Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

December 16, 2009

Can You Be Stopped for a Cracked Windshield in Florida?

Is a police officer permitted to stop a driver with a cracked windshield in Florida? It depends. A Florida driver can be stopped problems with a windshield if the windshield violates a provision listed in Florida Statute Section 316.2952 or Section 316.610. A cracked windshield would be covered in Section 316.610. However, a stop is only permissible under this Section if the crack poses a safety hazard. This would make the vehicle unsafe and allows the officer to stop the driver, because he has a particularized and objective basis to believe that the driver is violating the law.

On the other hand, if the windshield does not create a safety hazard, the officer does not have reason to stop the driver. In

Hilton v. State, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that marijuana seized as a result of a stop pursuant to Section 316.610 was obtained illegally. The court held that there was no evidence to establish that the crack in Hilton’s windshield rendered his vehicle unsafe. Thus, there was no evidence to support an objectively reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was unsafe and in violation of the statute.

December 3, 2009

Jacksonville Juvenile to Face Criminal Charges for Downtown Shooting

by David M. Goldman

Jacksonville Juvenile, Quintavis Seay, is only 16-years-old and charged with the homicide of a 20-year-old Jacksonville man, Jeremy Godboldt. According to local reports, Seay was involved in a physical altercation with Godboldt and his brothers. At some point, Seay allegedly shot Godboldt, who was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

Seay will likely be charged as an adult. If he is charged with murder, he could face life in prison without parole, despite his age. Since the shooting death stemmed from a fight between the alleged victim (Godboldt) and the Jacksonville criminal defendant (Seay), I would not be surprised to see Seay’s Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer argue that Seay acted in self-defense. This is even more plausible considering that Godboldt’s two brothers may have assisted him in the fight. Also, reports state that “the fight that led to Godboldt’s death was part of an ongoing dispute between him and Seay.” Therefore, we need to look at all the evidence, including prior contact between these two people, to see if Seay acted reasonably under the circumstances.

November 23, 2009

Florida’s Harsh Juvenile Sentencing Practices Could be Impacted by H.R. 2289

by David M. Goldman

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.

November 12, 2009

United States Supreme Court to Rule on Jacksonville Juvenile Case

by David M. Goldman

On November 9, 2009, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two Florida cases that challenged sentencing a juvenile offender to a life sentence without the possibility of parole in non-homicide cases. One case involved a Jacksonville Juvenile Defendant, Jamar Graham. At age 16, Graham committed an armed burglary. He received a sentence that included probation. At age 17, Graham committed a home invasion armed robbery and violated his probation. Thereafter, he was sentenced to life without parole. Graham is now 22-years-old.

In the narrow 2005 opinion of Roper v. Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, that juveniles could not receive the death penalty as it violated the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution is applied to the States, including Florida, through the 14th Amendment. Thus, Graham’s attorney prefaced his argument on this position.

The Court’s decision will likely result in another narrow opinion. While some justices were clearly divided. Others seemed to waiver as to what decision they will make. For instance, Justice Samuel Alito eluded that there are crimes that are so horrific that they may deserve life in prison without parole, especially when committed by an individual that is close to 18-years-old. Justice Scalia indicated that, while rehabilitation is a goal in juvenile cases, punishment and retribution should also be considered. On the other hand, Justice Sotomayor made a good point when she noted that the maximum sentence that an adult can face for crimes which are not homicides is life without parole. Why should a juvenile be treated the same way, since it has already been established that they have not fully developed yet? Justice Kennedy was not clear as to the position that he would take in the case. While he believes that juveniles should be properly punished for heinous crimes, he does not see how taking away the possibility of parole will create an additional deterrent.

This case has attracted the Jacksonville local media and has captured media headlines nationwide. It is an important case for several reasons. Locally, if the Court rules that this Jacksonville Juvenile sentence of life without parole is cruel and unusual, this Jacksonville Juvenile case will be remanded to the lower court for sentencing in accord with such ruling. As for the national attention, this U.S. Supreme Court decision may have a domino effect. There are over 100 people in the United States serving life sentences for crimes which were not homicides. If the Court rules that these sentences do violate the 8th amendment, all of those sentences could be overturned.

November 3, 2009

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon: Can I Be Charged in Jacksonville if My Spouse Owns the Gun?

by David M. Goldman

According to Florida Statute Section 790.23, a person that has previously been convicted of a felony cannot possess a firearm. Under Section Section 10.15 of the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, the state must prove that the convicted felon had in his care, custody, possession, or control a firearm, electric weapon/device, or ammunition.

Whether or not a convicted felon can be charged with Jacksonville Possession of a Firearm by a convicted felon that his or her spouse owns will depend on the definitions of “care, custody, possession or control.” ” ‘Care’ and ‘custody’ mean immediate charge and control exercised by a person over the named object.” The term “possession” is defined as the ability “to have personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership, management, or control over an object.”

Under Florida Law, a Jacksonville convicted felon can actually or constructively possess a firearm. Actual possession occurs when the firearm is on the convicted felon’s person or so close that it is readily within his or her reach. Just because the firearm is very close to the convicted felon, there is no actual possession of the firearm if he or she is not in a position to exercise control over it. A convicted felon is in constructive possession if the firearm is located in a place that the felon has concealed the firearm or a place that the felon has control over.

October 30, 2009

Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Cases: Who Pays the Restitution

by David M. Goldman

In a Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Case, the juvenile defendant is the party that is accused of committing a crime, not the juvenile’s parent. However, parents can be obligated to pay restitution in their child’s criminal case. Restitution is normally the amount of money or value of the property that the alleged victim has lost due to the defendant’s actions. In a Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Case, the parent and child can be responsible for paying for this loss, because the court has jurisdiction over the parent and the child.

