Tampa Criminal Defense Attorneys - (813) 228-7095

Sites of Interest

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorneys - (813) 228-7095

Recent Wins

Print this Article
Text Size: A A

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

June 26, 2009

By Charlie Lambert

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Man Cleared of Sexual Abuse on Child

Category: Recent Wins

Our Client was falsely accused of child abuse by his brother's wife during a bitter divorce. In an effort to gain primary custody of their young children, the wife made false allegations that her daughter had been sexually abused by our Client, the young girl's uncle. The wife made a tape recording describing the alleged abuse and sent it to DCF. Eventually we were able to expose her lies, and have the charges dropped.

To read much more about this case and other child abuse cases visit our website.

June 19, 2009

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Category: Recent Wins

Facts: Cllient was sitting in a parked car in the parking lot of a gas station when a false alarm went out to police indicating that a the gas station had been robbed. Police immediately arrived on the scene and surrounded the vehicle. As the police began to secure the area, the client was extracted from the vehicle and searched. A small amount of marijuana was located in the clients back pocket and he was subsequently arrested.

Result: Ultimately, the State Attroney agreed that the search was illegal under the circumstances and pursuant to negotiation the case was dismissed on the day of trial.

To read more about this case and others like it visit our website.

May 28, 2009

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Burglary Charges Dismissed in Juvenile Court-Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Recent Wins

The client was implicated by co-defendants during an investigation of a rash of burglaries by the Tampa Police Department. Cooperating co-defendants can make the defense of any client difficult. However, in this case Tampa Police still had difficulty connecting our client to many of the crimes involved in their investigation. See our website for more discussion on how this juvenile case was resolved.

May 23, 2009

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Aggravated Assault With a Firearm Charge is Dismissed at Pre-Filing by Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

The client was confronted by a Tampa Police Detective after an altercation at a local gas station. He was driving a vehicle when a co-defendant jumped in and started firing a pistol in the air. The client initially refused to talk to the police, but became extremely nervous when the police began to threaten him with criminal charges for assisting the shooter. He told his father, and our office was retained to resolve the case. As is many times the case, the police detective told the young man that retaining a criminal lawyer was not necessary. Some criminal suspects choose to believe police. They sit down and discuss their entire case with law enforcement without counsel. It is never a good idea to trust a police officer when he claims the hiring of a lawyer is unnecessary. It may sound obvious, but we find ourselves constantly reminding people of a very simple fact:

If your being confronted by law enforcement about your involvement in a criminal offense you need a criminal defense attorney.

Many people do not realize that law enforcement has no obligation to be honest with you regarding your culpability in a criminal investigation, or your possible exposure to incarceration. Link to our website to review more details about this case, and when to hire a criminal lawyer.

May 22, 2009

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa DUI Attorney gets Reckless on Refusal in Orlando

Category: DUI

The client was arrested for DUI in Orlando. She, and her sixteen year old daughter were on their way home from a rock concert when the trooper stopped her vehicle for erractic driving. The client had no familiarity with Orlando, and became very lost when she tried to read her mapquest directions backwards on the ride back to Tampa. After the initial stop the client performed field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and then transported to the jail. When she was asked to perform the breathalyzer she refused. Link to our website and you can read a summarized version of our letter to the prosecutor. The letter requests the prosecotor to reduce the charge to reckless driving. While our client's performance on the field sobriety tests was poor, the letter gives you insite into how her performance could be affected by the conditions of the area that the trooper chose to administer the tests.

RESULT: She plead to reckless driving, and the conviction was withheld. In other words, she received no points on her driving record.

May 17, 2009

By Charlie Lambert

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Man Wins DV Battery Trial

Category: Recent Wins

Our client was accused of choking his wife during an argument. The allegations against our client were false, and were being used to gain leverage in a pending divorce. Our client had no criminal history and no history of violence. His wife, on the other hand, had ongoing mental health issues and a history of substance abuse. The State refused to drop the charges due to photographs that allegedly showed bruises consistent with the wife's story. At trial, the State was unable to introduce the photos. The credibility of the wife was called into question, due to inconsistencies in her testimony. The client was eventually found not guilty.

To read more about this case and others like it visit out website.

May 15, 2009

By Charlie Lambert

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Man Acquitted at Domestic Violence Battery Trial

Category: Domestic Violence

Despite 4th DUI Arrest, Sarasota DUI Reduced to Reckless Driving by Tampa Criminal Attorney (Sarasota County)

Category: Criminal Law

The client was stopped for speeding by a sarasota sheriff's deputy at 2:17 a.m. He was arrested, and transported to the county jail shortly after he failed the field sobriety tests. When the handcuffs were placed on the client he stated, "I know I messed up, but do you have to arrest me?" Despite the officer's opinion we approached the State about our client's performance on the field sobriety tests. We felt he performed well on the tests, and they were critical to the State's case since the client refused to blow into the breathalyzer. Consequently, the only real evidence of intoxication was the client's performance on the FST's. Eventually, the State agreed to reduce this charge on the day of trial. To get more information on how this case was resolved and what role the field sobriety tests play in any dui link to our website.

October 08, 2008

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Re-Directs Child Abuse Investigation

Category: Criminal Law

The client was investigated by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office for child abuse. His child came home from daycare with a fracture to his skull. The daycare refused to accept responsibility and pointed the finger at the child's parents. After discussions with our client and a review of the child's medical records we contacted law enforcement. Eventually the detective was convinced to focus his investigation on the daycare. To find out more about Child Abuse link to our website.

October 07, 2008

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets Dismissal of Domestic Violence Charge

Category: Criminal Law

The client became angry at her boyfriend and threw a vase at him during a verbal altercation. She called the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office the day after the incident in an attempt to have her boyfriend arrested. Inconsistent statements on her part led to her own arrest for domestic violence. Many people call the police in an emotional attempt to punish their significant other. Initially, the client's decision backfired, and she was charged. Once we met her in our office we were able to contact the state attorney and her charges were dismissed. To find out more about this case link to our website.

