Published on:

Sentencing guidelines are used in the state of Florida to advise judges as to appropriate sentences for each crime. The sentencing guidelines often incorporate both aggravating and mitigating circumstances to increase or decrease the level of offense and suggested sentence. The sentencing guidelines for sexual offenses allow for a broad range of sentences for similar crimes. Repeat offenders and defendants convicted of sex crimes involving multiple victims are often subject to substantially increased sentences compared to first-time offenders. Certain aggravating factors that apply to Florida sex crimes sometimes overlap with each other and could result in a sentence being increased multiple times based on the same conduct. A man convicted of several child pornography-related offenses recently appealed his sentence to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that his sentence had been unjustly increased.

The defendant from the recently decided appeal was arrested and charged with several sex crimes related to the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography. After he was convicted of the charges, the man was sentenced to 300 months in federal prison for his crimes. The guidelines used to determine his sentence included two enhancements permitted under federal law. First, the sentence was increased because the charges demonstrated that the defendant had engaged in a “pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse of a minor.” The defendant’s sentence was separately enhanced because he engaged in “a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” Based on the similar language of these enhancements, the defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the two enhancements should not be applied to the same charges, as they are substantially similar to one another and their concurrent application would be impermissible “double counting.”

The Appellate court heard the defendant’s appeal; however, the court was bound by the discretion of the trial court because the defendant did not object to the alleged “double counting” at trial. Based on their required standard of review, the appellate court found no error in the sentencing judge’s application of the two enhancements. Specifically, the court found that the enhancements, while containing similar language, were directed at two very different public and judicial interests. The court found that the first enhancement was designed to punish particularly egregious conduct, while the second enhancement was designed to increase the punishment of habitual offenders who demonstrate a high risk of recidivism. Based on the recent ruling, it appears the defendant will be required to serve his sentence in full.

Published on:

Florida jails and prisons have historically experienced significant problems with rape and sexual assault among inmates. Additionally, the correctional staff is often involved in sexually assaulting inmates. In response to increasing public concern with the endemic prison rape problem nationwide, the United States Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003. The PREA mandates reporting requirements and the required responses to allegations or evidence of a sexual assault in a correctional facility. A man who was recently convicted of sexual battery for conduct that was reported to authorities based upon the PREA requirements has challenged his conviction in the Florida Court of Appeal.

The defendant in the recently decided appeal was convicted after being arrested for allegedly assaulting his cellmate while the two of them were inmates at a Florida correctional facility. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant demanded that the victim perform sexual acts on him, physically assaulted the victim when he attempted to resist and threatened the victim with escalating attacks to be committed by others if the victim did not cooperate. The defendant was tried for sexual battery, which requires a threat of serious harm or pain to coerce sexual activity. A jury found that the defendant committed sexual battery based on the threats and physical injuries to the victim as reported under the PREA.

The defendant appealed his conviction to the Florida Court of Appeal, arguing that any assault committed or threatened by the defendant was not capable of causing serious injury or pain as the statute requires. Further, the defendant argued that any threats of violence were not authentic because the two men were detained in a secure facility, and no other inmates could reasonably be seen as a threat to the victim. The appellate court soundly rejected the defendant’s arguments. Noting that the victim had visible injuries and reportedly received escalating threats from the defendant, the court held that a reasonable jury could infer that the victim suffered serious pain, or the threat thereof. As a result of the appellate opinion, the defendant’s conviction will stand.

Published on:

The United States Congress and federal courts have developed a legal framework for prosecuting people suspected of engaging in the production of pornographic materials involving children. In order for federal child pornography charges to be applicable to an alleged crime, prosecutors must prove that the federal government has jurisdiction over the alleged crime. The Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals recently released an opinion affirming a man’s federal child pornography conviction, which the court assumed jurisdiction over based on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

According to facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the defendant was arrested and charged for attempting to produce child pornography in Florida after he allegedly sent disturbing messages to the users of a parenting website. The defendant, posting under an alias, appeared to have requested pornographic material from several different parents who had been discussing their children on the website. A concerned user reported the defendant to law enforcement, who obtained a warrant and searched his home. Images of child pornography and other sexually disturbing material involving children were found at the home. The defendant was then charged in federal court for attempting to entice parents to produce child pornography and send it to him over the internet. Based on his clear requests and other evidence of his sexual interest in children, a jury convicted him on the attempted production counts, and he was sentenced to decades in federal prison.

