For nearly three decades the lawyers in our office have been engaged in the sealing and expungement of criminal records arising out of Pinellas County. During that time period, the laws have changed, as have the procedures for seeking this relief. It is important to note that not all states provide for the opportunity to essentially “erase” an arrest or criminal prosecution. It is only because of the grace of the Florida legislature, that this opportunity exists in Florida. For this reason, eligibility is strictly governed by state statute, along with compliance with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Sealed: If a criminal record is “sealed” governmental agencies must deny the existence of the record and they are prohibited from disseminating any information regarding the record;
Expunged: If a criminal record is “expunged” all governmental agencies, with the exception of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, are required to literally destroy all records.
Is There Much of a Difference?
From a practical standpoint, some would argue that there is very little difference in getting your records sealing under Florida Statute Section 943.059 versus having them expunged under Florida Statute Section 943.0585. Under both circumstances, you would be restored to the position you occupied before you were arrested or charged with a criminal offense. With some limited exceptions, under both scenarios you would be able to lawfully deny that you were ever arrested or charged with that offense.
Some clients feel more comfortable knowing that their criminal records have been destroyed. However, to have your record expunged you must satisfy a stricter criteria:
1. Your case can not have resulted in a withhold of adjudication, unless the records have previously been sealed for a period of ten years with no intervening convictions; 2. Your case resulted in a “no Information,” dismissal or Nolle Prosequi., and 3. You otherwise meet all of the other qualifications associated with the “sealing” of your criminal records.
It is seemingly unfair, that if you were acquitted of the charge by having been found “not guilty” of the criminal offense, you are initially only eligible to have your records “sealed.” Florida Statute Section 943.0585(2)(a)(2).
How it Works
When the Pinellas County Circuit Court grants a petition to seal or expunge your criminal records a certified copy of that court order is sent to the following governmental agencies directing them to immediately remove from public view or physically destroy their records:
Pinellas County Clerk of Court
Pinellas County State Attorney's Office
The Local Law Enforcement Agency that arrested you
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FCIC rap sheet)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (NCIC rap sheet)
Commercial Data Gathering Services
It is important to note that the Court’s Order to Seal only pertains to “official” records. Any information gathered from public record sources by commercial data gathering services before the record was sealed or expunged is not subject to the Court order. As such, despite the Court order, it is possible that information concerning your case could subsequently appear on computer generated commercial data gathering reports. We have found that most of these commercial reports that list an arrest history use cautionary language such as “possible criminal records”. They also typically includes a caveat that employs language to the following effect: “The commercially available data sources used on these reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly, and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified.”
Independent verification would of course require access to, and review of, the official Court records. However, if your records were sealed or expunged, those official records are no longer accessible to any inquiring member of the public. Accordingly, should an individual or business attempt to verify commercial background data against the Court’s official records, such an effort should result in a finding or conclusion that the commercial data must be in error.
Arrest Data on the Internet
If information about your case appears on the Internet, a court ordered sealing or expungement is not going to cause the data to be removed. It must be remembered that the court order only applies to “official” records. The Pinellas judge has no jurisdiction to direct a private party or commercial entity to remove online data.
As you may have already ascertained, shady Internet entrepreneurs will sometimes take advantage of your misfortune and the easy availability of online arrest data. In the past, they have secured booking information from the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Department and case progress data from the Clerk of Court. Some of these online “mugshot” companies who act in good faith will voluntarily remove the data if you provide them with a certified copy of the court order sealing or expunging your records. Others, will likely hold you at ransom and attempt to extort a fee from you before they agree to remove the data. Much of this problem was alleviated in January of 2014 when the Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced his agency’s decision to no longer publish online booking photos. See: Pinellas Sheriff Removes Online Booking Photos to Stamp Out Mugshot Websites.
Our clients are minimally involved in the sealing and expungement process. Normally, they are not required to attend any court appearances in connection with this remedy. In fact, you can simply call us on the phone to determine your eligibility. We are lawyers who will review the online court records and ask you a few questions to see if you qualify. Typically, we can advise you right over the phone if you are a good candidate.
We are Attorneys who Defend Criminal Charges Arising out of St. Petersburg / Clearwater / Pinellas County.
Call a Former State Prosecutor! Free Consultation (727) 578-0303 Visit our Website: Defenshelp.com
Many of our clients charged with solicitation to commit prostitution are often first time offenders. It is understandable that they experience significant stress associated with their recent law enforcement encounter. These clients also undergo a great deal of uncertainty in connection with their upcoming court appearances. Recently, the Florida legislature has added to their concern. Florida Statute Section 796.07(6) now provides that in addition to other criminal penalties, a person who violates this law shall be assessed a civil penalty of $5,000.00 if the violation results in any judicial disposition other than acquittal or dismissal.
What if there was an Absence of Sexual Activity or Payment?
The great majority of our clients who find themselves facing this offense, got there because of an undercover police sting operation. It is important to first understand that a sexual offense need not actually occur for an individual to be guilty of this charge. To the contrary, it is a violation of the criminal law to simply “solicit,” “induce” or “entice” another to commit “prostitution, lewdness or assignation.”
The word “prostitution” is defined, as “the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire.” Lastly, the term “sexual activity” is defined to include “oral, anal or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another.” It also includes “the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation.”
The bottom line... the offense is committed when there is an offer offer of money in exchange for sexual activity. It not necessary for the prosecutor to show that sexual activity took place or that money was exhibited or exchanged. You can gain a more thorough understanding of this criminal offense, along with defenses and possible solutions by reading our solicitation of prostitution website page.
What if I Am Guilty of Solicitation?
If you are adjudicated guilty, you are subject to the new $5,000.00 civil penalty. Oddly enough, the legislature mandates the civil penalty even where the court agrees to impose a withhold of adjudication that would otherwise avoid a formal conviction.
In addition to the civil penalty, the judge is required to impose fines or cost costs in the amount of $450.00, along with $50.00 cost of prosecution and the reimbursement of investigative costs sought by the arresting agency (approximately $50.00);
In addition, if you used a motor vehicle in the commission of the offense, the DHSMV will impose a mandatory and automatic revocation or suspension of your drivers license. See: Florida Statute Section 322.26(7);
If the offense occurred in St. Petersburg, local ordinance Section 20-122 makes your vehicle subject to seizure and impoundment. Release and return of your vehicle necessitates the payment of a $500.00 civil penalty.
