Z Law Firm

Claudio J. Poillot was serving a 48-month prison sentence for a felony conviction.   While in state custody and being housed at the Kissimmee Community Center, Poillot began employment with a construction company, JS & Son Construction Services through the work release program.   The work release program permitted Poillot to work outside of the correctional facility from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.   On July 29, 2014, he left the Kissimmee Community Work Release Center and timely reported to work at JS & Son Construction.   Shortly thereafter, Poillot left his place of employment without permission and was unaccounted for until he timely returned to the work release center before 6:00 p.m.   Upon his return, Poillot was arrested and charged with escape pursuant to Florida Statute §944.40.   Subsequently, the trial court granted Poillot’s Motion to Dismiss and the State appealed. The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed...

A Florida DUI case was reversed following the Second District Court of Appeals conclusion that the circuit court had applied the wrong standard of review. A Sarasota man was arrested and charged with DUI .   Law enforcement made the arrest for DUI based on their assessment of the man’s level of intoxication during the traffic stop.   The officer testified that the defendant smelled of alcohol, was slurring his words, and had bloodshot and glassy eyes.   The defendant admitted to have been drinking, but advised that he had only one beer and one shot. A Motion to Suppress was filed on the basis that law enforcement did not have probable cause to make the arrest for DUI .   The key piece of evidence was a dash camera that recorded the encounter.   The county court judge agreed that the video contained no indication that the defendant had slurred speech or was impaired and granted the motion.   The State appealed to the circuit court which rev...

DUI laws in the State of Florida and across the country were shaken upon following the United State’s Supreme Court’s ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota .   The issue that was presented was whether in the absence of a warrant, may a state statute criminalize an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. In the State of Florida, refusal to submit to a breath, urine or blood test can be considered a criminal misdemeanor according to Florida Statute §316.1939.   Pursuant to section 316.1939: Any person who has refused to submit to a chemical or physical test of his or her breath, blood, or urine, as described in s. 316.1932 , and whose driving privilege was previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, and: (a) Who the arresting law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state while under the influence of alcoholic ...

          On April 21, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court granted review of the Second District Court of Appeals decision in Queior v. State , 157 So.3d 370 (Fla. 2DCA 2015) on the issue of whether a Probation Officer’s testimony that a probationer has failed a drug test administered by the Probation Officer is competent, non-hearsay evidence for purposes of proving a violation of probation .                In Queior , the State sought to revoke the defendant’s probation of the basis of a positive drug test.   At the hearing on the violation of probation , the State offered testimony from the defendant’s probation officer that they personally administered the drug test and that the test read positive.   The defense objected to the testimony claiming that the State had failed to lay the proper predicate to establish the reliability of the field drug test.   The trial ...

          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...