The defendant appealed his conviction to the 11th Circuit. The defendant argued primarily that his conduct was not a sincere attempt to obtain child pornography and was acting only as an “internet troll” who was being abrasive and offensive just to upset people for his own entertainment. The defendant argued that there was no real chance that any of these parents would follow his request and produce child pornography for him involving their children. The Appeals court was not persuaded by the defendant’s arguments. The court held that his desire to possess child pornography (demonstrated by his actual possession of such images at his home), coupled with his repeated, explicit requests for such material online, constituted sufficient evidence from which a jury could convict him. As a result of the appellate decision, the defendant will most likely be required to serve his federal prison term.

Published on:

Over the last several decades, the accelerated development of DNA testing and other forensic technologies has resulted in Florida prosecutors pursuing charges for many formerly “cold cases.” The statute of limitations in Florida for sex crimes can be extended indefinitely under certain circumstances. As a result of these laws, charges may be brought against alleged sexual offenders years or even decades after the offenses occurred. The Florida Court of Appeal recently affirmed the conviction of a man who was arrested in 2009 for a murder and sexual assault that he allegedly committed in 1988.

The victim from the recently decided case was found dead in a Florida field in 1988. She appeared to have been sexually assaulted before she died. Investigators found a suspect’s fingerprints at the scene of the crime, as well as biological evidence under the victim’s fingernails. Although evidence was collected after the 1988 murders, no suspect was identified, and the case went cold. In 2009, detectives investigating the cold case ran the fingerprints and DNA evidence from the 1988 crime scene through updated databases and found that the defendant’s DNA and fingerprints matched the evidence from the crime scene.

The defendant was arrested and charged with murder and sexual assault. The murder charges were dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired; however, Florida law extends the statute of limitations for sexual assault charges resulting in a death indefinitely, and the defendant was ultimately convicted of the sexual assault charge and sentenced to life behind bars. The DNA and fingerprint evidence were the only pieces of physical evidence offered against the defendant at trial.

Published on:

kitna-238x300 Former Florida Gators backup quarterback Jalen Kitna (“Kitna”) was arrested in late November for two counts of promotion of child pornography and three counts of possession of child pornography, both violative of Florida Statute 827.01.  While unfortunately it is not uncommon for young collegiate athletes to find trouble with the law, this is the first arrest that I am aware of, involving a non-hands on sex crime involving an athlete at a reputable football program.  According to news outlets, likely basing their information on a press release from the Gainesville Police Department (“Gainesville PD”), Gainesville PD and an Internet Crimes Against Children (“ICAC”) task force served a search warrant on Kitna’s residence after Gainesville PD received a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) indicating that a discord member account linked to Kitna had shared two images depicting child sexual abuse with another discord member.

Further investigation found that the images were likely shared from Kitna’s residential address, using a discord account likely belonging to him.  Upon law enforcement interviewing Kitna, he is alleged to have admitted to sharing the images but thought they were legal because they were on the internet.  Kitna indicated that he only realized his folly when the discord member he shared the imagery with reacted negatively to Kitna’s actions, ultimately then receiving notice that his discord account had been cancelled due to violating company policy.  Kitna’s phone was seized during the time of the interview only to reveal three additional images depicting child sexual abuse, such images likely comprising the three possession charges.

Despite Kitna’s case being in the media due to his status as a University of Florida quarterback, the course of the investigation leading to present day is really very common in an allegation involving a sex crime involving child pornography.  Our firm handles a considerable amount of child pornography allegations and it is not uncommon for an individual or internet service provider (“ISP”) who has either received child pornography or in the case of an ISP, to detect file names commonly affiliated with child pornography, to make a report to the NCMEC.  NCMEC is an organization aimed and ceasing the exploitation of children and aiding in law enforcement’s prosecution of child pornography crimes.  Once NCMEC verifies the tip, they generally pass the tip along to the special victim’s unit of the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction (In this case Gainesville PD because Kitna lived in Gainesville).  Depending on internal policy and decision making, once the law enforcement agency receives the tip, they will either seek a collaboration with ICAC and get a search warrant or seek the warrant on their own.  In this case, likely due to better resources, Gainesville PD collaborated with ICAC.  ICAC is a network of 61 (as of the date of this blog) task forces comprising both Federal and State law enforcement agencies and their accompanying prosecutorial offices aimed at prosecuting internet crimes against children.  Over the years as law enforcement has focused more on sex crimes and more specifically, sex crimes facilitating the internet, coalitions of law enforcement agencies specialized in combating this kind of crime have grown.

