History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation involving a minor under the age of sixteen, based on accusations made by the victim, who claimed that the defendant, her mother’s partner, engaged in inappropriate conduct. The defense theory centered on the claim that the accusations were fabricated to influence custodial arrangements.

The post Florida Court Examines Voir Dire Questioning in Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendants were charged in a multi-count federal indictment involving drug trafficking conspiracy and firearm-related offenses arising from separate incidents, including traffic stops and a drug interdiction at an airport. The charges included possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes and possession of firearms by a convicted felon. The case proceeded toward trial in the federal district court.

The post Florida Court Examines Expert Testimony in Drug Crime Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon and received life sentences on both counts following a jury trial in circuit court. The convictions became final after the appellate court affirmed them by mandate more than a decade earlier.

Reportedly, years after the judgment became final, the defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion alleged juror misconduct based on a juror’s failure to disclose information during voir dire, including the criminal histories of close family members and the juror’s proximity to the crime scene.

It is alleged that the defendant argued the motion was timely because the information constituted newly discovered evidence that could not have been uncovered earlier through due diligence. In support, the defendant attached an affidavit from a private jury investigation company describing how it located the information through public records searches and online resources.

It is reported that the postconviction court summarily denied the motion as untimely, concluding that the newly discovered evidence exception did not apply. The court also denied a subsequent motion for rehearing or reconsideration.

Reportedly, the defendant appealed the summary denial, contending that he could not have discovered the juror’s nondisclosures within the two-year time limit and relying heavily on Florida Supreme Court precedent addressing concealed juror information.

Newly Discovered Evidence in Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court applied de novo review to the summary denial of the postconviction motion. The court reiterated that Rule 3.850 imposes a strict two-year deadline for filing postconviction motions, subject only to limited exceptions, including newly discovered evidence that could not have been ascertained through due diligence.

The court examined the legal standard governing newly discovered evidence claims and emphasized that the inquiry focuses not on when a defendant actually discovered the information, but on whether the information was discoverable within the permissible time frame through reasonable efforts. The court distinguished between information that is inherently undiscoverable without voluntary disclosure and information available through public records.

In evaluating the defendant’s reliance on prior precedent, the court compared cases in which juror misconduct claims were allowed to proceed outside the time bar with those in which they were deemed procedurally barred. The court explained that when concealed information involves public arrest records, addresses, or family relationships that can be traced through official databases, due diligence requires a timely investigation.

The court carefully reviewed the investigative methods described in the affidavit attached to the motion. Those methods included searching clerk of court databases, corrections records, law enforcement reports, and publicly available social media information. The court concluded that these same methods were available well before the filing deadline and did not depend on the existence of a particular investigative company.

The court rejected arguments based on financial inability to retain investigators, noting that the lack of resources does not excuse compliance with procedural rules. It further clarified that neither the defense nor the State has an affirmative duty to investigate jurors, but defendants who intend to raise juror misconduct claims must do so within the established timeframe.

Based on this analysis, the court held that the defendant failed to establish an applicable exception to the time bar. Because the motion was untimely as a matter of law, the court affirmed the summary denial without reaching the merits of the alleged juror bias.

Talk to a Skilled Sarasota Violent Crime Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a violent offense, it is critical to talk to an attorney about what defenses you may be able to assert to avoid a conviction.  The skilled Sarasota violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can assess your case and help you seek the best possible legal outcome.  You can contact our Sarasota office online or call 941-462-1789 to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Court Weighs Juror Misconduct Claims in Florida Postconviction Proceedings appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the State charged the defendant by information with solicitation to commit prostitution in violation of section 796.07(2)(f), Florida Statutes. The charge alleged that the defendant solicited another person to engage in prostitution by sexual intercourse.

Reportedly, the case proceeded to trial in county court, where the trial judge provided the jury with instructions addressing the charged offense. The instructions also referenced solicitation to commit lewdness and assignation, which were not separately charged in the information.

It is alleged that the defendant did not object to the jury instructions at trial. The instructions were included among those collectively identified by the court as the proposed jury instructions, and the defense raised no contemporaneous challenge to their content.

