VIOLENT OFFENSES Recent Court Wins
Recent Court Wins
Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer State v. B; Judge: Lamar H. Battles FACTS: The client was charged with Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer (3rd degree felony), Resisting With Violence (3rd degree felony), and Disorderly Conduct. The incident occurred at the Seminole Hardrock Gaming Casino in Tampa. The client consumed too much alcohol, and became belligerent towards security and the Seminole Police. After a lengthy argument with the police she was handcuffed. As she was being escorted by police she kicked two officers. Eventually, the client was arrested, placed in hobble restraints, and transported to the Orient Road Jail. DEFENSE: The client was forced to the ground when she was restrained by the officers. During this process her back was to the officers, and she experienced a tremendous amount which forced her to move her leg and strike the officer. RESULT: The Battery on a law enforcement officer, and disorderly conduct charge were dismissed, and the client entered a plea that involved no conviction on her record. If you would like to learn more about violent offenses link to tampadefenseattorney.clarislaw.com. AGGRAVATED BATTERY ON A PREGNANT WOMAN State v. P; Judge: Nick Nazaretian FACTS: Battery on a pregnant woman is a second degree felony punishable by maximum of 15 years in Florida State Prison. It is a level 7 offense that scores immediate prison for even a first time offender. This is another case that emphasizes the importance of retaining representation in criminal cases as soon as possible. The client was arrested after he had an argument with his girlfriend who had been pregnant for over 7 months. He became angry when he found out about a phone call that was made to his girlfriend's cell phone. The victim claimed that she was injured when he pushed her to the ground. DEFENSE: The defendant admitted that there was an argument between the two of them, but he denied having any rolde in her injury. We argued at trial that the victim had slipped on clothes that were laying on the ground next to their bed. RESULT: Our office addressed the felony charge with the State Attorney's Office the moment it was assigned to a prosecutor. The felony charge was reduced to domestic battery, and we tried the case in County Court. Ultimately, the Court found the client not guilty. If you want to learn more about violent offenses link to tampadefenseattorney.clarislaw.com False imprisonment and Domestic Violence Charges Dismissed Against Tampa Defendant State v. B; Judge: Nick Nazaretian FACTS: The client was charged with False Imprisonment, Domestic Battery, and 2 charges of Violation of a Domestic Violence Injunction. The client, and his wife had a dinner party with friends from out of town. After the party ended the client came into the bedroom and began to argue with his wife. She eventually went into the bathroom and he followed her. After they entered the bathroom the client's son opened the door and ran to his mother. The argument continued, and according to the victim our client struck her while she was holding their son. She also claimed that our client locked the door, and refused to let her leave the bathroom. The Tampa Police arrived on scene and arrested the client. Days after his arrest the client was served with a domestic violence injunction. Despite the Court's order he made attempts to contact the victim through a third person, and then tried to send her flowers. DEFENSE: We contacted the State attorney before the charges were formally filed and explained the circumstances surrounding the altercation, and our client's position. As a result of the discussion, the false imprisonment charge (3 degree felony) and the injunction violation charge were both "no filed" (dismissed). The other violation of domestic violence injunction charge and the battery charge were filed in county court. We filed a demand for speedy trial in county court and the State Attorney was unable to bring forth the necessary evidence to prove the remaining charges. RESULT: The false imprisonment charge; two (2) violation of domestic violence injunction charges; and the domestic violence battery charge were dismissed. Tampa man charged with Felony Battery avoids mandatory prison State v. C; Judge: Emmett Battles 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. Investigation Leads to Dismissal of Aggravated Assault and Animal Cruelty Charge State v. F; Judge: Ronald Ficarrotta 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. Shortly 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. Pinellas County "Prison Release Re-offender" charged with aggravated battery has charges dismissed State v. C; Judge: Ley, Date: August 7, 2007 FACTS: Client had a significant criminal record, and had recently been released from Florida State Prison. Client also had a history of mental health issues and severe substance abuse. Upon his release from prison, he made efforts to turn his life around and become a productive member of society. The Client began dating a girl in St. Petersburg, and