Pinellas County Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Lately we've been handling alot of grand theft and credit card fraud cases.  As you may or may not know, grand theft is any theft over $300. It can be a 3rd degree felony (5 years) if it's under $5000, but if the theft is over $5000 it can be a second or first degree felony.  (except for grand theft auto - the law gets confusing from here so call us if you have questions)  I feel badly for the people because they are committing crimes with serious penalties, just to get by.  Most of our clients charged with grand theft have no prior criminal record.  The crimes are committed in an unsophisticated manner and are really easy to detect.  

Take this woman who the police say used a stolen credit card to bond her husband out of jail. According to the St. Petersburg Times, the woman used a stolen credit card and paid $900 to a bondsman to get her husband out of jail in back in July.  She said she had permission to use the card.  Interestingly, since I deal with this so much, she may have had permission to use the card back in July, but now the victim is saying she never gave her permission.  This is more common than anyone would believe.

 

It will be interesting to see who signed the credit card receipt.  All the bail bondsmen I know require the owner of the credit card, if it's different from the person who comes in to sign the bond, to sign a separate form giving the person authorization to use their credit card.  They specifically do this so that the owner of the card doesn't try to say it was fraudulently used once they see the bill and/or have a falling out with the person.  I would be interested to see where this form is.  If there is one, there is a real good chance she's not guilty. 

The bad news for Mrs. Rice is that she's the one now sitting in jail with a bond of $2000 on her new charge of fraudulent use of a credit card.  Wonder if her husband will try to bond her out?  

If you've been charged with any theft crime, call us.  You may have a defense.  

How do you get early termination of probation?  Generally it must be agreed to at the time of the plea in felony cases; all of the fines, court costs and restitution must be paid off; and any other conditions of the probation must be completed.  Most judges will not consider early termination unless the person has completed at least half of their probationary sentence. 

In the remarkable case of Debra Lafave, or Debra Beasley, the middle school teacher who got 3 years of house arrest (or community control) followed by 7 years of probation when she pled to having sex with a student in 2005, it appears one may even be able to violate their probation and qualify for early termination.  (See St. Petersburg Times 9/22/11)

A condition of sex offender probation is always to have no unsupervised contact with minors.  In her case, she admitted to talking to a 17 year old co-worker about the 17 year old's boyfriend and sex life.  Ms. Lafave is 27 years old.  The judge found that this particular violation was not willful or substantial.  Interestingly, not only was she having unsupervised contact, she admits they were discussing sex.  One can only imagine what would happen if she were a man in the same circumstances. 

I would be the first to admit that probation officers and the Florida Department of Corrections in general are out to get probationers and often violate people for ridiculous reasons.  But sex offenders are a different bunch, and I would agree they should be watched more closely.  More closely than someone on probation for felony possession of marijuana (over 25 grams), which appears to be what this probation officer was doing.  It's interesting how they let this woman off and my clients who are on felony probation for very minor crimes are always violating.  Did I somehow miss that drug offenders are more dangerous to society than child sex offenders?

A man robs a convenience store, goes to trial with a lawyer and gets a Not Guilty verdict.  For some crazy reason, he decided the lawyer wasn't on his side and choose to represent himself in the next two trials for the same thing.  Guess what happened? 

This is one of those "don't try this at home'" stories which happen so often in Pasco County.  According to the St. Petersburg Times, Morgan Armstrong robbed the Beverages Plus on State Road 52 in Hudson, Florida  in 2009.  The main witness for the State, the store clerk, was so upset she fainted on the witness stand.  Her partner took off her sneaker and put it to her nose to try to revive her with the odor.  You can't make this stuff up. 

Meanwhile the Defendant is twice convicted for Robbery with a Deadly Weapon.  Showing no remorse while Judge Andrews sentenced him he says "For what?  I didn't do anything." 

Any criminal defense attorney would have kept him from saying that.  Yikes.  Hope he got his affairs in order because he's not getting out.   

I had about one year of experience and maybe 5 jury trials under my belt when I was a State Attorney and a man represented himself on the same charges.  He's still in prison.

Please - regardless of how little you like your attorney DO NOT REPRESENT YOURSELF - lawyers aren't there to be your buddy - their sole purpose is to defend your rights.  Call us if you have questions. 

Can I be pulled over by the police when my stereo is too loud?

According to the 2nd and 5th District Courts of Appeal, the answer is no.

