Published on:

By

A threesome didn’t quite go as planned for one unlucky participant when his request to switch sexual positions with another man resulted in him being chased and ultimately stabbed with a butcher knife. This tale of lusty lovers began in prison when Ashley Hunter, 33, and Orlando Dewitt, 37 became friends. Upon their release they were lucky enough to finally party with real women when one misplaced request to move to the back sent Ashley Hunter into a knife wielding rage. According to the news report, Orlando Dewitt and a lady friend got friendly on a couch and soon shucked their pants. One thing led to another with Dewitt and his lady friend ultimately engaging in a sexual encounter only to be interrupted by Hunter. Hunter, who was watching from a nearby bedroom, began kissing the unknown woman’s breasts and ultimately she engaged him in oral sex. When Hunter grew tired of his position, he requested a Chinese fire drill of sorts and things got sticky in a hurry. Words were exchanged between the two jail mates until Hunter produced a large butcher knife from a couch. When the blade was brandished Dewitt and the lucky lady retreated to the bathroom as Hunter waived his swords from the living room. Ultimately Dewitt made a break for the front door but was caught from behind by Hunter and stabbed in the arm.

Hunter was later arrested and charged with aggravated assault and is currently being held in a North Dakota jail on a $5,000 bond. I believe most Tampa criminal lawyers would agree that this is a relatively low bond for such a crime. Were Hunter’s deeds performed in Florida, he would be facing at minimum an aggravated battery with a deadly weapon under Florida Statute 784.045. In Florida one is guilty of an aggravated battery if it can be proven that a person committed a battery and in doing so causes great bodily harm, permanent injury, permanent disfigurement or uses a deadly weapon in the commission of the battery. In a case similar to Mr. Hunter it seems a Tampa criminal attorney may have some difficulty in forming a defense to this allegation unless other facts are presented that contradict this news story.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Fanatical Alabama supporter Harvey Updyke had his pretrial release revoked yesterday after Prosecutors moved the Court to take him back into custody. Updyke is infamous for allegedly poisoning the Auburn Oaks at Toomer’s Corner and later appearing on a high traffic Alabama sports radio program to boast about his deeds. At Updyke’s pretrial hearing Prosecutors showed Judge Jacob A. Walker III a video of a recent arrest of Updyke on a terrorizing charge in Louisiana after an altercation with Louisiana home improvement store workers. The video was shown to prove that Updyke violated a pretrial release term of not getting arrested while on bond. Despite Updyke’s lawyers lobbying to keep him out of jail by citing the notion that the Louisiana arrest was without just cause, Updyke’s bond was revoked and he was taken into custody. Updyke awaits trial on criminal mischief charges for the Auburn Oaks incident scheduled for April 8, 2013.

In Florida if one is arrested they will generally at the very least have a bond amount set. If they can post that amount or hire a bondsman to provide a surety bond they can get out of jail during the pendency of their case. With a Judge’s granting of a bond generally comes certain standard conditions pursuant to Florida Statute 903.047. An obvious condition is to refrain from criminal activity of any kind. If there is a victim of a crime, the defendant cannot have contact with them and for all those out on bond, they must comply with other conditions of pretrial release specially imposed. Any Tampa criminal attorney will have the coming to Jesus meeting with his client insisting that they absolutely not put themselves in bad situations in order to avoid criminal activity. As our Tampa criminal lawyers have often said, we can protect our clients against most things but we cannot protect them from themselves. In other words, if someone is hell bent on putting themselves in arrestable situations, there isn’t much the criminal defense attorney can do about it.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Brooksville, Florida man, Timothy Carr, was issued a DUI for driving through a Brooksville Walmart on a motorized shopping cart earlier this month. It is reported that Mr. Carr was quite intoxicated while cruising through the store drinking alcohol that he had plucked from the shelf while inside and also knocked several additional items from their shelves. When confronted by police, Mr. Carr told them that he had no money to pay for any of the items he was drinking and carrying in his cart. Police learned during questioning of Mr. Carr that he is homeless and has two prior arrests or convictions (the report was unclear) for theft. Based on police observations and their impression of his criminal history they have recommended that he be formally charged with disorderly intoxication, DUI and felony theft.