Convincing the Prosecutor to Drop the Charge
In the majority of these sting operations the undercover female police officer is provocatively dressed and wearing a wireless microphone. The audio transmission is simultaneously monitored by back-up officers in marked cruisers who are hidden from view. Although the primary purpose of the wireless audio transmission is for officer safety purposes, we can secure a copy of this recording. A thorough examination of the conversation that took place between you and the under cover officer is essential. Some police officers are very savvy with their language. For example, they might use an innocuous or harmless statement such as “what are you looking for?” This could arguably be interpreted as meaning “are you lost?” Are you looking for the post office? Are you looking for a particular address?, etc. Unfortunately,some of our clients “take the bait” and will respond in an incriminating manner such as, “how about a blow job for $50.00?” On the other hand, we have listened to other recordings and found entrapment defenses and over zealous undercover police officers who “cross the line.” In other words, the criminal charge might be subject to dismissal because the under cover officer herself was primarily responsible for facilitating the proposition.
Armed with the audio tape and a transcript of the conversation, we may be able to convince the Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office that not pursuing a prosecution would be in the best interests of justice. In that case, you would avoid the $5,000.00 civil penalty, along with the sanctions associated with a criminal conviction. Thereafter, you may be eligible to have your criminal records sealed or expunged.
Getting the Charge Dismissed
Talk to us about who is the judge assigned to your Pinellas case and your eligibility to enter a diversion program called Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI). Most clients find that completing the program takes neither a lot of time or effort. Your primary responsibility is to avoid being rearrested within a twelve month period. Best of all, your successful completion of the program will result in the dismissal of the solicitation charge. In many cases, clients are thereafter eligible to have their criminal records sealed.
Getting the Charge Amended
Another potential strategy is to persuade the prosecutor assigned to your case to amend your charge from Florida Statute Section 796.07(2)(b) to Florida Statute Section 796.07(2)(f). A close reading of these two statutes will reveal that the alleged prohibited conduct is very similar. However, the Florida legislature only made the $5,000.00 civil penalty applicable to violations of Florida Statute Section 796.07(2)(b). Both statutes represent the same level or degree of misdemeanor violations of the law and would otherwise carry similar sanctions, but for the $5,000.00 civil penalty.
Why might a prosecutor agree to amend the charge?
A.) A prosecutor may be persuaded that imposing a civil penalty that is ten times the amount of the statutory fine and cost of prosecution is unreasonable. B.) A prosecutor may be persuaded that imposing a civil penalty that represents one-hundred times or more than the amount associated with the offer of solicitation is unreasonable. For example, a $5,000.00 civil penalty is grossly disproportionate to the facts of a case that entail an offer of $50.00 in exchange for oral sex. C.) A prosecutor may be persuaded that the legislature’s calling the $5,000.00 sanction a “civil penalty” is nothing more than “semantics.” Let’s face it, the $5,000.00 is nothing more than an additional fine. In that regard, the $5,000.00 amount violates Florida Statute Section 775.083(e) which limits the fine in solicitation cases to no more than $500.00.
The $5,000.00 Civil Penalty May be Unconstitutional
In the case of State v. Javares Jones (12-21991MM10A), Broward County Judge Kenneth Gottlieb ruled that the mandatory $5,000 civil penalty amounted to “an excessive fine” and “cruel and unusual punishment.” As such, he found that the new “civil penalty” statutory provision to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although this ruling could be persuasive, it is not currently binding on our Pinellas judges. The Javares decision is pending appeal in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The Second District Court of Appeal is currently reviewing this very same issue in State v Cotton 2D 14-2679.
If the Appellate Courts agree that the $5,000.00 civil penalty is unconstitutional, our Pinellas County Judges will thereafter be prohibited from ordering you to pay this sum of money. If the facts of your case do not warrant dismissal by the prosecutor and your prior record makes you ineligible to participate in the PTI program, we may elect a strategy to postpone your case pending the formal findings in the State v. Javares and State v. Cotton appeals.
Protect Your Reputation & Your Finances
If you are facing a solicitation of prostitution charge, both your reputation and finances are in jeopardy. We understand that you may feel uncomfortable, but we can help! Schedule a free confidential consultation to discuss the facts of your case and your options.
We are Lawyers who Aggressively Defend Solicitation for Prostitution Charges Arising out of the St. Petersburg / Clearwater / Pinellas County area.
Call a Former State Prosecutor! Free Consultation with a Criminal Defense Lawyer Pinellas / St. Pete / Clearwater Defense Attorneys
In September of 2014, the United States Justice Department awarded a $750,000 grant to the Florida Department of Corrections to fund the SMART Re-entry Probation Program. Tucked into this grant money was a provision that enabled a new program whereby the court would implement an “administrative diversion option” for handling certain felony violation of probation cases. Beginning in April of 2015 the Pinellas County “Alternative Sanctions Program” (ASP) became operational.
How Does it Work? The Pinellas program now requires a probation officer to inform an offender under their supervision when he has violated a technical condition of his probation and to advise the offender if he is eligible to “side-step” conventional violation of probation proceedings by electing to participate in the “Alternative Sanctions Program.” It is important to understand that this process would take place in lieu of an affidavit of violation of probation being filed with the Clerk of Court. Accordingly, it also avoids a VOP warrant being issued by the judge.
If the offender wishes to participate in the Alternative Sanctions Program, he is then given the opportunity to sign a “Waiver of Formal VOP Hearing, Admission of Violation, and Acceptance of Sanctions. This document includes the date and nature of the violation. It also provides for the probation officer’s recommendation as to the sanctions the court should impose. Pinellas County Administrative Order No. 2014-079 PI-CIR incorporates attachment “A” which is a “Violation/Sanction Matrix.” This Matrix lists twelve common technical violations, along with an approved list of sanctions from which the probation officer is required to select. For example, let’s say the offender tested positive for a controlled substance in connection with a urinalysis. The probation officer would be required to select one or a combination from the following “Approved List of Sanctions:”
1. Drug Evaluation and successfully complete treatment determined necessary. 2. Increase level of treatment program up to and including residential. 3. AA/NA – 1 x week for 60 days. 4. Curfew from 8 PM to 6 AM for 60 days
The offender signs the Alternative Sanctions Program/Waiver document, as does the probation officer and the probation officer’s supervisor. In so doing, the offender admits to the technical violation and acknowledges the recommended sanction(s). This document is then forwarded to the judge, along with a proposed court order for the judge to sign. (Pinellas County Administrative Order No. 2014-079 PI-CIR, attachment “C” incorporates a pre-printed court order.) The court order enables the judge to check off one of three options.