October 04, 2008

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

12 Felony Drug Charges Dismissed in Tampa Defendant's Case

Category: Criminal Law

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

The client initially received 11 counts of felony drug possession. Investigation of police misconduct led to negotiations with the State, and a dismissal of all but one charge. For more information link to

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.

April 30, 2008

Category: Criminal Law

State v. P; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

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

April 22, 2008

By Will Hanlon

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.

February 01, 2008

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

February 01, 2008

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

February 01, 2008

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

August 15, 2007

By Charlie Lambert

TrackBack (0)

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.

August 06, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

August 03, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

August 02, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 31, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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

July 30, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 30, 2007

By Charlie Lambert

TrackBack (0)

Pinellas County Domestic Violence Case Dropped

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. R; Pinellas County

Allegations of domestic violence are very common during divorce proceedings. Many times false allegations are used as leverage in negotiations regarding property division, alimony and child custody.

FACTS: Our client was a succesful consultant at a leading financial corporation. At the time of the incident, he and his wife had been experiencing marital difficulties, and were contemplating divorce. One evening, they had an argument over a past relationship. At some point the argument became physical. Our client allegedley placed his hand over his wife's mouth. She responded by punching and kicking him. Eventually, both parties calmed down and reconciled. No charges were immediately filed.

Over seven months later, our client became aware of an ongoing investigation into this incident by Pinellas County law enforcement. At some point after the incident, the victim had filed a dleayed domestic violence report. Despite the fact that the report was delayed, law enforcement was obligated to investigate the case and file charges if necessary.

In an investigation involving a delayed report, often times there is little or no physical evidence. Law enforcement is forced to rely exclusivley or eye witness accounts of the events. These types of situations can be extremely dangerous, particularly when law enforcement is only hearing one side of the story.

Fortunately, our client contacted our us immediately upon hearing about the pending investigation. We were then able to contact the State Attorney's office during the "pre-filing" stage of the case, and present our client's side of the story. We were also able to make the Assistant State Attorney aware of potential evidentiary issues in his case before the charges were ever formally filed.

RESULT: Ultimately, we were able to convince the State not to file charges against our client. By contacting our office right away, our client was able to avoid being arrested and and formally charged in criminal court.

July 30, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 29, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 28, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 26, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 24, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 23, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 18, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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".

July 10, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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.

July 10, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

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).

July 05, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Category: Recent Wins

State v. Z; Judge: Rick Defuria; Date: May 21, 2007

FACTS: The Client (defendant) was charged with Lewd and Lascivious Battery and was looking at 15 years in Florida State Prison pursuant to the Florida Statutes. According to police reports, the client (35 years of age) met a 14 year old girl outside of his apartment, shortly after moving into the area. After a few visits to his home the girl engaged in consensual sex with our client. When the Client became aware of her age he ended the relationship immediately. This breakup greatly upset the victim. According to reports, the victim later broke into the client's home and stole a firearm, with the apparent intent to have him killed. The client became aware of the girl's plan and left the state.

During the course of their investigation, Law enforcement eventually requested that the client come into the station and give a sworn statement. The client agreed and was consequently charged with L&L battery. Unfortunately, this client never contacted our office prior to giving his recorded statement to police. This mistake was compounded by the client's lack of knowledge regarding Florida's statutory rape (sexual battery) laws. By failing to contact our office prior to questioning, the client potentially exposed himself to the much more serious charge of sexual battery.

In this situation the State Attorney's case hinged solely on the client's statement due the victim's lack of credibility. The victim had numerous prior juvenile arrests. In addition, she had burglarized the client's home in an effort to possibly have him killed.

It is important to remember that whenever you are approached by law enforcement to contact a lawyer immediately. Even if you feel your role or knowledge of a crime is minor, taking proper steps to contact an attorney immediately can have a drastic impact on your case.

RESULT: We eventually negotiated a deal with the The State that allowed the client to avoid prison.

June 11, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Pinellas County Defendant Avoids Domestic Battery Prosecution

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. R; Date: May 9, 2007; Pinellas County

FACTS: Our client was alleged to have covered his wife's mouth during an argument. Shortly after he grabbed her, they both went to the ground, where a struggle ensued. The victim in this case called police months after the incident occurred because she felt her husband had lied to her about another woman.

Many times a spouse will decide they want to divorce their husband or wife and contact a divorce (family law) lawyer without telling the other party. During the initial interview the divorce lawyer will often inquire about instances of domestic violence during the marriage. Even where there is little to no justification, some divorce lawyers will often recommend that a victim contact the police and have a charge filed against their spouse in an effort to gain an advantage in the divorce proceedings. If they do they will typically also recomend that the wife apply for an injunction (preventing any contact).

Many x-husbands find themselves sitting in jail months after a domestic dispute has come and gone. After being released they find out that they cannot return home because there is an injunction in place preventing contact with their wife. If a defendant contacts a victim after an injunction is in place it could create an additional criminal charge. This is obviously a very frustrating turn of events that make it critical to hire a lawyer as soon as possible. The above scenario did not materialize in this case because of some steps we took to communicate with the victim.

DEFENSE: All contact with the victim was the result of the client trying to defend himself.

RESULT: The State Attorney decided not to pursue the prosecution, and the charge was dismissed.

June 07, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Defendant Avoids Prison and Conviction - Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm)

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: Robert A. Foster; Date: May 24, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was charged with Aggravated Battery (great bodily harm)(deadly weapon). The State filed the charge as a first degree felony. Initially, the client was looking at close to five years in Florida State Prison according to the criminal punishment code scoresheet. Under the Criminal Punishment Code, unless the defense convinces the State Attorney or the Court to apply a mitigator, the defendant must be sentenced, upon conviction, to the time described on the scoresheet. Our client was a patron at the Dallas Bull Bar on highway 301. After exchanging words with the victim, the defendant approached the victim, and struck her in the face with a beer bottle. The bottle knocked out several of the victim's front teeth and broke her nose. The victim's medical bills totaled close to $13,000.00.

