Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Florida's Williams Rule has certain procedural requirements that must be followed before evidence of a Jacksonville Criminal Defendant's bad acts or wrong doings can be admitted in a jury trial. The State Attorney must file his or her Notice if Intent to Offer Similar Fact or Williams Rule Evidence. This notice must be filed at least 10 days before trial, and it must particularly describe the acts that the State plans on entering into evidence a trial. The Jacksonville Criminal Defendant is entitled to a hearing on the admissibility of the character evidence. If the evidence is admitted, the jury must be instructed about the limited reason for the introduction of the Williams Rule evidence. They must be told that they cannot convict the defendant based upon another offense. Instead, he or she cannot only be conviced of the crime for which he or she is charged.

If you have been charged with a crime in Jacksonville, Florida, it is important to make sure evidence of prior bad acts are not admitted in your jury trial. The jury is instructed that they are not to consider evidence of a Jacksonville criminal defendant's prior bad acts as evidence that the defendant committed the crime that he is charged with. However, once the jury hears the evidence, it is hard to ask them to disregard it as evidence of the defendant's bad character. Therefore, it is important for a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to exclude this character evidence.

In a Jacksonville criminal jury trial, a Jacksonville criminal defendant's prior crimes or wrong-doings usually cannot be used against him or her. The State Attorney cannot present evidence tending to show a Jacksonville criminal defendant's bad character if he or she is using the evidence to prove that the criminal defendant acted in conformity with his bad character on a particular occassion.

Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Evidence Code, governs the admissibilty of a criminal defendant's character evidence. Normally, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible, but it is admissible if is is "relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." This is known as Florida's Williams Rule.

Yesterday, the Florida First District Court of Appeals filed an opinion on a Jacksonville record expunction case, 

Baker v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D275a. Last year, Scott Baker, a Jacksonville criminal defendant, appealed Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt's denial of his petition to expunge his criminal record. The Florida appellate court ruled that Judge Senterfitt's "reasons for denying his petition were not sufficiently related to the particular facts and circumstances of his case." At the hearing, no evidence was presented and the judge: 

"entered an order denying Appellant's petition based on the nature of the charge and the nature of Appellant's occupation. According to the order, Appellant works at a car wash where he has contact with the public, "obviously including children." The trial court opined that the public's compelling interest in knowing the character of those who provide a service to the community, particularly the children of the community, justified denial of the petition."

The Florida appellate court reasoned that "a trial court must weigh the policy of public access to records against the 'long-standing public policy of providing a second chance to criminal defendants who have not been adjudicated guilty.'" Indeed, "the court's discretion must be exercised based on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the records at issue, and not solely on the nature of the charge." A trial court cannot "deny a petition for expunction based on facts that would be applicable to any person seeking such relief."

In December 5, 2008 in Jacksonville, Scott Baker was arrested for Lewd or Lascivious Molestation of a child under the age of twelve, a violation of Section 880.04(5), Florida Statutes. The Duval County Florida State Attorney's Office file charges and Baker pled not guilty. The Duval County Circuit Court judge presiding over the case was Elizabeth Senterfitt. In March of 2009, the State Attorney's Office dropped the charges against Baker.

Although Baker's Jacksonville molestation charges were dismissed, his record still reflects that he was arrested for this crime. This Jacksonville criminal record is still open for the public, and potential employers, to see. However, a solution to this problem is expunging his Jacksonville arrest.

On May 26, 2010, Baker filed a motion to expunge this charge. Judge Senterfitt denied his motion. Her reasoning was based on the fact that Baker "works at a car wash company where he has contact with the public, obviously including children" and "the public has a compelling interest in knowing the character of those who provide a service to individuals in the community, particularly the children of the community." On July 23, 2010, Judge Senterfitt signed an order stating the grounds for denial. Baker filed an appeal, and the Florida First District Court of Appeals reversed Judge Senterfitt.