Published on:

Rock-291x300
Nine times out of ten if a person is indicted in a Federal criminal case, they will most likely be charged in a conspiracy.  Generically, a conspiracy is nothing more than an agreement to commit some type of criminal act.  18 U.S.C. 371 is the most general form of conspiracy and requires the following to be proven in the 11th Circuit:

  1. The existence of an agreement to achieve and unlawful objective;
  2. A defendant’s knowing and voluntary participation in the conspiracy;
Published on:

Being arrested doesn’t have to mean you will spend a significant amount of time in jail after your arrest. The bail bond system allows someone who has been arrested for a crime to be released from jail pending their trial. This important facet of the criminal justice system ensures that you can continue to work, as well as consult with your criminal attorney regarding your defense strategy. The bail bond system often requires the use of money or property as collateral to assure that you will appear in court on your scheduled trial date.

How Bail Bonds are Set

In most state courts the amount of the bond paid for bail is set by a schedule related to an administrative order signed by the chief judge in the applicable jurisdiction.  Each offense has a predetermined bail amount, based in part on the severity of crime, that must be posted prior to release from jail.  Examples of many crimes that will have a schedule bond attached are Grand Theft, Petit Theft, Simple Possession of Narcotics, or Disorderly Conduct.  Under these schedules and in nearly every state court, bail is not available to people who are viewed as flight risks or when they are determined to pose a danger to the community.

Published on:

Former star of reality tv show “The Bachelor” was arrested in his native Iowa last week and charged with leaving the scene of an accident with death after he is alleged to have rear ended a tractor driven by Kenny Mosher and fleeing the scene.  According to a news report, the accident occurred approximately 15 miles south of his hometown of Arlington, Iowa, a town featured in the 2015 season of the Bachelor.  According to police, when they arrived on scene they found Soules’ abandoned truck near the crash scene and alcoholic beverage containers within.  Soules made an initial appearance in Buchanan County on April 25, 2017 and was ultimately released on a $10,000 bond.  Soules’ attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the felony charge, alleging in part that Soules did not violate Iowa’s leaving the scene of scene of an accident statute because he called 911 and identified himself.  His lawyers further claim that Soules remained on scene and attempted to resuscitate Mosher until first responders arrived, remaining for several minutes after their arrival.

While I am a Florida attorney and not licensed in Iowa, I cannot speak to the workings of Iowa’s criminal code.  Florida statute 316.027 requires the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property which results in the death of a person to immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of Florida Statute 316.062.  Florida Statute 316.062, in this instance would require Soules to either give his name, address, and vehicle registration information to the other party to the crash or a police officer responding if the other party to the crash is not in a condition to receive the information.

Ultimately the State Attorney’s Office, in situations such as these, will assume that the individual left the scene because they were intoxicated.  Florida has contemplated the fact that this happens, more than it should unfortunately, and has closed the loophole on a safe harbor for one who leaves the scene in an accident causing death.  Regardless of whether the person is found to be driving under the influence at the time of crash leading to death, if the individual leaves the scene, they are subject to a four-year minimum mandatory prison term if convicted.  The charge is a first-degree felony as well, thereby requiring an adjudication of guilt.  In essence, what the legislature has done is eliminate any benefit for a person to flee the scene and, from a practical standpoint, likely makes it worse on one who does leave if they are to plea given the interpretation of their actions by the State and Judge.

Published on:

It was only $23 worth of merchandise. The very charge has the word “petit” in it. Why is this a big deal? The State as offered an adjudication of guilt and nominal court costs, shouldn’t I just accept that and walk away? Not only no, but hell no. Petit theft, or any other variety of crime of dishonesty are snakes in the grass that keep biting long after resolution if not handled correctly. Far too often I receive calls from individuals who resolved a theft allegation to a nominal direct penalty in Court, only to have that decision haunt them for the rest of their lives. Anything an individual does that calls on credibility will be affected by a criminal history reflecting a crime of dishonesty. For that reason, it is absolutely imperative to retain a criminal lawyer well versed with not only the direct consequences of a theft crime, but also the collateral consequences often overlooked.

