Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog

Florida Court Assesses Evidence in Robbery Case

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 14:00:18 +0000

A recorded 911 call can bring an absent witness’s account into the courtroom, but whether jurors may hear it depends in part on why the statements were made. A call seeking help during an ongoing emergency raises different constitutional questions from an account gathered for a later prosecution. A recent Florida decision examined that distinction while rejecting a renewed challenge to an armed robbery conviction. If recorded statements are part of the case against you, a Sarasota violent crime defense attorney can assess their admissibility and preserve appropriate objections.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of armed robbery after a jury heard a recording of the victim’s 911 call. On direct appeal, he argued that the recording contained testimonial statements and that admitting them without an opportunity to cross-examine the victim violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in 2010.

Allegedly, that earlier ruling divided the judges. The majority treated the call as connected to an ongoing emergency. A dissent concluded that the robbery had ended and the statements were testimonial. A separate concurrence emphasized that the perpetrators had taken the victim’s wallet, containing his address, along with his house and car keys. Those items created a continuing risk that they might enter his home or return for his car.

In the 2026 habeas petition, the defendant sought to revisit that appellate ruling on the ground that it caused a manifest injustice. He argued that the victim recovered his keys immediately after the robbery, eliminating the emergency that had supported admission of the call.

When Emergency Statements Become Testimonial

The court explained the distinction developed in Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington. Testimonial statements from an absent witness generally implicate the Confrontation Clause and require attention to unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Statements primarily intended to enable police assistance during an ongoing emergency are treated differently.

The purpose of the exchange is central. A 911 call commonly describes a situation requiring immediate help. Once that emergency ends, however, questioning can shift toward establishing past events for use in a prosecution. The same conversation can therefore change character as it unfolds. Labeling a recording a 911 call does not answer every constitutional question about its contents.

In this case, the court reviewed the petition and earlier filings and concluded that the victim had not recovered his keys when he spoke to the operator. He retrieved them only after the perpetrators discarded them during fresh pursuit. The stolen wallet and identifying information also remained relevant to the continuing danger. Those facts undermined the premise of the renewed challenge.

Why the Court Refused to Reopen the Earlier Ruling

The petition faced another obstacle: the law-of-the-case doctrine. Courts ordinarily adhere to legal issues already decided in an earlier appeal in the same case. An exception allows reconsideration in unusual circumstances where enforcing the earlier ruling would produce manifest injustice, but it does not provide a routine second appeal.

The Third District acknowledged that reasonable judges had disagreed about the original confrontation issue. It nevertheless found no egregious error meeting the demanding standard for relief and denied the petition. The ruling was a denial of a later collateral challenge, rather than a new direct appeal from the conviction.

Discuss Your Charges With a Sarasota Defense Attorney

When the prosecution relies on a 911 recording or another out-of-court statement, the circumstances behind it deserve careful scrutiny. The Sarasota violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate the evidence, identify potential confrontation issues, and explain the options available at your case’s current stage. Call 941-462-1789 to arrange a consultation.

The post Florida Court Assesses Evidence in Robbery Case appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Court Examines Sufficiency of Evidence in Florida DUI Case

Hanlon Law, PA — Sat, 12 Sep 2026 23:22:24 +0000

A DUI case can hinge on what happened before the officer activated the flashing lights. An un-signaled lane change or movement within a lane does not automatically justify a traffic stop; nearby traffic and potential safety risks can make the difference. This was discussed in a recent Florida decision that examined whether a driver’s late-night movements gave an officer a lawful basis to pull him over. If a traffic stop led to your DUI arrest, a Sarasota DUI defense attorney can examine the officer’s observations and determine whether grounds exist to challenge the stop.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, shortly after 3 a.m., an officer saw the defendant change lanes twice without signaling and weave in and out of a lane over a block or two. Other vehicles were on the road. Suspecting impairment and a possible traffic hazard, the officer activated emergency lights and used a horn and siren. The defendant continued driving for several blocks before stopping.

Reportedly, the officer approached the vehicle and smelled a strong odor of alcohol. The officer observed red, watery, bloodshot eyes and had to repeat instructions to turn off the vehicle and step outside. After a roadside assessment, police arrested the defendant for driving under the influence. The State charged the defendant with one DUI count.

It is alleged that before trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained after the stop. The defense argued that the driving did not create a safety concern or affect traffic, so neither an unsignaled lane change nor minor weaving supplied probable cause. At the suppression hearing, the officer testified about nearby traffic and the perceived risk of a crash. The trial court found probable cause for failing to signal and failing to maintain a lane, and denied suppression. A jury convicted the defendant of DUI, and the defendant appealed.