He can approve the offender’s participation in the Alternative Sentencing Program, along with the new sanctions recommended by the probation officer;
Approve the offender’s participation in the Alternative Sentencing Program, but institute different sanctions; or
Deny the offender’s request to participate in the Alternative Sentencing Program and direct the Department of Corrections to submit a Violation Report, Affidavit and Warrant to address the alleged violation.
Who is Eligible for the Alternative Sanctions Program?
Those persons facing a violation of probation proceeding in Division “Q”;
Offenders who reside in Pinellas County and who have stable ties to the community; and
Persons who have a “technical” violation and have not been charged with committing a new criminal offense while on probation.
Who is not Eligible for the Alternative Sanctions Program?
Those persons who were originally sentenced to sex offender probation;
Those persons who have been designated a career offender;
Those violation of probation cases where the underlying basis of the violation includes a violation of a “no contact” provision;
Those persons who were on “Drug Offender” probation;
Those persons who have violated Community Control (House Arrest); and
Those persons who are viewed as an absconder.
Choosing to Participate in the Alternative Sanctions Program
Participation in the ASP is voluntary. It would enable you to continue on probation uninterrupted, as opposed to being arrested and facing a conventional violation of probation proceeding. On the other hand, any person who believes that they are “not guilty” of violating their probationary terms can choose not to participate in this program. If they wish to contest the violation, the matter will proceed in the conventional fashion. In other words, the probation officer will need to file a violation report, an affidavit of violation and request that a warrant be issued. Thereafter, you would be entitled to a violation of probation “evidentiary hearing” where the prosecutor would have the burden of proving the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Are You Entitled to Speak to a Lawyer Before Deciding?
Absolutely! The administrative order openly admits that the Alternative Sentencing Program “will reduce the workload of the Court, State Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, DOC and law enforcement.” But, that is certainly not a reason to sign a legal document that has a significant impact on your case and your future obligations. Not all violations are black and white. For example, you may be in violation of your probation, but perhaps there are mitigating circumstances that the judge should be aware of. We need to ask these questions:
If the judge were to be better informed of the facts and circumstances leading up to the violation, would he likely conclude that the state had not met its burden in proving that the violation was “willful?”
If the judge were to be better informed of the facts and circumstances leading up to the violation, would he likely conclude that the sanctions recommended by the probation officer were inappropriate?
If you are offered the opportunity to enter the Alternative Sentencing Program but want to first speak with a lawyer, it would be prudent to discuss this in a diplomatic way with your probation officer. You should be polite, respectful and express your gratitude for the opportunity. You should indicate that you are inclined to go that route, but that you would like a very brief opportunity to first speak with a lawyer. In that regard, you should suggest scheduling another appointment with the DOC within the following few days to “finalize” the process.
A Decade Ago, “Administrative” Violations Would be Unheard of
In 2004, a Sarasota man by the name of Joseph P. Smith suffered a technical probation violation in connection with his drug possession charge. His judge, Harry Rapkin had a reputation in the legal community for imposing harsh sentences. In fact, he was known to be so tough that it had earned him the courthouse moniker of “Hang ‘Em High Harry.” In this case, Judge Rapkin reinstated the man’s probation. After all, the basis of the violation was a failure to timely meet court imposed financial obligations. Smith was reinstated on probation and released from custody, whereupon the offender committed the heinous act of abducting, raping and murdering a child. A firestorm of controversy erupted over how the Florida courts handled felony violations of probation. Judge Rapkin received death threats and there were even organized efforts to remove him from the bench. See also: The Problem With Probation-St. Petersburg Times.
The Smith case caused a knee-jerk reaction in Pinellas County and across the State of Florida. Felony probation officers were instructed to request a warrant in every case, regardless of the nature of the violation. The age old practice of the Department of Corrections providing a written sentence recommendation to the judge was terminated. In addition, Pinellas County felony violation of probation warrants thereafter carried a zero bond amount. This meant that a bondsman would serve no purpose, because no amount of money could secure your release without a hearing and the judge’s subsequent modification of the bond.
But... times change. Budgetary problems often skew public policy and legislation. Below are some examples:
Potential Legal Issues Raised by the Alternative Sanctions Program
Last year, a misdemeanor VOP alternative sentencing path in Pinellas County was found to be contrary to Florida law. The program was well intentioned and strongly supported by Pinellas County Criminal Defense lawyers. Nevertheless, the appellate court took issue with the method of imposing VOP sentences and invalidated the sentencing methods being employed. As with any new program, only the future will tell if the ASP is well conceived. The three criminal defense lawyers in our office have already identified what we believe to be a deficiency in the Sanctions/Waiver document. There are additional issues that may need to be resolved and are likely to lead to litigation. Consider these points:
1. An arrest for a felony violation of probation can clearly be avoided by using a “notification letter” as authorized by Florida Statute Section 948.06(1)(g). However, we believe that in order for a modification of an offender’s probation to be lawful and enforceable, Florida Statute Section 948.06(2)(a-e) requires that the offender appear before the court. This premise appears to have been recognized in 2007 by then Chief Judge Robert j. Morris when he drafted Administrative Order Number: 2007-081-PA/PI-CIR. Judge Morris authorized a method of handling violations of felony probation consistent with then recently amended Florida Statute Section 948.06(1). That earlier administrative order provided for a means of avoiding the expense associated with the issuing and serving of a warrant. However, it is important to recognize that Judge Morris provided within his order an approved “Notice to Appear” to be used in scheduling a violation of probation hearing that mandated the offender’s appearance before the Circuit Court.
The Second District Court of Appeal in Suliany Ivette Garcia-Medina v. State of Florida, relying on the Florida Supreme Court in Clark v. State held that “Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1987), provides the sole means by which the court may place additional terms on a previously entered order of probation or community control. Before probation may be enhanced, a violation of probation must be formally charged and the probationer must be brought before the court and advised of the charge.” In Clark, Justice Shaw wrote “Before probation or community control may be enhanced, either by extension of the period or by addition of terms, a violation of probation or community control must be formally charged and the probationer must be brought before the court and advised of the charge following the procedures of section 948.06. Absent proof of a violation, the court cannot change an order of probation or community control by enhancing the terms thereof, even if the defendant has agreed in writing with his probation officer to allow such a modification and has waived notice and hearing.” See also in support: Senior Judge David Demer’s highly regarded “Violations of Probation” Outline “Change in Sentence with VOP” Section II, A,(12), pages 6-7.
