Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

As a Jacksonville resident and Hockey fan, I have seen many a Zamboni driver resurface the ice at a rink. But, this is a first for me. A local Zamboni driver in Minnesota was recently arrested on the suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI). Although located outside of the state of Florida the DUI laws are similar in many aspects.

According to the reports, the hockey coach of a local PeeWee team notified the police of the erratic behavior. The notification to the police was made after parents, players, and spectators witnessed the Zamboni driver weaving, running into the rink, and taking extended amount of time to resurface the ice. When the police arrived, they conducted a Field Sobriety test; which the Zamboni driver failed.

Florida's DUI laws are governed by Statute. Florida Statute § 316.193, which defines DUI as driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and the person, is under the influence of alcoholic beverages...[with] a BAC of 0.08 or more. The penalties range depending upon number of convictions and other aggravating factors. This is a peculiar case, as in the motor vehicle is a Zamboni, occurred in an enclosed area, and on ice. However, the statute just requires a "motorized vehicle" and driving or physical control.

But what does all this mean for Jacksonville Motorist? It means a DUI charge can come in many forms, not just driving down the road after having too much to drink. However, a charge of Jacksonville DUI does not necessarily mean a conviction. The State still has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer can evaluate your case and determine if there are any mitigating factors or justifications for the alleged DUI. For instance, in this case, they report the smell of Red Bull and slurred speech. Red Bull is non-alcoholic and maybe he slurred his words because he was tired or sick and took the Red Bull to be more alert.

These are just a few initial impressions as to the allegations against the Zamboni driver. However, a more specific and personal consultation with the Defendant would be required for a more in depth and critical analysis of his case. So, if you have a pending Jacksonville DUI, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss your case and determine the best approach in moving forward.

Recently Clay County Police arrested a young Jacksonville resident for allegedly breaking into another Police officer's home on Sunday morning. According to reports, Jarvis Guthrie, broke into the officer's home and had to be physically restrained until police were able to arrive and take the young man into custody. He is currently being charged with Burglary with the intent to commit battery.

As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer, when I hear about these types of incidents; I think about all the mitigating circumstances that surround the incident at hand. Could the alleged suspect have mental disabilities that would hinder his ability to understand his actions? Was the alleged suspect under the influence of medication or other drug that might negate his ability to reason? Or was there some other intervening circumstance that would negate the culpability for this alleged crime? These are just some of the avenues that a Jacksonville Criminal Defense lawyer will consider when handling your Jacksonville Criminal Case.

The advice and counsel of a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer could prove to be invaluable. Also, you still have rights after your arrested and must make sure they are being protected. That is why if you or a loved one have been charged with a Jacksonville Criminal Offense, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss your case and determine what the best course of action in moving forward. It could prove to be all the difference in your case.

The trial for Colavito Bell began yesterday in Duval County Court. According to opening statements by the Assistant State Attorney which claimed Bell shot Christopher Oney, the victim, because he was jealous that he was getting more work than himself. The Defense Attorney, in contrast, stated Lyn Ragan, fiancé of the victim, was responsible for the distribution of the workload and that she would have lost her job if the relationship or favoritism were discovered. The trial continues today.

So what could Bell, the Jacksonville Criminal Defendant, be facing? Potentially, he could be convicted of first-degree murder. Unless the State fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt or the Defense Attorney establishes mitigating circumstances. In addition, if the facts prove insufficient a conviction cannot be upheld. Murder, is defined in Florida as the unlawful killing of another human being, when either the perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being or during the commission of the enumerated felonies listed within the statute. (F.S.A. § 782.04).

Murder is a serious criminal offense, therefore, the advise and counsel of a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer will prove to be advantageous to a Jacksonville Criminal Defendant. The legal process is complicated, complex, and not always favorable to unrepresented Jacksonville Criminal Defendants. If you have Jacksonville Criminal charges pending against you or a loved one, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer who will discuss your case, determine possible defenses and justifications, and work with you for the best possible outcome in your Criminal law matter.

A recent report of a home in Jacksonville being damaged by fire leaves me with the question on my mind of Arson. The report states that Fire and Rescue were dispatched to a Florida home after smoke and flames coming from within the home. Although the fire was extinguished rather quickly, the resulting damage was extensive. The cause of the fire is still being investigated. But leads me to question whether this is a case of Arson or not.

