The Law Office of David M. Goldman has expanded again and added a Jacksonville Bankruptcy Lawyer and a Jacksonville FDCPA Lawyer who can help Stop Creditor Harassment in Florida. Look for an exciting announcement with a new lawyer addition next week in a related area of Florida Estate Planning.
This week our new Blog designs went live. Please let us know what you think about our Florida Foreclosure Defense Lawyers Blog
As a Jacksonville Driver’s License Attorney, I recently handled a case for driving without a Valid Driver’s License in Jacksonville Florida, contrary to the provisions of Florida Statute Section 322.03(1). The Florida Law states that “a person may not drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid driver’s license” but what exactly does “drive” mean?
The Florida Supreme Court, in Marshall v. State, 354 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1978), held that “to be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is not enough to convict for driving without a license.” The person must be driving. However, Marshall was superseded by two cases, State v. Tucker, 761 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2000) and State v. Bostick, 751 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). While both cases addressed Driving with a Suspended or Revoked License, instead of the charge of Driving without a valid Driver’s License, the cases apply the revised Florida statute which caused Marshall to be overruled.
Tucker states that “[Florida Statute Section] 322.01(15) (1999) now includes the following definition for the term “drive”: as used in this chapter “drive” means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic. According to the plain language of this provision, the definition of “drive” in [Florida Statute Section] 322.01(15) (1999) applies to [Florida Statute Section] 322.34 (1999).” Section 322.01 is the definitions section that applies to the entire chapter, including 322.03. The 2010 version of the statute that defines “drive” is 322.01(16), and it gives the same definition.
In Jacksonville, Florida, can the State of Florida charge an individual with both Dealing in Stolen Property and Grand Theft of the same property, and if so, can the jury return a guilty verdict on both counts?
In Kiss v. Florida, the Fourth District Court of Appeals address this question. Leslie Kiss was charged with three counts of dealing in stolen property and one count of grand theft of the same property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. The Florida court ruled that the State of Florida is free to charge a Defendant with both offenses, but the trier of fact must choose to convict one charge or the other, but not both. The court ruled in this manner due to the language of Florida Statute Section 812.025 which states:
“a single indictment or information may, under proper circumstances, charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.”
Florida Statute Section 562.11(c) makes it a second degree misdemeanor “for any person to sell, give, serve, or permit to be served alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age or to permit a person under 21 years of age to consume such beverages on the licensed premises.” Due to the hard work of many Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Florida Legislature passed an amendment to this Florida Law, regarding service of alcohol to minors.
The Amendment is listed in Florida Statute Section 562.11(c) which states that “a licensee who violates paragraph (a) shall have a complete defense to any civil action…if, at the time the alcoholic beverage was sold, given, served, or permitted to be served, the person falsely evidenced that he or she was of legal age to purchase or consume the alcoholic beverage and the appearance of the person was such that an ordinarily prudent person would believe him or her to be of legal age to purchase or consume the alcoholic beverage and if the licensee carefully checked” a listed form of identification and acted in good faith.
The new Amendment to this Florida Law regarding selling and serving alcohol to minors will be beneficial to Jacksonville vendors and sellers of alcohol. It makes sense to have a law that protects minors, but not at the expense of Jacksonville business owners and there employees that act in a prudent manner.
Jacksonville resident, Aundria Fischer, was arrested for Jacksonville Forgery of Bank Bills and Uttering a Forged Bill. Local media reports state that she is accused of forging a check that was given to her as charity from Beaches Emergency Assistance Ministry (B.E.A.M). B.E.A.M. gave Ms. Fischer a $200 check to help her pay an electric bill. Ms. Fischer altered the check and made it payable to herself, instead of the electric company.
Jacksonville Forgery of Bank Bills (Florida Statute Section 831.07) and Jacksonville Uttering a Forged Bill (Florida Statute Section 831.09) are third degree felonies which are punishable by up to five years in prison each. Therefore, these charges should not be taken lightly. If you have been charged with Jacksonville Forgery of Bank Bills or Jacksonville Uttering a Forged Bill, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer immediately.
Under Florida Statute Section 837.05, a person that knowingly gives false information to law enforcement about the alleged commission of a crime commits a first degree misdemeanor. If the information is in reference to a capital felony, that person may be charged with a third degree felony.
Recently, a Daniel Foote was arrested due to a false allegation of rape. His accuser, Amy Sutton-Slack, recanted her story, and Mr. Foote was released. The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office obtained a warrant for Ms. Sutton-Slack’s arrest. She will be charged with Jacksonville filing a false police report. It is important for Ms. Sutton-Slack and Mr. Foote to have a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney to represent them with charges pending.
Jacksonville Criminal Defense Attorneys dedicate their careers to helping criminal defendants acheive favorable outcomes in criminal cases. However, we cannot win every case. In some cases, a Jacksonville Criminal Defendant will be sentenced to serve time in jail or prison. Not only is this disappointing to the Jacksonville Criminal Defense Attorney that fought to keep the client out of jail, but it devastates the client’s family.