had plans to move back to South Florida to reunite with his family. Unfortunately, the girlfriend's family did not approve of their relationship. One afternoon, the client appeared at his girlfriend's house unannounced. The girlfriend's uncle came to the door holding a baseball bat and ordered the Client to leave. An argument ensued, which quickly became violent. Our Client was struck multiple times with the bat and sustained serious injuries. The struggle spilled over into the street, where our client picked up a shard of broken glass to defend himself. The Client, in fear for his life, stabbed his attacker in the stomach with the broken glass. Shortly later police arrived on the scene. During their investigation, the girlfriend's uncle, as well as other family members and neighbors gave statements indicating that our Client had initiated the fight. Our Client told his side of the story, but police assumed that he was under the influence of narcotics, and arrested him for Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon. Since the Client had recently been released from prison, he qualified as a "Prison Release Re-offender" under Florida law [F.S. 775.082(9)(a)1]. If convicted of Aggravated Battery as a "Prison Release Re-offender," the Client would have been given a mandatory sentence of 15 years prison, with no parole and no gain time. This case, like many battery cases, was built almost entirely on witness testimony. In this situation, both parties had weapons and both parties sustained serious injuries. Both the Client and the Uncle were claiming self-defense. The central issue for law enforcement and the prosecutors was to determine who attacked first. Since many of the eyewitnesses were either biased or unreliable, the investigation became even more difficult. Police had to consider all of the circumstances in deciding who to charge. Unfortunately, our Client's criminal past may have been the deciding factor. Immediately upon bonding out of jail, the client contacted our office. After, investigating his story further, it was clear that law enforcement had rushed to judgment in charging our client. Since the Client hired us so soon after being arrested, we were able to contact the State Attorney's Office before charges were officially filed. RESULT: After presenting additional information to the State Attorney's Office during the pre-filing stage of the case the case was dismissed. DOMESTIC BATTERY 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. DOMESTIC BATTERY State v. S; Judge: Nick Nazaretian 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 BATTERY State v. D; Judge: John Conrad 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. BURGLARY; GRAND THEFT MOTOR VEHICLE; RESISTING WITHOUT VIOLENCE State v. J; Judge: Robert Foster 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. EXPOSURE OF SEXUAL ORGANS State v. F. FACTS: The client was accused of exposing himself to children in his neighborhood at the front door of his home. DEFENSE: During our discussion of this case with our client we became aware of the animosity between his family and a number of his neighbors. It appeared that some children may have been peering into the client's home and the exposure allegation was totally false. RESULT: It is very common for these types of false allegations to escalate out of control. This client contacted our office right away, and we addressed the allegations with the State. Ultimately, the State no filed the charges. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SOMETIMES EVEN LAWYERS NEED TO KNOW WHEN TO HIRE A LAWYER C v. V; Judge: William Law; Lake County 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 plaintiff's 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, plaintiff's 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 the 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 emphasis 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". LEWD & LASCIVIOUS BATTERY State v. Z; Judge: Rick Defuria; Sarasota County 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 State that allowed the client to avoid prison. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE State v. R; 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. AGGRAVATED BATTERY (GREAT BODILY HARM) State v. C; Judge: Robert A. Foster; 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. HANDLING AND FONDLING A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN State v. R; Judge: R. Timothy Peters 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. Aggravated Assault with Firearm (Discharge) THREE YEAR MANDATORY SENTENCE CASE #05-CF-018725; Judge: Robert Foster; 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. VIOLATING A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INJUNCTION Case #06-CM-026335; Judge Nick Nazaretian FACTS: An injunction for protection against domestic violence with minor children was entered against our client 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. 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. RESISTING WITHOUT VIOLENCE Case #06-CM-024478; Judge Lawrence Lefler 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 violence an. 