DEFENSE: The defendant had no criminal history, and after much negotiation, we persuaded the State to go below the Criminal Punishment Code Guidelines and give the defendant a withhold of adjudication and probation.

RESULT: The client received no jail time or conviction on her record.

May 10, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Battery Charge Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. D; Judge: John Conrad; Date: May 10, 2007

FACTS: The client's daughter was approached by a young man who made a number of sexual inuendos during a conversation they had at work. Weeks later her father (client) visited her at work, and while they discussed the incident, the young man happened to walk nearby. The father was so angered by what happened he went outside and confronted the victim. Our client pushed the victim in the chest and then grabbed him by the throat.

DEFENSE: The remarks made to by the victim to our client's daughter were uncalled for and highly offensive on every level. The case was set for trial, and negotiations with the State followed.

RESULT: The State Dismissed the case.

April 08, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Pinellas County Defendant Avoids Sexual Battery Charge

Category: Criminal Law

State v. R; Judge: R. Timothy Peters; Date: April 3, 2007

FACTS: The client was charged with Handling and Fondling a Female Child Under the Age of Sixteen (2nd degree felony). The defendant had allegedly molested his children and grandchildren in 1992. The victim of the offense had a falling out with our client shortly before he was arrested out of state and extradited to Florida. The age of the charge made it problematic for the State Attorney to move forward on the Fondling charge. As a result, We made the State Attorney aware that we were filing a motion to dismiss the Fondling charge due to a violation of the Statute of Limitations. In response, the State claimed they would amend the charge to Sexual Battery (1st degree felony), in order to avoid the statute of limitations problem.

DEFENSE: The State could have moved forward on the Sexual Battery charge, but there were some serious issues as to the credibility of the victim. These credibility problems led to negotiations with the State.

RESULT: The client did no jail time. He entered a plea to a probationery sentence on a much less serious charge, which carried no sex offender designation.

March 22, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

State v. L; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: March 20, 2007

FACTS: After spending the night in Ybor City, the client drove some friends home. She was pulled over after one of the passenger's in her car threw garbage out of the back window. Her car was pulled over at about 4 a.m., at the off ramp of I-75 and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. As the officer spoke to the client he smelled an odor of alcohol on her breath and her eyes appeared to be glassy. The client was also wearing nightclub arm bands on both arms. After she admitted to drinking the officer asked her to perform some field sobriety tests. The officer felt she failed the field sobriety tests and arrested her for DUI. When she arrived at the Orient Road Jail in Hillsborough County she refused to blow into the breathalyzer. The defendant was also an under age drinker.

DEFENSE: The defendant's performance on the video was much better than the description given by the Tampa Police Officer in his report. Again, a video can create a real doubt as to the defendant's guilt in a DUI case.

RESULT: The DUI was dropped.

March 21, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

DUI Gets Dropped By Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: DUI

State v. L; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: March 19, 2007

FACTS: The client was driving a motorcycle at a very high rate of speed when he was observed by a deputy from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. The defendant was passing erratically and unexpecteddly with no warning. He also caused other drivers to slam their brake as he was correcting and readjusting within his lane. After the defendant was stopped the officer noticed that the defendant's speech was slow and slightly slurred. He also noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant's breath. The client was asked to perform field sobriety tests and failed miserably, according to the police report. He was then arrested for DUI and booked at the hillsborough county jail. The defendant refused to blow into the breathalyzer.

DEFENSE: There was a dispute as to whether the defendant had performed as poorly as described by the deputy. The video of our client can sometimes create enough of an inconsistency in the evidence to bring about a very positive result.

RESULT: The dui was dropped.

March 16, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Defendant Gets DUI Dropped

Category: Recent Wins

State v. C, Judge: Tom Barber; Date: March 15, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was stopped by a trooper for traveling 97 mph in a 65 mph zone on the Howard Franklin Bridge. As the trooper contacted the defendant he noticed he was disoriented and mumbling, with a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. When the client exited his vehicle he was unsteady and stumbling. The client believed he was heading to St. Pete when he was actually headed towards Tampa. The defendant was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests, and failed, according to the trooper. There was no video of the defendant's performance of the field sobriety tests at the scene. Ultimately, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test.

DEFENSE: The video of the defendant at the Orient Road Jail contradicted the trooper's description of him at the scene. In addition, we were able to supply evidence to the State that the defendant was new to the area, and unfamiliar with the roads. It is also important to point out that the client's refusal of the breath test did not weaken the state's case. The State has the ability to argue that the defendant refused, "... because he knew he was intoxicated". However, in this particular situation we were able to provide the State with a reasonable explanation for the refusal.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI.

March 12, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: Recent Wins

State v. O, Judge: James Dominguez; Date: March 12, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was stopped at the light on highway 41 north and Florida Avenue. A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office deputy stopped at the light behind our client. According to the deputy the light cycled through twice before she activated her overhead lights and approached the defendant's vehicle. The deputy claimed that the defendant was incoherent, and unaware of her surroundings when she made contact with her at the driver's side door. At that point the stopping deputy called a special DUI enforcement deputy who conducted a DUI investigation. The second deputy asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests, and claimed she had failed the tests. Much of what the deputy reported seemed to be confirmed by the defendant's breath result (the breath result was .146 and .129).

DEFENSE: After a number of attempts to negotiate with the State failed, we filed a motion to suppress the stop of the defendant's car. The State felt there was a safety concern that warranted the deputy stopping our client to determine the situation. We felt the deputy stopped our client's vehicle prematurely, and without reasonable suspicion.

RESULT: The State realized there were problems opposing our motion which led to a reduction of the charge to reckless driving for the client.