Grounds for Making a Traffic Stop

On appeal, the court reviewed the evidence from the suppression hearing. After doing so, it rejected the defendant’s comparison to a case involving an unsignaled movement when no other vehicles were nearby. Florida’s signaling statute requires a signal when another vehicle may be affected by the movement. Its lane-control provision likewise focuses on practicable lane use and safety. Here, the officer saw other vehicles on the roadway and described a driving pattern that could affect them. Those facts distinguished an isolated, safe maneuver on an empty road.

The court also found an independent justification for the stop: a well-founded suspicion that the driver was impaired. Florida law permits a brief safety investigation when objective driving behavior suggests that a motorist may be ill, tired, or under the influence, even without proof of a separate traffic infraction. The officer described repeated lane changes without signals, weaving, and a delayed response to emergency equipment. The court treated those observations, not merely the officer’s hunch, as the basis for the stop.

The odor of alcohol, eye condition, and repeated commands occurred after the stop. They supported the officer’s developing investigation, but the legality of the initial seizure depended on what the officer observed before stopping the vehicle. After considering the pre-stop driving and road conditions, the court held the stop lawful. As such, tt affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and the DUI conviction.

Discuss Your DUI Charge with a Sarasota DUI Defense Attorney

The legality of a DUI stop depends on the details visible before an officer activates emergency equipment. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is smart to talk to an attorney as soon as possible. Hanlon Law’s Sarasota DUI defense attorneys can examine the evidence against you and help you to determine how to protect your interests. Call 941-462-1789 or complete the online contact form to discuss your case confidentially.

The post Court Examines Sufficiency of Evidence in Florida DUI Case appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Finds Double Jeopardy Violation in Resisting Case

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 18:26:23 +0000

A continuing encounter with multiple officers does not always support a separate resisting charge for each officer involved. A Florida court recently considered whether a student’s uninterrupted resistance during an arrest at school constituted one criminal act or two. Its decision explains how location, timing, intervening events, and intent affect double jeopardy analysis. If you or your child are confronting juvenile delinquency allegations, you should consult a Sarasota juvenile defense attorney to understand how constitutional protections may limit multiple adjudications.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, school deans conducted an administrative search after receiving information that a student possessed a vape device. One school resource officer stood by for safety while a dean performed the search. The student became hostile, took the device from the administrator, and resisted when the officer intervened to restrain the student and recover it.

Reportedly, the first officer arrested the student and called a second officer for assistance. The student continued pulling away and refusing commands after officers applied handcuffs. They walked the student about 22 seconds to an office to await transportation, and the resistance continued there. While the first officer briefly left, the student resisted the second officer and later obtained the vape while handcuffed and blew vapor toward that officer.

It is reported that the juvenile court adjudicated the student delinquent on two counts of resisting an officer without violence. The court viewed resistance to the first officer during the initial arrest and resistance to the second officer in the office as separate acts. The student appealed, arguing that the second adjudication punished the same continuous conduct twice.

Establishing a Double Jeopardy Violation

On appeal, the court addressed the double jeopardy claim even though the student had not raised it below. A violation of that constitutional protection constitutes fundamental error, so it may be presented for the first time on appeal. The court recognized that multiple resisting convictions are permissible when the evidence establishes distinct acts, but continuous resistance during one arrest can remain a single act even when several officers participate.

To determine whether the conduct formed one episode, the court considered whether the events involved separate victims or locations, whether a temporal break or intervening act occurred, and whether the student developed a new criminal intent. Although each officer acted independently at certain moments, both participated in the same effort to arrest and control the student. The encounter remained at the school, and the short walk to the office did not create a meaningful geographic separation.

The court also found no pause or intervening event that ended one offense before another began. The student maintained the same objective throughout the encounter: recovering the vape and resisting the officers’ attempts at control. Because the conduct flowed continuously, the two adjudications punished a single act and violated double jeopardy. The court affirmed the first adjudication, reversed the second, and remanded with instructions to vacate the second count and resentence the student.

Seek Guidance from a Knowledgeable Sarasota Juvenile Crime Defense Attorney

Juvenile cases can carry lasting educational, personal, and legal consequences, making early defense guidance especially important. If you or your child are charged with a juvenile offense, it is important to speak to an attorney as soon as possible. The knowledgeable Sarasota juvenile defense attorneys at Hanlon Law assist young people and families with delinquency matters and related criminal allegations. Call 941-462-1789 or complete the firm’s online contact form to schedule a confidential consultation about your options.

The post Florida Court Finds Double Jeopardy Violation in Resisting Case appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Miranda Protections

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:33:32 +0000

Criminal cases frequently turn on whether law enforcement officers respected a suspect’s constitutional rights before obtaining statements or written admissions. Even when an investigation begins with a private business, police involvement can transform an encounter into a custodial interrogation that requires constitutional safeguards. A recent ruling in a Florida theft case demonstrates how courts evaluate the role police officers play in obtaining evidence. If you have been arrested for theft, speaking with an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney as early as possible can help you protect your rights and prepare an effective defense strategy.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant was detained by a department store’s loss prevention personnel after being suspected of attempting to steal approximately $230 worth of children’s clothing. The defendant was placed inside a locked holding room within the store, where two uniformed, on-duty police officers were present. While confined in the room, the defendant was questioned and signed a department store acknowledgment form admitting to the attempted theft. The defendant did not receive Miranda warnings before answering questions or signing the form.

