Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Editor: Will Hanlon & Charlie Lambert
Profession: Tampa Defense Attorneys

Probation continued for Tampa Defendant with New Charge

Category: Criminal Law

State v. M; Judge: Daniel Perry

FACTS: The client was placed on felony probation for Burglary of an unoccupied Dwelling in June of 2006. One of his conditions of probation was to successfully complete a drug treatment program. While on probation he was involved in an auto accident and was ultimately charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Shortly after the accident his truck was repossessed which forced him to miss his drug treatment program. His affidavit of violation of probation contained two violations. First, he committed the new law offense while on probation (leaving the scene of an accident), and second, he failed to successfully complete his drug treatment. We filed a motion to surrender our client to Judge Perry in an effort to avoid any jail time, and hopefully resolve his violation in front of the judge.

DEFENSE: The client had a very good job as a mechanic working on heavy machinery. The auto accident caused the loss of his vehicle and kept him from attending the drug treatment classes. He did have a good record of attendence before the accident occurred.

RESULT: The Court did not take the client into custody or violate his probation. He was continued on probation and given the oppurtunity to successfully complete probation. If you want more information link to tampadefenseattorney.com.

12 Felony Drug Charges Dismissed in Tampa Defendant's Case

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S.; Judge: Gregory P. Holder

FACTS: The client was initially charged with 11 counts of Possession with intent to sell marijuana, 1 count of possession of controlled substance, 1 count of possession of marijuana, and 2 counts of possession of paraphernalia. He was pulled over on State Road 93 by the Florida Highway Patrol for speeding. After he was stopped the trooper allegedly smelled a strong odor of marijuana as he approached the client's vehicle. The trooper stood on the passenger side of our client's vehicel and asked him to roll down the window. The client was unable to roll the window down and the trooper decided to open the door himself. After he opened the vehicle he told the client he was going to conduct a search. He found 126 grams of marijuana packaged in numerous individual baggies, prescription pills, and $2,200.00 in cash.

DEFENSE: We immediately contacted the intake attorney at the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office and discussed charges. This led to the dismissal of all but three charges. We approached the prosecution about 4th amedment issues surrounding the search of our client's vehicle and an agreement was reached.

RESULT: The client pled to one charge and received no conviction on his record.

If you would like to learn more about drug charges link to tampadefenseattorney.com.

State's Inability to Prove Intoxication Leads to Dismissal of DUI

Category: DUI

State v. H; Judge: Lawrence Lefler

FACTS: The client was charged with DUI. He suffered from depression and consumed a large quantity of Ambien (sleep drug) in an attempt to kill himself. He was observed driving his vehicle on west Cypress Street when his white infiniti drove off an embankment and into a ditch. When police arrived they found the client with his foot on the accelerator while the tires continued to spin. The officers ordered the client to stop the car and exit the vehicle. According to the officers the client picked up a knife, and refused to get out of the car. He eventually exited the vehicle, and attempted to perform field sobriety tests. It was obvious that the client was impaired by Ambien, and was unable to drive.

DEFENSE: Florida Statute 316.193 states that, "A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence...if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within the state and:

(a)The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or an substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person's normal faculties are impaired...

Ambien is not a controlled substance under 877.111 or chapter 893. We filed a motion to dismiss, and the State Attorney agreed to dismiss the DUI. The State attempted to amend the charge to reckless drivinng. Ultimately, the State was unable to bring forth the witnesses to prove the defendant was driving in "willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others" and the reckless driving charge was dismissed also.

RESULT: Both criminal charges of DUI and reckless driving were dismissed.

If you would like to learn more about DUI link to tampadefenseattorneys.com.

Tampa Defendant's Charge of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. B; Judge: Lamar H. Battles

FACTS: The client was charged with Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer (3rd degree felony), Resisting With Violence (3rd degree felony), and Disorderly Conduct. The incident occurred at the Seminole Hardrock Gaming Casino in Tampa. The client consumed too much alcohol, and became belligerent towards security and the Seminole Police. After a lengthy argument with the police she was handcuffed. As she was being escorted by police she kicked two officers. Eventually, the client was arrested, placed in hobble restraints, and transported to the Orient Road Jail.

DEFENSE: The client was forced to the ground when she was restrained by the officers. During this process her back was to the officers, and she experienced a tremendous amount which forced her to move her leg and strike the officer.

RESULT: The Battery on a law enforcement officer, and disorderly conduct charge were dismissed, and the client entered a plea that involved no conviction on her record.

If you would like to learn more about violent offenses link to tampadefenseattorney.com.

State Dismisses Aggravated Battery on Pregnant Woman Charge Against Tampa Defendant

Category: Criminal Law

State v. P; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

FACTS: Battery on a pregnant woman is a second degree felony punishable by maximum of 15 years in Florida State Prison. It is a level 7 offense that scores immediate prison for even a first time offender. This is another case that emphasizes the importance of retaining representation in criminal cases as soon as possible. The client was arrested after he had an argument with his girlfriend who had been pregnant for over 7 months. He became angry when he found out about a phone call that was made to his girlfriend's cell phone. The victim claimed that she was injured when he pushed her to the ground.

DEFENSE: The defendant admitted that there was an argument between the two of them, but he denied having any rolde in her injury. We argued at trial that the victim had slipped on clothes that were laying on the ground next to their bed.

RESULT: Our office addressed the felony charge with the State Attorney's Office the moment it was assigned to a prosecutor. The felony charge was reduced to domestic battery, and we tried the case in County Court. Ultimately, the Court found the client not guilty.

If you would like to learn more about violent crimes link to tampadefenseattorney.com

State Dismisses Aggravated Battery on Pregnate Woman Charge Against Tampa Defendant

Category: Criminal Law

State v. P; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

FACTS: Battery on a pregnant woman is a second degree felony punishable by maximum of 15 years in Florida State Prison. It is a level 7 offense that scores immediate prison for even a first time offender. This is another case that emphasizes the importance of retaining representation in criminal cases as soon as possible. The client was arrested after he had an argument with his girlfriend who had been pregnant for over 7 months. He became angry when he found out about a phone call that was made to his girlfriend's cell phone. The victim claimed that she was injured when he pushed her to the ground.

