In the matter of Jenkins v. State, the appellate court granted the defendant's appeal challenging the defendant's convictions following pleas of guilty to the charges of cocaine possession with the intent to sell, drug paraphernalia possession, & altering a license tag, & remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. The court held the defendant's arrests on account of altering a license tag were unlawful because he did not commit the crime within the presence of law enforcement, as required by Florida Statute Section90.15(1) and pursuant to the holding in Baymon vs. State. The details of this case were that police officers pulled over defendant's auto for the reason that he was playing loud music, defendant had a tinted plastic cover over his license tag, and failed to make a full stop at a red light. The officers arrested defendant for altering a license tag, which is a 2nd-degree misdemeanor in violation of Florida Statute 320.061. Incident to lawful arrest, they searched defendant and the car. The officers located cocaine inside the defendant's wallet and bags containing cocaine residue & a digital scale in the auto trunk of the car. Less than a month later, police officers again spotted Mr. Jenkins' vehicle and defendant's car still had a tinted plastic cover over the license tag.. The police conducted a traffic stop and arrested the defendant yet again due to obscuring a license tag. An inventory search of the defendant's auto exposed seven hundred counterfeit music and video Compact discs and DVDs. The defendant submitted motions to suppress in all cases. He contended that his arrests had been against the law as altering a license tag was a misdemeanor under Florida law that must be committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer for an arrest to be lawful. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed with defendant ruling that since the arrests had been against the law, "the law required suppression of the evidence seized in any search carried out incident to that arrest." The court cited to the cases of Baymon, 933 So. 2d at 1270 (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)).

The district court reversed the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to sell cocaine and also possession of drug paraphernalia, his conviction for possession of counterfeit goods, and remanded those cases for resentencing on defendant's convictions for altering a license tag. The appellate court additionally reversed defendant's revocation of probation and remanded for consideration of whether or not to revoke, modify, or continue defendant on probation predicated simply on altering a license tag.

For more information on Our Website , Dui attorney and Criminal Lawyer Miami FL you can contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 S Biscayne Blvd

Miami, FL 33131

(305)459-3286

In the matter of State v. Bowers, the supreme court resolved a conflict between the between the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal concerning the application of the fellow officer rule to testimony in a suppression hearing wherein defendant challenged the legality of the traffic stop. The court ruled that the fellow officer rule does not allow an officer who does not have personal knowledge of the traffic stop and wasn't personally involved in the initial investigation at the time to testify as to hearsay concerning what the initial officer who conducted the stop told him or her outside of court for purposes of establishing a violation of a traffic law in order to validate the initial traffic stop. In the Bowers matter, the defendant filed a motion to suppress which} was granted by the circuit court, & in the matter of Ferrer vs. State of Florida, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress on very similar factual scenarios in its application of the fellow officer rule.

In the Bowers matter, the defendant was initially stopped by an officer for a suspected DUI. A second officer, who was not present at the scene at the time of the initial stop and who had no personal knowledge of defendant's driving pattern, responded to at the scene, conducted a DUI investigation and arrested the defendant for DUI as well as drug/drug related crimes. At the hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress regarding the traffic stop, only the police officer who performed the DUI investigation & arrested defendant appeared to testify. In reviewing the fellow officer rule, the Supreme Court of Florida stated that the fellow officer rule permits an officer to rely on the representations of another police officer to justify the police officer's conduct, but it does not permit "an officer to testify as to knowledge that another officer possessed in order to justify the other officer.s conduct." The court agreed with the circuit court in the Bowers case that the suppression hearing wasn't about the probable cause to perform the DUI investigation & arrest the defendant, but was related to probable cause to make the stop in the first place. Accordingly, only the police officer who made the stop could establish the basis for the probable cause of the traffic stop.

The court affirmed the Second District Court of Appeal opinion in the Bowers matter, & disapproved the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in the Ferrer case.

The dissent discusses Bowers not in terms of the fellow officer rule, but in terms of second-tier certiorari review given in the majority opinion in the case of Nader v. DHSMV.

For more information regarding Criminal Lawyer Miami FL , Dui Lawyer Miami FL and Lawyer Miami FL please contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 S Biscayne Blvd

Miami, FL 33131

(305)459-3286

In the case of Odum vs. State of Florida the district court reversed the ruling issued by the circuit court summarily denying the defendant's 3.850 motion for postconviction relief.

Defendant was found guilty of vehicular homicide & reckless driving causing serious bodily injury by a jury Defendant drove his vehicle at excessive speed through a red traffic light & into a minivan, killing one person & causing serious injury to another. Defendant had alcoholic beverages in his vehicle and smelled of alcohol. The lower court verbally pronounced a prison sentence of imprisonment of 20 years on the first count & 5 years on count 2, for a total sentence of 25 years in prison. 5 days later, the court entered a written order which increased the prison sentence on count one to twenty-five years imprisonment, with both counts to run concurrently.

The defendant didn't raise the change in the sentence on his direct appeal; rather, he contends that he was improperly sentenced as being a habitual felony offender. The 5th District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions & sentences. In defendant's motion for postconviction relief, defendant complained that the trial court was not permitted to change his sentence after he began to serve the sentence.

The 5th District Court of Appeal stated that the reason for the change in the sentence wasn't clear from the record of the proceedings. The record indicates that the oral sentence was 20 years on the 1st count and five years on the 2nd count with both sentences to be served consecutively, but the written sentence was twenty-five years on the 1st count and a five year suspended sentence on the second count, concurrent. In denying defendant's motion for post conviction relief, the circuit court reached the conclusion that the written sentence was proper because of the fact that the overall term (25 years) was the same as the oral sentence, and therefore the defendant was not prejudiced.

The district court of appeal remanded for resentencing as the defendant correctly alleged that the trial court was required to execute a written sentencing document that conforms to the oral pronouncement of sentence.

For more information regarding Lawyer Miami FL , Dui Attorney Miami FL & DUI Attorney Fort Lauderdale FL please contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 South Biscayne Boulevard

28th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

(305)429-3285

Ceci est le premier article de votre blog. Il a été créé automatiquement pour vous aider à démarrer sur KaZeo.
Vous pouvez le modifier en cliquant sur la clé à molette ou l'effacer en cliquant sur la croix.

Si vous ne voyez pas ces îcones pour gérer votre contenu,
cliquez sur "Site à gérer" puis sur le nom de votre blog.

Vous pouvez également poser vos questions et consulter le manuel d'utilisation en cliquant ici.

A très bientôt !
L'équipe KaZeo