In Florida, Arson is defined by Florida Statute § 806.01, which reads "any person who willfully and unlawfully, or while in the commission of any felony, by fire or explosion, damages or causes to be damaged: any dwelling...any structure...any other structure that he or she knew or has reasonable grounds to believe was occupied by a human being." If convicted for Arson it is a Felony in the first-degree, which holds a penalty of up to 30 years in prison and/or up to a $10000 fine. In contrast, if you commit Arson against property of your own, it is a second degree-felony punishable by 15 years in prison and up to a $10000 fine.

Although this Fire investigation is still in its initial stages, if the homeowners are found to have intentionally set the fire, they could be facing a second-degree felony charge. If on the hand, someone else set the fire, they could potentially face a first-degree felony charge. Or it could just be an accidental fire and no charges will be brought.

A Jacksonville Arson charge is a serious criminal offense with serious penalties. The advice and counsel of a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer could prove invaluable. If you are facing a Jacksonville Arson charge or any other Jacksonville Criminal Offense, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss your case and to make sure you and your rights are being protected.

Anyone who has watched crime dramas on TV or heard a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer speak have heard a multitude of Latin words throughout their discussions, but some are not always completely understood. One such word is "corpus delicti." Corpus delicti generally means the physical evidence of a crime, (i.e. the dead body in a murder). Recently, the 2nd District court dealt with an issue pertaining to corpus delicti in Reinlein v. State of Florida.

In this case, the Court had to determine whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant's post-Miranda testimony regarding his consumption of an illegal substance before the State established the corpus delicti of tampering with physical evidence.

The defendant was witnessed by police officers exchanging something in a high crime area. Because the actual transaction was not witnessed, they put a patrol car on the defendant's vehicle to follow him; hoping he would commit a traffic violation and initiate a traffic stop. Several blocks from the drug transaction, the defendant was being pulled over when the officer saw the defendant make a motion as if placing an object in his mouth. The defendant exited the vehicle and was arrested. The only evidence the prosecution presented was the post-Miranda statement from the defendant that he purchased drugs and consumed the drugs before being stopped. The State charged the defendant with tampering with physical evidence.

The statute under which the defendant was charged is Fla. Stat. § 918.13(1)(a). The statute reads, in relevant part: No person, knowing that a criminal trial or proceeding or an investigation...shall: Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation. Additionally, Florida Courts have required defendant to known of an impending investigation and have destroyed the evidence to hinder that investigation.

In this case the defendant was pulled over several blocks from where the alleged drug buy took place. The State failed to provide substantial evidence that the defendant destroyed the drugs for the purpose of hindering the investigation. Furthermore, the exact drug transaction was not witnessed, the item eaten could not be determined, and no evidence of the drugs located in the vehicle.

This case demonstrates how every aspect of the criminal act must be proven before a conviction can be upheld. A Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer knows the law and the applicable standards the State must overcome to have a conviction. If you have been charged with a criminal offence or have criminal charges pending against you, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss your case and to determine what the best course of action for moving forward.

In a recent case, Rozzo v. State of Florida, the 4th District Court heard an appeal from the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County. The issue presented before the court was whether the consent given by the homeowners after and unlawful warrantless entry and protective sweep of the home was valid and therefore the defendant's motion to suppress should be denied.

The issue arose after the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence discovered inside the house following his arrest. In this case, the defendant sold drugs to an undercover officer on the street by his house. The officers arrested the defendant on the street. The officers then moved to the house, owned by the defendant's parents. The officers proceeded to order the parents to stay outside during the "protective sweep." Then the officers got a signed Consent form to search the house. The search revealed other drug related items in the defendant's bedroom.

The U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment has established a high reasonable expectation of privacy regarding one's home. Furthermore, Florida Courts have established absent consent or exigent circumstances, police may not enter a home without a warrant. Additionally, Florida Courts have only permitted a "protective sweep" if the officers have reasonable, articulable suspicion to protect the safety of the officers or to prevent the destruction of evidence.

In this case, the defendant was arrested outside the home and the officers had no suspicion that evidence was being destroyed or officer safety. This fact was even testified to by one officer who stated the protective sweep was "routine and of generalized concern." Therefore the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress. Since the protective sweep was illegal, the subsequent consent to search the home given by the father was tainted. Therefore, the evidence seized during the illegal search was fruit from the poisonous tree and therefore inadmissible.

This is just one of many legal nuances that a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer can investigate and potentially advance in your criminal case. If you have been charged with a criminal offence or have criminal charges pending against you, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss your case and to determine what the best course of action for moving forward.

As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer I scour the local, national, and world news to stay informed on current Criminal legal issues. Just recently a news article by Foxnews.com sparked my interest. The article titled "Cocaine Bust Lands Curvy Model in Italian Jail," was a colorfully written article.