Florida Statute 316.3045, the statute which controls how loud your stereo can be, has been deemed unconstitutional.
I won't pretend to be a 1st Amendment (freedom of speech) expert, but here's the basic reason why. In order to control anyone's speech in any public place - the statute must pass various constitutional tests. One of those tests is called "content neutral" - which means whatever type of speech the government is trying to regulate can't be of only one certain content. For example, they can't pass a law regulating the speech of those who are proponents of one issue and allow the speech of those who are against that issue.

In this case, the statute says that any "noise" that one can hear within 25 feet of where it's being played is illegal - unless it's political speech or used in the normal course of business.
The US Supreme Court says music is speech. So by regulating music from a car, but allowing political or religious speech at the same sound level by a car parked next to it - Florida has enacted a law which is NOT content neutral and therefore unconstitutional.

Remember the Blues Brothers? They put a speaker on their car to advertise their upcoming show. Because that is a business purpose (marketing), under the Florida law it would be allowed. However, if they merely played their music from their car, under Florida law that wouldn't be allowed.

Interestingly, although two Florida District Courts of Appeal have reached this conclusion, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it yet and the law remains on the books. So what happens if you get pulled over for a noise violation? First of all it's a non-moving traffic violation, so you can't be arrested for it. Secondly, after the officer is done giving you the ticket, unless he sees or smells something that gives him probable cause, he can't search your car. As you all know, all the cop has to say is that he smelled marijuana, and he's good. You all know, if the cop wants to search, he'll smell it.

Is spanking a child enough reason for a judge to grant a domestic violence injunction?

NO.

In order to legally get a domestic violence injunction, it must be proven by the Petitioner, or on behalf of the Petitioner in the case of a child, that there is an immediate threat of harm or fear.
Florida law says that spanking is a reasonable form of punishment when it does not harm the child. In fact, spanking is a defense to a criminal charge of child abuse or a charge of child abuse under Florida Statute 39 which is the Dependency statute.

In this particular case, a divorced father spanked his 14 year old daughter one time for being disrespectful. The daughter testified that she was being sarcastic. While my personal opinion is generally against spanking, when every other form of discipline, such as taking things away, grounding, and time outs don't work, spanking may be appropriate in some instances. G.C. v. R.S. and K.C., 1st DCA, 9/16/11

A parent or legal guardian of a child can file for a domestic violence injunction on behalf of the child, even if they themselves are not a victim. If your child is the victim of abuse, or someone is saying that you are an abuser - call us. Domestic Violence injunctions, although civil in nature, have the ability to cause criminal charges and take away various liberties such as one's ability to own or purchase guns.

Most people have watched enough television to know what Miranda rights are -

Although everyone has heard these rights, it is amazing to me, how many people waive them when the police come to "talk".

First of all, unless you are sitting in the back of a police car, or in a police station and YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE, you are not entitled to these rights.

Secondly, just because you were arrested doesn't mean the police have to read you your rights. If they're not planning on talking to you, there's no reason. I hear so many people say, "They never read me my rights." Thinking that in itself will get them out of the crime.

Please note, even if you were in custody AND no one read you your rights AND they questioned you - you still might not get out of it. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of your case. And the lawyer you hire. Just because the police didn't follow the rules, if your attorney doesn't file a MOTION TO SUPPRESS, it doesn't matter.

In a recent case out of Tampa, Florida - the police brought a man named Green into the station for questioning on several Dealing in Stolen Property charges. He was clearly in custody. They read him his rights and he said he wanted a lawyer. As happens more often than not - the cop told Green he couldn't get him a lawyer right this minute - it just didn't work that way. The cop continued to question Green who ultimately confessed. Although I realize this happens all the time, it's rarely on video tape for the court to witness.
The fact that there was a videotape of the confession was lucky for Green, because the Second DCA said his confession should have been thrown out since he "unequivocally" asked for a lawyer during questioning. See Green v. State, 2nd DCA, 9/9/11

If the cops want to question you about ANYTHING - even if you know you're completely innocent - ASK FOR A LAWYER - and stick to your guns. Don't let them bully or confuse you. Eventually it will become your word against theirs - and who do you think the prosecutors and judges will believe?

The appellate court has ruled that Casey Anthony does have to serve one year of probation. 

As you know, the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) supervises felony probation, and Casey Anthony was ordered to serve a year of probation after entering her plea to 13 felony charges in January of 2010.  At the time the judge ordered her to begin serving probation after she was released from jail, which made no sense at the time since it appeared to everyone in the world that she would never be released from jail.   

Please read this note on their website regarding Casey Anthony.  DOC by court order, is not allowed to post her address or information on their website as they would with any other offender due to the death threats against her.  Here's the direct quote of Judge Belvin Perry in his Order:

"It is further ORDERED that the Department of Corrections is hereby authorized in its discretion to keep confidential the Defendant's residential information and any other information that could lead to discovery of her location due to threats on the Defendant's life."