Imagine that a husband and father of four is sentenced to 13 months in Florida State Prison. He is the sole provider for the family. His wife only has a high school education and has spent the past 10 years raising his children. She has three children in school and one toddler at home. Now, that her husband is gone. She must go back to work. She must pay for daycare and try to pay the bills on her own. She tries to find a job, but due to her lack of further education and experience, she cannot find a job that will cover her mortgage payment. Thus, her home becomes the subject to a foreclosure action. Now, she and her four children are going to be homeless.
As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Attorney, I have learned that representation of a criminal defendant does not always stop when the criminal case closes. Often, the Jacksonville criminal defendant’s family needs representation for a foreclosure case or drafting of estate planning documents or a durable power of attorney. Thus, Jacksonville Criminal Defense Attorneys should be familiar with other areas of practice or be prepared to refer the case to an attorney that practices in those fields.
As a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney, I am familiar with the Duval County judicial system. I have practiced in front of most of the Jacksonville county (misdemeanor) and circuit (felony and juvenile) court judges. As a Jacksonville resident and registered voter, I am familiar with the election of Duval County judges. In Jacksonville, the public elects its judges. I assumed that other states elected their state judges as well. However, this assumption was incorrect.
Today, I was taking a criminal certified legal education course in South Carolina. I was the only Jacksonville Criminal Attorney in the room. I learned that South Carolina residents do not elect thier judges. Instead, the judges are appointed by a committee. The committee investigates the judicial candiates and chooses three candidates. Then, one canditate is appointed from the three people.
South Carolina’s judicial appointment process may be more beneficial to criminal defendants. It is no surprise that Jacksonville criminal defendants are not the most respected members of society. Many people do not respect a criminal defendant’s rights they way that they should or in the manner that the constitution demands. Indeed, when judges run for office, they take a stance that they are “tough on crime.” While crimes should be properly punished, judges should make decisions based upon the evidence presened and argument rendered by counsel. They should not be influenced by the public’s perception that a judge should be “tougher” on crime. Perhaps, if we did not publically elected judges, we would not have the outside influence of public perception in the criminal courtroom.
In Florida, evidence that is obtain as a result of an unlawful search or seizure can be suppressed. Normally, a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer will analyze the case to determine whether an illegal search or seizure has occurred. If one has taken place, the Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer will likely filing a motion to suppress any evidence retrieved due to such conduct.
For instance, the Florida Third District Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted, because the cocaine that she was charged with possessing was found as a result of unlawful police detention. In Hidelgo v. State, Ms. Hidelgo was the passenger of a vehicle that was stopped due to a traffic violation. She and the driver consented to a search of the vehicle. During this search, police patted down Ms. Hidelgo, handcuffed her, and placed her in the police car. The police did not find anything in the vehicle, and Ms. Hidelgo and the driver were free to leave. After this, an officer searched the back of the car in which Ms. Hidelgo was held. He found a plastic bag with cocaine. The officers stopped the vehicle once again and arrested Ms. Hildelgo. She was charged with Florida Possession of Cocaine.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeals ruled that the stop and search of the vehicle were legitimate. Although Ms. Hidelgo consented to the search of the vehicle, the State of Florida did not present evidence to establish that she “consented to being handcuffed and place by herself in the back of a police vehicle for a lengthy period of time.” She was treated as if she was under arrest as she was not free to leave.
As I discussed in a recent article, the United States Supreme Court to Rule on Jacksonville Juvenile Case, Florida has harsh sentencing practices when it comes to juveniles. In fact, approximately seventy percent of all juveniles sentenced in the United States to life without parole for non-homides were charged in Florida. While this issue has received a massive amount of media attention due to the recent United States Supreme Court Hearings in Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, another issue remains. What about the Florida juvenile homicide cases in which a juvenile is sentenced to life in prison without parole? The Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act, H.R. 2289, is a congressional bill that:
“Requires states to: (1) enact laws and adopt policies to grant child offenders who are serving a life sentence a meaningful opportunity for parole or supervised release at least once during their first 15 years of incarceration and at least once every three years thereafter; and (2) provide notice of such laws and policies to the public and to victims of child offenders. Defines “child offender who is serving a life sentence” as an individual who is convicted of a criminal offense before attaining the age of 18 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life or a term exceeding 15 years. Requires the Attorney General to: (1) establish and implement a system of early release for each child offender who is under a life sentence in a federal prison; and (2) award grants to states to improve legal representation and other services for child defendants charged with an offense carrying a possible sentence of life in prison.”
If this bill were to pass, any juvenile serving a life sentence would be eligible for parole, but why should juveniles be treated differently? Many people feel that if a teenager can commit an adult crime, than he or she should complete adult time. However, our society has always functioned in a manner which establishes that juveniles should not be treated as adults. While we recognize that teenagers are not mature enough to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, vote, serve on a jury, drive a vehicle, or consent to certain medical treatment or sexual intercourse, we hold them to an adult standard when it comes to the commission of serious criminal offenses. Scientific research has found that children and teenagers utilize their brains in a different manner than adults as their brains continue to develop. In Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court banned the death penalty in juvenile cases due to this research and the likelihood of rehabilitation for minors. If the likelihood to rehabilitate a minor is great for juvenile defendants, then why is Florida continuously sentencing minors to life in prison without parole? While Florida’s interest in retribution is great, this interest can still be achieved by granting parole to rehabilitated offenders after serving a significant sentence.
Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog