Florida Supreme Court overturns lengthy sentences for juvenile offenders

Posted on March 25, 2015 by Steven Bell

In four separate rulings, the Florida Supreme Court handed down decisions last week that set new limits on the sentences a juvenile can face for a serious offense.

The Court ruled that a sentence so long that it “ensure(s) these offenders will be imprisoned without obtaining a meaningful opportunity to obtain future early release during their natural lives based on their demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” is unconstitutional in Henry v. Florida. In that case, a 17-year-old was tried as an adult and convicted for three counts of sexual battery while possessing a weapon, two counts of robbery, and one count each of kidnapping, carjacking, burglary of a dwelling and possession of marijuana.

He was initially sentenced to life in prison for the sexual battery offenses, plus 60 years for the remaining offenses. However, while his appeal was ongoing in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Graham v. Florida, in which it ruled that life in prison without chance of parole violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when applied to juveniles convicted of offenses other than homicide.

The trial court then changed Henry’s sentences to a 30-year sentence for every charge of sexual battery. The sentences would be served concurrently, meaning at the same time. However, the 60-year sentence for the other offenses would be served consecutively, meaning after the 30-year sentences were served. This meant he would serve 90 years in prison.

The Florida Supreme Court determined that Graham meant such a sentence would also be unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court decided Graham on the basis that juveniles belonged in a special category due to their lesser ability to understand the consequences of their actions, and a “greater potential for change or positive character growth than adults.” Therefore, they could not be constitutionally sentenced to a term of imprisonment that would effectively mean they spend their entire life in prison.

In Gridine v. Florida, the Court also interpreted Graham to mean that homicide meant only that an actual killing had taken place. In that case, a juvenile who was 14 years old at the time was given a 70-year sentence for attempted homicide. Prior precedent specifically said that attempted homicide was a nonhomicide offense. Under the same reasoning as in Henry, a 70-year sentence is unconstitutional.

The other two cases involved interpretation of Miller v. Alabama, a U.S. Supreme Court based on Graham. In Miller, the Court found that a law with a mandatory life sentence without a chance of parole was unconstitutional as applied to a juvenile defendant.

Falcon v. Florida regarded whether Miller applied to people convicted as juveniles already serving a life sentence. The Court ruled that the decision was retroactive. People sentenced before the decision have two years to file to have a court adjust their sentence.

Florida v. Horsley found that a juvenile whose appeal was in process when Miller was decided but whose case was decided before the Florida Legislature amended the statute was entitled to individualized consideration for a new sentence.

While these are positive developments that reflect some leniency for juveniles, there should be no mistake that Florida has harsh laws for young people accused of crimes. Parents of children facing charges should contact an aggressive West Palm Beach juvenile defense lawyer to protect their child’s future.

Resources:

Gun Buyback Program Allows Citizens to Sell Firearms to Local Government

Posted on February 27, 2015 by Steven Bell

West Palm Beach officials are making an advanced effort to get weapons off the streets by offering a unique gun buyback program to citizens throughout the city this weekend.

Mayor Jeri Muoio has announced the gun buyback program saying the city is offering gift cards from different retailers for up to $100 for people who turn in guns. City officials say it does not matter where the gun comes from. No matter the situation, residents could be eligible to participate in the program.

The mayor said the goal of the program is to reduce the number of firearms owned by civilians and decrease the chances of children who are not skilled in using the firearms being in control of the weapons, according to Palms West Press. The West Palm Beach buyback program will be held on February 28th from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. at Union Missionary Baptist Church on Broadway Avenue.

These buyback programs have been used in cities throughout the country. They are similar to drug take-back programs in which local law enforcement officers collect unused medication to decrease prescription drug abuse. The gun buyback program is a way to provide civilians with the chance to sell their privately owned firearms to the government without risk of prosecution.

It is important to remember that various charges can be associated with possessing and using firearms. For instance, a person could be charged with openly carrying a weapon or carrying a concealed weapon. In Florida, these can carry severe penalties with lifelong consequences.

It is illegal for a person to openly carry a firearm or electric weapon unless he or she is licensed to do so, according to Florida Statutes Annotated § 790.053. Violation of this law is considered a second-degree misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 60 days in jail, a fine of up to $500 or both.

However, for a person to carry a concealed firearm in a public place, he or she must have a concealed firearm permit, according to Florida Statutes Annotated § 790.01. If a person carries a concealed handgun without a proper permit to do so, he or she could be charged with a third-degree felony, punishable by up to a five-year prison sentence, up to $5,000 in fines or both.