Although I agree with the judge that her location should be kept confidential, it's interesting to me that the Department of Corrections provides the public with a link to sign up for monthly email updates on Casey Anthony's probation progress.  As I already recieve more than my allotted amount of spam, I will not be signing up.  Will you?

If you weren't aware, police have places to drop off guns with no questions asked.  Now, Pinellas County law enforcement has a simlar new plan - they will be allowing the public to drop off  prescription pills at various locations throughout Pinellas County this weekend. 

Pinellas and Pasco counties have the highest prescription pill overdose rate in Florida.  Although per capita Pasco County's rates of overdose death's are higher - Pasco does not have any drop off sites.  (See Bay News 9 report of 8/23/11)  Also interesting is the locations for drop off:  Oldsmar?  Dunnedin?  38th Street and 4th Street North in St. Petersburg?  Not exactly places I would consider to be pill havens of the county. 

I guess this is just one more worthless step in the war against drugs.  Why not try refusing payment of the pills by medicaid?  Somehow I have this feeling that would work wonders.   

DOES DEFENDANT HAVE TO GIVE THE Department of Justice HER LAPTOP PASSWORD?

That is the question a federal court must answer when a Colorado woman goes on trial for bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering charges.

The woman, Ramona Fricosu, had her laptop seized after a federal investigation revealed that she and her husband allegedly tried to take title to foreclosed homes by fraud.

This case raises some fascinating issues about the Fifth Amendment, the Right to Privacy, and what actions by criminal defendants are considered "testimonial" and thus not subject to privacy. As you may or may not know to "plea the fifth" means to exercise your right against making statements that may incriminate yourself.
Apparently the woman's laptop has an encrypted code. The only way federal investigators can view the evidence is to have the woman enter this secret code on her laptop. But if she is forced to do this, is her right to privacy being violated? Is the passcode "testimonial"?
If she enters the password, she will incriminate herself.

Remember that under the Fifth Amendment, everyone has the right against self incrimination, but in today's modern world the records you keep could be considered a form of incrimination that requires Fifth Amendment protection. Don't second-guess yourself! When faced with a situation where you are being asked to turn over or reveal what could potentially be incriminating information, CALL US FIRST before you do anything that could jeopardize your freedom or liberty.

A Trinity, Florida man awaiting trial in a DUI manslaughter where his wife was the victim was rearrested on another DUI in Palm Harbor, Florida. 

Phillip Billitteri was arrested in September, 2010 for DUI manslaughter stemming from an April 2010 accident where he made a left turn into his own subdivision and was hit by an oncoming pick up truck.  His wife, in the passenger's seat, was killed. (See St. Peterburg Times article)

Last week in downtown Palm Harbor, he was again driving and hit two women who were crossing the street causing pretty severe injuries.  (See St. Petersburg Times)

This completely tragic story brings up several legal issues.  The first is that when the State Attorney's Office in Pasco County, learned of the new arrest in Pinellas, they asked the judge to revoke his $10,000 bond.  She did.  This means that even though he had bonded himself out on the Pasco DUI manslaughter charge, he now has no bond.  This is common, since a condition of anyone's bond is that they have no new arrests.  Interestingly, most judges when realeasing someone on a DUI, will tell the person that a condition of their bond is to drink no alcohol.  Not all judges say it, and of course it's impossible to monitor.  But at the time of Mr. Billitteri's arrest in Pasco County, he never saw a judge.  It looks like the warrant was issued for his arrest and he did what's called a "walk through" with a bailbondsman.  That means, he was booked into the jail and realeased immediately.  With only a $10,000 bond - on a DUI manslaughter.  Those of you who have ever been arrested on drug charges will realize how low of a bond this is.  That's the second issue - how low the bonds are on charges where if the person is released there's a real threat of harm to the community - like DUI or domestic battery.  We've all seen bonds double or triple this for felony drug charges.  Why? 

On the new Pinellas County charge his bond was only $5000.  Interestingly, no judge in that case advised him that he should drink no alcohol.  When the Pinellas case was transferred from traffic court to felony court, he was issued a SCRAM monitor.  That's the ankle monitor that allegedly goes off if the person consumes alcohol - even mouthwash. 

Pawuk & Pawuk handles alot of DUI cases - and this tradgedy, that someone released on such a low bond, and then go out and drink and drive while, injuring other people AGAIN -  is one of my greatest fears.  I'm sure this man feels horrible.  My heart goes out to him and his family.  However, I think at this point, the only safe place for this guy is jail. 

