Source: https://keywestcriminaldefense.com/2016/05/
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 07:05:27
Document Index: 50082927

Matched Legal Cases: ['§893', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 877', '§ 777', '§777', '§948', '§948', '§948']

May 2016 | Key West Criminal Defense May 2016 | Key West Criminal Defense
Resolving a criminal case often involves a Negotiated Plea, or as it is probably more commonly known, a plea agreement. A Negotiated Plea (or plea agreement) is when the prosecutor offers the defendant a deal to plead guilty or no contest to the offense in exchange for some reduction in the criminal charges or sentence.
Plea Areement
A plea agreement regarding charges involves a defendant pleaing guilty or no contest to a lesser charge, or have some of the charges removed in exchange for an admission of guilt or no contest on the main charge.
A plea agreement regarding sentencing takes place when a defendant, knowing in advance both the maximum penalties for all criminal charges and what the sentence will be if he or she pleads guilty, is offered a deal regarding certain, usually lesser, sanctions in return for a guilty plea, and is punished only for these charges and subsequently avoids the maximum penalty for the original charges.
Criminal defendants offered a plea agreement should always consult with a criminal defense attorney before accepting it. The possibility always exists that a defense attorney may have the ability to get the criminal charges reduced or dropped before any Negotiated Plea. More importantly, defendants must make sure they understand every term of the plea agreement and clearly acknowledge all of their obligations thereunder.
A plea agreement requires the Court’s approval. Typically, if the court does not approve the agreement, a defendant is instantly entitled to withdraw the plea.
Post-Plea Options
Occasionally, even though he or she agreed to it, a defendant may be unhappy with the negotiated plea. The rules provide for a withdrawal of the plea, if requested within 30 days and if other requirements are met to the Court’s satisfaction.
Prosecution’s Failure To Honor Plea
Florida appeals courts have stated that when the prosecution fails to honor a plea agreement, “the violation of the agreement is akin to a breach of contract for which the defendant is entitled to seek a remedy.” Thus, if the prosecutor fails to uphold the state’s end of the agreement, defense counsel may file a complaint to force the prosecution to comply or to have the plea bargain set aside.
If you are a potential defendant in a criminal case and have questions about a possible plea agreement, call Alan Fowler, an experienced Key West criminal defense attorney, for a consultation at 305.912.2516.
Tags charge bargain, negotiated plea, plea agreement, plea bargain, plea to the bench, sentence bargain
Drug Offenses Search & Seizure Uncategorized Warrants & Arrest
Tags controlled substance, drug possession, drug trafficking, Fla.Stat. §893.135
The “Back On Track DUI Diversion Program” is a program for first time DUI offenders that is operated by third-party non-profit organizations in conjunction with the Monroe County Office of State Attorney. The program allows qualifying first time offenders to have their DUI charge reduced to Reckless Driving with a Withhold of Adjudication, following completion of a set of requirements and conditions. Those conditions and requirements of the program may be completed outside Monroe County and even outside of Florida. An experienced Florida criminal defense DUI attorney can assist all drivers eligible for the program.
To qualify the defendant driver:
Must not have any alcohol-related driving history, where the disposition was either withhold of adjudication or a conviction.
May have no prior felony convictions or withholds of adjudication,
May have no prior misdemeanor convictions or withholds of adjudication.
Must have a breath, blood, and urine BAC level under 0.25.
Must not have been at fault on an accident, if one was involved as part of the incident. (Usually, drivers in single-car accidents with no significant damage to other property may still be eligible for the back on track program.)
Must not have had any minor children in the vehicle at the time of the arrest.
Drivers charged with DUI that meet the admission criteria will qualify for either the Tier One or the Tier Two Diversion Program. The distinguishing factor between the two tiers is the BAC level of the driver. Drivers that refuse a blood, breath, or urine test, or have a BAC of .15 or higher qualify for the Tier Two program, while drivers with a BAC of .15 or below qualify for Tier One.