Unlike some other states, a person can receive a DUI in Florida so long as they are driving or in actual physical control of a “vehicle” as defined in Florida Statute 316.003(75). The motorized shopping cart driven by Mr. Carr fits the definition of vehicle as it is a “device in or upon by which a person or property may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except for devices travelling on stationary rails or tracks.” In other words, because a motorized shopping cart could be driven on a highway, Mr. Carr could be charged with a DUI. Of course conviction could be another story as field sobriety tests would likely need to be conducted and show impairment along with a chemical test or refusal of that test. If no other signs of impairment are present, a Tampa DUI lawyer could argue that Mr. Carr is simply not of sound mind or suffers from collateral medical issues, thereby preventing a shopping experience without incident. Would it work? Who knows. Tampa DUI charges, like other charges, are fact driven and unique. The short answer… It depends.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

18-year-old Penelope Soto was sentenced to 30 days in jail for contempt of court after flipping Circuit Judge Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat the bird on Monday during her first appearance hearing. Oddly enough Soto was arrested and before Judge Rodriguez-Chomat for a first appearance on a possession of a controlled substance charge where he was trying to establish a lower and reasonable bond for her. When the good Judge inquired as to the value of the jewelry Soto possessed it is reported that Soto stroked her hair and laughed at Judge Rodriguez-Chomat in a snarky fashion. To this Judge Rodriguez-Chomat remarked, “it’s not a joke, you know, we’re not in a club now. We are not in a club, be serious about it.” Soto replied, “I’m serious about it, you just made me laugh. You just made me laugh, I apologize. It’s worth a lot of money.” When Judge Rodriguez-Chomat inquired further as to the actual value of the jewelry Soto replied, “like Rick Ross. It’s worth money.” Not understanding Soto’s reference, Judge Rodriguez-Chomat asked if Soto was on drugs and things seemed to turn downhill from there. Judge Rodriguez-Chomat set a $5,000 bond and said “bye, bye” to which Soto sniped “adios.” Annoyed, Judge Rodriguez-Chomat summoned her back to the podium and increased her bond to $10,000 and again sent her on her way. But the altercation would not be complete without Soto flipping Judge Rodriguez-Chomat the bird and blurting “f*ck you” on her way out the door. For this Judge Rodriguez-Chomat yet again brought her back and issued her a 30 day criminal contempt of court sentence.

First and foremost the first thing I and the Tampa criminal lawyers in my firm impress upon our clients is to be mannerly in front of the particular presiding Judge on their case. Alienate the Judge and your difficulties are compounded ten fold. In other words, don’t piss off the person that could eventually sentence you or approve of a plea deal negotiated between your Tampa criminal attorney and the State. Penelope Soto screwed up. Not only is a $5,000 bond reasonable for a third degree felony, Soto will now instantly begin serving her contempt sentence. Unlike civil contempt where a Court’s ruling is made and ignored, direct criminal contempt is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 and offers very little due process. Criminal contempt allows for summary punishment when the contempt is performed in the presence of the Court. The Judge will then allow an opportunity for the Defendant to show cause as to why they shouldn’t be sentenced and depending on the cause, will impose sentence immediately and without a trial.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A Jacksonville Beach, Florida mother pled guilty in Duval County Circuit Court on January 30th to four counts of Child Neglect. Dalina Nicholas, 36, is accused of repeatedly selling sex with her 6-year-old daughter to drug abusing and homeless men in exchange for drugs and money to support her own drug habit. Nicholas, originally facing a sexual battery charge has agreed to testify against those men alleged to have sexually abused her daughter in exchange for that sexual battery charge being dropped. Sexual battery under Florida Statute 794.011 as alleged against the other defendants and likely as initially alleged against Nicholas is a Capital Felony with the requirement to register as a Sexual Predator. Generally Capital felonies are punishable by death. However, in Capital cases for rape of a woman or child not involving death, execution has been ruled to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court through their decisions in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) and Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). As you can imagine, despite the terrible allegations against her, Nicholas has dodged a certain life sentence in her agreement to cooperate with the State. In all candor I believe this is a deal any Tampa criminal lawyer would advise his client to enter into should the implicating facts be overwhelming.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Lindsay Lohan appeared in a Los Angeles courtroom again yesterday to answer to charges that she violated her probation stemming from a jewelry theft in 2011 in addition to the crimes alleged to have been the basis for her probation violation. Lohan currently faces charges for reckless driving, lying to police and obstructing police stemming from her claim that she was not behind the wheel of her car when it crashed into a truck in Santa Monica, California this past June. Lohan, who seemingly has been in and out of trouble since she’s been old enough to say “trouble” was at one time doubtful for attending her mandatory court date. Lohan, who recently fired her long time Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Shawn Holley had a letter submitted by her current attorney Mark Heller indicating that she was in poor health and wasn’t able to attend her hearing. It is thought that because several tabloids published pictures of her shopping over the past weekend and appearing in good health that Lohan changed her mind and elected to attend her hearing for fear of a warrant being issued for her arrest.

