Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Florida has one of the toughest mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the country in terms of the use of firearms during the commission of a felony. The 10-20-life model requires that felons convicted of certain crimes, who are found to have used a gun while committing the crime, will receive harsh sentencing that judges have little discretion to downwardly depart from. During the past 15 years or so, there has been a national trend towards toughening sentences and reducing judges’ discretion, which proponents argue makes the system fairer by ensuring that similar crimes receive similar punishment, says Broward criminal lawyer Moore.

For defendants who are found to have used a firearm while committing a felony, the minimum sentence is 10 years in a state prison. If the defendant is found to have discharged the weapon during his commission of the offense, the mandatory minimum is 20 years. If a person is killed or injured, the sentence increases to 25 years to life imprisonment.

The program cracks down in other ways, too. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a criminal act and, under this program, is now punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison. Additionally, the law now requires that the mandatory minimum sentences for these offenses committed with firearms be served consecutively -- never concurrently with other sentences. Frequently, criminal defendants who are convicted of offenses at trial or who take plea deals are permitted to serve sentences concurrently. For example, a person who is sentenced to ten years in jail for an aggravated battery and one year in prison for violating his DUI probation due to the new charge might be permitted to serve the one year at the same time as the clock is running for the 10 years -- an aggregate of 10 years, rather than 11.

Proponents of 10-20-life say that the solution to violent crime is to crack down on it and to deny judges’ discretion in sentencing for these offenses. Criminologists have studied crime deterrence, however, and perhaps the most important factor in deterring crime is the person’s perception of how likely it is he will be apprehended for committing, not how severe the consequences are. Mandatory minimum sentencing has also been enacted for numerous felony drug offenses in the state of Florida. Many criminal lawyers believe that imposition of these sentences in drug cases has contributed to the large prison population.

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 attorney William Moore says that being a Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney always requires him to prepare well for every case and to put his best foot forward in the courtroom. All clients deserve the best representation. The stakes are even higher when there is reason to believe that a person accused of a crime has been wrongly arrested and charged. Although the United States has numerous constitutional protections – such as the right to counsel, a speedy trial, trial by jury, and the right to a public trial – the fact remains that, now and then, innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit, says Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney Moore. Even more often, they are accused of crimes they did not commit.

Some innocent people are later exonerated. The most famous instances of these are probably those death row inmates who are found to be innocent by DNA evidence tested years after their conviction. Not all states have retained the death penalty and at this point in time, the trend is towards repealing it; a couple of states have abolished it in the last year. However, the use of capital punishment has remained fairly popular in Florida, and there is no indication that the state will abolish it in the foreseeable future.

Several years ago, the Florida Commission on Capital Cases undertook a comprehensive study of innocent people who were convicted and placed on death row in the state. The Commission reported an astounding 25 cases of wrongfully-convicted death row inmates, according to Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney Moore. Of those, one died on death row and three were pardoned by governors. Twenty were remanded down to the trial court level, where two pleaded guilty to lower-level offenses and 10 were acquitted of all charges. Eight were not retried for various reasons, including lost evidence, unavailable witnesses, or the desire to not inflict further emotional trauma on witnesses.

Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney Moore notes that the study is incredibly important for those who do not believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty – and for those who maintain that there are no flaws in the system. Judges and even prosecutors and police officers have an obligation to ensure that an accused person’s rights are not violated at any point in the process. After all, there is no value in catching and convicting the wrong person.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Criminal Attorney on Convicting Innocent People: How ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ Is Not Always Applied" »

Every teenager is bound to get into some trouble, says Broward County criminal lawyer William Moore. Even the best kids who do not have prior disciplinary problems can find themselves before a juvenile judge in deliquency proceedings, which is like criminal court for adults. However, in addition to the crimes an adult can be charged with, juveniles face other possible delinquency issues, says Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney Moore. These are often called “status crimes,” meaning that there is something particular about the person’s status – in this case, the age of the youth – that makes the act criminal. For example, if your teenager is arrested or placed in juvenile delinquency proceedings for purchasing or smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products, that is a status crime. Likewise, underage drinking, the purchase of alcohol by people under the age of 21 years, and truancy from school are other status crimes.

Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore notes that another common issue young people face is drug charges. Many teenagers experiment with alcohol and drugs, such as marijuana. If your teen is found at school with a small amount of marijuana, whether or not it was actually even his, he could have serious issues with both the juvenile court system and with his school.

The ultimate goal of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate kids and get them back on the right path. That’s one reason why juvenile offenses do not usually show up on a person’s criminal record when he or she becomes an adult. This policy is with good reason: the 14-year-old caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom at school might become at 25-year-old teacher who should not be judged by youthful indiscretions. Particularly serious crimes may result in adult charges, a practice which is probably more common in Florida than most other states. For example, a 17-year-old who commits a burglary with a weapon might be charged as an adult, especially if he already has a lengthy juvenile record.

Continue reading "Broward County Criminal Defense Attorney Weighs in on Juvenile Deliquency in Fort Lauderdale/Broward County" »

Broward criminal lawyer William Moore is well-versed in the criminal statutes of the state of Florida. The criminal codes of the United States and of all 50 states have many similarities and some definable differences between them. The legislatures of the states have elected to punish some crimes quite differently, more or less severely, in certain states. That means that how bad or how wrong a crime is depends on the opinion of the state legislators and the citizens of that state. Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney Moore believes that some crimes carry unreasonably harsh penalties.

Criminal defense lawyers talk about criminal punishment and the severity of crimes using two Latin terms: malum in se and malum prohibitum. Malum in se means that a crime is inherently wrong or even evil. For example, most people around the world believe that murdering another human being is automatically wrong. Likewise, stealing and sex crimes are generally regarded as universally wrong.

In contrast to those crimes are the malum prohibitum crimes. These acts are criminal because laws have been enacted, generally for the greater good, to forbid them. They are sometimes called public welfare crimes. For instance, tax evasion is a crime. However, failing to pay taxes does not hurt any particular person in the way that stealing money or killing someone would. Failure to pay taxes is just harmful to the general public welfare, because the government uses the funds for tasks like building roads for the good of everyone. Likewise, certain criminal driving offenses, such as driving without a license, are imposed for the good and safety of the public at large.

A philosophy closely related to malum prohibitum crimes is the concept of victimless crimes. Many people believe certain malum prohibitum crimes should be decriminalized because, according to proponents of this philosophy, their commission does not hurt individuals or the public welfare. Examples of these crimes include prostitution and many or all drug crimes. Proponents of the concept of victimless crimes believe that any ill effect suffered by people engaging in these crimes is agreeable to those individuals. A prostitute who suffers negative effects has done so by her own consent; similarly, drug users who suffer from health problems do not need to be protected from their own actions. People who disagree with decriminalization of these crimes cite the need to uphold the moral good of their communities. Additionally, they believe that these laws protect individuals from the excessively harmful effects of their actions. The argument for the legalization of marijuana is one of the most popularly accepted tenets of the victimless crimes philosophy.

According to Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore, certain crimes have been eliminated over time as the public has agreed that there is no real victim or harm to society. For instance, sodomy laws and laws banning homosexuality are no longer the norm. The 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas determined that the state of Texas could not subject a man to criminal prosecution for engaging in an adult consensual sex act in private with another man.

Below is a video representing the legalization of marijuana viewpoint that was not made or endorsed by Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney William Moore:

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Attorney – What Makes an Act Wrong?" »

A Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney spends most of his time assisting criminal defendants put their best case forward. Everyone is entitled to a defense, even if the crime was exceptionally heinous. But what, exactly, are the justifications for incarcerating people – often for years – even if they are first-time offenders? In other parts of the world, notably Europe, rates of imprisonment are far lower than in the United States. A Broward criminal lawyer will see many more defendants go to prison, even for substance abuse-related crimes, than a lawyer in another country.

The first reason why our society imposes prison, fines, and other consequences is simply for punishment. Retribution is perhaps the most powerful justification for the criminal justice system. Our Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer knows that the victims of crime firmly believe that perpetrators of crimes should suffer serious consequences as a result. Retribution is the age-old reason why most people believe in criminal punishment.