In our view, the new administrative felony violation of probation plan is unauthorized by both statutory and case law. If Pinellas County wants to save valuable resources by avoiding the issuance and execution of an arrest warrant, they need only have the probation officer issue the offender a written “notification letter of a technical violation.” This process is permitted by Florida Statute Section 948.06(1)(g). However, the letter should provide within it the date, time and place of the offender’s court hearing. This additional information would comply with Florida Statute Section 948.06(2) and the aforementioned appellate court decisions.
2. When given the choice between admitting to the violation of probation or getting arrested, does the subsequent admission comply with the Due Process the offender is guaranteed under the constitution? In addition, given the choice of signing the document or getting arrested, does the securing of an admission to the violation pass the strict requirement that it be made freely and voluntarily? Could these considerations serve as a defense and bar to a prosecution on a subsequent violation based on the offender’s failure to comply with new sanctions that were imposed in the Waiver of Formal VOP Hearing, Admission of Violation, and Acceptance of Sanctions document?
3. If the offender violates his probation again, is it appropriate to score six “community sanction” points for every previous “administrative” violation when calculating his sentence under the Florida Criminal Punishment Code (Sentencing Guidelines)? After all, these previous administrative violations were never based on sworn affidavits of violation. To complicate matters, the September 10th, 2014 Press Release issued by the Department of Corrections refers to ASP as “an administrative diversion option.” Yet, the Pinellas County Administrative order does not define the ASP Program as a “Diversion” program. In addition, an “administrative violation of probation” is not an act that permits “community sanction” points to be imposed under the “community sanction” definition found within the sentencing guidelines.
4. If the Judge imposes sanctions that differ from those that were selected by the probation officer and agreed to by the offender, would a subsequent violation of the substitute sanctions be subject to a challenge?
5. If the Judge imposes sanctions that differ from those that the offender agreed to and the offender then declines to participate in ASP, can his admission found in the Waiver of Formal VOP Hearing, Admission of Violation, and Acceptance of Sanctions document be used against him in a VOP evidentiary hearing?
6. If the offender would otherwise score mandatory state prison under the Florida Criminal Punishment Code as a result of a technical VOP, is he still eligible for participation in ASP?
7. In the event of a subsequent technical violations of probation, how many times can an offender participate in ASP? The administrative order is silent on this issue, while the Waiver of Formal VOP Hearing, Admission of Violation, and Acceptance of Sanctions document has a “check box” inquiring if this is a first or second violation. Then again, the administrative order provides that a probation officer “will” inform offenders of their eligibility for ASP and does not disqualify anyone for participation on the basis of multiple technical violations.
8. Could an ambiguity in the administrative order serve to later invalidate an ASP sentence modification? More specifically, the administrative order sets forth those offenders who qualify to participate.Paragraph 2 and 2(a) states ”Participation in the ASP is limited to offenders who were sentenced in Section Q in Pinellas County.” A plain reading of this requirement suggests that offenders who were originally sentenced in other court room divisions do not qualify. As such, to qualify, an offender would have to be facing at a minimum, his second violation of probation. Keeping the Proper Perspective
If you are facing a Violation of Probation, you need to speak to a lawyer, regardless if your violation is technical or substantive. These are serious matters. As you have seen, the law is complex and the potential impact on your freedom is great.
We are Attorneys who Aggressively Defend Violation of Probation Charges Arising out of St. Petersburg / Clearwater / Pinellas County.
Call a Former State Prosecutor! Free Consultation with a Lawyer Pinellas / St. Pete / Clearwater Defense Lawyers
Pinellas County Judges are subject to being transferred to new courtrooms and new assignments, twice each calendar year. These changes typically take effect shortly after the first of each calendar year and again on July1st.
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2015-022 PI-CTY, on July 1st, 2015 we can expect the following rotation of Pinellas judges who handle criminal and traffic court matters:
John Carballo is leaving Misdemeanor Division “G.” However, his replacement has yet to be decided and announced;
Judge Susan Bedinghaus is leaving Misdemeanor Division “P” and has been assigned to replace Judge James Pierce at the North County (Clearwater) Traffic Court Division
Judge James Pierce has yet to be assigned his new division.
Judge John Carballo will be joining Judge Paul Levine in handling section “P” advisories, including first appearance for domestic violence criminal cases; arraignment hearings on Notices to Appear; Local Ordinance Violations, non-criminal payable infractions and other duties assigned by the Court;
Judge Anthony Rondolino will replace Judge J. Thomas McGrady and become our new Administrative Chief Judge in Division “J”;
Judge J. Thomas McGrady will replace Judge Frank Quesada in Division “O”;
Judge Frank Quesda will replace Judge Cynthia Newton in Division “K.” Judge Cynthia Newton will be moving to the Circuit Civil Division in St. Petersburg;
If you have recently been arrested for a first time DUI offense in Pinellas county, it is perfectly natural to feel a sense of uncertainty. You might also be tempted to quickly resolve your case so that you can put the experience behind you and “move on with your life.”
Handle the Case Yourself?
You might be asking yourself “Do I really need a lawyer for a first time DUI offense? Friends or relatives may have even expressed their opinion that perhaps you should “go at it alone.” After all, there was no accident, minor children in your car or other aggravating factors associated with your arrest. Perhaps you have been reassuring yourself that you are “only a first time offender” or that you should consider “saving a few bucks.”
Keeping the Right Perspective
Currently, you find yourself facing a criminal offense with mandatory court appearances in a complex legal system. If you were suffering a medical problem, you would surely consult with a doctor. Facing a DUI is unlike battling the common cold. You can’t just muddle your way through by waiting for your body to fight off the cold. There are likewise no “over-the-counter” remedies.
It is important to keep in mind that our legal system is “adversary” in nature. You will be up against an experienced prosecutor. In addition, the laws pertaining to driving under the influence offenses are complicated. Your case will necessitate hearings in both a courtroom and at the Department of Highway Safety Division of Drivers Licenses. Seeking help from a qualified lawyer is imperative, since in most cases, you only have one opportunity to get the best possible result.
A first-time DUI conviction can have far reaching effects on your reputation, privilege to drive, employment opportunities, and your ability to hold or obtain professional licensing. Facing a DUI charge is definitely not the same thing as getting a speeding ticket. See: How Can a DUI Affect My Vehicle Insurance Coverage in Florida?
A Great Outcome Despite Evidence That Seems Stacked Against You
The facts of your case might entail Intoxilyzer results over the .08 presumptive level of impairment. Perhaps you made some incriminating statements to the police officer about your consumption of alcohol. See: What if the Police Fail to Read my Miranda Rights. You might also be second guessing your performance of roadside field sobriety tests. In sum... the facts and evidence in your case may seem stacked against you.
Although your personal assessment of the case may be unfavorable, the truth is that an experienced DUI defense attorney will be focused on the legal and scientific aspects of your case. These are important areas for which you are likely unfamiliar. See: Keeping Your Breath Test Out of Court
A Sampling of DUI Issues You Probably Never Considered
Did the officer establish probable cause that a traffic infraction occurred to justify the initial stop of your vehicle and did you receive a separate traffic ticket?
Did law enforcement develop “reasonable suspicion” that you were impaired by alcohol or a controlled substances to legally justify a prolonged detention to conduct his DUI investigation?
Will a review of the videotape reveal improprieties or a failure of law enforcement to conduct a fair and honest appraisal of your state of sobriety?
Did the officer properly administer field sobriety testing in a manner that was consistent with the guidelines set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?
Was the officer a qualified “expert” in the administration of HGN or Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus testing? (The test where the officer moved a pen or light in front of your eyes.)
Were the field sobriety tests conducted in an area that was level, well lit, and free of debris?
Were the shoes you were wearing appropriate for the roadside field sobriety testing?
Do you suffer from any medical conditions or physical disabilities that would have affected your performance of the roadside field sobriety testing?
If you are a diabetic, was your blood sugar checked by a paramedic or an Emergency Medical Technician?
Did your fasting or consuming of a low calorie diet cause you to experience ketoacidosis?
Did the officer develop sufficient “probable cause” to place you under arrest for DUI?
Did the officer properly fulfill the requirement of a mandatory “twenty minute observation period” prior to requesting a breath test?
Prior to taking the breath test, did you place anything into your mouth?;
Prior to taking the breath test, did you regurgitate any contents from your stomach?
Did the machine properly pass its calibration inspections both before and after your breath test?;
Was the machine inspected by a “Department Inspector” from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Alcohol Testing Program during the calendar year of your arrest?
Was the volume of your breath sample sufficient to qualify as a “valid” breath test (1.1 liters of air)?
Using “retrograde extrapolation” can we establish that, although your breath alcohol level was above .08 at the time that you blew into the machine, your breath alcohol level was under a .08 at the time of driving. (Florida DUI law focuses on “at the time of driving and not “at the time of testing.”)
If you refused the breath test, the prosecutor has been deprived of an important piece of evidence. Can your “refusal” serve as a tactical advantage in negotiations?
A DUI conviction is a serious matter that can affect you for the rest of your life. For that reason, the lawyers in our office are committed to “leaving no stone unturned.”
Clients are sometimes surprised to learn that key pieces of evidence in their case may be inadmissible in court. Using our background, experience and training, we can sometimes leverage a plea bargain to result in having a DUI charge reduced to the lesser offense of reckless driving.
We are Attorneys who Aggressively Defend DUI Charges Arising out of St. Petersburg / Clearwater / Pinellas County.
Call a Former State Prosecutor! Free Consultation with a DUI Lawyer Pinellas / St. Pete / Clearwater DUI Lawyers
Operation PAR has a stellar reputation for providing valuable counseling services associated with alcohol and drug addiction. On April 17th, 2015 The Law firm of Russo & Russo was honored at the “2015 Poetic Justice Gala” event at the Sirata Beach Resort on St. Pete Beach. Attorneys Frank Russo, Marc Pelletier and Tim Sullivan were chosen to be among the “45 Stars Who Have Contributed to the Success of Operation PAR Since its Inception 45 Years Ago.”
Humble Beginnings Evolve Into Helping Thousands With Addiction
Operation PAR had humble beginnings in 1970 when Shirley Coletti had the inspiration to fill a void in our local community’s battle against addiction. State Attorney James T. Russell, Pinellas County Sheriff Don Genung and former Pinellas County Commissioner Charles Rainey joined Coletti in founding Operation PAR. Today, that same organization has a staff in excess of 400 employees and offers integrated addiction and mental health services in five Florida Counties.
In addition to the original founders, other honorees included:
Judge Horace Andrews
Barbara Bush
Charlie Crist
Senator Jack Latvala
Pinellas Commissioner Susan Latvala
Nancy Reagan
Betty Sembler
Kay Dillinger
Martha Lenderman
Judge William Walker
Congressman C.W. Bill Young
How Operation PAR Can Affect the Outcome of Your Case
The criminal defense lawyers at Russo and Russo consult with clients at both their St. Petersburg and Clearwater office locations. These attorneys are former state prosecutors with significant experience in the Pinellas county criminal justice system. Attorneys Russo, Pelletier and Sullivan work as a team in analyzing a client’s felony, misdemeanor, DUI or Violation of Probation charges. The lawyers design an appropriate strategy in their effort to secure the best possible outcome. When the criminal offense is related to addiction or their client suffers from a dual diagnosis, (addiction and mental health issues) they often turn to the services of Operation PAR.
Local Pinellas County Judges are highly receptive to individuals who take a proactive approach to seeking counseling and treatment before their case is heard in court. The judges believe that if an addiction contributed to the arrest and the individual has taken steps to voluntarily address the problem, there is a far less likelihood they will re-engage in future criminal conduct. Representatives from PAR are highly motivated to attend court proceedings with your lawyer and speak in support of your efforts and progress directed at recovery from addiction. The clinical opinion and testimony from a Certified Addiction Professional is highly regarded by the court in the context of amenability to treatment, potential for success and sentence mitigation in your effort to avoid incarceration. See: Further information on PAR’s Criminal Justice Liaison, Georgina Rullo.
Multiple Offender DUI’s – Substituting Operation PAR for Jail
Russo and Russo was instrumental in convincing Operation PAR to offer treatment that would otherwise substitute for mandatory jail sentences in multiple offender DUI cases. This authority arises out of Florida Statute Section 316.193(6)(m). Since the implementation of this specialized program, countless individuals have avoided jail and spent their time more constructively by getting appropriate treatment.