If a person openly carries a firearm and displays it in a threatening manner, he or she could be charged with improper exhibition of a firearm. In these cases, the prosecution must prove that a reasonable person would feel threatened or offended by the display.

The penalty for improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and $1,000 in fines. An improper exhibition of a firearm conviction will appear on a criminal record as a weapons offense. This conviction could hinder your future opportunities.

In Florida, there are certain situations in which a person could have his or her right to possess a firearm revoked. Some of these instances include:

The person was convicted of a felony
He or she committed a felony against the United States
The person has been adjudicated of an offense that would have been a felony if it were committed by an adult
He or she was convicted an offense in another state or country that would be a felony in Florida

If a person, such as a convicted felon, possesses a firearm without having his or her right to bear arms reinstated, he or she can be charged with a second-degree felony. A second-degree felony is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, a fine of to $10,000 or both.

If you have been charged with a firearm offense, it is important to build a strong defense in your case. Contact a West Palm Beach firearm defense attorney at Meltzer & Bell, P.A. We can help you understand the charges against you and work to have them reduced or dropped. Call (561) 283-3259 to schedule a free case evaluation today.

Florida Legislators Focus on Texting, Cell Phone Use While Driving for Upcoming Session

Posted on January 26, 2015 by Steven Bell

At least three bills have been prefiled for the upcoming session of the Florida Legislature that pertain to the use of mobile devices while operating a motor vehicle, indicating that the Legislature, or at least some factions, are interested in making the penalties for offenses surrounding distracted driving more severe. Current law prohibits using any handheld device to read or transmit text or character-based communications while operating a motor vehicle. The offense is a nonmoving violation, punishable with a fine. For a second offense, it is punishable as a movable violation with three points assigned to the offender’s driving license.

However, texting while driving is only a secondary offense. This means that police officers in Palm Beach County or Broward County will not pull you over for the offense of texting of driving by itself – if an officer sees you texting and driving, he or she will not pull you over. However, if you are pulled over for another offense, like speeding, running a stop sign or an illegal lane change, and the officer suspects you are texting and driving, he or she may give you a citation.

One of the bills that was been filed would change that. Senate Bill 246, from Senator Maria Lorts Sachs of Delray Beach, would remove the requirement that the offense only be a secondary offense. This would allow police to pull a driver over if they allege he or she was driving and texting or driving and emailing, rather than merely citing the driver if he or she is pulled over for another offense. The bill would also increase the penalties for driving while texting in a school zone, doubling the fines a person could receive for the offense.

The other two bills target safety of minors surrounding distracted driving, but in very different ways. Senate Bill 492, from Senator Geri Thompson, would make it a nonmoving offense for a driver to operate a mobile device to send or read any type of text, email or instant message in a posted school zone or designated school crossing.

Senate Bill 460, from Senator Anitere Flores of Miami-Dade County, prohibits the use of any mobile communications device for any purpose – including texting, emailing, instant messaging and having voice calls – by a person younger than 18 while driving, handheld or not.

It’s not clear whether any of these bills would pass. They must be passed by a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the governor. However, it is clear some lawmakers are seeking to crack down on cell phone use while driving.

Medical Marijuana Proponents to Give It Another Shot

Posted on December 6, 2014 by Steven Bell

Last month’s defeat of an initiative to allow medical marijuana was a devastating blow to efforts for more sensible policy on drugs in Florida. Amendment 2 came just over 140,000 votes short of hitting the necessary 60 percent, out of more than 5 million votes cast. The loss was the only one in the nation for initiatives and referenda for human marijuana. Legalization measures passed in Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia, and a medical cannabis measure passed in Guam.

However, the fight is not over in Florida. United for Care, the leading group behind the 2014 effort, has already started raising funds for a new campaign, which could come as early as 2016. The group says that wealthy trial lawyer John Morgan, who provided key financial support, is against committed to assist with the 2016 effort.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, the group has learned lessons from the 2014 campaign that it can apply to the next round. For instance, the next campaign will stress that minors cannot obtain medical marijuana without a parent’s consent and that the measure is intended for those with debilitating illnesses.

A ballot measure in 2016 may have a much greater chance of passage. More people vote in presidential years, and the electorate tends to be younger, which are both favorable conditions for marijuana policy.

However, the group says they will not pursue a ballot initiative if they are able to get a good bill through the Legislature in 2015.