DEFENSE: The defendant admitted that there was an argument between the two of them, but he denied having any rolde in her injury. We argued at trial that the victim had slipped on clothes that were laying on the ground next to their bed.

RESULT: Our office addressed the felony charge with the State Attorney's Office the moment it was assigned to a prosecutor. The felony charge was reduced to domestic battery, and we tried the case in County Court. Ultimately, the Court found the client not guilty.

If you want to learn more about violent offenses link to tampadefenseattorney.com.

Tampa State Attorney's Office Dismisses Witness Tampering and Domestic Battery Charges

Category: Criminal Law

FACTS: The client was charged with domestic battery and witness tampering by his sister. An argument ensued after the victim's boyfriend tried to run over our client's father in a truck. During the argument the victim (sister)claimed our client struck her in the face. His sister became very upset with him, and ultimtely tried to notify police of the incident. While the victim was attempting to contact law enforcement the client ripped the phone out of the wall.

DEFENSE: The victim was attempting to strike our client when he grabbed her. The victim eventually admitted she had been drinking that night. She also admitted that the defendant never prevented her from contacting the police.

RESULT: The witness tampering charge and the domestic battery charge were "no filed" (dismissed) by the State Attorney's Office.

If you want to learn more about violent offenses link to our website at tampadefenseattorney.com or call us at (813) 228-7095.

Plea Deal in Felony DUI Case Raises Questions About the Legality of Many Stops

Category: Criminal Law

State v. L.; Judge: Gregory P. Holder; William Fuente

FACTS: The defendant was charged with his third DUI charge within a ten-year time span. This aggravates the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony with a possible maximum sentence of 5 years in the Florida State Prison System. The defendant was witnessed driving his vehicle toward the Dale Mabry entrance of Macdill Airforce Base. He approached at a high rate of speed, and swerved abrupty before he reached the gate. After he stopped at the gate he asked the Military Police Officers (MP) whether this was "the way to Gainesville". The military police officer claimed that he could smell a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage on the client's breath. He also observed that our client's eyes looked watery and bloodshot, and his speech was very slurred. The MP then ordered the client to turn off the vehicle and hand him the keys. After he received the keys the MP placed spike strips behind the client's vehicle. A few moments later the client jumped from the driver's seat to the passenger's seat, and claimed that someone else had been driving. Pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15(10) the military police officer called the tampa police department, and filled out an affidavit describing his observations. A tampa police officer arrived on scene and arrested the defendant after he refused to perform all sobriety tests.

DEFENSE: There have always been discussions among attorneys in the tampa area about the legality of stops made by the military police at MacDill Airforce Base. Many believe that the military police can stop suspects pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15(10). However, 901.15(10) requires that the military police officer make his observations "on federal military property".

Initially, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge claiming that the initial detention of the client was unlawful because the stop occurred on federal property. What made this property special was the fact that it had been deeded to the federal government by the State of Florida in 1950. The federal government retains exclusive jurisdiction over any crimes that occur on property transferred in this way. In response to the Motion to Dismiss the State Attorney in his traverse, swore under oath that the Dale Mabry guard gate sits on municipal property owned by the city of Tampa. Our office in turn filed a second motion to suppress the stop of our client because Florida Statute 901.15(10) requires that the military police officer witness our client on "federal military property". Hillsborough County Circuit Judge William Fuente ruled on our Motion to Suppress. In deying the Motion for Re-hearing the Court stated that the military police officers had discretion to defer the investigation to civilian authorities, "regardless of the status of the property at the gate, be it city property or federal property". Subsequent to the Court's ruling we entered further negotiaitions with the State Attorney's Office. Ultimately, the State agreed to reduce the FELONY DUI charge to a MISDEMEANOR in exchange for a waiver of our right to appeal the jurisdictional issues involved in the above motions.

RESULT: The felony dui charge was reduced to a misdemeanor DUI occurring outside of a five year time span. As a connsequence, our client avoided not only a possible State Prison Sentence, but also a mandatory Hillsborough County Jail sentence. In our opinion all stops made by miilitary police officers at the Dale Mabry guard gate pursuant to 901.15(10) are unlawful, and should be challenged in the future.

If you want to learn more about DUI visit our website at tampadefenseattorney.com, or tampadefenseattorneys.com or call us at 813-228-7095.

False Imprisonment and Domestic Violence Charges Dismissed in Tampa Defendant's Case

Category: Criminal Law

State v. B; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

FACTS: The client was charged with False Imprisonment, Domestic Battery, and 2 charges of Violation of a Domestic Violence Injunction. The client, and his wife had a dinner party with friends from out of town. After the party ended the client came into the bedroom and began to argue with his wife. She eventually went into the bathroom and he followed her. After they entered the bathroom the client's son opened the door and ran to his mother. The argument continued, and according to the victim our client struck her while she was holding their son. She also claimed that our client locked the door, and refused to let her leave the bathroom. The Tampa Police arrived on scene and arrested the client.

Days after his arrest the client was served with a domestic violence injunction. Despite the Court's order he made attempts to contact the victim through a third person, and then tried to send her flowers.

DEFENSE: We contacted the State attorney before the charges were formally filed and explained the circumstances surrounding altercation, and our client's position. As a result of the discussion, the false imprisonment charge (3 degree felony) and the injunction violation charge were both no filed(dismissed). The other violation of domestic violence injunction charge and the battery charge were filed in county court. We filed a demand for speedy trial in county court and the State Attorney was unable to bring forth the necessary evidence to prove the remaining charges.

RESULT: The false imprisonment charge; two (2) violation of domestic violence injunction charges; and the domestic violence battery charge were dismissed.