It is reported that the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of solicitation to commit prostitution as charged. The verdict form specifically identified the offense and cited the applicable statute, reflecting that the jury found the defendant guilty only of the crime alleged in the information.

Reportedly, the defendant appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on uncharged offenses. The defendant asserted that the inclusion of those references created a risk that the jury convicted him based on an improper theory not alleged by the State.

Jury Instructions in Florida Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court examined whether the challenged jury instruction constituted fundamental error, which is the only basis for reversal when an alleged error was not preserved by objection at trial. The court acknowledged the State’s preliminary argument that the issue may have been waived but determined that it was unnecessary to resolve waiver because the instruction did not amount to fundamental error.

The court analyzed Florida precedent governing instructional errors that reference uncharged offenses. Fundamental error occurs when a jury instruction is so flawed that it undermines the validity of the verdict or makes it impossible to determine whether the defendant was convicted of the charged crime rather than an uncharged offense. This concern often arises in cases involving general verdicts, where the verdict does not specify the theory or offense on which the jury relied.

In this case, the court emphasized the importance of the verdict form. The jury expressly found the defendant guilty of solicitation to commit prostitution, the precise offense charged in the information. Because the verdict form identified the charged crime and statutory citation, there was no uncertainty regarding the basis of the conviction.

The court relied on prior decisions holding that when the record demonstrates the jury convicted the defendant only of the charged offense, the inclusion of references to uncharged crimes in jury instructions does not constitute fundamental error. The court explained that due process concerns arise only when it is impossible to know whether the jury convicted the defendant of an uncharged offense or theory.

Applying that standard, the court concluded that the partially erroneous instruction did not affect the validity of the verdict. The jury’s specific finding eliminated any risk that the defendant was convicted of solicitation to commit lewdness or assignation rather than solicitation to commit prostitution. Because no fundamental error occurred, the defendant was not entitled to relief on appeal. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

Speak with an Experienced Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case

Appellate challenges based on jury instructions require careful analysis of trial records, verdict forms, and preservation rules. The experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law understand how Florida appellate courts evaluate claims of fundamental error and instructional defects. If you have been convicted of a criminal offense or believe trial errors affected your case, Hanlon Law can review the record and advise you on potential appellate or post-conviction options. You can reach us online or t 941-462-1789 to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Court Discusses Jury Instructions in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Evidentiary rulings frequently shape the trajectory of serious felony cases by influencing what jurors learn about motive, credibility, and the sequence of events. A recent decision issued by a Florida court in a murder case demonstrates how courts review such rulings in cases involving competing theories of culpability and disputes over third-party motive evidence. If you are charged with murder or any other violent offense, it is smart to consult a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney who can help you protect your interests.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant, the victim, and the girlfriend lived together as roommates. The girlfriend previously dated the defendant, but during his incarceration, she began a relationship with the victim. Two days after the defendant returned home following his release, he found the victim and the girlfriend together in bed and killed the victim.

Reportedly, the defendant and the girlfriend attempted to conceal the homicide by disposing of the body and cleaning the residence. Investigators located the victim’s body in a dumpster, recovered portions of a blood-soaked mattress, and found gloves and other items containing DNA from the defendant, the victim, and the girlfriend. Cell site data showed the defendant’s and the girlfriend’s movements matched the disposal route described by investigators.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidentiary Rulings in Murder Case appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

When a person is charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, evidentiary disputes often determine what information a jury will hear at trial. Motions in limine, requests made before trial to admit or exclude evidence, can significantly shape the outcome of the case. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how federal courts apply the rules of evidence in firearm prosecutions. If you are facing federal firearm charges, it is critical to have a Sarasota criminal defense attorney who understands how evidentiary rulings can impact your case and protect your rights before trial.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the defendant was stopped by law enforcement while driving a vehicle. During the stop, officers discovered a firearm in the car. It is reported that the defendant, who had multiple prior felony convictions, including armed robbery and burglary, was charged with possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of federal law. The case was set for trial, and before the proceedings began, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude several categories of evidence that he argued would unfairly prejudice the jury.

