Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
Criminal
Worthless Checks can lead to arrest of many good people
October 28, 2008
This week we were retained by a professional who had moved out of state and ended up with a warrant for a bad check. This woman, who has to have a license to work in her field, moved out of state and in doing so closed the account at her bank. Unfortunately, a creditor had held onto a check for sometime and when the account came back closed, the creditor reported it to the State Attorney's Office. A warrant was issued when the woman could not located.
Since 2004, our firm has represented nearly 100 persons charged in worthless check cases, most of which are just like this one. Often, we are called by the person while they are still out of the area or the state but have found out one way or another there is a warrant for their arrest. We have been retained by persons from central and south Florida, as well as Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and the State of Washington.
In most all of these cases, we have been able to get the charges dropped and many have hired us to seal or expunge their records due to the worthless checks. It is unfortunate that more controls are not in place to take what is clearly a civil matter into a criminal matter. Most checks are under $500, with some having been as little as $25.
Charges Against Sucessful Business Man Dropped due to our prefiling work
October 28, 2008
Recently, our firm was hired to represent a business man who was arrested for possession of prescription drugs without a prescription, false IDs, and other charges. While there was potential contraband found, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office had violated the client's rights in securing the alleged contraband. Our client, who was traveling through Jacksonville, was legally parked at 9:30 pm at an open gas station, looking at a map with his son when they were approached by a JSO officer. The officer told the client they were trespassing and loitering and ordered the client out of the vehicle.
The officer asked consent to search the vehicle, the client said no. The officer stated that he was going to search the client for weapons, despite no indication the client was violent, wanted for a violent offense, or had any weapons, When the client protested the detention and the search, he was arrested for resisting the officer. In the end, our investigation showed the gas station was open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Further, the client's refusal to the search was completely justified under the law. Our legal research resulted in finding case law squarely on point which favored dismissal of the charges and a memo in support of the client was sent to the State Attorney's Office within one week of the arrest. A fair review of the facts by the State Attorney's Office resulted in the charges being dropped within 14 days.
If you believe that contraband, including drugs, paraphernalia, computer files, or anything which was used by the State or Federal authorities to find you guilty of an offense was obtained due to an improper search, give us a call to discuss your case. The consultation is free.
Supreme Court Vacates Murder Conviction because of Prosecutorial Errors
October 27, 2008
The Supreme Court vacated a defendant's conviction because the prosecutor in the case introduced triple hearsay evidence as well as asked improper questions during cross examination. In a case where there was no direct evidence of guilt, the State introduced evidence of what a person told another person, who told a detective and then asked the defendant about said evidence. The Court correctly stated that the lower court improperly admitted the evidence. Later, the prosecution asked the Defendant about a ring that belonged to the victim that was later associated with the Defendant. Despite not introducing evidence that the ring had blood on it, the State asked the Defendant about the "Blood covered ring". The Court vacated the conviction, the sentence, and ordered a new trial.
This excellent work by defense counsel in preserving the record and the appellate counsel shows the importance of having excellent defense counsel at trial. Our firm offers Board Certified, experienced, and dedicated attorney(s) who can help you. The decision of the Court can be found at http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc05-1126.pdf.
State fails to prove value of items stolen, leads to charges dropped on appeal
October 22, 2008
The Third District Court of Appeals recently reversed the conviction of one ANTHONY ANDREW BLOODSAW on grand theft charges where the State failed to prove the value of the items taken. The jury found that Mr. Bloodsaw did take the items, but the prosecutor failed to prove the value of the items taken was more than $300. Even though the victim in the case testified, the State did not ask the victim how much the tools were worth. The court ordered the conviction modified to a second degree petit theft, a 60 day offense as opposed to the 5 year felony that for which the jury convicted Mr. Bloodsaw.
Value of items generally means the fair market value at the time of the theft. § 812.012(10)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (2003).* "Value may be established by direct testimony of fair market value . . . ." Smith v. State, 955 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
The Court stated that "[i]n this case, the State never asked the electrician his opinion of the fair market value of the tools on the date of the theft. The State also failed to establish the fair market value under the alternative Negron test. The State asked about cost, manner of use, and condition, but failed to ask the owner's opinion regarding depreciation. When the defendant by motion for judgment of acquittal pointed out these deficiencies, the State could have requested leave to reopen its case and recall the electrician to express an opinion on value. However, the State made no such request and relied on the record already made. As a result, the evidence of value is legally insufficient to support the conviction for third-degree grand theft."
The opinion can be found at 33 Fla. L. Weekly D2377a.
Contraband in Prisons
October 22, 2008
Contraband cell phones have been becoming more prevelant inside of jails. Our office has received calls from potential clients on these phones. Recently, cell phones were even discovered inside of Texas' death row.
Public Defenders Refuse to Take Cases
October 21, 2008
The United States Supreme Court, in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys. The practical application of the Court's ruling has been the creation of the Office of the Public Defender.
The 11th Circuit Public Defender, Bennett Brummer, recently filed a motion asking the circuit court to stop assigning cases to the office. Brummer stated that the attorneys in his office were saddled with unreasonably high case loads, and often had to work second jobs due to low pay and high debt through student loans. A hearing on the motion revealed that Assistant Public Defenders in the 11th circuit had individual case loads of around 330 clients, and an average salary of $42,000.00. The Court granted the motion in part in an attempt to alleviate the pressures.