If you want to learn more about Domestic Violence link to tampadefenseattorney.com

Tampa Defendant's Charges Dismissed While He Awaits Extradition From Federal Prison

Category: Criminal Law

State v. N; Judge: Ronald Ficarrota; Date: January 3, 2008

FACTS: Our client was being held in Federal Prison awaiting extradition to Tampa, Florida. The case was initially prosecuted in March of 1999. Our client was arrested, and failed to appear at his arraignment. When he was convicted out-of-state the old warrant from Tampa held up his sentencing in Federal Court. We initially filed a motion to dismiss the warrant, and the charges based on Statute of Limitation grounds.

DEFENSE: Further investigation into the case revealed that the State would not be able to effectively prosecute.

RESULT: The Client was never extradited to Tampa, and his charges were dismissed.

If you want to learn more about extradition link to tampadefenseattorney.com.

4 DUI Charges are Dismissed for Pasco County Defendant

Category: DUI

State v. T.; Judge: William G. Sestak (Pasco County); Date: January 28, 2008

FACTS: The client was charged with four (4) DUI'S with personal injury; one (1) DUI; three (3) leaving the scene of an accident charges; and a traffic citation. The defendant (client) is a nurse at the Florida Hospital. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the client was traveling westbound on State Road 54 when his vehicle began weaving, and driving into oncoming traffic. Witnesses stated that our client eventually struck the rear of another SUV, and then fled the scene. A short time later the client collided with a second chevrolet, and left the scene of that accident. The client continued to have trouble controling his vehicle, and ended up colliding with a mailbox, and left the scene of that accident. The client then struck a ford truck, and left the scene again after the fourth collision. Eventually, the client came to rest on the shoulder of State Road 54 near Boyette Road. According to the witnesses the client exited his vehicle through the driver's side window. As he stood on the side of the road the client began staggering and having trouble maintaining his balance. When paramedics arrived on scene they recovered a hypodermic needle with fresh blood on the syringe from inside the client's vehicle.

Paramedics suspected the client had possibly overdosed and transported him to the Florida Hospital. After arriving at the hospital the trooper questioned the defendant about his condition. The entire time the defendant was incoherent and unable to respond. The trooper then read the defendant Florida's "implied consent law". Florida Statute 316.1932 (c) states the following:

Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved blood test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the blood or a blood test for the purpose of determining the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances as provided in this section if there is reasonable cause to believe the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances and the person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility and the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible. As used in this paragraph, the term "other medical facility" includes an ambulance or other medical emergency vehicle. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness or other mental or physical condition is deemed not to have withdrawn his or her consent to such test. A blood test may be administered whether or not the person is told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state and that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her blood, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, is a misdemeanor.

When asked whether he would be willing to submit to a blood draw the client was "unable to agree or disagree" according to the trooper. Despite the fact that the trooper had the ability to order the medical staff to draw the defendant's blood, he did not. Instead, the trooper claimed that the defendant "refused" to submit to a blood test.

DEFENSE: The trooper's failure to draw blood created a major problem for the state prosecutor. The prosecutor could not argue that the defendant refused the test because the facts clearly contradicted that argument. In addition, the hypodermic needle with fresh blood on it wasn't relevant unless the prosecutor could prove that our client had some controlled substance in his system.

RESULT: The State DISMISSED three (3) DUI with personal injury charges; one (1) dui charge; ; three (3) leaving the scene of an accident charges; and a traffic citation. The fifth DUI charge was reduced to a reckless driving and the defendant received probation.

If you would like to learn more about DUI link to tampadefenseattorneys.com, or call us at 813-228-7095.

Burglary Charges Dismissed for Tampa Juvenile Defendant

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S; January 15, 2008

FACTS: This juvenile client was charged with Burglary of an Unoccupied Residence, and Grand Theft in the first degree. Allegedly, he and two co-defendants, burglarized the home of the victim. The officer's report indicated that our client drove the co-defendants to the home of the victim where they broke in through a sliding glass door. Once in the home they took $30,000.00 from inside the master bedroom.

DEFENSE: The defendant never admitted to breaking and entering into the home, and the evidence placing him inside the home was lacking.

RESULT: The State "no-filed" (dismissed) the burglary charge and the grand theft charge.

Sarasota Defendant Pleads to Reduced Fraud Charge

Category: Recent Wins

State v. C; Judge: Charles E. Roberts, Sarasota County; January 16, 2008

FACTS: The defendant was charged with worker's compenation fraud totalling $81,000.00. The police report stated that the defendant had fraudulantly claimed that an accident had occurred at his place of business in sarasota county. The accident occurred when a marble slab fell on top of the client in his warehouse. The slab injured the client's wrist severely, but he was still able to drive to Tampa to be treated at St. Joseph's Hospital.

RESULT: The client pled to a reduced charge and received probation, without a conviction.

Tampa Habitual Traffic Offender Gets License Back

Category: Criminal Law

State v. T; Date: December 6, 2007

FACTS: Defendant (client) received three separate Driving While LIcense Suspended (DWLS) charges over a three year period. Many people do not understand that paying a DWLS ticket can qualify you for habitualization. When you pay a ticket for Driving While License suspended Without Knowledge you are adjudicated on the offense. An adjudication on that type of offense will qualify for habitualization even though it is a civil traffic infraction.

DEFENSE: Due to the nature of the client's plea agreements we were able to remove his past convictions for DWLS.

RESULT: The client's habitualization status was rescinded and he became eligible for a new license.

Extradition: Defendant Released from Tampa on Texas Fugitive Warrant

Category: Criminal Law

State v. G.; Judge: Walter Heinrich; Date: December 13, 2007

FACTS: The Defendant (client) became very intoxicated at a party in San Antonio, Texas and struck another man in the head with a full beer bottle. The injury was severe, and required a number of stitches. Shortly after he struck the victim, the client left Texas, and returned to Tampa, Florida. The Texas authorities investigated the case, and filed a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (bottle). Shortly after the charge was filed, a fugitive warrant was issued from the State of Texas. The Texas charge had a bond of $75,000.00.

The client was eating dinner at a local Tampa restaurant when he was approached by law enforcement. After confirming his identity, the police arrested the defendant on the Texas warrant, and transported him to the county jail in Tampa to await extradition.