The lawyers at Russo & Russo share membership with the Operation PAR staff in the Florida Association of Drug Court Professionals. The attorneys likewise regularly attend and support Operation PAR functions. The lawyers have participated as instructors for seminars conducted for the PAR staff. Their counsel and advice is designed to “bridge the gap” between the treatment provider and the Pinellas County Criminal Justice system. Counselors can ask questions of the lawyers and the lawyers can deliver suggestions and recommendations back to the judiciary. It was an honor for the lawyers to be recognized as part of the PAR family.
Update: In 2017, our firm changed names from Russo and Russo to Russo Pelletier & Sullivan. Our goal and genuine commitment remain the same as well as our close ties to the legal community.
Attorneys who Defend Criminal Charges Arising out of St. Petersburg / Clearwater / Pinellas County.
Call a Former State Prosecutor! Free Consultation (727) 578-0303
Non lawyers are often confused when it comes to legal terminology. You could be facing a Florida criminal offense (misdemeanors or felony.) In the alternative, it might be a traffic ticket. Regardless of the charge, many people believe that if they plead “guilty,” they will be convicted of the offense. ” Similarly, it is an urban legend that if you plead “no contest” or “nolo contendere” you avoid conviction. In reality, the nature of your plea has nothing to do with the formal outcome or sentence that is thereafter imposed by the judge in your case.
What is the difference between “no contest’ and a “guilty” plea?
“No Contest” pleas are commonly used when there is an accident or injury associated with the charge. The party in the wrong is concerned about the prospect of a subsequent civil law suit for monetary damages. A “no contest” plea is not admissible or relevant in later civil litigation. Therefore, from a strategy standpoint, it sometimes makes good sense to plead “no contest.”
A “guilty” plea in traffic or criminal court can later be used by the victim to help prove your negligence in a subsequent civil law suit. A “guilty” plea is therefore an admission or acceptance of guilt. Whereas, a plea of “no contest plea” or “nolo contendere” plea means that I am not going to admit my guilt. But at the same time, I do not want my case to proceed to trial. I just won’t contest the charge.
The difference between “adjudication” and “withhold of adjudication”?
This brings us to the Judge’s actions or formal findings after he accepts your “guilty” or “no contest” plea. In most cases, the Judge has the power to “adjudicate” or to “withhold adjudication.” In simple terms, an “adjudication” means you are “convicted,” whereas a “withhold of adjudication” means that although you are being sentenced and penalties are being imposed, you are not going to suffer the stigma and collateral consequences of a formal conviction. This discretion is afforded the judge pursuant to Florida Statute Section 948.01. A “withhold of adjudication” associated with a felony would prevent you from being a convicted felon. A “withhold” of adjudication associated with a traffic infraction or ticket would prevent you from receiving points on your driving record that could otherwise impact your insurance premiums or possibly jeopardize your driving privileges.
Benefits of a Withhold of Adjudication
Avoids being a convicted felon;
Avoids losing your right to vote, hold public office or serve on a jury;
Allows you to check the box “no” on an employment application that asks “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense?”;
Avoids being convicted of damaging misdemeanors associated with untruthfulness or dishonesty. (For example, worthless check or theft related offenses.);
May avoid a habitual traffic offender designation that otherwise carries a mandatory administrative five year drivers license suspension;
Avoids an otherwise mandatory one year drivers license suspension associated with a misdemeanor or felony dug conviction;
Avoids some felony enhancements caused by a prior misdemeanor offense;
Avoids points being assessed against your drivers license;
Prevents automatic disqualification from several areas of employment;
Prevents automatic disqualification from obtaining many occupational or professional licenses;
In the case of felonies, prevents automatic disqualification to own, use or possess a firearm;
No contest pleas & withhold of adjudication Not always the “saving grace”
Having an experienced Pinellas county lawyer evaluate the individual facts and circumstances of your case, along with your ultimate objective is critical. For example, you might think that to “play it safe”, you need to always pursue a “no contest” plea coupled with a “withholding of adjudication.” But it is just not that simple. Take for example the following offenses:
If you were to enter a no “contest plea” in connection with any of the above charges, Florida Statute Section 322.0261(4)(a) mandates that the DHSMV require you to attend and complete a driver improvement course within 90 days or suffer a drivers license suspension. Note that this provision applies even if you benefitted from a withholding of adjudication.
With respect to these limited charges, a “guilty plea” coupled with a “withhold of adjudication” would eliminate your need to attend the driver improvement course. Although, keep in mind that if your case involves an accident, a “guilty plea” would be an admission to your negligence in operating a motor vehicle. As such, it could come back to haunt you in the event of a subsequent civil lawsuit. Given these types of complexities in the law, getting the advice and assistance of an attorney is the only prudent course of action to protect your best interests.
There are other times when a no contest plea and withhold of adjudication are not the “saving grace.” For example, Rule XXIV of the Pinellas County Employment Handbook reveals that an employee could be suspended after the entry of a “plea of guilty” or “no contest” to any 1st degree misdemeanor or felony offense, regardless if adjudication was withheld (Subsection 30). The employee could be terminated after the entry of a “plea of guilty” or “no contest” for any offense involving moral turpitude, regardless if adjudication was withheld (Subsection 31).
Those persons subject to immigration proceedings have likewise found that the federal government equates a “withhold of adjudication” with a conviction. This problem exists because there are no parallel legal provisions within the federal court system. It is not uncommon to have immigration lawyers working hand in hand with criminal defense attorneys in an effort to secure a formal outcome that may avoid deportation.
Mandatory Adjudications
With some criminal offenses, the Florida Legislature has taken away the judge’s discretion to withhold a formal adjudication of guilt. Perhaps, the most common example of this is DUI (See: Florida Statute Section 316.656 which expressly requires an adjudication of guilt.) It also encompasses any felony offense that carries a mandatory minimum period of incarceration, for example Drug Trafficking. A skilled attorney can sometimes sidestep this problem by successfully negotiating with the prosecutor to amend the criminal charge to an offense that would otherwise not prohibit a withhold.
Under Florida Statute Section 775.08435, the Circuit Court Judge is likewise precluded from summarily withholding adjudication in second degree felony cases. However, the court still has the discretion to avoid a formal conviction if your lawyer files a written motion on your behalf and is successful in convincing the court that your individual circumstances fall within one of the mitigated provisions outlined under Florida Statute Section 921.0026.