Medical marijuana legalization would provide a huge relief to those in Florida using cannabis now to manage pain, seizures or other conditions alleviated by marijuana use. Right now, many are committing felonies. There is no defense provided in the law for those who only possess marijuana for legitimate medical purposes, even if they obtained it in a state where it is legal.

Florida has some of the strictest laws in the nation regarding cannabis possession. A small amount — 20 grams or less — is a Class A misdemeanor. This is still a very serious charge, and conviction can result in up to a year in jail and a fine up to $1,000. Any more in a felony. Conviction will not only mean possible prison time and major fines, it will keep you from helping medical marijuana become legal — in Florida, felons permanently lose the right to vote.

Those using medical marijuana in Palm Beach County now can have hope for the future. But if arrested now, they should call a West Palm Beach marijuana defense lawyer to talk about their options. No criminal case is hopeless, and we will fight on your behalf to get charges reduced or dismissed.

PROPOSED DUI LEGISLATION-HB-299: VOTE NO!

Posted on April 2, 2014 by Steven Bell

In an society of social networking, media events, marketing opportunities, social media events and events which are purposely structured to occur at night and occur with cocktails and food, it is natural and obvious that professionals and the like will attend these events, have something to drink and ultimately possibly operate a motor vehicle. It is inevitable that DUI arrests will always continue to be made and will continue to occur at a high rate in the State of Florida due to the police agencies continued effort to combat drunk driving.

Under the current state of the law, when an accused is charged with DUI and alleged to have given a breath or blood over a .08, a jury may presume that the person’s normal faculties were impaired. However, that evidence may be rebutted by other evidence. This means that evidence can be offered through cross examination or through direct evidence that the defendant’s breath or blood alcohol level was not above a .08 “at the time they were” or “while” driving.

This has been commonly referred to by lawyers as the “time of driving” defense to breath and blood cases. However, House Bill 299 is proposed and is an outright disaster the constitutional rights of the accused in DUI cases.

The bill proposes that a jury may find that a defendant is guilty of DUI if they find that they had a breath or blood alcohol “any time” after they were driving and after drinking. There is no rebuttable presumption. This effectively would mean that an accused can be found guilty of DUI without the ability to offer evidence challenging these results. Anytime after drinking? This proposal ignores the fact that alcohol, scientifically is proven to not fully absorb in the human body for potential up to 90 minutes after the final drink.

Should a defendant not have the right to challenge the State’s evidence? Why don’t we just allow the State of Florida to just file the information and that evidence shall be sufficient to find the defendant guilty? This bill should not be passed and is overbroad, vague and contrary to all due process principles in our constitution allow the defendant the right to a fair trial in front of a jury of his or her peers.

This bill should not be passed. Meltzer & Bell, P.A. does not support this bill. Visit us at www.thetrafficstop.com to read about how we help those accused of DUI and traffic violations. We are strongly opposed to this bill and hope that those who read it will feel the same way as it eliminates an accused’s right to raise one of the most important issues in a breath or blood case.

CLIENT COMMUNICATION: THE BEST ADVERTISING TOOL!

Posted on March 2, 2014 by Steven Bell

Often times, we as lawyers are looking for the next best way to advertise. How do we market ourselves? What is our brand? How should we create our logo? Lets tweak it and make it better. Where should we open an office? Is there good signage? Should we be a storefront firm or an office in a big building? Should we send out direct mailers? Or no? Should we advertise on the radio or tv? Or both? Should we search for legal publications to place ads in it? If so, what size and how often should we run the ads? Should we get on radio shows and/or advertise on the internet? How do we generate and collect a bank of clients who will drive our business and make us a successful firm? The answer is client contact! Client communication! Client satisfication. Too often we lose sight of the importance of truly listening to our clients and truly talking to them outside of just being a person in a legal jam. At Meltzer & Bell, P.A. we feel that treating our clients like people, and not defendants, is the best advertising tool that we could use. Our clients don’t feel like a file, but like a person and a party that is cared for and appreciated. It is so important to communicate with your clients, even if that communication is minimal and a simple update on a matter. Don’t just note your system regarding work you have done. Send a quick e-mail. Make sure you have all your client’s emails. Search through your open cases on a weekly basis and reach out to clients who you think may want to hear from you. Let them know that you are still thinking of them and that you care about their case. What you will get back in return is such positive satisfaction. Your clients will tell their friends and family that their lawyer actually cares about them and will recommend you to them for future services. Forget about them, and they will forget about you! Best of all, there is no cost on communication with your client. Nobody is going to bill you. So remember, reach out and communicate. What you will get in return will surprise you!