We contacted a lawyer in Texas for the client. He arranged for a reduction of the bond to $20,000.00. We also contacted the prosector in Texas to arrange our client's release in Tampa. Negotiations with the Texas prosecutor led to the release of our client in Tampa. If the proper arrangements are made it is possible to avoid a very long extradition process! Our client manages a very successful business, and his release allowed him to fly to Texas and make bond, without having to be transported by bus. Extradition and the transportation process can sometimes take weeks.

Tampa Defendant's Battery on Law Enforcement Officer and Resisiting With Violence Charge Dropped

Category: Criminal Law

State v. G.; Judge: Ronald Ficarrotta; Date: September 17, 2007

FACTS: The Defendant (client) was charged with Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer (3rd degree felony), and Resisting With Violence (3rd degree felony). He was already very intoxicated when the police arrived at his home on the night of the incident. During the investigation, conducted by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, the client became upset because his girlfriend was being arrested. In an attempt to get to his girlfriend he pushed one of the deputies, and was arrested. During his arrest he struck struck the same deputy.

DEFENSE: While the State Attorney's Office takes all crimes involving violence very seriously; violent crimes against law enforcement officers are given even more attention. We provided evidence, through witnesses, that the contact with the deputy was inadvertant.

RESULT: The Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer was nolle prossed (dismissed), and the Resisting With Violence charge was reduced to a misdemeanor. The Defendant was placed into an intervention program on the misdemeanor. If successfully completed, that charge will also be dismissed.

Victim Wrongfully Accuses Tampa Defendant in Scam

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S; Judge: Artemus McNeal; Date: November 27, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was charged with two counts of worthless check. She experienced some financial problems, and a co-worker agreed to lend her $1,600.00. The co-worker asked his wife for the money and she gave it to her husband, who then lent it to the defedant. The client was unable to pay the money back as quickly as the agreement required which caused her co-worker's wife to become extemely upset. As a consequence, the client paid not only the money she borrowed, but a substantial amount of interest. After numerous angry phone calls from her co-worker's wife, the client was able to pay back the money in full. She agreed to meet her co-worker and his wife at a bank parking lot and give them the $1,600.00. The client showed up and paid them the $1,600.00. However, $1,300.00 of the $1,600.00 was paid back in cash, and the client never got a receipt from the victim. The victim (co-worker's wife) realized that the cash would be difficult to track, and claimed the debt was never paid. She took her bounced check from the client to the State Attorney's Office, and filled out all the proper paperwork.

DEFENSE: When the victim received the $1,300.00 in cash from the defedant she also received a check in the amount of $295.00. After receiving this money from the client she drove to her bank and immediately deposited the check, and the cash. We had trouble getting discovery evidence (copies of checks) from the State initially, but once we did the copy of the back of the checks exposed the victim's scam. The back of the $295.00 check not only revealed the date and time of the deposit, but also the additional $1,300.00 deposit made in cash. These records matched against our client's bank records showed the victim was lying about the payment.

RESULT: The Nolle Prossed (dismissed) all charges.

Tampa Defendant Avoids Prison on Possession of Child Pornography VOP

Category: Criminal Law

State v. M; Date May 8, 2007

FACTS: The defendant (client) was violated on his sex offender probation (Possession of Child Pornography, Use of Computer for Solicitation) for failing to make a full and truthful report about his income, and for failing to make his employer aware of his probation status. The client was hired to build a website for a customer. The customer was not happy with the website and wanted her money back. When she found out the client was on probation for a sexually related charge, she called his probation officer in an effort to get her money back.

DEFENSE: Designing the website for the customer did not involve accessing the internet. The actions of the disgruntled customer were an effort to use the Department of Corrections to solve her contract dispute with the defendant (client).

RESULT: The client was continued on his probation with the same terms and conditions.

Investigation Leads to Dismissal of Tampa Defendant's Aggravated Assault and Cruelty to Animals Charge

Category: Criminal Law

State v. F; Judge: Ronald Ficarrotta; Date: August 20, 2007

FACTS: The Client was charged with Aggravated Assault on a Code Inspector and Cruelty to Animals . The aggravated assault charge was a second degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in Florida State Prison. In September of 2006, animal control services (ACS) received a report regarding "loose dogs" at our client's place of business. After the animal control officer reported to the scene she asked the client where the dogs were being housed. The client led her to an area at the rear of the business where the dogs were chained to some fencing. During the investigation the officer ordered an employee at our client's business to move the dogs so she could take pictures. An arguement between the ACS officer and the client ensued. The defendant (client) picked up a wrench, called the ACS officer a "fucking bitch", and ordered her off the property. The ACS officer immediately called 911. Instead of leaving the property and calling police from the safety of her van, the officer stayed on the property, and antagonized the defendant.

After making numerous efforts to get the ACS officer to leave his property the defendant decided to leave. The ACS officer claimed that the defendant attempted to run her over on two separate occassions as he was leaving his property. Before the police could arrive the client left the scene because he felt that the police would arrest him based solely on the ACS officer's story. This decision led to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest a few days later. The defendant then contacted our office where we arranged a court date to surrender the defendant to the Court. The Court set a bond which the client quickly posted.

Animal Control Services took a very active role in the arrest, and subsequent prosecution of our client. It is important to realize that Animal Control Services works hand-in-hand with law enforcement and the state attorney's office on a constant basis. This relationship can make defending these types of cases very difficult.

Shorlty after retaining our office we began taking depositions of the alleged victim. Her story was contradicted in a number of different ways by the police report itself and statements she made to the 911 operator on the day of the incident.

DEFENSE: It is necessary in any assault case that the victim be put "in fear" by the actions of the defendant. The conduct of the ACS officer contradictied the idea that she was ever put in fear by our client.