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. BATTERY Case #06-CM-022191; Judge Tom Barber 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. VIOLATION OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INJUNCTION CASE # H-27-DR-2006-309; JUDGE: Stephen O. Rushing (Hernando County) FACTS: Our Client had been in ongoing dispute with a nearby neighbor. The client became so threatened by his neighbor that he filed a petition for an injunction to prevent his neighbor from coming within 300 feet of him or his family. The judge granted his petition, but also granted the neighbor a similar injunction against our client. The client had not hired a lawyer before filing the petition for the injunction, or the injunction hearing. This led to other problems at his hearing and other problems with his neighbor that were not properly handled. It is extremely important to retain a lawyer as soon as you anticipate the possibility of going to court for any reason! RESULT: The Court agreed with us that the neighbor was guilty of violating the injunction and found him in contempt of court. This case is another terrific example of waiting too long to hire a lawyer. Although we won the hearing and it should convince the State Attorney to take a second look at the actions of the neighbor, most of our client's problems could have been avoided had he contacted us earlier. A domestic violence injunction is a serious matter and violating an injunction is even more serious. Don't wait until the situation escalates out of control before you hire an attorney. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Case #06-CF-019817 FACTS: The defendant attempted to pick up his daughter at the airport when he became embroiled in a dispute with a police officer. The officer forced him to circle the airport instead of allowing him to park in the arrival terminal. Eventually the defendant attempted to park his vehicle in the terminal and the same officer involved in the previous dispute claimed the defendant tried to strike him with his vehicle. DEFENSE: Law enforcement at the airport claimed they had video that verified the officer's version of events. After discussions with the State Attorney it became clear that the officers did not have sufficient evidence to support the charge. RESULT: The charge was dismissed. This case is a terrific example of why hiring an attorney prior to the formal filing of a charge can be extremely beneficial. The detective involved in the investigation attempted to get the defendant to make some admission as to his intent with his vehicle during a phone interview. When the detective didn't get what he wanted he tried to set up an interview at the airport with the defendant. The defendant never appeared and a warrant was put out for his arrest. Eventually the defendant was arrested, and had to bond out of jail. Many times we can prevent the above scenario from occuring through discussions with the detective. It is important for any suspect to realize that he cannot talk safely with a detective, or any member of law enforcement. Any officer investigating a criminal case is going to attempt draw an admission from a suspect, and many times what appears to be an admission in the officer's report is not totally accurate. Unfortunately, once a suspect takes the risk of speaking with law enforcement without a lawyer, its the detective's interpretation of the suspect's statement that winds up in his report. ATTEMPTED MURDER ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CASE #04-CF-024505; Judge Manual Lopez 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. AGGRAVATED BATTERY ON PREGNANT WOMAN Defendant retained our office before the State Attorney decided to file formal charges FACTS: Defendant was charged with striking his pregnant girlfriend. RESULT: The State dropped all charges. BATTERY ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CASE #05-CF-008694; Judge William Fuente FACTS: The defendant became intoxicated at a casino and had a physical altercation with law enforcement. RESULT: The Battery on a law enforcement officer charge was dropped. Contact an Experienced Florida Assault and Battery Defense Attorney to Discuss Your CaseIf you have been criminally charged, your future depends on the quality of your defense. By contacting The Criminal Defense Group, you will get a lawyer whose highest priority is zealously defending your rights. Call us today for a free initial consultation. For your convenience, evening and weekend appointments are available by request. |
- Drunk Driving and DUI Charges
- Sex Crimes
- Domestic Violence
- Traffic Offenses
- Drug Crimes
- Probation Violations
- Arrest Warrants and Probation Hearings
- Bond Hearings
- Extradition
- Theft Robbery
- Violent Crimes
- Weapons Charges
- Child Abuse
- Juvenile Crimes
- Expungement and Record Sealing
- Clemency Petitions and Pardons
The Criminal Defense Group
Bank of America Plaza
101 East Kennedy Blvd
Suite 1485
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 228-7095
24 Hours: (813) 263-7044
or (813) 334-3910
