Z Law Firm

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 beverages

          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 court revoked the defendant’s probation.           The defendant appealed, and the Second District Court of Appeal r

          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