RESULT: The Aggravated Assault charge was dismissed.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CHARGE

FACTS: The above charge of aggravated assault was filed in November of 2006. The animal cruelty charges were filed in January of 2007. Based on statements made by the ACS officer during deposition it appeared that she was not interested in filing any criminal charges related to the animals before the verbal altercation between her and the defendant. Animal Control Services decided sometime after the investigation for assault that additional charges of animal cruelty should be filed.

DEFENSE: We argued to the state that the charges were based more on our client's disregard for the ACS officer's authority than the facts listed in the police report.

RESULT: The Animal Cruelty Charges were Dismissed.

Tampa man charged with Felony Battery avoids mandatory prison

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: Emmett Battles; Date: June 2007

FACTS: Our client was walking through a public park when he got into an argument with a group of men over a stolen cell phone. The argument escalated into a physical altercation. Our client was surrounded, and repeatedly struck with a large stick. He was knocked to the ground, and sustained multiple injuries including broken bones. In an effort to defend himself and escape, our client punched one of the men surrounding him in the mouth, knocking out a tooth. Unfortunately, the man our client hit was actually an innocent bystander who had come over to break up the fight. By the time police arrived our client had fled the scene to seek medical treatment. After speaking with all of the other men at the scene the officer made the decision to charge our client with Felony Battery.

DEFENSE: Self Defense, Mistake of Fact: Our client reasonably believed he was justified in using force to defend himself from his attackers. Due to the circumstances our client had reason to believe that the man that he punched was one of the men attacking him.

Many times, when investigating violent crimes, law enforcement officers are forced to rely exclusively on witness statements to decide who to arrest. Usually these situations boil down to one person's word versus another's. In this case law enforcement took statements from all of the other men involved, before ever speaking to our client. Ultimately, there were six people pointing the finger at our client.

From the moment we were retained, it was obvious that there was a lot more to the story than was contained in the police report. We worked closely with out client and a private investigator to uncover additional facts and evidence to support our side of the story.

Unfortunately, our client had a significant criminal history. Although he had not been arrested for a violent offense in many years, his prior record was used by the State to calculate the sentencing guidelines for his case. In Florida, sentencing guidelines for felony cases are calculated using the Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet (FRCP 3.992). The State Attorney uses the scoresheet to calculate the minimum and maximum sentence allowed by law for each case. Due to his prior record, our client "scored" a minimum of 19 months prison.

RESULT: Through the use of our own private investigator, we were able to provide additional facts and evidence to the prosecutor supporting our defense. We were then able to negotiate client a "downward departure" plea agreement prior to trial, avoiding the mandatory prison sentence entirely.

Tampa Defendant Avoids Extradition From Tenessee on Violation of Probation

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: William Fuente; Date: August 6, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was put on felony probation for Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Fraud. The Court withheld adjudication (no conviction), and put him on 18 months drug offender probation. The Court agreed to transfer the defendant's probation because he lived in Memphis, Tenessee.

FIRST VIOLATION OF PROBATION:

The probation officer in Hillsborough County eventually became aware that the defedendant had been arrested for a drug charge in Tenessee. The charge was similar to the one he was put on probation for in Tampa. A warrant for the defendant's arrest was issued and the defendant was arrested in Tenessee.

When you are arrested on an out-of-state warrant it can sometimes take weeks before you are transported to the jurisdiction that put on probation; in this case, Hillsborough County. The client was able to make bond in Tenessee, and we filed a motion to surrender the client in Tampa. Shortly after he was released in Tenessee the defendant appeared in Court, in Tampa, to surrender himself.

RESULT: It was evident from the probation report that the client had been making efforts to successfully complete his supervision. After negotiations with the prosecution we were able to continue the defendant on probation. This allowed the client to return to Tenessee without serving any jail time.

SECOND VIOLATION OF PROBATION

FACTS: The client was arrested a second time for committing another drug related offense. He was taken into custody in Tenessee to await extradition. We contacted counsel in Memphis who arranged for the client to attend a drug treatment program in Tenessee. While the defendant awaited extradition in Tenessee we had discussions with the prosecution about the intesity of the treatment program, and his attendance.

RESULT: The prosecution agreed to dismiss the violation, and the client was never transported from Tenessee, or adjudicated for the violation of probation.

Defendant's Extradition From Pasco County Resolved When Ohio Sex Charge is Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. Y; Date: August 3, 2007

FACTS: The client was pulled over in Pasco County, Florida for speeding. During the stop of his vehicle the officer determined that there was a active out-of-state warrant for the client's arrest in Ohio. Unfortunately, the officer in that situation had to arrest our client, and transport him to the Pasco County Jail to await extradition to Ohio. The defendant had a very good job working with the government, and his incarceration in the Pasco County Jail was having a dramatic impact on his employment. Our office is typically retained to resolve warrants that emanate from Florida. However, many times it can be helpful to retain a lawyer in the jurisdiction that actually executed the out-of-state warrant.

Initially, the client retained our office and attempted to retain an attorney in Ohio. For some bizzare reason the attorney in Ohio refused to represent the defendant until he was actually transported to Ohio. This was extremely frustrating for the client and the client's family because it made it very difficult to resolve the criminal charge in Ohio without an Ohio criminal attorney to address the Prosecutor. Ulitmately, we contacted the Ohio prosecutor and had discussions about the merits of the charge and their desire to prosecute this sex charge from 1990.

RESULT: The Ohio prosecutor dismissed the warrant and the defendant was released.

Tampa Domestic Violence Case Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. B.; Date: August 2, 2007

FACTS: The wife of our client had been unfaithful and ultimately told her husband about the affair. As you would expect an argument ensued and the client ended up pushing his wife. The victim received no real injuries.

DEFENSE: After investigation into the case it appeared that this was a "mutual combat" situation where the wife and the husband (client) began pushing each other almost simultaneously.

RESULT: The State terminated the prosecution of the case.

Tampa Domestic Violence Case Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. S; Judge: Nick Nazaretian; Date: July 31, 2007

FACTS: The client got into a verbal argument with her husband over finances. Apparently, her husband went downstairs to avoid the argument, but his wife followed him and began hitting him in the face and chest area. The client then grabbed a knife and started slashing at her husband with it. The husband stated that his wife then tried to throw a pot of boiling water on him. Police arrived on scene and arrested our client (the wife), after speaking to her husband's brother about the incident.

