Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Many criminal cases “plea out.” Of those that go to trial, they are for varying reasons, according to Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer William Moore. Some criminal cases are great for going to trial due to the underlying facts or the conviction with with a defendant believes he is innocent or unfairly arrested. For example, when a person asserts total innocence, or when a defendant was targeted or harassed by police officers, these are better for going to trial. Likewise, when the plea agreements offered by assistant state attorneys are not good, or are not agreements the defendant would be willing to consider, trial is the best option.

In some instances, a defendant may want to take a plea agreement or it may be in his best interest to do so. For example, if a store caught the defendant on video switching the tags on expensive articles of clothing before purchasing them, it may be best to plea to the lesser offense of petit theft rather than grand theft. That way, the defendant does not risk near-certain conviction by the judge or jury without knowing the consequences in terms of sentencing. It may be in a defendant’s best interests to plead guilty or no contest in a case where he or she is unable or unwilling to do any jail time, because the defense attorney may be able to work out a plea deal with the state attorney that involves probation, classes such as anger management, or community service in lieu of time in jail. The availability of these alternatives depends on many factors, including the severity of the charge(s) and the defendant’s criminal history, if any.

So what makes a good plea agreement? The answer, from a criminal defense attorney’s perspective, is one that the client thinks is reasonably fair and which he can accomplish. For example, probation is not desirable nor possible for all defendants. If an individual is a frequent drug user, perhaps, or a long rap sheet, probation is not always the best solution, especially when it goes on for long periods of time. Unfortunately, violating probation can cause more problems and result in jail or prison time, so avoiding probation in the first instance is important for some criminal defendants.

In any case, a defendant has a constitutional right to a trial -- and many should and do exercise that right, whether before a judge or a jury of their peers. For that reason, the possibility of taking a plea agreement, or what constitutes a good one in your circumstances, can be addressed by Broward criminal defense attorney Moore.

Videos can be good or bad, depending on what they seem to show --

Immigrants have particularized need with regard to their criminal defense needs, notes Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney William Moore. Unfortunately, deportation can be a very real consequence of entanglement with the criminal justice system. Convictions for (or admissions of) certain types of crimes can result in actual physical deportation, the loss of a green card, and the inability to obtain or maintain lawful immigration status. In any instance, an immigrant who has been arrested or charged with a crime should consult with an immigration attorney to ascertain the possible effects. Broward criminal lawyer Moore is aware of the collateral and direct consequences of criminal convictions.

Crimes involving moral turpitude are those which are traditionally considered to be particularly foul or base, in terms of a person’s moral character. This finding is based on an old-fashioned perspective and does not necessarily comport with a modern person’s views on the matter, but the law maintains that these types of crimes frequently have adverse effects on immigration status. Theft, robbery, and burglary, although with other crimes of “dishonesty,” tend to be classified as crimes involving moral turpitude. The commission of certain crimes, like grand theft, even seriously hampers an individual’s ability to become a lawful permanent resident, or green card holder.

Aggravated felonies are among the most serious offenses within the realm of immigration law. They are construed more harshly than, say, a felony with aggravating circumstances. A crime can be classified as such simply based on the sentence imposed, even if it was not violent, and often leads to the deportation of even long-time permanent residents. Similarly, crimes of violence, firearms-related crimes, and domestic violence crimes can have these effects. As always, consulting with an attorney familiar with the complexities of immigration law, as well as a criminal defense attorney, is the best way to handle the situation.

This blog post is not intended to be a representation of any particular position; instead, it acknowledges the criminal defense lawyer’s affirmative duty (particularly in light of recent Supreme Court case law) to be aware of clients’ immigration potential consequences.

Fort Lauderdale criminal attorneys deal with drug cases on a regular basis. Alleged possession of a prohibited substance or of contraband must be supported by proof that the accused had the substance in his or her possession and knew of its illicit nature; and such possession may be constructive as well as actual.1 Moreover, a determination of delinquency status may be made based upon possession of a controlled substance without the need to conduct a chemical test to verify the nature of the substance. On the other hand, the trial court's admission in a delinquency proceeding of declarant's out-of-court statement to a police officer, indicating that the drug which the officer found on the ground belonged to the juvenile, was not harmless error where there was no other direct evidence showing that the juvenile possessed the drug. And the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to give a lay opinion that the defendant was a seller of cocaine, where the officer testified that, based on his experience, the amount of crack cocaine in a paper bag dropped by a juvenile, plus the lack of paraphernalia in his possession, indicated that the juvenile was a seller of cocaine.
Evidence of marijuana found in a juvenile's wallet while at school was admissible as a school official had reasonable suspicion to search the juvenile, where other students informed the official that the juvenile and others were smoking marijuana in a restroom, the official and a school resource officer entered the restroom where heavy smoke was evidenced, the resource officer stood at the door and the school official searched the boys who were in the room and discovered marijuana, and the resource officer neither initiated the search nor participated in it. However a juvenile charged with possession of marijuana within 1000 feet of a school with intent to sell was not subject to detention prior to an adjudicatory hearing where he had no record of failure to appear at court hearings, no record of law violations prior to court hearings, no other pending charges, no record of violent conduct, and did not possess a firearm.