When one first hears about the crime of Dealing in Stolen Property, they might envision someone selling  car stereos out of the back of a truck.  Indeed that may be DSP, yet most of the cases we see involve a person taking an item to a pawnshop.  These cases are much easier to prove since they often follow a burglary.  So if items are missing from a home, police often check the nearest pawn shops for the items - more often than not, the items are there - and better yet for the police - whoever pawned the items left all their identifying information with the pawn broker.  Clearly a much easier crime to solve. 

Can you be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property? Like all things legal - it depends.  The law says that you can be charged with both, but not convicted of both - IF BOTH CRIMES ARISE OUT OF A SINGLE COURSE OF CONDUCT.  "A single course of conduct" is impossible to explain in this blog, and really depends on the facts of any given situation.

Interestingly, if you can be charged with both crimes - but not convicted - who gets to decide?  Since grand theft is usually a third degree felony (up to 5 yrs in prinson) and dealing in stolen property is usually a second degree felony (up to 15 years) should the "rule of lenity" apply?  That is, shouldn't you get the lesser sentence?  According to most courts in Florida, NO.

The Second District Court of Appeal, recently sent this question to the Supreme Court.  Since the legislature in the once again great wisdom never clarified that part, the Supreme Court now gets to decide.  In a case out of Tampa, Florida - Melvin Williams went to trial on both grand theft and dealing in stolen property (and a few other charges which aren't relevant to this).  He was convicted by the jury of both the grand theft and the DSP, and the judge dismissed the grand theft, but convicted him of the DSP.  He appealed his case, saying that the jury should have been instructed that they couldn't convict him on both as the statute says.  However, there's no standard jury instruction on this, and therefore no explaination to the jury of how to decide which crime to convict.  Arbitrary?  So the trial judge in this case, picked the greater crime and dismissed the lesser. 

The quickest fix to this arbitrary law seems to be to write a jury instruction to clarify things for the jury to choose.  Who gets to write these?  The Supreme Court.  There's a committee of lawyers that makes the reccomendations on jury instructions to the Supreme Court.  Since the legislature seems to be too concerned about baggy pants in school - I guess it's up to the lawyers to fix it.  Scary huh?

Pawuk & Pawuk is pleased to welcome Scott Finelli to our practice.  Scott will concentrate his practice in the areas of family law and domestic violence. 

Mr.  Finelli comes to us after a long career as a history teacher.  A 1995 graduate of University of South Florida, he began his teaching career in Pasco County, teaching at both the middle and high school levels.  He was also the Assistant Football Coach at Bayonet Middle School. 

Mr. Finelli attended Florida Coastal School of Law where he was on the Dean's List.  He also spent two years clerking with a family law judge in Jacksonville, Florida.  Mr. Finelli brings to the firm a wide variety of life and learning experience and we look forward to working with him.  If you have a question about any family law matter, call us today.

Although I've resisted blogging about this case until now - I feel I must explain something about it now,  mainly because everyone and their brother have asked me about it.

This morning, Casey Anthony was sentenced.  Prior to sentencing the State made an argument to the judge that the "investigative costs" part of sentencing should be "bifurcated" from the rest of the sentencing.  Although this sounds important it's really not.

Bifurcate is a fancy legal word for separate.  Many trials are bifurcated, for example, in a  felony DUI- the regular DUI will be tried first and if the defendant is found guilty - the felony portion of the DUI - that is, proving there are priors DUI convictions - will be tried second. 

Investigative costs - are the cost of any criminal investigation which are assessed as a fine in all criminal cases.  This is the cost of the time it took the police to investigate the crime usually calculated by the hour in addition to other costs.  In most misdemeanor cases the costs are around $100 - $200. 

But in Casey Anthony's case - because she led the police on a "wild goose chase" for months, I would imagine the costs are going to be ALOT higher.  As part of her sentence the judge will assess those costs of investigation and she'll have to pay them.  How? you're probably asking. She'll set up a payment plan with the Clerk of Court and she'll have to pay them, or they'll send it to collections and suspend her driver's license. 

By bifucating the sentencing, the judge is allowing the State more time to figure out the exact figure of investigative costs and to present that to the defense so that they can object or agree.  Clearly it's much easier for the attorney's to work out something rather than have a long hearing on the costs. 

So for everyone who's called me today asking me to explain what happened - and those of you who don't even know me but were thinking of calling - this is the short and simple answer. 

Don't ask me anything else about the case - I didn't have time to watch it and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than listen to Nancy Grace's version of any issue.