Read Florida Appellate Court Finds that Jacksonville Judge Denied Petition to Expunge Criminal Record in Error by a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer for more information.

However, if you have a Criminal History that is hindering your ability to get or keep a job, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer today to discuss your Criminal History and determine if a record seal or expungement is available to you.

Ponte Vedra Beach DUI Checkpoints must pass certain constitutional standards. In Florida, two major cases govern the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints: Campbell v. State, 679 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1996) and State v Jones, 483 so. 2d 433 (Fla. 1986). The police officers conducting the DUI roadblock must have written guidelines that lay out detailed procedures for them to follow. The guidelines must "set out procedures regarding (1) the selection of vehicles, (2) detention techniques, (3) duty assignments, and (4) the disposition of vehicles." Jones, 483 So. 2d at 438.  Indeed, other Florida cases have addressed this issue such as the Florida Second District Court of Appeals (See 

Guy v. State, 993 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2008)). For more information about this case, read "Florida Court Rules on DUI Checkpoint and Road Block Case" by Ponte Vedra DUI Attorney.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeals reversed a case in 2008, because the Florida DUI checkpoint did not have sufficient guidelines. In 

Guy v. State, 993 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2008), the police department set forth a plan for a DUI checkpoint. The plan states that every vehicle would be stopped and checked, but if the traffic backed up, the supervisor "would develop a contingency plan either temporarily closing the checkpoint until the traffic cleared or changing the number of vehicles to be stopped." Id. at 79. This DUI checkpoint violated the guidelines set forth by the Florida Supreme Court, because if left "the vehicle selection procedure to the discretion of a field officer to develop a contingency plan on the spot in the event of a traffic backup." Id.

The court held that "the State did not show that the operational plan sufficiently limited the discretion of the officers as to the selection of vehicles and, to a lesser extent, the testimony showed that the officers did not strictly adhere to the written plan." Id. at 80. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted. Id.

If you have been stopped at a Ponte Vedra DUI checkpoint or any other DUI roadblock in the Jacksonville area, contact Jacksonville DUI Attorney to discuss your case and to make sure your rights are being protected moving forward.

Today, I started my day like any other day and like most Jacksonville Criminal Attorneys. I checked my email to address and respond to my client's requests and questions. I checked the local Jacksonville news via Jacksonville.com (The Florida Times Union). The cover story read, "Jacksonville police issue warrant for Michelle McCoy's boyfriend." I learned that a Jacksonville man, Larry Thompson, was being accused of kidnapping and murdering his girlfriend. The article stated that "he has a criminal history and violent past."

Thereafter, I continued with my daily tasks and worked on my clients' cases. Minutes ago, I received a call from a reporter from the Florida Times Union. I assumed that he was calling about one of my current Jacksonville cases. However, he was calling about Larry Thompson, a Jacksonville murder and kidnapping case that I am not involved in. The Florida Times Union reporter asked me about a 2006 criminal case. In 2006, I was worked as an attorney at the Office of the Public Defender. I represented Mr. Thompson in a misdemeanor case. He was charged with misdemeanor, making threats, in Jacksonville. I was able to obtain a favorable disposition in which his sentence would be court cost and the two days that he already served in the Duval County Jail.

The Jacksonville reporter questioned me about this case, and I have no recollection of the facts, because I have represented hundreds to thousands of people since then. However, I do know that his criminal history cannot be used against Mr. Thompson unless the Duval County State attorney establishes sufficient grounds for it under Florida's Williams Rule.

If you have a Jacksonville Criminal Law issue, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Law Attorney today.  It could prove to be invaluable in your case.