February 23, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Two DUI Arrests Dismissed By Tampa DUI Attorney

Category: DUI

State v. P, State v. N; ; Judge: Joelle Ober; Date: February 22, 2007

FACTS: The defendants (clients) both left the Dallas Bull Bar near U.S. 301 and Interstate 4, at around 1:30 a.m. Before leaving the bar each had consumed 1-2 beers. As they left the clients decided to follow each other home. Both clients were unaware that a special DUI enforcement deputy was waiting in a nearby parking lot for patrons to leave. The deputy decided to follow them as they left. Shortly after falling behind the defendants the deputy claimed one was following the other too closely, and stopped his car to cite him for the infraction. After the stop, the deputy claimed he smelled an odor of alcohol and began a DUI investigation of the first client. Because she was concerned about her friend, the second client approached the deputy to find out why they were stopped. After making contact, the deputy claimed he could smell an odor of alcohol on her breath also, and investigated her for DUI.
The deputy claimed that both defendants failed their respective Field Sobriety Tests and arrested them both for DUI. Each client agreed to take the breathalyzer. One defendant blew a .031, and the other blew a .028. The deputy then started grasping at straws. He asked each defendant to drop a urine sample. Both defendants complied, and their urine results ultimately revealed nothing.

DEFENSE: The above scenario is a very common occurrence. The deputy involved in this investigation was a special DUI enforcement officer. These DUI enforcement officers (both at the HIllsborough County Sheriff's Office and the Tampa Police Department) camp outside bars and wait for people to drive away late at night. After the suspects leave the bar, many officers will use any excuse, no matter how weak, to stop the vehicle for some traffic infraction or less. This case is a classic example of a dishonest law enforcement officer using any pretext to stop someone, and arrest them for a crime. It is also points out the risk to law enforcement when they decide everyone leaving a bar at 1:30 a.m is intoxicated. While the officer has a lawful right to park his car outside of any bar and wait for people to leave, he shouldn't just stop vehicles unless his observations warrant the stop.
Here, the deputy stopped the clients claiming one was following too closely. Did the driver actually commit the infraction, or was the officer using it as a pretext to conduct a DUI investigation? When you look at the facts, and realize the driver blew well below the legal limit, it calls into question the validity of the entire investigation, and the lawfulness of the arrests.

It is important to realize that just because these defendants blew well below the legal limit, that does not mean that their DUI charges were automatically dismissed by the State Attorney's Office. In the state of Florida a breath result of .08 or above is prima facie evidence that the person driving was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Florida Statute 316.1934(c). If someone's breath result is between .05 and .08, there is no presumption of impairment. Florida Statute 316.1934(b). If someone's breath result is below .05, it is presumed that the person driving was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Florida Statute 316.1934(a).
In this case, there was a presumption that both drivers were not under the influence of alcohol to the extent their normal faculties were impaired (in short they were not DUI). However, any presumption can be rebutted by evidence. So it does not necessarily follow that you are automatically guilty of DUI if you are above the legal limit, and not guilty of DUI if you are below the legal limit. For instance, in some cases where defendants blow below the legal limit there can be proof that the defendant was driving under the influence of some intoxicant other than alcohol (prescription drugs, marijuana, cocaine...etc.). In addition, every person is affected by alcohol differently. As a consequence, whether you are above or below the legal limit, you should still hire an attorney. This case ultimately resulted in a dismissal of both DUI charges, but it is very unlikely the defendants would have received that result on their own. I have seen many unknowing pro se (self-represented) defendants plead guilty to DUI when they blew below the legal limit. Without an attorney you have no idea of the real strengths and weaknesses of your case.

RESULT: Both DUI charges were dismissed by the State Attorney.

February 18, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Defendant Avoids 3 Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence after Shooting

Category: Criminal Law

CASE #05-CF-018725; Judge: Robert Foster; Date: February 1, 2007

FACTS: The State Attorney filed three charges of Aggravated Assault with Firearm (discharge) against the client. This charge carries a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence in Florida State Prison if convicted. The three victims leased a small home from the defendant. After the victims failed to pay rent on numerous occasions the client went to the home to determine why they refused to pay. According to the victims the client was intoxicated and got into an argument with the mother of one of the victims. Before he left someone called the victims who were driving home. When the victims arrived on scene they began to argue with the defendant. The argument led to a number of threats by the victims. According to the victims the defendant pulled out a pistol and fired into the crowd that had gathered. After the defendant left the police were called and reported to the scene. Their investigation led to the defendant's arrest on the above charges.

DEFENSE: Thorough investigation of these types of charges is critical! At first glance the client's case appeared extremely difficult. The victims were surrounded by numerous people who claimed he fired his weapon right at them. The defendant's story differed from the victims in a number of ways. He admitted he fired his weapon, but not at the crowd of people, and not until he left the area. He claimed he only fired the weapon after the victims retrieved their own firearm and discharged it. Through investigation we located two witnesses who lived nearby and heard shots fired that night. Shortly after hearing the shots they saw one of the victims walk by, and claim that he was "going to jump the shooter, but he pulled out a gun". In addition, we learned from another witness that the crowd was preparing to attack our client.

RESULT: The State does not like to drop charges this serious without a very good reason. Ultimately, we were able to convince the State that its witnesses had no credibility after the discovery of these neutral witnesses.
Two of the three charges were dropped (dismissed) altogether, and the third charge was reduced to disorderly conduct. The client received a withhold of adjudication (withhold of the conviction) and court costs on
a misdemeanor charge.

February 13, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets Domestic Violence Charge Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

CASE # 06-CM-024034; Judge: Nick Nazaretian; Date: February 13, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was accused of grabbing his wife by the neck and throat after an argument in their home. According to the victim, he squeezed her neck so hard he was able to lift her off the ground. There were photographs taken of the victim's injuries.

DEFENSE: The victim was the aggressor and the defendant only grabbed her to avoid further violence.

RESULT: This case was resolved before trial after interviewing the victim. Our investigation led to a change in the victim's story and a dismissal of the charge.

January 08, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Probationer Continued on Felony Probation

Category: Criminal Law

CASE # 05-CF-013726; Judge William Fuente; January 8, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was put on probation in October of 2005 for Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Fraud. After he moved to Tennessee he was arrested for two similar charges in February of 2006. He was arrested in Tennessee on a Florida governor's warrant for violating his probation in Hillsborough County. After certain steps were taken he was able to make bond in Tennessee for the Florida warrant, and returned to Florida for a court date we set. Based on the circumstances the judge agreed to continue the case until his Tennessee charges were resolved.

