Jacksonville, FL
Criminal defense Lawyer at Jacksonville, FL
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense
OUTCOME: Reversed for evidentiary hearing
Appellant's Motion to Terminate/Vacate the Final Judgment of Injunction was legally sufficient by alleging facts demonstrating “changed circumstances” such that “the continuation of the injunction woul ... d serve no valid purpose,” As such, the trial court erred in not affording Appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard before summarily denying his motion.
OUTCOME: Reversed for resentencing
Reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing as consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10–20–Life statute are permissible but not mandatory.
OUTCOME: REVERSED with directions to discharge Appellant.
Appellant argued that the State failed to rebut his reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that someone else placed the firearm in the vehicle rented under his name. The District Court agreed and held t ... hat the evidence was insufficient to support a prima facie case that Appellant was in constructive possession of the firearm.
OUTCOME: Injunction dissolved
Evidence was insufficient to support repeat violence when mere threats were alleged without an overt act.
OUTCOME: Reversed. Charge dismissed.
Client was adjudicated delinquent for the charge of criminal mischief, wherein the State alleged he caused damage to a pool. We argued that the trial court should have granted Client's judgment of dis ... missal as the State failed to present any evidence that he acted with malice, as required by section 806.13, Florida Statutes (2010). We also argued that the State's evidence was entirely circumstantial and it failed to present evidence that was inconsistent with Client's reasonable hypothesis of innocence that he damaged the pool by accident.
OUTCOME: Reversed and remanded for trial court to strike the condition of batterer's intervention.
Client was convicted of resisting an officer without violence. He was sentenced to probation, which included a special condition requiring him to complete a batterer's intervention program. We argued t ... hat the condition was invalid because it did not reasonably relate to his rehabilitation for the crime of conviction.
OUTCOME: Affirmed for resisting with violence, but reversed charge of resisting without violence as convictions for both charges violated double jeopardy.
Client was charged with both resisting an officer with violence and without violence. We argued that regardless of the amount of officers present while client was resisting, the adjudication of delinq ... uency for both charges violated double jeopardy.
OUTCOME: Reversed. Charge dismissed.
Client was adjudicated delinquent for giving a false name or identification to a law enforcement officer. We argued that the trial court erred in denying Client's motion to dismiss because section 901 ... .36(1) requires arrest or lawful detention as a condition precedent to a violation of the statute and he was not arrested or lawfully detained at the time he gave a false name to law enforcement.
OUTCOME: The DCA affirmed Client's conviction finding no error occurred. The DCA further held that even if error occurred it was harmless.
Mr. McNeal was convicted for felony battery. During trial, the trial court allowed the State to publish the victim's written statement she prepared for law enforcement pursuant to the “past recollecti ... on recorded” exception to the hearsay rule. We argued that the trial court reversibly erred by allowing the statement to be published to the jury under the “past recollection recorded” exception to the hearsay rule, because the victim did not testify that she wrote the statement or that the statement correctly represented her knowledge or recollection at the time of making the statement.
OUTCOME: The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court's decision, and remanded the case to the First District for reconsideration and a proper harmless error analysis under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), if applicable.
After losing in the DCA, we appealed Client's case to the Florida Supreme Court arguing that the DCA erred in finding that the introduction of the alleged victim's statement as a "past recollection rec ... orded" was not error. In addition, we argued that the DCA used the improper test to determine whether the error was harmless.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