Both Tier One and Tier Two drivers may not use alcohol while in the program. Tier One Drivers participate in the program for nine (9) months, perform forty (40) hours of community service, and are subject to a ten-day impoundment of their motor vehicles. Tier Two drivers participate for twelve months, perform sixty (60) hours of community service and, in addition to the ten-day impoundment, may have a breath alcohol ignition interlock device installed in their automobiles for three months. Community service may take place at any not-for-profit organization with the approval of the enrollee’s probation officer. Some of the program’s other requirements are for the defendant driver to submit to drug testing and attend substance abuse classes and counseling.
Defendants will be denied admission into Back On Track if they had been arrested for DUI during the period of a suspended license. They will not be denied admission, if a license suspension period has expired and they were eligible to obtain a license, but had not yet done so when arrested for DUI.
If you have questions about whether qualify for the Back On Track DUI Diversion Program in Monroe County, call Alan Fowler, an experienced Florida Keys criminal defense attorney, for a consultation at 305.912.2516.
Tags Back On Track DUI Diversion Program, diversion program, DUI, felony, misdemeanor
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Florida Criminal Statutes Uncategorized Vacation Crime Warrants & Arrest
Tags administrative hearing, BPO license, breathalyzer test, DUI, Fla.Stat. § 322.2615, Fla.Stat. § 322.271(7)
Florida Criminal Statutes Uncategorized Vacation Crime
Tags Article II, breach of the peace, disorderly conduct, Fla. Stat. § 877.03, Florida Constitution, misdemeanor, Section 7
Entrapment occurs where police have improperly induced a person to commit a crime and when the person induced was not otherwise predisposed to engage in such conduct in the first place. In Florida, the entrapment defense was created by the courts to secure justice by precluding the government from convicting a defendant of a crime where government action itself is responsible for the defendant’s conduct. Dial v. State, 799 So. 2d 407, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The defense is very significant, for a criminal defendant successfully raising entrapment will have all charges dismissed, if a showing is made that the government was improperly involved in the creation of the criminal activity.
The underlying public policy to the entrapment defense is that is it is fundamentally unjust for law enforcement or other government agents to originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to carry out that criminal design, and then induce commission of the crime so that a prosecution may take place. State v. Perez, 438 So. 2d 436, 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In essence, entrapment is a prohibition on police investigative techniques that are calculated to “create” criminals rather than to apprehend those individuals who are already of a criminal mindset. If successfully raised, an entrapment defense can excuse an otherwise criminal act or, in some cases, result in a dismissal of criminal charges.
Florida law recognizes two forms of entrapment: (1) “subjective entrapment,” and (2) “objective entrapment.” The subjective test for entrapment is applied in cases where law enforcement conduct is not so egregious that it violates basic principles of due process. Sallomi v. State, 629 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1993).
Florida Statute § 777.201 sets forth the following:
Thus, entrapment occurs if law enforcement, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a crime, employing methods of persuasion or inducement, encourages a defendant to engage in criminal conduct and further creates a substantial risk that a crime will be committed by a person other than one who is, in fact, ready to commit it, and directly results in the the defendant engaging in criminal conduct.
Paragraph Two (2) of the statute not only states that the issue of entrapment shall be tried by the trier of fact, but that the accused shall be acquitted, if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the criminal conduct occurred as a result of an entrapment. The burden of proof then shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the accused was “predisposed” to commit the alleged crime, and (2) the accused’s predisposition to commit the crime existed prior to and independent of the inducement or encouragement by law enforcement.
Florida also recognizes “objective entrapment,” which is applied in entrapment cases involving law enforcement conduct that is sufficiently egregious to be evaluated under the due process provision of the Florida Constitution. The totality of the circumstances must be reviewed by the court to determine whether police conduct violates a defendant’s due process rights.
In State v. Finno, 643 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), held that the dismissal of charges was warranted by the defendant making a showing of objective entrapment. In Finno, results of an investigation did not produce any evidence of any criminal conduct. Thus, the law enforcement agency involved began showing the defendant how to conduct a “loan sharking” operation. Once law enforcement succeeded in inducing the defendant to commit a crime, he was arrested and prosecuted.