All States being a little bit different in their handling of criminal matters, were Lohan’s legal issues in Florida I don’t believe there would be an issue of whether or not she is going to appear in court consistently. In Florida if one is put on probation they are always subject to violating such probation by not complying with the requirements found in Florida Statute 948.03. Generally if they violate that probation through a technical violation a “no bond” warrant will be issued or if they violate by committing new crime amounting to arrest they will go to jail with a bond on their new case but no bond on the violation of probation. Since Lohan is accused of violating her 2011 probation by a new law violation, had this happened in Florida it is doubtful Lohan would have been granted a bond considering her inability to avoid getting in trouble while on probation. As a Tampa criminal attorney I can say that in our area if one had the track record of Ms. Lohan and was in a similar situation as her, I cannot think of any of our local Tampa Bay area criminal judges who would be willing to give her a bond.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A Minnesota State Court of Appeals recently ruled that a two wheeled motorized transit machine called a “Segway” was more like a pedestrian than a “vehicle” for purposes of Minnesota’s DUI law, thereby throwing out a DUI charge against Mark Greenman, a two time contestant of the Segway DUI challenge. The Minnesota court ruled that a Segway, having a top speed of only 15 miles per hour, makes it much more like a human being and their movement than that of a car or other device considered to be a vehicle under Minnesota law. A common misconception just about anywhere you go is that one cannot get a DUI on a “device” that isn’t propelled by some type of motor, be it gas or electric. Because DUI is most often prosecuted in a State court, laws vary by state and some probably do adopt this notion. Florida may be a bit vague on this issue. Our Tampa criminal attorneys have long felt that Florida is very much a “Police State,” enacting and enforcing laws that reap a financial benefit for the State more so than those laws aim to punish. In Florida one can get a DUI on a bicycle, State v. Howard, 510 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), a lawnmower, while simply sitting in your car with keys nearby, on an ATV, or any other “device” considered a vehicle. Rest assured the definition is a broad one so as to encompass as many objects into the “vehicle” umbrella as possible. So what about a Segway? Electric Personal Assistance Mobility Devices are described in Florida Statute 316.003(83) as essentially being segways. Further, this section explicitly excludes them from being a “vehicle,” an issue very relevant for purposes of DUI in Florida. From the look of it, if the segway fits the description under this Statute, you likely are excluded from a DUI charge. Where this could get sticky is if there is a tandem wheel segway produced or ridden and the thing goes over 20 miles per hour.

In Florida in order to prove that one was driving under the influence contrary to Florida Statute 316.193, it must proven that the following two elements existed beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Someone drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle.

2. While driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle, the individual was either;

a. under the influence of alcoholic beverages and/or a chemical substance and/or a controlled substance to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired.

or
b. had a blood/breath-alcohol level of .08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood/210 liters of breath.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Prominent local attorney Charles Phillip Campbell was arrested last night and charged with DUI for the second time. Campbell is currently representing Todd “MJ” Schnitt in a trial that is underway against Todd “Bubba the Love Sponge” Clem alleging defamation of character by the Sponge against MJ and his wife. Bubba the Love Sponge is alleged to have made statements that were false, highly offensive and defamatory in nature thereby causing damage to both Kelly and his wife. Campbell is alleged to have been travelling in his four door gray Nissan when he was observed by a Tampa Police Officer to have allegedly violated the right of way of another vehicle according to an arrest report. When the Officer made contact with Campbell it is further alleged that he witnessed signs of impairment including red and glassy eyes and the distinct odor of alcohol emanating from Campbell’s breath. According to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s website, this DUI arrest is not Mr. Campbell’s first rodeo with such an allegation, having previously been arrested on July 14, 2008 and recording a breath test of .153 and .156 respectively. It is unknown from either this report or the report from 2008 who Campbell’s Tampa criminal lawyer was or is currently.

