Z Law Firm

          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.           On appeal, the issue before the Court was whether the trial court violated the defendant’s due process rights by considering a subseq

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 and requested that the cou

Coronado v. State, 39 FLW D2113b (Fla. 2d DCA) – October 8, 2014 Deputies responded to a location to serve an outstanding arrest warrant.  Upon arriving, they noticed a grey pickup truck parked at the premises.  A registration check disclosed that the tag on the truck was registered to an Audi which had been reported stolen in 2013.  The officers made contact with the owner of the property, and after determining that the subject of the arrest warrant was not present, asked her about the truck.  She advised that the truck belonged to her son, and called him outside.  He advised the officers that he had found the tag in a ditch, and kept it.  During the conversation the deputies noticed numerous vehicles and car parts on the premises. The defendant explained that he scrapped cars and repaired vehicles for his friends.  The deputies sought and received permission to walk around the property looking for the stolen Audi.  During the walk, one of the deputies noticed the odor of marij

Scott v. State, 39 FLW D2458b (Fla. 4th DCA) – November 26, 2014 Law Enforcement were conducting surveillance of a residence for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant on someone named R.Q.  During the surveillance, the defendant exited the residence.  The officers approached defendant, at which time he denied being R.Q., and provided them with his name.  The officers were unable to confirm his identity via computer check, so the defendant invited them into the residence while he looked for his ID.  He was unable to locate it, and he and the officers returned outside.  The officers asked defendant to sit on the porch while they continued their efforts to confirm his identity.  A few minutes later, the defendant walked back into the house, locked the door, and exited through the rear of the residence.  The officers saw defendant jump the back fence and attempt to flee, but he was caught and arrested for Resisting an Officer without Violence (it was later established that he was n

In 2012, there were nearly 70,000 hit and run crashes in the State of Florida which resulted in 17,000 injuries and 166 fatalities.   This number of fatalities equates to nearly 3 Floridians killed each week in hit-and-run crashes. On February 15, 2012, Michele Traverso was on his way home from an evening of drinking when he ran over two cyclists and fled the scene.   One of those cyclists, Aaron Cohen was killed and the defendant received a sentence of twenty-two months of incarceration. In response, the Florida Legislature began to make proposals to Florida Statute §316.027 that were contained in Senate Bill 102.   This Bill became law effective July 1, 2014.   Some of the changes to Florida Statute §316.027 include the following: ·         Leaving the Scene of an Accident resulting in bodily injury is now a 2 nd degree felony rather than a 3 rd degree felony; ·         A minimum mandatory penalty of 4-years shall be imposed for a conviction resulting in the death o

For those who were charged with the offense of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) prior to July 1, 2014, Florida Courts would impose the condition of the ignition interlock device only individuals who were either charged with a subsequent DUI (see Florida Statute §316.193(2)(a)(3)) or with a DUI where there was a blood alcohol or breath alcohol level that measured in excess of 0.150 or had a minor in the car (see Florida Statute §316.193(4)). Following the 2014 Legislative Session, Florida Statute §316.193 has been amended by adding §316.193(2)(c).   In addition to the penalties already listed in §316.193(2), Florida Courts may now impose the following: the court may order placement, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 for at least 6 continuous months upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person if, at the time of t