Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

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.

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.

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.