The court stated that “where the government supplies all of the instrumentalities of a crime, controls all of its aspects, and teaches the intended target how to commit the crime for the purpose of arresting him, as the trial court found here, there is no crime at all without the government involvement. No legitimate objective of government is accomplished by prosecuting a crime so totally and completely orchestrated by the government. We conclude that this activity violates due process.” Finno at 1169.
If you have questions about any criminal defenses, including entrapment, under Florida law, call Alan Fowler, an experienced Key West criminal defense attorney, for a consultation at 305.912.2516.
Tags due process, entrapment, Fla. Stat. §777.201, objective entrapment, subjective entrapment
Pursuant to Florida Statute §948.01, judges in Florida’s criminal courts are vested with the special authority to “withhold adjudication” in Florida criminal cases. This is law that greatly aids Florida defendants. This blog post explains a “withholding of adjudication,” a concept with which most people are unfamiliar.
Let’s start with the basics. When a person is charged with a crime, they generally have three courses of action: 1) defend himself at trial, 2) plead Guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement with the prosecution, or 3) plead No Contest pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement with the prosecution.
Here’s where things can get a little confusing. We are used to thinking of a criminal case in absolute extremes. Guilty or Not Guilty. You did it or you didn’t do it. It’s black or white. The Florida legislature, however, has created a gray area.
In Florida, when a defendant pleas Guilty or No Contest to a criminal charge, the judge makes a decision on whether the defendant should be “adjudicated guilty” or not. This decision is notable, because the decision of either adjudicating a person guilty or withholding the adjudication of guilt determines if the person is convicted. If the court adjudicates a person as guilty, then that person will be deemed convicted of the offense. In contrast, if the judge withholds the adjudication of guilt, then the person is not convicted of the offense.
Under the applicable Florida Statute, the withholding of adjudication is coupled with a period of probation, and, once the term of probation is successfully completed, the court is divested of jurisdiction and there is no adjudication of guilt. Phrased differently, at the successful conclusion of probation, technically speaking, a defendant would not be convicted of the charges.
Regarding misdemeanors, withheld adjudications have allowed defendants to avoid mandatory driver license revocations for drug convictions and points associated with traffic infractions. As to qualifying felonies, defendants avoid forfeiting civil rights, such as holding public office, the right to vote, and jury service.
The real world effect of a Withhold of Adjudication is extremely significant for job applicants. If a job applicant has received a Withhold of Adjudication, he or she reply negatively in job interviews and on job applications to any queries, regarding criminal convictions. Also, this same person may deny having a conviction, when testifying at a deposition or in court.
Withholding adjudication has come under constant scrutiny and attack by critics for its leniency. Several statutes, such as Florida’s DUI statute, contain limiting language that voids the withholding provision. Other Florida criminal statutes that treat the provision similarly are homicide, manslaughter, arson, aggravated assault and battery, child and elderly abuse, those involving acts of domestic violence, and sexual offenses. Also, the expungement and sealment laws in Florida prohibit the removal from public record certain offenses, regardless of the withholding of adjudication or not.
If you have been charged with a criminal offense and have questions about your case, including whether you qualify for the court to withhold adjudication under Florida law, call Alan Fowler, an experienced Florida Keys criminal defense attorney, for a consultation at 305.912.2516.
Tags aggravated assault and battery, arson, child and elderly abuse, domestic violence, DUI, expungement, Fla.Stat. §948.01, Fla.Stat. §948.04, homicide, manslaughter, sealment, sexual offenses, Withhold Adjudication, withholding adjudication
Expungements & Sealments Uncategorized
Tags bail forfeiture, Driving While a License is Suspended (DWLS), DUI, expungement, felony, misdemeanor, sealment
Criminal defendants sometimes have the need to continue their trial. Sometimes, they wait to the last minute to hire defense counsel. Court dates approach and counsel may have little time to prepare an adequate defense for the client. Other times, circumstances arise which simply require a delay in trial, whether for the benefit of the defendant, defense counsel, or the prosecution. The blog posts explains how and when to get a continuance.
First, here’s a quick lesson in terminology. A “continuance” is the legal term for a delay, postponement, or rescheduling of a trial or other court proceeding. It’s used a noun (e.g. “The defense requests a continuance.”) and as a verb (e.g. “The judge continued the trial until next month.”)