DEFENSE: After investigating the victim's allegations it appeared that much of his story was exaggerated and contrived. He ultimately admitted that the contact between the two of them was accidental and unintentional.

RESULT: The State Dismissed the charge

Tampa DUI With .15 Breath Result is Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. B; Date: July 30, 2007

FACTS: The defendant (client) was driving southbound on North Palm Drive in Tampa when a Tampa Police Officer noticed that her headlights were off. The officer activated his emergency equipment and attempted to pull the vehicle over. As she pulled into a parking space the vehicle went up and over a curb. The officer noticed that the client's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. He also noticed that she had a odor of alcohol emanating from her breath. During questioning the defendant admitted having a few drinks, and said she was the "soberest" one in the car.

The client then agreed to perform a number of field sobriety tests, which she failed. After she was arrested she was transported to Central Breath Testing at the Orient Road Jail. She agreed to submit to a breath test which indicated .152 and .137.

DEFENSE: We filed a Motion to Suppress the stop of the defendant's vehicle which led to negotiations with the State. The client's breath result was very high, but that breath result has no bearing or relevance to the issues surrounding the stop of someone's vehicle for DUI. No matter how ugly you might think the facts of your case are it is crucial that you retain an experienced attorney to represent you. Without an experienced attorney this particular case would of probably had a much different result.

RESULT: The State agreed to drop the DUI.

State Unable to Prove Tampa Defendant is an Accomplice to Theft

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: Tom Barber; Date: July 27, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was walking through Sweetbay Supermarket on Dale Mabry Highway with his mother. His mother had just been through a recent divorce, and had no money to pay for any items. The Sweetbay manager saw the defendant, and his mother both loading the items from the grocery cart, into his car. The officer reported to the client's house after getting his tag number from the manager. After reading Miranda to the client and his mother the officer took their statements. According to the officer's report, "the defendant said he was unsure if his mother had paid for the groceries, but that he knew she did not have any money to pay for the items they selected." As a result of his statement, both he and his mother were arrested. The client's mother pled guilty to the theft, and her son pled not guilty.

DEFENSE: The law in the state of Florida with regard to principal or accomplice liability is fairly straightforward.

A defendant will be treated as if he did all the acts performed by the others involved in the perpetration of a crime if:(1) the defendant had a conscious intent that the crime be done, and (2) the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and did incite, cause, encourage, or advise another person to actually commit the crime. Charles v. State, 945 So.2d 579, (4th DCA 2006). In our case, the State Attorney could prove that our client was present in the store, and that he wasn't sure if his Mom had money to buy the items. That is not enough. The State had no information proving that the defendant had the "intent" that the crime be done, and really no reliable information that the client incited or encouraged his mother in any way.

RESULT: The State dismissed the charges on the day of trial.

Felony Possession Charge Dismissed by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

State v. H; Judge: Lamar Battles; Date: July 17, 2007

FACTS: Our client's brother found a number of cigarette cartons, and decided to hide them at the client's home. It was illegal to be in possession of the cigarette cartons in that they didn't have the Florida Tax Stamp. A confidential informant became aware of the cigarette's when the defendant's brother tried to sell him a few hundred cartons. ATF agents along with the Tampa Police Department set up a buy and caught one the suspects involved in the actual theft of the cigarettes. The first suspect gave information to police, which in-turn led to the discovery of the cigarettes in our client's home.

DEFENSE: Our client had no knowledge of the illicit nature of the cigarettes, and was not involved in their sale in any way.

RESULT: The State Dismissed the charge shortly before trial.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney gets Marijuana Charge Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. P; Judge: Margaret Courtney; Date: July 30, 2007

FACTS: A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy was set up outside of an elementary school on Bearss and Haven Bend Road issuing tickets for speeding in a school zone. Between 7:30 and 8:15 a.m., Monday through Friday, the area in front of the Elementary school is a school zone. The speed limit at any other time is 45 mph. The cars are notified of the school zone by a flashing light on a sign that states, "school zone when flashing".

The client was traveling through the area at 8:15 a.m. The officer clocked his vehicle at 40 mph and gave him a ticket for speeding. When the deputy pulled the client over he smelled an odor of marijuana emanating from the truck. He asked him whether he had marijuana in the vehicle, and the client showed him where the marijuana was located. The client was then charged with possession of marijuana.

DEFENSE: The defendant claimed the light was not flashing at 8:15 a.m. and that he was driving below the speed limit when the officer lasered his vehicle. In this case, if the light was not flashing, it meant that the defendant was not only innocent of speeding, but that he would also have a very good motion to suppress the unlawful stop of his vehicle. We conducted further investigation by actually videotaping the flashing light in the morning. We determined from the video that the light actually cut off at 8:12:45 a.m. We supplied a copy of the video to the state attorney, and conducted a deposition of the deputy.

The deputy admitted under oath that he was between the two lights when he lasered our client's vehicle. He claimed that although he could not see the light when he lasered the client's car, all the lights stopped flashing at the same time, and that time was 8:15 in the morning. He also implied that our client was actually pulled over a few minutes before 8:15, because he had actually written the citation before 8:15. The speeding citation indicated the stop took place at 8:15 a.m.

We then made a public records request to determine if the flashing lights had been maintained by the county before the stop of our client's vehicle. The sworn deposition of the county employee revealed that the light had been maintained 4 times during the year preceding the stop of the client's vehicle. Each time it was maintained because the internal time clock in the light was not working properly.

All this investigation ultimately led our office to file a Motion to Suppress the Stop of the defendant's vehicle. The State Attorney had to concede that the "flashing light" was not activated by an accurate internal time clock. This meant that the Court would be unable to rule with certainty as to when the client's vehicle was pulled over.

RESULT: The State Attorney stood silent on the Motion to Suppress and the criminal possession charge was dismissed.