The post Florida Court Discusses Miranda Protections appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Court Assesses Self-Defense Jury Instructions in Florida Criminal Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 15:22:28 +0000

Self-defense often becomes the central issue in violent crime prosecutions, particularly when conflicting witness testimony leaves jurors to decide whether a defendant reasonably believed deadly force was necessary. Even when evidence supports a self-defense claim, an incorrect jury instruction can unfairly undermine that defense and affect the outcome of a trial. A recent Florida decision demonstrates how critical accurate jury instructions are when self-defense is at issue. If you have been charged with murder or another violent offense in the Sarasota area, speaking with an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney as soon as possible can help you protect your rights and build the strongest defense available.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant accompanied a friend to an apartment where the friend planned to sell cannabis to two individuals. According to the evidence, the buyers instead orchestrated a plan to steal the drugs by disguising a router as a bundle of cash. After the exchange began, the transaction quickly deteriorated into a violent confrontation. Witnesses offered conflicting accounts regarding who initiated the violence. The defendant maintained that one individual attacked his friend while the other reached for what appeared to be a firearm or knife, causing the defendant to fire his weapon because he feared for his life and the life of his companion. One participant survived multiple gunshot wounds, while the other died.

Reportedly, the defendant was convicted of third-degree murder and attempted felony murder. Throughout the trial, his defense centered entirely on Florida’s justifiable use of deadly force statutes. Defense counsel objected to several proposed jury instructions, arguing that certain language regarding the forcible felony exception could improperly negate the defendant’s self-defense claim. The trial court nevertheless gave the challenged instruction, denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, and entered judgment. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and multiple jury instructions.

Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed whether the challenged jury instructions accurately reflected Florida law and whether any instructional error prejudiced the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court explained that the forcible felony exception to self-defense applies only when a defendant commits a separate, independent forcible felony in addition to the act for which self-defense is claimed.

When the only alleged forcible felony is the very offense the defendant asserts was committed in self-defense, instructing the jury on the exception creates circular reasoning that can improperly suggest the defendant cannot rely on self-defense at all. The court concluded that this was precisely the problem presented in the case.

The court also examined the defendant’s additional arguments concerning the initial aggressor instruction, the denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, and another instruction addressing accomplice testimony. Although it determined that the initial aggressor instruction was legally appropriate under the evidence presented, the court carefully reviewed the conflicting testimony regarding the confrontation. It concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to reject the defendant’s version of events. As a result, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motions challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court likewise rejected the defendant’s challenge to the accomplice witness instruction because he failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice.

Ultimately, however, the erroneous forcible felony instruction required reversal. Because the defendant’s sole defense was self-defense, the incorrect instruction had the potential to mislead jurors into believing that the charged offenses themselves automatically barred the defense. The court therefore reversed the convictions and remanded the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of accurate jury instructions whenever a defendant asserts self-defense.

Discuss Your Case with an Experienced Sarasota Violent Crimes Defense Attorney

If you are under investigation or have been charged with murder, aggravated assault, or another serious criminal offense in the Sarasota area, you should seek experienced legal representation immediately. The Sarasota violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law understand how to challenge improper jury instructions, protect your constitutional rights, and pursue every available defense. Contact Hanlon Law at 941-462-1789 or through our online form to schedule a consultation.

The post Court Assesses Self-Defense Jury Instructions in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Evidence in DUI Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 06 May 2026 17:48:47 +0000

DUI cases often involve disputes over the evidence presented to juries and the testimony offered by law enforcement officers. Defendants frequently challenge statements that they believe unfairly influence jurors or improperly bolster the State’s case. Courts must then determine whether the challenged testimony crossed the line from permissible evidence into reversible error. A recent Florida ruling addressed both officer testimony in a DUI trial and the use of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test as evidence. If you are facing DUI charges or any criminal allegation, it is important to consult an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights and develop an effective defense strategy.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with driving under the influence following an investigation by law enforcement officers who responded to the scene of an accident. The case proceeded to a jury trial in the county court, where the State presented testimony from the officers involved in the investigation and arrest.

Reportedly, during the trial, one of the arresting officers testified regarding his DUI investigations and explained that not every person he stops for suspected DUI is ultimately arrested. Defense counsel repeatedly objected to this testimony, arguing that it improperly bolstered the State’s case by suggesting that officers only arrest individuals when they are genuinely guilty of DUI offenses.