DEFENSE: The defendant's new charges in Tennessee were all reduced to misdemeanors, and the defendant had been compliant on his probation.

RESULT: Negotiations with the State led to the defendant being continued on probation without an adjudication for the violation.

January 06, 2007

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

CASE #06-CF-00818; 06-CF-00817; 06-CF-00816; Judge Debra Behnke; Date: December 20, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was arrested for selling pipes for the specific purpose of smoking crack cocaine. It is legal to sell the pipes, but not for the purpose of smoking crack. Florida Statute 893.147 was designed to punish any person who promotes their smoking pipes for the purpose of using controlled substances. According to the statute, "It is ulawful for any person to deliver, possess with intent to deliver... drug paraphernalia, knowing or under circumstances where one should reasonably know, that it will be used to introduce a controlled substance into the human body". The undercover law enforcement officer entered a convenient store where the defendant was working the cash register. He approached the defendant and asked if he had any pipes to smoke crack for sale. Supposedly, the defendant pulled out a box of pipes and sold them to the undercover officer.

DEFENSE: The defendant is an immigrant that spoke very little english. There was a serious question as to whether understood the officer. Unfortunately, while the storeowner makes money from the sale of these items he assumes no risk of criminal charges.

RESULT: The charges were dismissed.

December 22, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Lawyer Gets Violation of Domestic Injunction Charge Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

Case #06-CM-026335; Judge Nick Nazaretian; Date: December 22, 2006

FACTS: The client had an injunction for protection against domestic violence with minor children entered against him on August 8, 2006. The petitioner had a child with our client, and was very intent on gaining custody. Apparently, even after the injunction was filed the petitioner continued to contact our client indirectly through some of his friends. Strangely enough the victim ended up claiming the defendant (client) had contacted her through someone elses "my space" account.
According to the victim she responded to a friend of our client's by sending her a message on her "my space" profile. At some point she went back to this person's profile and saw a message she believed was addressed to her from our client. The victim called the police and our client was charged with contacting the victim and violating the injunction. The defendant felt his x-girlfriend was simply using this criminal charge to convince the family court judge to award her custody of their child.
The Courts are often used by people for the wrong reasons. Many petitioners will get an injunction against their boyfriend or wife, and use it as a tool to achieve some goal in front of the family court judge who is presiding over a divorce or custody dispute. Unfortunately, both men and woman are equally guilty in this regard. No one seems to realize that the children are the only ones that suffer when the Courts are abused in this manner.

DEFENSE: There was no proof that the defendant had intentionally contacted the victim. The victim apparently found this message on someone elses "my space" account, not her own. Discussions with the State Attorney brought about a quick resolution to this case.

RESULT: The charge of violating the Domestic Violence Injunction was dismissed.

December 19, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

Case #06-0034-DKT; Judge Marc Salton-Pasco County (New Port Richey); Date: December 18, 2006

FACTS: The client, a former police officer, was observed by law enforcement to be asleep behind the wheel of his car at a flashing yellow light. The client's engine was running and the vehicle was in drive. When the troopers pulled behind him the defendant woke up and pulled his vehicle to the side of the roadway. The troopers noticed that the defendant's face was pale, and his pupils were dilated. When the client exited the vehicle he leaned against the car to steady himself. Because the officer noticed some balancing problems he requested the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. Our client notified the trooper that he had a number of medical conditions that could create a problem in his performance (lower back, head, knees).
This is a recurring problem for law enforcement and defendants. The officer is going to ask most suspects of a DUI to perform the field sobriety tests despite the fact that they have physical disabilities. Their response is typically, "don't worry, I will consider your medical conditions in determining whether you performed the tests correctly". It doesn't matter how sincere the police officer is when he tells you he is going to consider your medical disabilities as you perform the field sobriety tests. The fact of the matter is that police officers are not doctors, and haven't the slightest idea how severe someone's injury is, or how it is affecting their ability to perform a field sobriety test. In this case the defendant attempted to perform a number of field sobriety tests and the officer failed him on all of them.
After the client was arrested for DUI the officer asked if the client was under any medication. The client indicated that he was taking a number of medications (zoloft, vicodin, and some sinus medication). The officer concluded that the client was under the influence of prescription medications, and asked the defendant to submit a urine sample. The defendant dropped a urine sample and the results indicated that he had a number of different drugs in his system. Some of the substances were break down products of valium and a mild stimulant.

DEFENSE: In this particular case we were able to hire an expert in Forensic Toxicology. The toxicologist report supported our client's story in terms of the timing, and amount of drugs that were ingested. Ultimately, the prosecution was unable to prove that the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. A urine sample by itself makes it very difficult to quantify the amount of drugs in someone's system. In addition, the urine sample cannot tell you when the drugs were taken.

RESULT: The DUI was dropped by the State Attorney.

December 14, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Resisting Without Violence Charge Dismissed by Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

Case #06-CM-024478; Judge Lawrence Lefler; Date: December 14, 2006

FACTS: The client (a huge Bengals fan) came to Tampa to see the Cincinnati Bengals play the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. During the closing seconds of the game the Bucs threw a pass that seemed to be incomplete. Our client walked down a couple of stairs to celebrate a Bengals victory with another fan. At that point security personel ordered a tampa police officer to remove him. The police officer grabbed the defendant and removed him from the stadium. During his removal the defendant was handcuffed too tightly, which caused him to pull away from the officer. The officer felt the defendant was trying to resist and threw him against a concession stand in the stadium. As a result the defendant's face was bloodied and bruised.

DEFENSE: Most people are not aware that you can resist without violence an unlawful arrest. In contrast, you cannot resist with violence even an unlawful arrest. That became very important in this case because the officer was not lawfully arresting the client for a crime when the client pulled away from the officer. In addition, this case involved a situation where the law enforcement officer misunderstood why the defendent (client) was pulling away. In order to be found guilty of resisting without violence you must intend to resist the officer. Our client was simply reacting to the handcuffs when he pulled away.