A common Petit Theft charge is either classified as a first or second-degree misdemeanor, depending on the value of the item alleged to have been taken. If the property is between $100 and $299.99 the petit theft will be classified as a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 11 months, 29 days in county jail and a $1000 fine. If the value is less than $100 the second-degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to six months in the county jail and a $500 fine. For all intents and purposes the State Attorney’s Office will treat petit theft in the same fashion regardless of its misdemeanor level. What often gets overlooked is the fact that an adjudication of guilt to a petit theft could result in a driver’s license suspension and such conviction will remain the basis for disappointment for years to come. Any job application that triggers a criminal background check will yield a reflection that the applicant has a crime of dishonesty. Employers are very hesitant to hire one with a theft conviction in their past for fear that the person will steal from them, or worse, steal from a customer resulting in reputation damage or the threat of a lawsuit. Obtaining a mortgage or housing as a renter could be made exponentially harder if a background check reveals a theft charge. Any lender or landlord must rely on the credibility of the individual tasked with paying a loan or rent. The simple fact is, those with criminal histories involving theft crimes are going to have a hell of a lot harder time finding housing due to potential issues with credibility. For those that seek higher education and an ultimate licensure, having a crime of dishonesty on your record could inhibit or delay that process.

At the end of the day people may make youthful mistakes or mistakes of desperation that are aberrant and out of character. I believe that the sum of an individual is not their worst deed and hate when I see someone who is suffering from a mistake made years ago or worse, from a choice to resolve a charge based upon poor legal advice. It is critical if charged with any variety of theft crime, regardless of severity, to consult with a Tampa theft attorney well versed in both the direct and collateral effects of crimes of dishonesty. Jason Mayberry has protected his clients in the Tampa area for over ten years. Call on his experience to help you on your case now and to ensure an isolated charge doesn’t haunt you for years down the road. Contact us today at 813-444-7435 for a free consultation.

Published on:

Darth Vader of Death Star, Space, 45 years old, was indicted last week in the Middle District of Florida for allegedly violating the RICO act, Conspiracy, Committing Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries, Murder, loitering and prowling, and finally, wearing a mask on a public way. Mr. Vader has long been thought to be a vital cog in the “Dark Side” organization but has to date avoided capture or criminal charge, instead going unscathed while various ranking storm trooper underlings faced a variety of criminal charges including trespass and drunk and disorderly conduct. While the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office have remained tight-lipped with respect to the evidence against Vader, many believe this could be it for the Dark Lord.

While it may seem to many a slam-dunk to earn a conviction against Mr. Vader, Mr. Vader’s legal counsel doesn’t think so. When asked, Mr. Vader’s lead defense counsel, Tampa criminal attorney Jason Mayberry indicated that while it may indeed be more difficult to defend against the loitering and prowling charge, it may prove to be an uphill battle in proving the terrorism charge, given a lack of eyewitnesses to Mr. Vader himself ordering or committing any act of terrorism under 18 USC 2332b. With respect to a potential conspiracy charge under 18 USC 371, Mayberry points out that there are no known remaining witnesses to attest that there was agreement to achieve an unlawful objective, that Mr. Vader knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy, and that Mr. Vader committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Suba, 132 F.3d 662 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Hansen, 262 F3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001).

As to a murder charge for the death of Obi-Wan “Ben” Kenobi, Mayberry cites a claim for self-defense within one’s home. According to Mayberry, “it appears clear that Mr. Kenobi entered Mr. Vader’s home with the intent to use deadly force against him. It was Mr. Kenobi who was committing the crime of burglary against Mr. Vader, who was simply using deadly force to defend himself and his friends against the deadly force planned against him by Mr. Kenobi and his lightsaber. Furthermore, there appears to be an argument for a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the middle district.” To Mayberry’s point, there are no known treaties between the United States and the Death Star, nor does there appear to be any enabling statutes, akin to the United States Coast Guard patrolling international waters for narcotics, in effect. A quick review of past police reports find that Obi-Wan Kenobi does have a history of brutally attacking Darth Vader leading to severe injury.

Contact Information