September 26, 2008

Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer: Drug Trafficking: Explanation for absconding (Failure to report for substantial assistance)

A recent question submitted from Fort Lauderdale involved a defendant’s violation of a substantial assistance agreement entered into with the State Attorney’s office. The question posed was whether a defendant who had previously pled guilty to a crime and then absconded should be given an opportunity to explain why he had become a fugitive prior to sentencing? It should be noted that this plea was in order to facilitate his participating in substantial assistance in exchange for leniency.

Answer:
A defendant absolutely has the right to explain to the court why he or she absconded after failing to adhere to the terms of an agreement entered into with the State. This right of explanation is not, however, entitled to a defendant in order to establish mitigation but rather to determine whether or not there was a justifiable excuse in failing to appear for scheduled court hearings or to meet with law enforcement officers in order to provide substantial assistance. Failure to allow defense counsel an opportunity to determine whether or not there was a legally sufficient excuse for a defendant’s failure to appear will result in a remand for a new hearing affording the defendant the right to provide any excuses for his failure to appear.

August 26, 2008

Palm Beach Criminal Attorney: BURGLARY: THEFT OF A SAFE WITH A GUN IN IT.

Palm Beach Criminal Attorney answers question about burglary:

QUESTION:
What if during the commission of a burglary, the defendant stole a safe that contained a firearm? Is he armed?

ANSWER:
It is well understood in criminal law that a person can be charged with burglary with a firearm where that individual becomes armed during the crime. This occurs when guns are found on the premises and subsequently removed by the defendant. It is not required that an individual bring a gun to the scene to be charged with this most severe offense. Recently, however, prosecutors and judges tried to extend the armed burglary statute to include a person’s taking a locked safe from a residence which contained a firearm. Evidence in the matter clearly established that the defendant could not have known that the safe contained a firearm nor that he could have had access to it. The Appellate courts shot down the notion that this was an armed burglary despite the fact that the defendant, upon completing the crime, in fact opened the safe with a crow bar and discovered the loaded firearm.


August 26, 2008

Burglary of "Employees Only" Room

QUESTION:
Can a defendant be charged with burglary of an “occupied” structure as opposed to “unoccupied” if they were lawfully in an open store which was also occupied by a store clerk and patrons but subsequently went into an “employees only” room and stole a certain amount of money?

ANSWER:
The answer to this question depends on whether or not the “employees only” room was occupied by either store employees or even civilians. There exists a difference between the public store and the private “employees only” room. The later should be seen as a separate structure and subject to a different set of rules than the public structure.