It is reported that the jury ultimately found the defendant guilty of DUI. The defendant appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the officer’s testimony. The defendant also contended that the State improperly suggested she was attempting to conceal evidence of guilt by declining to submit to a breathalyzer test, thereby committing fundamental error during the proceedings.

Evidence in DUI Cases

On appeal, the court carefully examined whether the officer’s testimony constituted improper bolstering. The defendant relied on a prior Florida case in which an officer testified about the percentage of DUI investigations that resulted in arrests. In that earlier case, the court determined that the testimony improperly suggested that defendants arrested for DUI were likely guilty because officers exercised significant discretion before making arrests.

The court concluded that the circumstances in the present case were materially different. Rather than providing statistics or percentages, the officer explained in general terms that some drivers investigated for DUI meet the legal criteria for arrest, while others do not. The court determined that this testimony did not imply that the defendant was guilty simply because she had been arrested. As a result, the court found that the trial judge properly overruled the defendant’s objections.

The court also addressed the defendant’s argument regarding her refusal to take a breathalyzer test. Because no objection was raised at trial, the court reviewed the issue under the demanding fundamental-error standard. The court explained that Florida law expressly permits the introduction of evidence of a driver’s refusal to submit to a breath test in criminal proceedings. The State’s references to the refusal were not intended to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Instead, the prosecution used the refusal as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

The court further noted that Florida precedent allows prosecutors to argue that a defendant’s refusal to submit to testing may be considered by a jury when evaluating the evidence. Given the applicable statutes and case law, the appellate court found no fundamental error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

Speak with a Skilled Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

DUI prosecutions often involve complex evidentiary issues, including officer testimony, field sobriety testing, chemical testing, and statements made during an investigation. The outcome of a case may depend on whether evidence was properly admitted and whether law enforcement followed constitutional and statutory requirements. If you are facing DUI charges or another criminal matter in the Sarasota area, it is important to seek legal guidance immediately. The experienced Sarasota DUI defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case, explain your rights, and work toward the best possible outcome. Contact Hanlon Law at 941-462-1789 or through our online form to schedule a consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidence in DUI Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Predicate Offenses Under the Armed Career Criminal Act

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 17:27:26 +0000

In federal criminal cases involving sentence enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), courts must carefully determine who decides key factual issues that can dramatically increase a defendant’s sentence. A recent Florida ruling reinforces the constitutional requirement that juries, not judges, must resolve certain factual determinations that expose defendants to heightened penalties. If you are facing federal firearm charges or potential sentence enhancements in Florida, it is critical to consult a Sarasota criminal defense attorney who can help you take the measures necessary to protect your rights during every phase of your case.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, law enforcement officers encountered the defendant at a motel in Jacksonville after the property manager reported repeated trespassing. Officers attempted to remove the defendant from the premises, but when the defendant refused to comply, they placed him under arrest. During the arrest, officers discovered a loaded firearm in the defendant’s possession, leading to federal charges for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

The post Florida Court Discusses Predicate Offenses Under the Armed Career Criminal Act appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Examines Voir Dire Questioning in Criminal Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 06 Mar 2026 23:32:22 +0000

In criminal prosecutions involving allegations of sexual misconduct, courts must carefully balance a defendant’s right to a fair trial with the need to maintain orderly and efficient jury selection. One recurring issue arises during voir dire, where counsel seeks to uncover potential juror bias while courts guard against improper attempts to preview the case. A recent Florida ruling illustrates how courts evaluate whether limits placed on voir dire questioning improperly restrict a defendant’s ability to present a defense. If you are charged with a sex crime, it is essential to speak with a Sarasota criminal defense attorney who can safeguard your constitutional rights at every stage of the proceedings.

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.

Florida Court Examines Expert Testimony in Drug Crime Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 20:18:28 +0000

In federal criminal prosecutions, courts frequently confront disputes over whether expert testimony will assist jurors or improperly influence their determination of a defendant’s intent. These evidentiary challenges often arise in drug trafficking cases, where law enforcement experts seek to explain industry practices that may not be readily understood by laypersons. A recent Florida decision highlights how courts balance the probative value of such testimony against the risk of invading the jury’s role. If you are facing serious drug or firearm charges, it is essential to consult a Sarasota criminal defense attorney who can evaluate the admissibility of critical evidence and protect your rights.

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.

Court Weighs Juror Misconduct Claims in Florida Postconviction Proceedings

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 23:01:21 +0000

Postconviction challenges based on juror misconduct strike at the core of a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury, yet Florida law places strict limits on when those claims may be raised. When allegations surface years after a verdict, courts closely scrutinize whether the information qualifies as newly discovered evidence or could have been uncovered through a timely investigation. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how narrowly courts interpret the due diligence requirement and why even serious claims of juror nondisclosure may be barred if raised too late. If you are accused of a violent crime, you should talk to a Sarasota criminal defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your rights.

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.