The Time to Act is Now
If you have been arrested for a criminal offense, the time to protect your reputation is now. Don’t subject yourself to a major impact on your life that could result from a seeming minor nuance in legal jargon. Trying to later fix the wrong outcome in your case could be expensive and uncertain. While your case is pending, your lawyer will have greater leverage in his efforts to achieve your objectives.
Call us for a free consultation and let’s discuss all of your options.
In every Florida DUI or DUI Manslaughter case, there must be proof of “driving” or “actual physical control.” If a police officer or another witness is able to identify you as the individual who moved the vehicle (however short the distance,) then the element of “driving” is satisfied. In some cases, the prosecutor will attempt to prove that you were the driver by your own admissions.
The Prosecutor’s Use of Circumstantial Evidence in a DUI Can They Prove You “Drove” a Vehicle?
The prosecutor may have greater difficulty in meeting their burden when they are forced to prove your driving through circumstantial evidence. A “circumstantial evidence” scenario typically arises in the context of a motor vehicle accident where the accused was never seen in control of the car. For example, consider the following situation:
A Pinellas County Deputy Sherriff is on routine patrol in an isolated area when he observes a vehicle stuck in a drainage ditch.
The driver’s side door is open and an adult male is observed standing on the paved road adjacent to the vehicle.
There are no other persons in the area.
The hood and front grille of the vehicle are warm to the touch. This suggests that the vehicle’s motor was recently running.
Further investigation reveals that the vehicle is registered to the suspect who smells of alcohol.
The bottom of the suspect’s pant legs are wet. His wet pant legs are consistent with someone who was forced to exit the vehicle and walk though the watery ditch to gain access to the roadway.
Under these facts, the deputy lacks an eye witness (commonly referred to as a “wheel witness”) to testify that they saw the male individual drive the vehicle into the ditch. Yet, everyone knows that the vehicle could not have driven itself. Thus, it is a reasonable inference under the circumstances that the male suspect had swerved off of the roadway and crashed the vehicle into the ditch. Thus, through “circumstantial evidence” a judge or jury may conclude that the male suspect “drove” the vehicle.
Every case is different. In fact, most DUI cases that rely on circumstantial evidence are typically not as straight forward as the aforementioned example. In fact, when a prosecutor lacks a “wheel witness,” it can often spell trouble in proving the case. It is therefore important to have an experienced lawyer evaluate your DUI case. A circumstantial evidence DUI case can sometimes be a good candidate for a Pinellas County DUI Defense attorney to have his client’s DUI charge reduced to a reckless driving offense.
What is “Actual Physical Control” in Florida
Many clients come to us after their arrest for DUI or DUI Manslaughter and we determine that the prosecutor will not be able to prove “driving” through direct or circumstantial evidence. At this juncture, our DUI defense team must look to whether the prosecutor can alternatively prove that our client exercised “actual physical control” of the vehicle. In order to prove “actual physical control,” (commonly referred to as “APC”,) the prosecutor must show that:
The accused was observed seated “in” a motionless vehicle. (In the case of a motorcycle, “on” the bike);
The accused had the capability to operate the vehicle. (This includes the present ability to operate, move or park the vehicle);
The vehicle was operable. (Capable of being started and driven)
Again, the facts of every case are different. However in determining the sufficiency of evidence to establish an APC case, the courts must look to the “totality of the circumstances.” There are generally three major considerations:
Whether the accused had actual or constructive possession of the key to the vehicle’s ignition. Note that the key need not necessarily be in the ignition or found on the person of the accused. Under the “constructive possession” theory, the key need only be shown to be accessible to the accused and evidence exist that he knew of its whereabouts;
Whether the accused was observed positioned in the driver’s seat behind the wheel; and
Whether the vehicle was “reasonably capable of being operated.” (Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the Judge is required to dismiss the DUI charge if the undisputed facts affirmatively establish inoperability. See: Fla. Std. Jury Instr (Crim) 28.1 and Jones v. State.
What if I Never Intended to Drive?
Motorists often pull their vehicle over and park their car when they realize that they may be unfit to drive. This sets them up for a DUI APC arrest. As a result, the Florida law seems to impliedly encourage impaired motorists to continue driving in an effort to “make it home.” It then becomes a dangerous challenge to make it to their destination without detection by law enforcement or involving themselves in an accident.
An individual who gets behind the wheel of a parked car with no intention to drive, (for the limited purpose of sleeping off the effects of the alcohol or drug) also sets himself up as an easy target for a DUI arrest. Remember, that the prosecutor need not prove that you intended to drive. He only needs to show that you either drove or were in actual physical control.
It is not hard to find fault with Florida’s statutory APC provisions. Not surprisingly, some states, such as Ohio, have made APC cases a lesser offense than a DUI. See: O.R.C. 4511.194 In those states, an APC case carries fewer penalties, less stigma and is preferable to motorists holding commercial drivers licenses. Yet, the Florida appellate courts have upheld the constitutional validity of our APC statute on the following grounds:
A legitimate government interest exists in apprehending impaired individuals who are in Actual Physical Control of a vehicle “before they strike” and endanger others on the road. See: Lamore v. State;
The APC statute protects the public from the danger of an impaired person who places himself behind the wheel and could with little difficulty start the vehicle and drive away.
APC Cases.. Good Candidates for Reckless Driving Reduction
In Florida a single DUI statute FS 316.193 contemplates both “Driving” and “Actual Physical Control.” Therefore, to have a DUI charge reduced in Florida means having your lawyer secure a reduction to a “Reckless Driving” offense. Fairness and equity can sometimes be called upon in convincing the prosecutor that reducing the DUI charge is in the best interests of justice. Consider some of the following compelling scenarios:
Drivers who began to feel the effects of alcohol and elected to do the prudent thing by pulling over and lawfully parking their vehicle;
A person who exited a drinking establishment, recognized that he was unfit to drive and elected to enter his vehicle for the sole purpose of sleeping;
Spouses or “significant others” who were consuming alcohol and then became embroiled in an argument. Whereupon one left the residence and sat in his vehicle to avoid a further escalation of the domestic dispute;
A driver who safely makes it home to his driveway, but is then apprehended by the police because he delayed exit from his vehicle due to completing a cell phone call.