The article states a Spanish model attempted to smuggle Cocaine into Italy via prosthetic breasts and buttocks. The model's plan was to distract the TSA by wearing tight-fitting clothes and her attractiveness would take suspicion away from the real task at hand. However, her "extra-large bosom and derriere" caught the attention of TSA and they investigated. After failing to provide sufficient answers to their questions, they conducted a strip search. The search revealed the model was attempting to smuggle 5.5 pounds of cocaine.

Currently the charges are pending and dependent upon Italian and international law, the charges could be quite severe. This article intrigued my legal mind because it shows the diminished expectation of privacy one holds while traveling through airports. At airports all the authorities need is reasonable suspicion before they can investigate. In contrast, inside one's own home the expectation of privacy is very high. Police are required to have a warrant before entering your home, absent exigent circumstances.

Even with this diminished REP, you still have rights! If the authorities violate these rights, the evidence collected against could be inadmissible in court or the charges could be dropped all together. A Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer can review your case and determine if the authorities have violated your rights and take the appropriate action to rectify the situation. Criminal drug possession and trafficking charges carry serious penalties and jail time. It is in your best interest if you have Jacksonville Criminal charges pending against you to contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss your case and determine the best course of action moving forward.

Balzourt v. Florida comes before the 2nd DCA on appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. The appellant is appealing his first-degree murder charges under two different legal theories. First dealing with the Rules of Evidence and the admissibility of collateral crimes. Second dealing with the State's burden of proving premeditation to support the charge of first-degree murder.

The appellant was convicted for murdering his then girlfriend and setting her body on fire in the nearby woods. The victim's cause of death was determined to be asphyxiation and the state was able to prove the appellant had committed the murder.

The first issue in this appeal deals with the Williams rule. The appellant contends the evidence allowed to be admissible did not similar enough to satisfy the requirements for admissibility. Under Williams, collateral crime evidence is only permitted when used to prove a material fact and not just to show bad character or propensity. Furthermore, Courts have required strict compliance and similarity between the acts before they can be admitted before the courts. In this case, the State introduced evidence of a prior strangulation of an ex-wife of the appellant. In that incident, the two were arguing over an ex-boyfriend and during the heated argument he strangled her to the point of unconsciousness. That incident took place in the middle of the day. In contrast, this incident occurred between the appellant and a girlfriend, in the middle of the night, and the state failed to prove what caused the incident in the first place. Based on the forgoing facts, the Court determined the evidence was improperly admitted and remanded for a new trial.

The second issue in this appeal deals with the State's failure to prove premeditation so as to support a charge of first-degree murder. According to the Florida Supreme Court, premeditation is a fully formed conscious purpose to kill which must exist for a sufficient length of time to permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed and the probable result of the act. (Quotes omitted). Coolen v. State, 696 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1997). The State provided evidence the appellant did strangle the victim, but has not provided any further evidence the jury could draw the conclusion the appellant had the premeditation required to satisfy the charge of first-degree murder. The Court ruled the evidence did not support a finding of first-degree murder and remanded the case for retrial, but only for the charge of second-degree murder.

Criminal charges can be live altering, especially if you take on the legal system without legal representation. If have been charged with a criminal offense or have pending criminal charges, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss you case and determine what is the best course of action in moving forward in your case.

A Florida man was charged and convicted of felon in possession of a firearm. In Powell v. Florida, this Florida Criminal Defendant was arrested in the apartment in which the gun was found and taken to the police station where Florida police officers questioned him. Police officers testified that Powell stated that the gun was his.

The United States Supreme Court held that:

"Criminal suspects have a right to have their lawyer present during police questioning, and the police are required to inform suspects of that right as part of their "Miranda warning." In this case, police officers told a suspect that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering [any] questions" and "[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview." The Court held that even though this warning did not specifically mention the right to have a lawyer present during questioning (as opposed to the right to talk to the lawyer before questioning), the warning nonetheless was constitutional because it conveyed to the suspect that he had the right to have an attorney present."

Simply because the Court weakened the required reading of Miranda warnings does not weaken your right to an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida. Remember, if you are arrested or are facing questioning from a law enforcement official, you may invoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and request a Jacksonville Florida Defense Attorney before speaking with the police.

If you are arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, you have certain rights provided by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held, in Miranda v. Arizona, that police must inform persons in custody that they have the right to remain silent, anything that they can be used against them, they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and an attorney will be provided if they cannot afford one. These are known as Miranda Warnings.

