who represent the defendant’s peers. If the prosecution uses a preemptory strike against a juror for impermissible reasons, therefore, it may violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. Recently, a Florida court discussed preemptory strikes of jurors in criminal matters in a case in which the defendant was convicted of murder and other crimes. If you are accused of murder or another violent offense, it is critical that you engage the services of a Tampa criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant and accomplices robbed a pawn shop and then fled from the police. The defendant ultimately entered the victim’s home and then drove the victim’s car through the garage door. The police arrested the defendant and then found the two victims murdered within the home.

The defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of first-degree murder. During the selection of jurors, the state used one of its preemptory strikes to remove a juror who, like the defendant, was black. The defendant’s attorney stated that the state’s reason for striking the juror was not sufficiently race-neutral. The defendant was convicted as charged. He then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

While identity theft typically does not cause bodily harm, it is nonetheless a serious crime, and many people convicted of such offenses can spend years in prison. Regardless of the nature of an offense, though, the punishment imposed must be reasonable; otherwise, it may be overturned. Recently, a Florida court examined what constitutes an appropriate sentence for aggravated identity theft and other offenses in a case in which it rejected the defendant’s appeal. If you are accused of a theft crime, it is in your best interest to speak to a Tampa theft crime defense lawyer about your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

Historical Background of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with aggravated identity theft and access device fraud in violation of federal law. He pled guilty to both charges pursuant to a written plea agreement. The facts in the plea agreement indicated that the defendant obtained personal identifying data from over 100 victims and then used the data to access dormant credit cards or obtain new cards.

Reportedly, he then used the cards in stores throughout the country and sold the materials he purchased with the cards on the internet. The total financial losses caused by the theft exceeded $650,000. The court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea, following the magistrate’s recommendation. It ultimately imposed a sentence of 96 months imprisonment, which was above the range set forth in the sentencing guidelines. The defendant appealed. Among other things, he argued that the sentence was unreasonable. Continue Reading ›