An individual phones a friend to drive him home, but imprudently sat in his car with the air conditioning running while await his friend’s arrival.
As discussed above, a Pinellas prosecutor faces a greater challenge when he attempts to prove an Actual Physical Control case. As a result, a St. Petersburg DUI lawyer can sometimes use both legal arguments and mitigating factual circumstances as combined leverage to secure a reduction from a DUI to a Reckless Driving offense. See the numerous benefits of getting a DUI charge reduced to a Reckless Driving offense.
We Can Help in Your DUI Case
If you have been arrested for a Pinellas County Actual Physical Control DUI, we are lawyers who can help. We will want to discuss the facts of your case and closely review the allegations in the narrative police report. Your case could be a good candidate for a motion to dismiss the DUI charge. In the alternative, perhaps it might be appropriate to prepare affidavits to support your contention that you never intended to drive the vehicle.
We need to direct the prosecutor’s focus on the fact that there was no accident or injury in your case. Further, that by not driving, you intended to do “the right thing.” Our team of former state prosecutors can closely examine all aspects of your case and can consider any available defenses. It could be your objective to have us aggressively litigate your case in the courtroom. In the alternative, you may seek our services for the purpose of negotiating an amenable plea bargain. Either way, the long term ramifications of a DUI conviction makes it critical that you retain a law firm for whom you have the highest degree of trust and confidence.
Call us to schedule a free consultation: (727) 578-0303
If you have been involved in a Pinellas county vehicular accident that resulted in a fatality, you could be facing the threat of an impending arrest for DUI Manslaughter. These types of cases often entail hospital or legal blood draws. (See our video below on “Challenging Blood Evidence in DUI Manslaughter Cases”.) Because of the serious nature of the this criminal offense, local law enforcement will sometimes await the blood test results from the hospital or lab before making an arrest.
How an Early Intervention Can Help
By meeting with our defense team early, we can discuss an effective strategy to quickly secure your release from the Pinellas County Jail - in the event you are arrested for the charge. We can also discuss timely “proactivesteps” that could later benefit your defense to the charge.
Preserving Exculpatory Evidence
We need to start the process with the discovery of any helpful witness testimony or helpful evidence in your case. The memory of witnesses can fade over time or be forever lost. So, contacting these potential witnesses early to preserve their statements could be highly beneficial.
Our private investigator can take immediate proactive steps to protect exculpatory evidence, such as the measuring of skid marks or photographing property damage.
There are even times when our investigator may be able to locate security videos from local businesses. These cameras may have captured the driver of the other automobile operating their vehicle in an unsafe manner.
Event Data Recorders – The Black Box
Many clients are surprised to learn that vehicles sold in the United States are often equipped with a “black box” or “event data recorder. When an accident occurs, these devices automatically save data from before, during and after the crash. The black boxes track speed, steering, braking, acceleration, seatbelt usage and force of impact.
Timely securing this critical evidence could give us a valuable “head start.” If the data fails to demonstrate careless or negligent driving on your part, this could facilitate our early intervention with the prosecutor and a strong argument that a DUI Manslaughter charge is not warranted in your case. (See our video below on “Causation Issues in DUI Manslaughter Cases.)
Taking the First Step
If you are facing a DUI Manslaughter prosecution, this is a serious matter and the stakes are high. You need lawyers with the necessary background and experience to thoroughly investigate and defend your case. Your careful selection of a law firm will give you the confidence and trust you deserve.
One of the legal strategies we sometimes employ when defending clients accused of a DUI Manslaughter charge is the element of “causation.” In other words, was the cause of the accident our client’s fault, or can we demonstrate another “intervening cause.”
You should never rely on the accuracy of a potentially over-zealous law enforcement officer who drafted the accident investigation report in your case. Police departments will sometimes conduct a less than thorough investigation. They can be very quick in drawing conclusions, assessing blame and pointing the finger.
Retaining the Services of an Expert
In DUI Manslaughter cases, we are able to retain our own independent Accident Reconstructionist expert to do “drag coefficient” checks on the asphalt and to carefully examine the vehicles that were involved in the crash.
Sometimes, our expert can gain additional valuable insight by accessing information from a vehicle’s “event data recorder” or “black box.” Using the laws of physics and engineering principles, our Accident Reconstructionist will be able to render an opinion as to the speed of the vehicles and most of the events leading up to the accident. More importantly, an accident Reconstructionist can identify the cause of the accident, the roles of both drivers, possible mechanical defects and the impact of the roadway or the environment.
Perhaps, the cause of the accident was not our client’s fault. In fact, there are times when an Accident Reconstructionist will conclude that the person who died, was in fact, the cause of their own death.
We may also want to employ the services of a forensic “Human Factors” consultant. These are experts within the scientific discipline of “human error,” and accident analysis. A “Human Factors” consultant does a calculation and assessment of “perception time,” “decision time” and “reaction time.” His analysis is designed to determine whether it is appropriate to assign human error in an accident.
A Human Factors expert may be able to say that given the facts and circumstances in your case, no person would have been able to consciously recognize the impending danger and thereafter undergo the necessary thought process to make an appropriate timely response. For example, no matter who the driver might have been, there simply wasn’t enough time for them to apply their brakes or to steer clear of the other vehicle. In other words, sometimes an “accident” is just that, “an accident” that nobody could have avoided whether they had been drinking alcohol or not.
Improving Your Position to Negotiate
If you are threatened with a DUI Manslaughter charge, the stakes are high. But, DUI Manslaughter cases can be defended. You need an attorney who will investigate and question every aspect of your case to protect your freedom and your privilege to drive. It is sometimes possible to show the Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office defects in their case. Finding a weakness or a conflict in the evidence could open up discussions for a reduction or a dismissal of the charge.
How We Can Help
If you are convicted of a Florida DUI Manslaughter charge, the Florida Criminal Punishment code provides for harsh sentencing penalties. This can be rather disturbing to someone facing a prosecution for this offense. After all, you certainly never “intended” to hurt anyone. See: DUI Manslaughter... an Unintended Crime in Florida. If you are facing a Pinellas DUI Manslaughter charge, you need a team of lawyers who can closely examine the issue of causation and other available defenses. Whether your focus is on successful courtroom litigation or having your lawyer negotiate an amenable plea bargain, the serious nature of these cases makes it critical that you retain lawyers for whom you have the highest degree of trust and confidence.
Call us to schedule a free consultation: (727) 578-0303