Another goal our Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney often hears is deterrence. The belief is that the harsh punishment of criminal offenders will make others think twice before committing a similar crime. The deterrence argument is often employed when promoting the death penalty. Interestingly, research shows that criminals are actually far more deterred by a high probability of being caught – even if the punishment is moderate – than they are by severe sentencing. The deterrence argument also applies to that offender: perhaps he will be less likely to re-offend now that he has experienced prison.

The third reason a Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney may be fighting incarceration for his client is incapacitation. This argument is most effective for habitual offenders and may be less relevant to one-time offenders. Incapacitating criminals by putting them in prison, where they cannot commit crimes that hurt society generally, is a favored reason for long prison sentences.

According to our Broward criminal attorney, another possible goal is denunciation. Society indicates that it seriously disapproves of criminal activity through punishment. Traditionally, denunciation often occurred publicly and in a humiliating way. For instance, in the pre-Revolution American colonies, offenders were often punished by being put in the stocks in the middle of the town square. While our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer’s clients no longer face the stocks, the humiliation for a typically law-abiding citizen can be overwhelming.

When deciding on sentencing policy, legislators should always examine the ramifications of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. That amendment has been construed, for instance, to prohibit execution for sex offenses, even against children. As the times have changed, our reasons for criminal punishment have changed. Our Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney is experienced and is familiar with ongoing changes in sentencing policy in Florida.

Continue reading "Broward Criminal Lawyer: Why Does Society Punish Criminal Offenders?" »

Every state has developed a mechanism to try juvenile offenders on adult charges. According to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 3.7% of juvenile offenders in the state were transferred to adult criminal court. While that sounds like a small percentage, it has risen substantially in the past couple of years. Florida criminal defense attorneys have noticed a steady rise in the number of juveniles arrested and then certified as adults. Last year, 3,408 different juveniles faced adult charges in the state of Florida.

Broward County criminal attorneys know that trying teens as adults used to be uncommon, but after a spike in violent youth crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s, states scrambled to find ways to implement harsher sentencing for the youngest offenders. The mantra “adult time for adult crimes” resonated, especially as more school shootings occurred. Arkansans were horrified when an 11-year-old and 13-year-old stormed their Jonesboro middle school with guns in 1998, killing five – especially when it became apparent that the state could not hold them beyond age 21. This concern was not unwarranted. Shortly after he was released, the public learned that the Mitchell Johnson, the older boy, was sharing an apartment with another notorious Arkansas juvenile murderer. The school shooters can even legally buy guns if they so choose. Arkansas now has a law which allows for combined juvenile and adult sentencing for very serious crimes committed by young people.

When a juvenile is arrested for a crime, it triggers delinquency proceedings. Delinquency is the juvenile equivalent of criminal. The prosecutor may decide to file adult charges instead of juvenile. The prosecutor will weigh the severity of the crime and the child’s age when making that decision. The juvenile will receive a waiver hearing, where a judge will determine if it is in fact appropriate for the juvenile to face adult charges. The juvenile’s criminal defense attorney will typically argue to keep the case in juvenile court. If the juvenile is tried and convicted in adult criminal court, the judge will take into account the youth of the offender when determining sentencing.

Continue reading "Broward County Criminal Defense Attorney: Juvenile Justice in Florida " »

This week New Jersey ended the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment. Such action was expected by the Governor and many states in the Nation are revisiting their stance on capital punishment. Other states, but not Florida. The states that are examining their death penalty statutes are ones that have very few people on death row and don’t seem to enforce the statute. In fact, New Jersey hadn’t executed anyone since 1963 and only had a handful of people awaiting execution when Governor John Corzine did away with executions.

In most cases the cost of imposing death outweighs the cost of life in prison for a defendant found guilty. States, when determining their stance on capital punishment, also evaluate the odds of executing a person who is, in fact, innocent.

Florida’s death penalty was reinstated in 1976 and has executed 64 people since that time. There are currently 389 people on death row in the state who are expected to spend 14 years on death row before being executed. In 2007 there were no inmates put to death due to the botched execution of defendant and convicted murderer Angel Diaz. Since that time, changes have been made to Florida’s lethal injection procedure and the Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of such injections.