RESULT: The Case was dismissed upon our motion.

December 12, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

CASE #001-674-XAM; 007-179-ELP; 007-182-ELP; 004-209-EPL; Judge Tom Barber; Date: December 12, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was pulled over for failure to maintain a single lane and no tag light. When the officer approached the vehicle she claimed she smelled an odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath, and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The officer also noticed three open beer bottles in the defendant's vehicle. Based on her observations she called a DUI unit to conduct the investigation. The defendant told police he had taken several medications for depression and other illnesses. During the investigation the DUI officer administered a number of field sobriety tests. However, the incident report was unclear as to how he performed on the tests. This problem was aggravated by the fact that the officer had no video of the defendant's performance. One of the tests often administered by a police officer in a DUI investigation is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test. The HGN test involves the officer simply moving a pen with a light on the end of it in front of your eye. The subject is required to keep their head still while the officer moves his pen across your field of vision. If your eye begins to shake when the pen is moved to a 45 degree angle then it is supposed to indicate impairment. It is important to realize that a nystagmus can be caused by a number of factors that do not involve alcohol (contacts, fatigue). Some people have a natural nystagmus. For some reason the officer in the defendant's case did not administer the HGN test. This seemed very strange since he indicated the defendant did not perform well on some other tests that require physical coordination. If the officer felt the defendant was too intoxicated to perform the physical tests (walk and turn, one-legged stand, ... etc.) then why didn't he administer a test that involves almost no physical performance on the part of the defendant?
The truth of the matter is that just about every DUI investigation includes an HGN test, and they fail almost everyone. For some reason the officer decided not to administer this test in our case.

DEFENSE: The police officer's report was very confusing and inconsistent with the facts. In addition, the State was unable to explain the inconsistencies without the DUI video.

RESULT: The defendant's DUI was dropped and his traffic infractions were dismissed.

December 11, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Gets Battery Win

Category: Criminal Law

Case #06-CM-022191; Judge Tom Barber; Date: November 3, 2006

FACTS: The defendant worked as security for an establishment in Ybor City. Another security officer called him for assistance with one of the patrons who had broken a glass door. The customer was intoxicated and attempted to run from the bar after the altercation. Our client attempted to restrain the customer until the police arrived. After the officer arrived on scene he arrested our client, his assistant, and the customer. The customer claimed our client struck him shortly after he was arrested for criminal mischief.

DEFENSE: The client had done nothing more than restrain this intoxicated man, and made no effort to injure him. We discussed the actions of the victim with the State Attorney. After further negotiations the victim decided to file a request not to prosecute. It is important to realize that even though the victim of any criminal charge files a request not to prosecute it does not mean the case is over. The State Attorney's Office represents the people of the State of Florida, and does not have to drop a criminal charge just because the victim of a crime asks them to drop it. The fact that a victim wants the State to drop a charge is a factor considered by a state attorney, but it does not mean the State will necessarily drop it. In order for the State to drop a charge they must be convinced that they factually have a weak case. It is the job of your lawyer to convince the State of that. Do not try to do it on your own. Especially if you are the defendant. That idea is frought with all kinds of problems.

RESULT: The State dismissed the charge.

December 08, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Defendant Avoids Jail on Felony Violation of Probation

Category: Criminal Law

Case #05-CF-24819; Judge Daniel Perry; Date: December 7, 2006

FACTS: The defendant reported to probation and dropped a urine sample for the probation officer. He was confident he was going to test positive on the screen, and immediately called our office. The probation officer sent the urine sample to the lab and it did test positive for marijuana. No one wants to retain a lawyer for any reason, but when your liberty is at stake it is important that you retain a criminal attorney right away. Don't wait for law enforcement to show up at your door, and then hire the attorney. Because the defendant retained us right away he was able to avoid jail time.

DEFENSE: The defendant was very up front with the Court about his use of marijuana, and had completed almost all the conditions of his supervision before we arrived in Court. It is also very important that you make all efforts to complete as many conditions as possible before you face the court with your violation. The defendant in this case was also employed, and was very valued by his employer.

RESULT: The defendnat's probation was modified to include a drug evaluation and any treatment the probation office deemed necessary. The defendant was then continued on his supervision.

December 07, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Absconder Avoids Prison in Tampa Criminal Court

Category: Criminal Law

Case #03-CF-011765; Judge Daniel Perry; Date: November15, 2006

FACTS: Absconding from supervision is probably the worst way for a probationer to violate. That does not mean that you are necessarily headed for jail because of it, but it is a violation that certainly must be explained. Many times the absconder has violated a probation that requires a fair amount of restitution be paid to the victim. If the defendant comes to court with the ability to make the victim whole again it may prove the difference between going to jail/prison and avoiding prison.
The courts have created probation as an alternative to incarceration. Many judges look upon probation as the defendant's oppurtunity to prove to the Court that he or she can still be a productive member of society. When someone violates there probation by absconding or leaving probation many judges feel you have "thumbed your nose at them", and the responsibility of completing your supervision. That is why it is important to express to your attorney the difficulties (job, family members, addiction) that caused you to abscond.
In this particular case the defendant had been awol from probation for two years. She was initially put on drug offender probation and dealt with some serioius addictions to alcohol.

DEFENSE: The defendant had not received any new law violations during her time away from probation, and remained drug free. She had also started her own business and been productive. The Court was very direct with her about whether she continued to use any drugs, and the evidence showed she hadn't.

RESULT: After discussions with the Court the defendant's probation was terminated, and she was released from the county jail. If the defendant had contacted our office before she was arrested on the violation of probation warrant she may have avoided jail altogether.