The situation in Miami mirrors the problems faced by Public Defenders throughout the state, including Jacksonville. Although the number of criminal defendants increases every year, the Office of the Public Defender continues to see reductions in their budget. This means a higher case load per attorney, and less pay, forcing many to leave the office early or seek a second source of income.
Defendants are obviously affected, but so is the public at large. An attorney with over 300 clients is placed in a situation were effective representation is virtually impossible. This means that clients are denied adequate representation and the tax payer is forced to throw more money at post-conviction appeals for ineffective assistance of counsel. By under funding the Public Defenders, we create an atmosphere of more work, and everyone pays the price.
With budget shortfalls expected to get worse, it is possible more circuits will follow Miami's lead.
1.http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNNews01.nsf/Articles/8BB912CD7849FE74852574BE0047120C
2. http://www.pdmiami.com/Caseload%20is%20untenable.pdf
The inability of public defenders to effectively represent their clients can have negative consequences for their clients. Now, more than ever, it is critical that those who can afford to do so hire a private attorney.
Duval County Judge Gives Man 975 Years in Prison
October 21, 2008
Modern science suggests that the human body is incapable of lasting more than 130 years. In fact, the longest living human known to man kind was Jeanne Calment, a French woman who lived to be 122 years old. Jeanne is the standard of longevity, that is unless you have unwavering faith in the accuracy of the writers of the old testament. According to the book of Genesis, a man named Methuselah lived to be 969 years old.
So what do Jeanne and Methuselah have in common with Jonathan Tave, a convicted murderer in Duval County, Florida? Neither of them would have lived long enough to cover a sentence imposed by Circuit Judge John Merrett.
Tave was convicted on October 6 for the 2005 carjacking/murder of Cedrick Henry. Shortly after the finding of guilt, Judge Merrett sentenced Tave to live in prison, plus an additional 225 years. A few days later, Tave plead guilty to another count of murder and an aggravated rape charge. (While awaiting trial, Tave had been charged with the 2004 murder of Willie Tomblin, and the rape of a female corrections officer) Following his guilty pleas, Judge Merrett sentenced Tave to two additional life sentences plus 750 years. The total: 975 years, three life terms. Ouch.
For more details, see the links below.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/17657757/detail.html
http://www.news4jax.com/news/17634132/detail.html
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=120628&catid=3
Defendant Almost Barred from Attending His Trial
October 10, 2008
Just about everyone is familiar with a criminal defendant's rights during trial. A criminal defendant has the following rights: the right to remain silent, to confront witnesses, have a public trial, have a jury trial, have a speedy trial, be represented by an attorney, receive adequate representation, and not be tried twice for the same offense, among many others. So you would think that a criminal defendant has the undeniable right to be present in the courtroom during his/her own trial. The truth is that if a defendant continuously disrupts a trial, the judge can order him/her to be removed from the courtroom and the trial will continue in his/her absence. This was almost the case in a homicide trial currently taking place in Green Cove Springs, Florida, featured in an article on News4Jax.com. In that case, the Judge told the defendant that if he made one more outburst, he would be watching his own trial from a television in the jail. This article can be found on www.news4jax.com/news/17384602/detail.html.
It is in a defendant's best interest to keep a poker face on during trial. The judge, prosecutor, and panel of jurors are watching the defendant's every move and it is very important to be on your best behavior. The jurors and the judge are among the people in the courtroom trying to determine the defendant's credibility and may ultimately determine his/her fate in the case. It is important to never react negatively and keep a straight face because a jury will determine a defendant's credibility just like they do that of any of the other witnesses in the case. A defendant wants to be able to remain in court for his own trial and aide hisattorney in his defense.
New Law Increases Penalties for Marijuana ?Grow Houses?
October 10, 2008
July 1, 2008 marked a significant increase in penalties for those people that own or operate houses used to grow marijuana plants. The Marijuana Grow House Eradication Act, sponsored by Senator Steve Oelrich (R-Gainesville) and Representative Nick Thompson (R-Ft. Myers), targeted for-profit growers who exploited Florida's then existing threshold of 300 plants. Under the old law, individuals could make a profit off the sale of marijuana and avoid stiffer penalties by simple keeping track of the number of plants in their home. With the new law lowering the requisite amount to 25, it will be virtually impossible for individuals to make a profit and avoid the enhanced penalties.
As of July 1, 2008, it is a second-degree felony to grow 25 or more plants, and an individual can face up to 15 years in prison. The law will also make it a third-degree felony (up to 5 years in prison) to own a house for the purpose of cultivating, packaging and distributing marijuana and a first-degree felony (up to 30 years in prison) to grow 25 or more plants in a home with children present. The new legislation will also alleviate the requirements of law enforcement to preserved specific types of evidence. Officers, in lieu of storing the bulky equipment used to grow the marijuana plants for trial purposes, can simply keep photographs or video.
See Section 893.1351, Florida Statutes, or the following links for more details.
1.http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/FD46502C8D97A6FA8525743C0051BC52
2. http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=17354&z=3