Coercion by Police Results in Dismissal of Tampa Drug Possession Case

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: Tom Barber; Date: January 16, 2007

FACTS: The client was observed driving her vehice without headlights. The officer followed her for a half mile waiting for her to activate her headlights before he decided to pull her over. After the stop the officer did background checks on everyone in the car, and found a warrant for one of the passengers in the backseat. He questioned the suspect about his warrant for violation of probation, and then asked our client if he could search the vehicle. She responded by asking, "Do I have to let you search?" The officer said, " the decision is yours".

The officer then asked the suspect and our client, "Are you afraid of dogs?" Our client responded by saying, "No, but why do you ask?" The officer then told the defendant that he was going to get a dog to come to the scene. Eventually, the client consented to a search of her vehicle. A bag of marijuana and a pipe were found in the client's car.

DEFENSE: Whenever law enforcemet gains consent to search a home or vehicle it must be voluntary. The client in this case consented to the search of her vehicle only after she was threatened by the officer's claim that the "dogs were on the way". We set up depositions with the Tampa Police Officer to investigate the details of the conversation between he and our client. Further discussions with the State resulted in the dismissal of the charges.

RESULT: The State decided to dismiss the charge based on the circumstances surrounding the search of our client's vehicle. If we would have filed a motion to suppress, it would have been the State's burden to show the consent was voluntary.

Defendant Avoids Prison on Burglary and Resisting Charges in Tampa

Category: Criminal Law

State v. J; Judge: Robert Foster; Date: July 17, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was charged with Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle, Burglary of a Conveyance, and Resisting an Officer Without Violence. Juvenile priors, and the motor vehicle theft multiplier caused the client's criminal punishment code score to rise above 44 points. Any score above 44 points requires the defendant to serve a prison sentence, unless a mitigator or an exception applies to his case. In this particular case the defendant was 16 years of age and qualified as a youthful offender. The client was also undergoing psychological treatment to address some mental issues.

The Youthful Offender Statute can be found in Chapter 958 of the Florida Statutes. The purpose of the statue is to decrease the likelihood of young offenders returning to the criminal justice system. This is accomplished by forcing defendants sentenced as youthful offenders to attend vocational, educational, and counseling programs. These programs also prevent these young offenders from associating with older and more experienced criminals in the Florida State Prison system. The Youthful Offender Statute even allows the Court to go below the recommended prison sentence in the criminal punishment code, and sentence the defendant to probation. In order to be eligible to qualify as a youthful offender you must meet the criteria set out in Section 958.04 of the Florida Statutes.

DEFENSE: We requested the Court to sentence our client as a Youthful Offender because of his age, and the fact that he was overcoming a number of mental issues.

RESULT: The defendant was sentenced as a Youthful Offender, and received probation. He also avoided any conviction on his record.

Prosecution of Tampa DUI Falls Apart When Video is Lost

Category: DUI

State v. C.; Judge: Tom Barber; Date July 23, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by Tampa Police for running a stop sign and speeding. When the DUI enforcement officer arrived she noticed "bloodshot, glassy eyes, and slurred speech". When the officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle he stumbled, and then grabbed hold of his vehicle to steady himself. Our client was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests (specifically the walk and turn test), which he agreed to do. He was unable to maintain his balance, stepped off the line, and started performing before the instructions were read. Shortly after he performed the walk and turn, the defendant was arrested. When he arrived at Central Breath Testing the client refused the breathalyzer.

DEFENSE: During the discovery process we determined that the prosecution was unable to locate the video of our client's performance. We then filed a motion to dismiss alleging that our client's due process rights were violated because the video would dispute the officer's opinion of how poorly he performed.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI charge.

Sometimes Even Lawyers Need to Know When to HIre a Lawyer

Category: Criminal Law

C. v. V; Judge: William Law; Date: June 21, 2007

FACTS: Our client was a defendant in a civil suit involving the sale of a medical waste disposal unit. Early in the law suit the plaintiffs petitioned the court for an injunction to prohibit the sale of the unit to buyers in Spain. During that hearing the plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Vance misled the Court in several ways in an effort to promote the sale of the unit without the consent of the shareholders. Plaintiff's counsel felt the representations were so misleading they motioned the Court to find Mr. Vance in Criminal Contempt. Initially, plaintiffs counsel's attempts to get the Court to grant the motion failed, but Judge Willard Pope eventually granted the motion because of the affadavits claiming to have knowledge of the falsity of the statements. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 (a).

Civil Attorney, John Schifino, of the Williams Schifino law firm represented Mr. Vance in the shareholder derivative suit. Once the Court issued the Order to Show Cause, and Mr. Vance was threatened with the possibility of being convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, Mr. Schifino called our office immediately. Opposing counsel, on the other hand, decided to prosecute the contempt charge without the assistance of a criminal attorney. Many of the plaintiffs in charge of the management of this civil suit were themselves lawyers, which made the decision to allow a civil attorney to prosecute this criminal charge even more surprising. It was a decision that turned out to be fatal to the prosecution of the charge.

After Judge Pope issued the Order to Show Cause the case was transferred to Judge William Law's court room. A couple of months after the arraignment of the criminal charge, opposing counsel withdrew from the case, and the shareholders retained another civil attorney. Months passed and opposing counsel made no efforts to set up depositions. Unlike criminal cases, it is not unusual for civil cases to last several years. Opposing counsel, probably because he is used to prosecuting civil cases, felt that his recent introduction into the case warranted a number of continuances to allow him to familiarize himself with the case. He refused to appreciate a right that all criminal defendant's share; the right to a speedy trial.

Mr. Vance, like any one else charged with a crime, has a right to a speedy trial. If the prosecution fails to try a criminal defendant's case within a specified period of time, and again fails to try the defendant's case within the recapture period, the defendant is entitled to discharge (dismissal) from the crime. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p). In Mr. Vance's case the speedy trial eventually expired, and we filed a notice of expiration of speedy trial with the Court, and the prosecution. The prosecution, probably because he had no experience in criminal court, made no efforts to respond to the notice of expiration of speedy trial. His failure to act led us to file a Motion for Discharge (Dismissal). After hearing our argument at the Motion for Discharge hearing the Court turned to opposing counsel for rebuttal. During opposing counsel's argument he responded to the judge's questioning by saying, "I am not sure your honor, because I am not a criminal attorney".