December 06, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Marijuana Possession Dismissed by Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

Case Number: 06-CM-025852; Judge James Dominguez; Date: November 26, 2006

FACTS: Law enforcement claimed they saw the defendant enter a vehicle with some friends and begin to smoke. Based on their observations they approached the vehicle, knocked on the door and ordered the defendant out of the vehicle. After the defendant was removed from the vehicle the officers smelled an odor of marijuana. They searched the vehicle and found drugs.

DEFENSE: The law enforcement officers were not justified when they ordered the Defendant out of her vehicle. The police must atleast have a "reasonalbe suspicion" that you are engaged in criminal conduct before they can lawfully command you out of your vehicle or even command you to stop.

RESULT: The charge was dismissed by the State Attorney after discussing the 4th Amendment issues surrounding the stop of the defendant.

December 02, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Removes Habitual Traffic Offender Status

Category: Criminal Law

Case # 001-147-DCX; 006-805-BEJ; 663-470-F (Hillsborough); 06-CT-004-298 (Manatee); Judge Lawrence Lefler; Date: December 1, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was habitualized as a traffic offender for accumulating 3 Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) charges within a 5 year period. The defendant pled guilty to three DWLS charges in criminal court. Two of the three adjudications were set aside, and a third one was dropped by the State Attorney. The defendant also had another DWLS without knowledge in traffic court. The system is not fair with regards to the civil infraction of DWLS without knowledge. Many people feel since DWLS without knowledge is an infraction they can pay the ticket and that's the end of it. What they do not realize is when they pay the ticket they receive an adjudication on the DWLS without knowledge and an adjudication or conviction is put on their record. When you receive an adjudication on a DWLS without knowledge it qualifies as a prior under the habitualization statute. This is extremely unfair to most drivers who have no idea how the traffic laws work. Fortunately, many judges see this problem and treat those priors accordingly. However, that is not always the case, and many jurisdictions vary.

DEFENSE: The defendant in this particular case was facing six months in the Manatee County Jail because of his priors. When we removed the priors in Hillsborough the Prosecutor Manatee County offered the defendant an adjudication and court costs.

RESULT: The Defendant was able to avoid jail and get his license back. He can now keep his job and support his family.

December 01, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Carrying Concealed Weapon Charge Dismissed by Tampa Criminal Lawyer

Category: Criminal Law

Case Number: 06-CM-027255; Judge Tom Barber; Date: December 1, 2006

FACTS: Tampa International Airport Police arrested the defendant for possessing a key-chain which can double as a brass-knuckle type of weapon. This client, like so many others was unaware that she was in possession of an item that could be used as a weapon. The client was given the key-chain years before and simply forgot about it. Unfortunately, as a result of 9/11 the Tampa International Airport Police have a zero tolerance policy with respects to any item that might qualify as a weapon. This has created a situation where even the most inocuous set of circumstances results in a criminal charge.

DEFENSE: The client had no knowledge that the weapon was on her person.

RESULT: After discussions with the State Attorney's Office the charge was dismissed (Nolle Prossed).

November 27, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

Case # 001-899-XAM; Date: November 27, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was driving west on Kennedy Boulevard when he was pulled over for leaving his lane 5 times. After being pulled over by the law enforcement officer he agreed to perform field sobriety tests and failed. Our client was arrested and transported to the Hillsborough County Jail where he submitted to the breathalyzer. His result was .205 and .200.

DEFENSE: We filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence in the above case claiming that the defendant's driving pattern (drifting w/in his lane) was caused by the fact that tropical storm Alberta had landed in the Tampa Bay area that night. Alberta had created wind gusts of 60 mph in the Tampa Bay area.

RESULT: The State was unable to proceed at the Motion to Suppress Hearing and the DUI Charge was dropped.

November 21, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets Domestic Battery Win

Category: Domestic Violence

CASE #05-CM-015481; JUDGE: Nick Nazaretian; Date: November 21, 2006

FACTS: The defendant and his wife had a verbal argument outside his home. The victim claimed that our client hit her in the face with a piece of pizza, grabbed her by the throat, and body slammed her to the ground. Shortly after she caught her breath the neighbors helped her into their house. Instead of remianing at her neighbor's she got even more intoxicated and returned to our client's home. The same man she claimed she had thrown her to the ground. She found herself locked out of the home, and when she finally got inside she continued to verbally attack our client. The victim stood in the doorway of the bathroom and refused to allow her husband out. He eventually grabbed her and removed her from the doorway. The victim claimed that our client dragged her around the house by her hair, and bashed her head into the wall in the hallway.

DEFENSE: The only time my client laid his hands on the victim is when she came at him and he was forced to protect himself. In addition, the vicitm drank atleast six drinks contaning alcohol that night which called her credibility into question.

RESULT: The Judge found our client NOT GUILTY of the crime of domestic battery.

November 09, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Attorney Resolves Violation of Probation

Category: Criminal Law

CASE # 02-CF-014966; Judge: Daniel Perry; Date: November 8, 2006

FACTS: The defendant committed his 3rd Violation of Probation by testing positive for cocaine. When he was arrested on the violation of probation warrant law enforcement found marijuana in his vehicle. The defendant could have avoided being arrested and forced to sit in the county jail to await his court date, but instead of hiring our office immediately, he chose to run.

DEFENSE: We addressed the Court on the Defendant's problems coping with his drug addiction, and suggested that a more intense treatment program could help the defendant overcome his addiction.

RESULT: After hearing argument the Court adjudicated the defendant, and gave him another drug evaluation with treatment recommended by probation. The defendant was given another period of probation to complete and was able to return to work, and his family.

October 30, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Criminal Lawyer Gets Domestic Violence Injunction and Domestic Battery Charge Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

CASE #06-CM-023289; 06-DR-017814 & 06-DR-017444; JUDGE: Art Mcneil; Date: October 16, 2006

FACTS: The client was forced to protect himself when his wife came at him in their home. The wife was very intoxicated during the incident, and forced the client to defend himself. Eventually the suspect gathered his clothes so he could leave the home, but before he could finish packing the wife came back into the room and punched him in the face. The client documented his injuries by having photographs taken at the hospital. Unfortunately, he failed to retain any counsel and attempted to address the custody issues surrounding his son in his own way. The wife felt so threatened that she called the police and the client was arrested days later for domestic battery. Shortly after that she retained a lawyer and filed a petition for a domestic violence injunction against our client. After the client retained our office we filed our own petition for an injunction against the wife, and began defending his criminal charge.