If police do not comply with Miranda warnings when arresting a person in Jacksonville, Florida, a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney may be able to suppress (throw out) any statements made by the Jacksonville Criminal Defendant. However, there are exceptions to this rule which can be found in other Supreme Court rulings, such as Florida v. Powell, 130 S.Ct. 1195 (2010).

In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011), a uniformed officer questioned a 12-year-old boy at school about a string of local burglaries. The officer told the boy he was free to leave, but also told him that a court could order juvenile detention. The school's assistant principal told the boy to "do the right thing." Eventually, he confessed to the burglaries. At trial, the boy's lawyer argued that the confession was essentially coerced due to the boy's age and the circumstances surrounding the questioning. The state courts in Florida held that the boy was not in detention, because he was free to leave. Therefore, Miranda warnings were not required.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the child's age is relevant. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, children are required by law to go to school and are often subject to discipline for disobedience. Students are therefore much more likely to believe that they are obligated to answer police questions. Therefore, Miranda warnings are required in order to inform students that they do not have to answer police questions and can contact an attorney.

If you or your child has been subject to police questioning, you should contact a Jacksonville Defense Attorney to discuss the case.

As a Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Defense Lawyer, I have represented juveniles that were questioned by police officers in their schools. Recently, in a 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court addressed this issue. For the first time, the Court ruled that children questioned by police in school must be given Miranda rights before questioning. The Supreme Court released its decision in In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011), on June 16, 2011 (See United State Supreme Court Rules that Juvenile Criminal Defendant's Constitutional Rights Were Violated by Jacksonville Juvenile Lawyer, Cynthia Veintemillas).

The Florida Times-Union's website (Jacksonville.com) posts occasional surveillance photographs of recent crimes in Jacksonville, Florida in an effort identify the suspects. The Florida Times Union in Jacksonville titles these articles, Perp of the Day, and runs the stories with photographs which are picked up by other online media sources. The this causes the Jacksonville crime to be broadcasted in other areas which would increase the likelihood of an arrest.

However, it is important to note that surveillance pictures are often bad quality. This could lead to a false arrest. A person could be arrested for a Jacksonville crime that he or she did not commit. Therefore, there should be other evidence linking the suspect to the crime. In some cases, police will question a Jacksonville criminal suspect for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. This is one of the many reasons that anyone suspected of a crime in Jacksonville, Florida should speak with a Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer prior to answering any questions.

The Fifth Amendment is applied to Florida, and all the other States, through the Fourteenth Amendment. It protects a person from self-incrimination and is meant to "assure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action." Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 4611975). A witness in a civil proceeding has the right to refuse to respond to a question on the grounds that his answer may tend to incriminate him. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45 (1972).

In an injunction hearing is a civil proceeding. Quite often, the civil proceeding is intertwined with a criminal case. For example, the respondent that is defending against the restraining order may also be the Jacksonville criminal defendant in a Jacksonville domestic battery case. Other example occurs when the respondent has not been charged with a crime, but he or she may be arrested in the future for conduct alleged in the Jacksonville petition for an injunction.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals has found that a respondent did not waive his Fifth Amendment right when he testified at a Florida injunction hearing. Since this right "is a fundamental principle secured by the Fifth Amendment, waiver of the privilege will not be lightly inferred, and courts will generally indulge every reasonable presumption against finding a waiver." Jenkins v. Wessel, 780 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing State v. Spiegel, 710 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is waived "only as to matters relevant to issues raised by [the witness's] testimony on direct examination." Jenkins, 780 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (citing Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 373, 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)).

From one Jacksonville Criminal Attorney to another, thank you to Russell Smith, Esq. for drawing my attention to this excellent case.

In Kilburn v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D394b (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), the Florida First District Court of Appeals ruled that a Florida inventory vehicle search of a vehicle was invalid and declared an unlawful search. The defendant, Kilburn, was arrested for Florida DUI (driving under the influence). The police officer towed Kilburn's car, because it was in an unsafe location. As part of the process, officers conducted an inventory search, but they did not have any standardized criteria or procedures for such a search. During the search, they found marijuana, alprazolam, and hydrocodone inside of a pill bottle. Kilburn was also charged with possession of these drugs.

The Florida appellate court ruled that while inventory searches are permitted, in order for this warrant exception to apply, "the inventory search must be 'conducted according to standardized criteria.' State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464, 468 (Fla. 1989)... The requirement for standardized criteria serves to limit police discretion in determining the scope of the search and ensures that the police will not abuse the exception and use the inventory search as a subterfuge for a criminal investigatory search. Id. at 469; see also Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 294 (Fla. 1997)."