It is alleged that the defendant requested the court to prohibit the government from referencing six main types of evidence: (1) a prior case connected to the vehicle’s license plate, (2) a black duffel bag and its contents, (3) a red bookbag found in the vehicle, (4) the criminal history and drug charges of a passenger, (5) an observation of a bulge in the defendant’s waistband before the stop, and (6) the defendant’s probationary status and broader criminal history. The prosecution agreed not to introduce some categories of evidence but opposed the exclusion of others that it believed were relevant to the firearm charge.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidentiary Rulings in Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation involving his daughter. The State claimed the conduct began when the child was under twelve and continued into her teenage years. The charges included sexual battery by various means, lewd touching of the child’s genitals and breasts, and transmission of an image harmful to a minor. The State further alleged that the defendant groomed the child through repeated abuse over several years.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Vacating Convictions appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Criminal defendants in federal court are protected both by the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. These protections require that the government bring charges and proceed to trial within specified time limits, unless continuances are properly justified and granted. When defendants believe their rights have been violated, they may move to dismiss the indictment or argue on appeal that delays undermined the fairness of the proceedings. A recent Florida decision issued in a robbery case illustrates the limits of such arguments, affirming that not all delays are attributable to the government and that defendants cannot obtain dismissal without showing actual prejudice. If you are charged with a theft crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested on state charges before being transferred to federal custody, at which point he was indicted for six counts of Hobbs Act robbery. Reportedly, the defendant’s trial began approximately fourteen months after his federal arrest and ten months after his indictment.

It is reported that the defendant attempted to preserve a claim under the Speedy Trial Act by filing a pro se motion to dismiss, even though he was represented by appointed counsel at the time. Under the Southern District of Florida’s local rules, defendants represented by counsel are not permitted to file pro se motions, and the district court later replaced the public defender with private counsel. However, the new attorney did not renew the motion to dismiss.

It is alleged that the delays in the case were due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicated grand jury proceedings and halted jury trials in the district court for a period. It is further reported that the defendant himself requested three continuances, which accounted for approximately seven months of the total delay. The jury convicted the defendant, after which he appealed.

The post Florida Court Assesses Speedy Trial Rights in Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

In the federal criminal justice system, defendants are entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against them, the legality of their indictment, and the procedural and substantive fairness of their sentence. However, these challenges must meet stringent standards, especially on appeal. A recent decision from a Florida federal court highlights the importance of preserving arguments at trial and illustrates the rigorous legal framework governing charges for assaulting federal officers. If you are facing violent crime charges, an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help ensure your rights are preserved at every stage of your case.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant, who was an inmate at the time of the offense, was convicted in the Middle District of Florida of assaulting two federal correctional officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b), as well as possessing a weapon while incarcerated. The defendant was sentenced to 137 months in prison. During a confrontation, the defendant physically assaulted one officer, then used a weapon to inflict bodily harm on a second officer. Multiple witnesses testified that the defendant attacked the officers on separate occasions and that video surveillance corroborated their testimony.

Allegedly, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish he was the person who committed the assaults. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant subsequently testified in his own defense. The defendant appealed.

The post Florida Court Explains Evidence Needed to Prove an Indictment is Multiplicitous appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

In federal sentencing, defendants with certain prior felony convictions face enhanced penalties under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. When a defendant qualifies as a “career offender,” the resulting guideline range can substantially increase. Whether a prior offense qualifies as a predicate “crime of violence” is a critical legal issue that may shape a defendant’s sentence. Recently, a Florida court addressed this question in the context of a Florida statute criminalizing the act of resisting an officer with violence. If you are charged with a serious federal offense and have prior convictions, a knowledgeable Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help you evaluate whether enhancements may apply and advocate for a fair sentence.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) and sentenced to 144 months in prison. At sentencing, the district court applied the “career offender” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, citing the defendant’s two prior convictions for crimes of violence. One of those convictions was for resisting an officer with violence under Florida Statutes § 843.01.

Allegedly, the defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that his prior Florida conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. He asserted that the statute could be violated in ways that do not necessarily involve the use of violent physical force. The defendant contended that because the offense might be committed with a reckless mental state, it should not qualify under the “elements clause” of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, which requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person.

The post Florida Court Examines What Constitutes a Crime of Violence appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.