Criminal

What if the State doesn’t give me a speedy trial?

Published on: February 12, 2024 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Close-up of the U.S. Constitution Every person charged with a crime in the United States is entitled to a speedy trial. This is a federal constitutional right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states, [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” The State of Florida also made this a state constitutional right in Section 16 of the Florida Constitution, which states that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall, upon demand…shall have the right…to have a speedy and public trial…

The Florida Supreme Court adopted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, which provides that every person charged with a crime be brought to trial on a misdemeanor within 90 days of arrest on a misdemeanor and within 175 days of arrest on a felony. The Rule states that the time period commences when the person is taken into custody, which is defined as “when the person is arrested as a result of the conduct or criminal episode that gave rise to the crime charged;” There are exceptions to these timeframes and the most common exception is when the person charged waives their right to a speedy trial. There are valid reasons to waive that right. Basically, a person is not entitled to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, a person charged with a crime is going to need time to investigate the case, to potentially take depositions, to conduct legal research, to file motions and have motion hearings, and to otherwise conduct pretrial negotiations and/or litigation. So, if a person demands a speedy trial, that person is necessarily not going to have additional time to prepare a defense. So, in most cases, a person charged is going to move to continue the case to allow for preparation. However, what happens when the time has expired before the person has waived his or her right to a speedy trial?

In State v. Williams, Ms. Williams was arrested on October 8, 1999. The State filed formal charges on May 3, 2000, which was 206 days after her arrest. Ms. Williams filed a motion for discharge alleging that the State failed to bring her to trial within the time allowed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. Under subsection (p)(3), the defendant can file a notice of expiration of speedy trial and then the trial court must conduct a hearing within five days and set the case for trial within 10 days. This is referred to as the “recapture period.” So, the trial judge treated the motion for discharge as a notice of expiration of speedy trial and held a hearing and scheduled the case for trial within 10 days. Ms. Williams objected, arguing that she should have been discharged because the time frame had expired.

Supreme Court adopts broad interpretation of “different occasions” provision under the Armed Career Criminal Act

Published on: March 8, 2022 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The Supreme Court handed down an important federal criminal law decision on March 7th, 2022 involving the interpretation of the “different occasions” language in the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. s.924(e), provides for a 15 year minimum mandatory sentence for any defendant convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon if that defendant has three prior convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, if those three prior offenses were committed on “occasions different from one another.”

AdobeStock_130336437-300x200
In Wooden v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed what the term “occasions different from one another,” which is often referred to as the “different occasions” provision, means. In 1997, Wooden broke into a storage facility and burglarized ten different storage units. He was arrested and pled guilty to ten counts of burglary and was sentenced to eight years in prison. In 2014, Wooden answered the door to his house and a police officer asked to speak to his wife. The officer asked if he could step inside due to the chill outside and Mr. Wooden agreed. When the officer entered, he observed firearms in plain sight. The officer had previous knowledge that Mr. Wooden was a convicted felon so he arrested Mr. Wooden for Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. Mr. Wooden was indicted in federal court and convicted.

In his federal case, the federal prosecutors argued that Mr. Wooden was an Armed Career Criminal because each burglary to each storage unit happened successively and therefore were separate occasions. That is, he completed each burglary before beginning the next burglary of the next unit. Mr. Wooden’s attorney argued that all ten burglaries occurred on one occasion. AdobeStock_462414486-300x169 The District Court agreed with the government and sentenced Mr. Wooden to 16 years with the 15 year minimum mandatory sentence as an Armed Career Criminal. Without the Armed Career Criminal status, Mr. Wooden was looking at a maximum sentence of 10 years, with guidelines of around 21 months. Mr. Wooden appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with the District Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari based on a conflict between various circuits.

Florida Police Cannot Arrest DUI Suspect Without Observing Him/Her Driving

Published on: September 30, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, a police officer is not normally permitted to arrest a person for DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) unless the police officer observes the suspect actually commit the crime. This applies to standard DUI’s, not DUI’s involving an accident. This is not an issue in most DUI cases in Florida as DUI arrests are usually the result of a traffic stop after the police officer claims to observe the driver commit some traffic violation.

However, there are situations where a police officer comes upon a person he/she believes to be impaired, but the driver is no longer operating the vehicle or in actual physical control of the vehicle (usually characterized as being inside the vehicle in the driver’s seat with the keys). In these cases, the police officer may not be able to make a DUI case even if he/she has reason to believe the suspect was recently driving the vehicle while impaired from alcohol or drugs.

For instance, in a DUI case just south of Jacksonville, Florida, a witness observed the suspect driving erratically and then come to a stop in the roadway. The witness was in the medical field and decided to stop and see if the driver needed any medical assistance. The witness got the driver out of the vehicle, obtained her keys and drove the vehicle off to the side of the road. It became apparent to the witness that the driver was impaired from alcohol. A police officer arrived when the driver and the keys were already outside of the vehicle. The police officer arrested the driver for DUI based on his observations that she was drunk and the witness’s statement that she had been driving.