In Florida, a motion for continuance in a criminal matter is filed under Rule 3.190(g) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Florida courts may grant a continuance in their discretion for good cause shown. Also, counsel for the moving party must file an accompanying “Certificate of Good Faith” with the motion for a continuance, stating that such motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of undue delay. The party who requests the continuance may file supporting affidavits to support the motion, and the opposing party to the motion may file counter-affidavits against the continuance.
Grounds for A Continuance
Some typical reasons for a continuance, especially pretrial, include the conflicting legal obligations of counsel, inadequate preparation time, illness, or (right out of the movies) a missing witness. A situation that may require a delay is where either the prosecution or defense counsel has a conflicting obligation which makes them unavailable for trial. Although, in this circumstance, a court may instead require a substitution of counsel rather than delay the trial.
Also, if counsel alleges that there was inadequate preparation time for trial, the court may grant a continuance. The court will consider the amount of time between retention of counsel and the trial date, counsel’s other ongoing obligations, and the complexity of the case. The parties may also stipulate to a continuance, but good cause is still required.
Other delays which may occur and, therefore necessitate a continuance, are the illness of the defendant, defense counsel, or the prosecutor. Defendants alleging some affliction or sickness must show that the illness will lessen their ability to assist counsel. Affidavits of the defendant’s attending physicians are often necessary to prove illness. Counsel alleging their own illness as grounds for continuance may do so by their own testimony to the Court, stating, among other things, that no substitute counsel is available.
A trial may be delayed if a defense witness is missing and unavailable. However, the defendant must demonstrate that he or she made an adequate effort to enlist the witness’s attendance and further that he or she did not cause the witness’ absence. Also, the defendant must show that the testimony of the missing witness is important to the matter, that there is no reasonable expectation that the status of the witness’s availability will change, and that the motion is not being made for the purposes of delay
If you have been arrested and have an approaching trial and have questions about moving for a continuance, call Alan Fowler, an experienced Key West criminal defense attorney, for a consultation at 305.912.2516.
Tags continuance, good cause
Search & Seizure Uncategorized
Individuals in the United States are protected by the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires the police to obtain a warrant, based upon probable cause, to search someone or seize property. Of course, as with most legal doctrines, there are exceptions. Depending on how to you think about it, the “Plain View” Doctrine is an exception to the 4th Amendment protections or does not constitute a search at all.
If in the course of a lawful search, police see items in plain view that are incriminating and/or have evidentiary value, they may seize the item, even if they have no prior authority (i.e. a warrant) to search for or seize that particular item. While the Plain View Doctrine is often considered an exception to the general rule that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, an officer’s observation of an item left in plain view generally does not constitute a search under the 4th Amendment. Horton v. California, 496 U S 128 134 n 5 (1990) (citing 496 U.S. 128, 134 n.5 (1990) (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U S 730 740 460 U.S. 730, 740 (1983). A person generally does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in contraband left out in the open, which is viewed by an officer from a lawful vantage point.
The Court in United States v. Jacobsen, 466 109, 114 (1984) stated that “a seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” A seizure of property in plain view does not implicate the individual’s privacy interests; rather, it “deprives the individual of dominion over his or her property.” Horton at 133.
When does the “Plain View” Doctrine Apply?
Under the three-prong test of Horton, the following is required for the “Plain View” Doctrine to apply:
1.	The officer must be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
2.	The officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
3.	The incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”
Thus, objects falling in the “plain view” of an officer, who has a right to be in the position to have that particular viewpoint, are subject to seizure without a warrant. Also, when a search or seizure would require an officer have obtain a warrant or otherwise identify probable cause, an officer may use his or her lawful observation to provide grounds for such search or seizure. However, the “Plain View” Doctrine is limited by the requirement of probable cause in that officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them.
4th Amendment issues are a very fact and law intensize analysis, which needs the involvement of an attorney. If you have been arrested and such arrest is based upon evidence that may have been unlawfully seized by the police, call Alan Fowler, an experienced key west criminal defense attorney for a consultation at 305.912.2516.
Tags expectation of privacy, Fourth Amendment, plain view, probable cause, warrantless search