Unfortunately, many people file criminal charges against their husband or wife in an attempt to gain an advantage in their divorce proceedings. The hope is that the person charged with the crime will be convicted and the family law judge will give custody of the children to the non-offending party. After the wife received our injunction her attorney called our office and we negotiated a settlement of the domestic violence injunctions and the criminal charge.

DEFENSE: The client was acting in self-defense when he threw the phone at his wife. The wife had a drinking problem and caused some noticeable injuries to the client during the struggle.

RESULT: The domestic violence injunctions were both dismissed and the State Attorney no filed the battery charge.

October 26, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Category: Recent Wins

CASE #404-049-W; Judge James Dominguez; Date: July 10, 2006

DEFENSE: A pretrial motion to suppress the stop was filed asking the court to suppress any and all evidence that emanated from the stop. This motion led to pretrial negotiations with the with the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office.

RESULT: The DUI charge was dropped.

June 30, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Careless Driving Win

Category: Recent Wins

CITATION #000-448-ELS; Judge Robert Foster; Date: June 28, 2006
FACTS: The defendant was alleged to have interfered with another driver by swerving in and out of traffic causing another vehicle to strike her from behind.

DEFENSE: The opposing driving tailgated the defendant, and refused to avoid her when he had every opportunity to do so. Inevitably the opposing driver was unable to provide the court with evidence to substantiate the charge.

RESULT: The careless driving charge was dismissed.

June 06, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa DUI Win

Category: Recent Wins

CASE #000-026-XCA; Judge James Dominguez; Date: June 6, 2006
FACTS: The defendant was observed weaving outside of his lane and driving his vehicle 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. Shortly after he was stopped by law enforcement he was asked to perform field sobriety tests. After considering the defendant's performance the officer arrested the defendant. The breath result was .106 and .106.

DEFENSE: The defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests created a contradiction in the evidence.

RESULT: The DUI charge was dropped.

June 06, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa DUI Win

Category: Recent Wins

CASE #001-263-XAM; Date: June 6, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by law enforcement without a headlight. His vehicle was stopped and the officer his speech to be slurred and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The defendant performed field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. The breath result was .095 and .095.

DEFENSE: The officer did not properly assess the defendant's performance on his field sobriety tests.

RESULT: The DUI charge was dropped.

April 10, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Court Win

Category: Recent Wins

ATTEMPTED MURDER ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

CASE #04-CF-024505; Judge Manual Lopez; Date: April 10, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was initially charged with Attempted Murder on a Law enforcement officer, Battery on a law enforcement officer, and two charges of resisting with violence. The defendant was alleged to have attacked two people at an apartment complex. As soon as the police arrived they confronted the defendant and asked him to get on the ground. A chase ensued and the police attempted to subdue the defendant. According to the deputy the defendant reached around her neck and choked her. Shortly after the defendant let go of the deputy he was brought down by numerous other officers.

DEFENSE: Shortly after the defendant was arrested we located an independent witness that saw the entire incident. We immediately contacted the State Attorney's Office before formal charges were filed, and convinced the state to drop the attempted murder charge. In addition to the independent witness, we conducted discovery depositions of all the officers involved in the case. Through these depositions and the discovery of an independent witness we argued that the defendant was attempting to protect himself.

RESULT: The defendant pled guilty to one charge of battery on a law enforcement officer, one charge of misdemeanor battery, and one misdemeanor charge of resisting an officer without violence. The remaining resisting with violence charge was dropped. The defendant was not convicted on any of the above charges.

April 04, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa DUI Win

Category: Recent Wins

CASE #001-603-XAM; Judge James Dominguez; Date: April 4, 2006
FACTS: The defendant left a bar and attempted to drive home. After becoming ill outside of his vehicle he fell asleep behind the wheel. He was contacted by law enforcement and asked to perform field sobriety tests. After failing these tests and making statements to the police officer he was arrested. The defendant was transported to Central Breath Testing and blew .078 and .082.

DEFENSE: While the defendant was ill in front of the police officer and had a lot of trouble performing field sobriety tests, he had taken steps to avoid driving.

RESULT: The DUI charge was dropped.

March 18, 2006

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Bond Hearing in Polk County

Category: Recent Wins

BOND HEARINGS

CASE #06-CF-001997; Judge Bruce Smith (Polk County); Date: March 18, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was charged with sexual battery on his daughter (1st degree felony punishable by life).

DEFENSE: At the bond hearing we made the court aware of the questionable allegations made by the victim in the past, and the disciplinary issues causing strife between the defendant and his daughter.

RESULT: The Court set a bond in the amount of $10,000.

October 18, 2005

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa Battery On a Law Enforcement Officer Win

Category: Recent Wins

BATTERY ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

CASE #05-CF-008694; Judge William Fuente; Date: October 18, 2005

FACTS: The defendant became intoxicated at a casino and had a physical altercation with law enforcement.
DEFENSE: The police officers gave sworn statements during the discovery process. These depositions revealed that the defendant was unable to intentionally strike the officers.

RESULT: The Battery on a law enforcement officer charge was dropped.

August 04, 2005

By Will Hanlon

TrackBack (0)

Tampa DUI Win

Category: Recent Wins

CASE # 627-943-X; Judge James Dominguez; Date: August 4, 2005
FACTS: The Defendant struck several vehicles before coming to a stop in a ditch. Law enforcement arrived and the defendant agreed to perform field sobriety tests. According to the officer the defendant failed the field sobriety tests and was transported to central breath testing where he blew .233 and .244.

DEFENSE: The State was unable to pursue the charge at trial due to a lack of evidence.

RESULT: The DUI charge was dropped.

Topics

Recent Entries

Sites of Interest

Recent Wins