Z Law Firm

Florida Senate Bill 228 was drafted as an act relating to mandatory minimum sentences.  On October 1, 2016, it was enacted into law by amending Florida Statute 775.087.  The amendment deleted aggravated assault from the list of convictions which carry a minimum term of imprisonment if during the commission of the offense the convicted person possessed a firearm or destructive device.  It also deleted the term aggravated assault from the list of convicts which carry a minimum term of imprisonment if during the commission of the offense the convicted person possessed a semiautomatic firearm.

          On April 28, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court granted review of the Fourth District Court of Appeals decision in Norvil v. State , 162 So.3d 3 (Fla. 4DCA 2014) on the issue of whether a trial court can consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense.                 In Norvil , the defendant was charged with one count of armed burglary of a dwelling .   The defendant entered an open plea to the bench, and during sentencing, the State filed a Sentencing Memorandum requesting that the court consider a subsequent charge of burglary of a vehicle that was still pending.   Over the defense’s objection, the trial court announced that it was going to consider the pending charge and declined to sentence defendant to a Youthful Offender sentence and instead sentenced him to twelve-years in prison.     ...

This morning, the United States Supreme Court, in an 8 - 1 decision, has ruled that Florida's system for sentencing persons to death is unconstitutional.  The system is set up to where the same jury who found the accused guilty, will participate in the "penalty phase" of the trial.  During the penalty phase, both the State and Defense will put on testimony and offer evidence in an effort to sway a jury into deciding to rule in favor of death or life in prison.  The problem the Court found was that regardless of the jury's decision, the ultimate decision power rested in the hands of the trial Judge. 

Article I, § 9 of the Florida Constitution reads, “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”   Similarly, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “no person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”   But what happens when a jury returns a verdict finding a defendant guilty of two criminal offenses having the same elements, but one which carries a lesser sentence than the other?   As seen, neither the United States Constitution nor the Florida Constitution dictate which conviction should be vacated. This issue was recently addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in State of Florida v. Tuttle , SC14-817 (Nov. 12, 2015).   In Tuttle , a jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of attempted home invasion burglary and armed burglary.   Before the trial court entered the sentencing phase, the State of Florida advised the court of the double jeopardy issue an...

Florida Statute 812.0155  permits courts to suspend the driving privileges of an individual convicted of a misdemeanor theft related offense in violation of s. 812.014 or s. 812.015.  As is customary due to "Separation of Powers", a court could not order the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to issue the offender a hardship license.  Now, following the 2014 Legislative Session, Florida Statute 812.0155 (5) authorizes a court that suspends the driver license of an individual for an offense relating to theft, to DIRECT the DHSMV to issue the person a license for business purposes only, if the person is otherwise qualified. www.zlawfirmfl.com

It has long stood in the State of Florida that anyone over the age of 18-years who was charged with and convicted on a violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, was subject to having their driving privileges suspended for a period of two-years. That meant that anyone who was convicted of possession or sale of, trafficking in, or conspiracy to possess, sell, or traffic in a controlled substance was subject to the two-year suspension.   However, now following the 2014 Legislative Session, we have seen a change that can be found in the wording of Florida Statute §322.055 that details the license revocation period for persons over the age of 18 who have been convicted of alcohol, drug and tobacco offenses. Now, if you are over the age of 18 and are convicted of a violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, you are now subject to a license suspension of one-year. www.zlawfirmfl.com  

Florida Statute §893.135 which governs Florida’s drug trafficking laws was enacted for the purpose of combatting high-level drug traffickers and dealers.   The penalties for violating any section of this statute were harsh.   Drug traffickers would be faced with minimum-mandatory periods of imprisonment and substantial fines.   On its face, this appeared to be an idea that would not be met with much opposition. However, what the statute failed to take into account were the large numbers of addicts who would find themselves caught in this web for simply possessing a predetermined weight of drugs despite the fact that these individuals had no intent whatsoever to sell or traffic their drugs.   Things only got worse when the State of Florida cracked down on trafficking in prescription narcotics (oxycodone and hydrocodone) that individuals were obtaining from the so called “pill mills”, or worse yet, teenagers were gathering from their parent’s and grandparent’s...

The Fourth Amendment is still alive.   In a unanimous decision (9 – 0 for those of you keeping score), the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement may not search the cell phones of criminal suspects upon arrest without a warrant.   The justices said smart phones and other electronic devices were not in the same category as wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement. The issue arose following the arrests and subsequent conviction of defendants in Massachusetts and California.   In these cases, United States v. Wurie , No. 13-212 and Riley v. California , No. 13-132, the defendants were convicted, in part, after phone numbers, text messages, photos and addresses obtained from personal electronic devices linked them to drug and gang activity.   Those cases were appealed to the high court, giving it an opportunity to re-enter the public debate over the limits of privacy rights, with...

For almost a decade, the legal blood alcohol level for DUI cases has been 0.08.  The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is now recommending that the level be reduced to 0.05 claiming that this decrease would reduce alcohol related crashes by fifty (50) percent.  The NTSB Chairman was quoted as saying, "This is critical because impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States."