Aside from the sensationalism this trial has already produced, this certainly adds to the appeal. Not only are arguably the two biggest morning DJs in Tampa at each others throats in a courtroom, now there is a very prominent attorney accused of driving under the influence on an evening while a trial of which he is lead counsel is in full swing. You really can’t make this stuff up! In reality, Mr. Campbell could be facing a rather stiff penalty should things not go his way on this allegation. For arguments sake and assuming Campbell pled to the DUI as charged in 2008, he is now facing his second DUI within 5 years. If Campbell ends up having to plea to the DUI charge as alleged for his arrest last night he is facing a statutory minimum mandatory 10 days in the Hillsborough County Jail. For purposes of the minimum mandatory, all that matters is that the second dui “offense” date occur within 5 years of the prior DUI conviction. State v. Daly, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 447 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. Feb. 4, 2008)11 Fla. Prac., DUI Handbook § 13:1 (2012-2013 ed.). So, for strategy’s sake, a Tampa criminal lawyer making an effort to hold Mr. Campbell’s plea to DUI (should that be the end result) until after July 14, 2013 won’t be beneficial based on applicable caselaw and the way Florida Statute 316.193(6)(b) is written. If he has in fact been convicted of a prior DUI and his Tampa DUI attorney can negotiate a reduced charge of reckless driving the minimum mandatory won’t apply and he won’t likely face a court imposed driver’s license suspension. Otherwise if he does plea to a second DUI within 5 years of a prior he is looking at the following:
Continue reading →

By
Posted in: DUI
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

60 year old pornographic filmmaker Ira Isaacs was sentenced on January 17, 2013 in the Central District of California for the Federal crime of producing and selling obscene videos and distributing obscene videos. Isaacs is known as a “shock porn” director and has routinely made videos depicting bestiality and sexual conduct involving feces. One such video was known as “Two Girls, One Cup” and involved a sexual encounter with two women eating human waste. Isaacs’ criminal defense attorney argued that despite the horrific nature of the videos that they are protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This argument fell on deaf ears when a federal jury convicted Isaacs on April 27, 2012 of a superseding indictment involving several counts. Pursuant to his sentencing Isaacs was ordered by Federal District Court Judge George H. King to serve 48 months in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, be subject to supervised release upon his release from prison for three years and pay a $10,000 fine. Isaacs was tried previously, both ending in mistrials. In 2008 his initial trial ended in mistrial when presiding Judge Alex Kozinski was forced to recuse himself after it was found that he possessed pornographic material on a personal website. Later, during a trial on March 6, 2012 a jury deadlocked at 10-2 resulting in a second mistrial.

As best as I can tell Isaacs was indicted for violations of 18 USC 1465 for Production and Transportation of Obscene Matters for Sale and Distribution, 18 USC 1462(a) for Importation or Transportation of Obscene Matters and lastly 18 USC 2257(f)(4) for failing to keep records of actors and actresses involved in his movies. The applicable language or gist of the statutes of which Isaacs was charged is as follows:

18 USC 1465- Whoever knowingly produces with an intent to distribute into interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution, any obscene material, would be guilty of 18 USC 1465 and subject to a five year term in the bureau of prisons and a fine.

18 USC 1462(a)- Whoever brings into the US or uses an express company for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce any obscene, lewd or lascivious motion-picture film shall be subject to a five year term in the bureau of prisons and a fine.

18 USC 2257(f)(4)- It is unlawful for one to produce any motion picture as described in the preceding statutes without creating an individual and identifiable record pertaining to each performer in the motion picture. In essence this law is aimed at preventing minors from engaging in such movies.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

28 year old former Tampa Bay Rays player Elijah Dukes was arrested again Monday night on several outstanding warrants for failing to appear in court for past criminal charges. Dukes, a former major league baseball player with incredible talent but an inability to stay out of a criminal courtroom was also arrested on a driving while license suspended, cancelled, or revoked charge. Dukes is a native of Tampa and last played in the big leagues in 2009 for the Washington Nationals. This arrest is one in a long line dating from 2003 and ranging from domestic violence and obstructing a police officer to contempt of court arising from an alleged failure to pay child support.

Because Dukes is facing a new charge for driving while license suspended, cancelled, or revoked any relatively experienced Tampa criminal lawyer could safely presume that Dukes was pulled over for a routine civil traffic violation or officers ran his license plates revealing the registered owner, Dukes, had a suspended license and recognizing that the driver fit Dukes’ description. Either is a valid way for police to detain a Florida driver. Under Florida Statute 322.34(2), any person who is driving in Florida and knows that their driver’s license is cancelled, suspended, or revoked is guilty of a second degree misdemeanor on their first offense and first degree misdemeanor on their second offense. A third of subsequent conviction under 322.34(2) is a third degree felony.
Continue reading →

Contact Information
Mayberry Law Firm
3902 Henderson Blvd, #208-136
Tampa, FL 33629
Phone: (813) 444-7435

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Mayberry Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design