The Florida Constitution (Article I, Section 14) gives a Jacksonville criminal defendant the right to be released from custody pending the outcome of his or her criminal case. Furthermore, Rule 3.131 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the court to conduct a hearing to determine pretrial release. This Jacksonville Bond Hearing is referred to as a criminal defendant's first appearance. It must be conducted within 24 hours of arrest. At the bond hearing, the presiding judge must consider a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the factors that are set forth in Rule 3.131(b)(3). Rule 3.131(b)(3) states:

"In determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, and what that bail or those conditions may be, the court may consider the nature and circumstances of the offense charged and the penalty provided by law; the weight of the evidence against the defendant; the defendant's family ties, length of residence in the community, employment history, financial resources, need for substance abuse evaluation and/or treatment, and mental condition; the defendant's past and present conduct, including any record of convictions, previous flight to avoid prosecution, or failure to appear at court proceedings; the nature and probability of danger that the defendant's release poses to the community; the source of funds used to post bail; whether the defendant is already on release pending resolution of another criminal proceeding or is on probation, parole, or other release pending completion of sentence; and any other facts the court considers relevant."

It is important for a Jacksonville Criminal Defendant to have a Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer that will present evidence to the court in order to establish that the defendant is entitled to a reasonable bond or that the defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance.

As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer, I have attended many Jacksonville bond hearings. In Jacksonville, a criminal defendant is given a first appearance where both the State Attorney and the defendant (or his lawyer) can present arguments and evidence. However, this is not always done. Due to the large calendar that Duval County judges are confronted with, first appearance court is often rushed. This results in an injustice to the defendant, a breakdown of the criminal justice system, and a violation of the Constitution.

Yesterday, an opinion was released by the Florida Second District Court of Appeals addressing this issue. In 

Greenwood and Rice v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D256c (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), the court did not conduct a proper bond hearing. The court did not permit the criminal defendants to testify. Instead, it "directed them to file motions for bond reduction, at which time they would be given a much greater opportunity to present evidence so that the matter could be more carefully considered by the court." This was improper. The Florida appellate court ruled that "it is error for the trial court to refuse to give defendants at least a very brief opportunity to be heard at the first appearance hearing if they insist on it, even if defendants might be better served by a later hearing." The court reasoned that the judge in first appearance court "must at least give the defense a reasonable amount of time to respond to the State's presentation and, at the very least, must allow the defendant, upon request, to be sworn in and to briefly testify as to the relevant factors." Jacksonville Criminal Defense Attorney

On January 7, 2011, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals released its opinion in State v. Murray and Brink (36 Fla. L. Weekly D88b). In this Florida Driving Under the Influence (DUI) case, Murray and Bring, the DUI Defendants, were street racing and were involved in a crash that killing another driver. The Florida State Troopers responded to the crash. Neither Florida DUI Defendant appeared to be under the influence, and they did not smell like alcohol. They did not have probable cause to request a breath, urine, or blood sample, and they did not have probable cause to arrest. Still, the Florida State Troopers asked if the drivers would be willing to consent to a blood test. Both men consented.

According to Chu v. State, 521 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), Florida's Implied Consent Law requires submission only to a breath or urine test, and a blood test is offered as an alternative. In this case, since the Florida DUI Defendants consented to the blood test, it was admissible. It did not fall under the Florida Implied Consent Law. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals also noted that the holding in Chu sweeps to broadly.

If you have been charged with DUI in Jacksonville, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss your case and to make sure your rights are being protected.

Look at your Ponte Vedra Florida drivers license and read the fine print: "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." In essence, the Florida Implied Consent Law states that when a person accepts the privilege of operating a vehicle in Florida, he or she is consenting to taking a breath, urine, or blood test.

If a Ponte Vedra driver is arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and refuses to submit to a blood test, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles will automatically suspend his or her license for 12 months for the first refusal and 18 months for the second. He or she is entitled to a hearing to contest the suspension, but must request one within 10 days of the arrest. Therefore, it is important to act quickly.

Additionally, a second refusal will result in additional criminal charges (Jacksonville Criminal Refusal) being filed, so it is important to speak with a Ponte Vedra Florida DUI Attorney.