Florida Statute Section 985.437(2) permits the court to order a juvenile to pay “restitution in money, through a promissory note cosigned by the child’s parent or guardian, or in kind for any damage or loss caused by the child’s offense in a reasonable amount or manner to be determined by the court.” If the court orders restitution, “the amount of restitution may not exceed an amount the child and the parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay or make.” It is important that Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Defendants not be required to pay an obscene amount of restitution for a couple reasons. First, when a defendant is ordered to pay restitution, he or she is normally placed on probation to pay the restitution. If he or she is required to pay too much every month, then this will certainly result in a violation of probation. Second, it is difficult for adults to find employment right now. It would be ridiculous to believe that a juvenile could find a job that would pay enough to cover tens of thousands of dollars in restitution. Thus, the parent would be required to pay the restitution.

Florida law does provide for an exception to the rule that a parent can be required to pay a Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Defendant’s restitution. Under Florida Statute Section 985.437(4), a parent may avoid such responsibility if the court finds “that the parent or guardian has made diligent and good faith efforts to prevent the child from engaging in delinquent acts.”

October 26, 2009

‘Girls Gone Wild’ Shoot Leads to Several Arrest in the Jacksonville Area

by David M. Goldman

The Nassau County Sheriff’s Department led to several arrest last weekend in Yulee, Florida, a small town outside of Jacksonville. According to the Jacksonville News, the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ film crew went to The Mill Night Club where “men were allegedly encouraging women to show their breasts so they could be filmed.” Several people were arrested for violating a

Nassau County City Ordinance which prohibits exposing one’s self in public and operating a sexually oriented business. If a person violates this Nassau County Florida law, he or she will be charged with a second degree misdemeanor which is punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.

At Law Office of David M. Goldman PLLC, we represent people in Jacksonville and the surrounding areas for charges ranging from indecent exposure and violating the adult entertainment code to Florida sexual battery. Regardless of the type of Jacksonville sexual offense that you are charged with, it is important to discuss your case with a Jacksonville Sex Crimes Attorney.

October 22, 2009

Man Hunt, a Game Played by Jacksonville Children, Violates Florida Gun Laws

by David M. Goldman

Today, I learned about a game that some children play in the Jacksonville, Florida area. It is called “Man Hunt.” It appears to be a spin off of hide-n-seek and tag, but firearms are involved. According to an article entitled “How to Play Man Hunt,” the players set up a large perimeter. All players, except the hunter or hunters, are given a time period to hide. Then, the hunt begins. While this article, does not reference the use of firearms or weapons in any way, it appears that children have taken the game a step further and incorporated air guns and/or BB guns.

Not only is this dangerous to the children involved and bystanders, it can result in civil and criminal liability for parents. As for civil liability, a parent that allows a child to use an air gun or BB gun in a negligent fashion or without supervision may be sued for negligence and be held liable for any damages to person or property. As for criminal charges, Florida Statute Section 790.22(1) states:

“the use for any purpose whatsoever of BB guns, air or gas-operated guns, or electric weapons or devices, by any minor under the age of 16 years is prohibited unless such use is under the supervision and in the presence of an adult who is acting with the consent of the minor’s parent.”

October 19, 2009

Florida Driving Under the Influence Case: Motion to Suppress Granted Due to Hearsay

by David M. Goldman

In Bowers v. State of Florida, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a county court’s ruling that suppressed all evidence obtained during the search of a driver’s vehicle during a Florida Driving Under the Influence (DUI) stop. This ruling was based on the fact that the police officer that initiated the vehicle stop did not attend the hearing on the motion to suppress. Thus, the only evidence that the State of Florida presented to meet its burden of proving the validity of the Florida DUI stop was through the hearsay testimony of the DUI officer that was not present during the initial stop of the vehicle.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeals ruled differently than the Fourth District Court of Appeals did in a similar case. In Ferrer v. State, 785 So. 2d 709, the court allowed hearsay evidence to support probable cause for a Florida DUI stop although the state attorney failed to call the officer that initially stopped the vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeals held that such evidence was admissible due to the fellow officer rule.

Therefore, the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal are in conflict. It should be interesting to see if this Florida DUI case makes it to the Florida Supreme Court based on such conflict. Since the First District Court of Appeal has not ruled upon this issue, I do not know what position a Jacksonville Florida court would take if confronted with similar facts in a Jacksonville DUI case. However, it would make more sense for a Jacksonville court to follow the Second District Court of Appeals based upon the fact that the fellow officer rule is not an exception to the hearsay rule. Therefore, the court should not allow such evidence to be admitted.

October 16, 2009

Jacksonville Child Abuse Case: Child Abuse Arrest Leads to Murder Charges

by David M. Goldman

A Jacksonville, Florida Child Abuse Case resulted in the Duval County State Attorney’s Office filing charges for Second-degree Murder. Jacksonville resident, Chaddrick Banks, was arrested for Aggravated Child Abuse. On October 12, 2009, the Jacksonville State Attorney’s Office filed charges for aggravated child abuse and second degree murder due to the the fact that the one-year-old child died as a result of her injuries. On October 15, 2009, Banks pled not guilty to the offense.

If you have been arrested for Child Abuse in Jacksonville, Florida, contact Jacksonville Child Abuse Lawyer, at (904) 685-1200. Child Abuse is a serious charge that requires a strong defense.