I make this point to emphasize a theme that repeats itself in many of the criminal cases that we see at our office. That recurring theme is the failure of many people being investigated for criminal charges to hire a criminal attorney as soon as they have been contacted by law enforcement. Many people, probably like the lawyer who decided to prosecute this criminal contempt charge, feel that criminal matters are simplistic. They feel that they might be able to save themselves the fee paid to a criminal attorney if they resolve this criminal matter on their own. Tell that to the civil attorney who attempted to prosecute the criminal charges against our client. As an esteemed colleague of mine once said, "If you find out you have a heart problem, you don't go see a podiatrist".

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. A; Judge: Elizabeth Rice; Date: July 10, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy after her car remained stopped at a green light at 22 street North and 7th Avenue in Ybor City. The deputy detected slurred speech and red-watery eyes. When the DUI enforcement Deputy arrived he claimed there was an easily detectable odor of alcohol on our client's breath. After further discussions with the deputy the client admitted to drinking alcohol, and she was arrested for DUI. She was also arrested for Driving While LIcense Suspended.

DEFENSE: We had a number of discussions with the State about filiing a motion to suppress the stop of our client's vehicle which led to a negotiated agreement.

RESULT: The State reduced the DUI charge to reckless driving and the Driving While License Suspended charge was amended to No Valid Driver's License.

Defendant Avoids Prison on Probation Violations from Hillsborough and Pasco County

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S.; Judge: Mark Wolf & Pat Siracusa; Hillsborough & Pasco Counties; Date: July 6, 2007

FACTS: Our client was initally put on probation in Pasco County in August of 2006 for Possession of Methamphetamine; possession of marijuana; and trespass of a conveyance. He was then put on felony Driving While License Suspended (Habitual Offender) probation in September of 2006 in Hillsborough County. He was arrested in April of this year again for driving while license suspended (felony offense). This new charge violated the probations in both counties, and certainly meant he was facing prison time in both counties. Surprisingly, the defendant was arrested yet again for possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana when the officers attempted of serve the arrest warrant for violating probation. We motioned the Court for a bond in both counties and convinced the Court in Hillsborough to release the defendant because the new cocaine charge was based on a constructive possession issue. After being released on his Hillsborough County warrant the Defendant was transported to Pasco County. We then convinced the Court in Pasco that the defendant was a contributing member of society and that his pending charges in Hillsborough would be reduced or dismissed.

DEFENSE: The defendant was not in possession of the cocaine that was found in his apartment, and the stop surrounding his driving while license suspended charge was based on a bad stop.

RESULT: The new cocaine charge dismissed, the Driving While License Suspended was reduced and the defendant was eventually terminated from both Probations (Hillsborough & Pasco).

Exposure of Sexual Organs Charge Dismissed in Tampa

Category: Criminal Law

State v. F. ; Date: July 5, 2007

FACTS: The client was accused of exposing himself to children in his neighborhood at the front door of his home.

DEFENSE: During our discussion of this case with our client we became aware of the animosity between his family and a number of his neighbors. It appeared that some children may have been peering into the client's home and the exposure allegation was totally false.

RESULT: It is very common for these types of false allegations to escalate out of control. This client contacted our office right away, and we addressed the allegations with the State. Ultimately, the State "No Filed" the charges.

Tampa DUI Defedant has case dropped

Category: DUI

State v. W; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: June 1, 2007

FACTS: The client was pulled over because his radio was too loud. The officer claimed he could hear the radio 75 feet away. In the state of Florida, if your radio is audible within 25 feet, an officer can stop your vehicle, and give you a citation. Whenever someone is pulled over, they typically become nervous, even if it's just a speeding ticket. In this case, however, the defendant had a panic disorder, which made him appear extremely nervous on the video. His voice wasn't slurred and he never swayed while he spoke to the officer, but he also never stopped talking. He continued to tell the officer that he was too nervous to take the test. Once the officer realized the defendant was going to continue to repeat himself, he engaged the defendant in further conversation. The officer knows that someone who appears to be "stalling", or "making excuses" looks guilty.

Generally, the first officer who makes contact with a possible dui suspect radios for the assistance of a special "dui enforcement officer". The initial officer takes that step because he obviously believes the suspect is DUI. The moment the dui officer gets out of his cruiser to make contact with you, it is important to realize that the video camera is on and you are both, "on stage". As he approaches you the dui officer is presuming guilt because of his conversation with the officer who made the initial stop. The goal of the dui officer is to collect as much incriminating evidence (a poor performance on video) as possible. Sometimes what may sound like "friendly talk", is a method used by officers to document "admissions of guilt" on the video.

DEFENSE: Ultimately, we were able to point out to the state attorney that our client's performance on the video was the result of his panic disorder, not because he was driving under the influence. This was extremely important to the client because it was his second DUI within the past five years. If he had pled straight up to the DUI, he would have lost his license for five years, and done a minimum of 10 days in the Hillsborough County Jail.

RESULT: The Defendant's DUI was dropped, and he received no license suspension.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. M; Judge: John N. Conrad; Date: May 1, 2007

FACTS: The client was a very respected school teacher in one of our county school systems. She was observed weaving in and out of her own lane, and traveling 60 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The officer conducted a traffic stop at Kennedy and Howard, and noticed our client had a distinct odor of alcoholic beverage. The officer also noticed that the client had watery, bloodshot eyes. Before performing the Field Sobriety Tests she was asked whether she had anything to drink. According to the officer she initially denied having any alcohol, but then admitted to having one drink post-miranda. The defendant was prepared to perform the walk and turn test when she asked the officer if she could have an attorney. The officer told her that she was not entitled to an attorney at that time. Ultimately, the client refused to perfor