In Florida, burglary of a dwelling is a second-degree felony offense that could expose you to penalties that include up to 15 years of imprisonment.
For the prosecution to succeed in convicting you for burglary of a dwelling, they must be able to show that you:
Burglary of a dwelling is a more serious charge than burglary of a structure/conveyance or other theft crimes (such as petit theft), and as such, a successful defense is likely to involve arguments that first attempt to avoid liability altogether, and then — in the alternative — attempt to minimize liability by “downgrading” the charge. If you’ve been charged with burglary of a dwelling, you may be feeling overwhelmed with the prospect of liability. After all, it may seem exceedingly difficult to avoid or minimize liability given that the nature of the offense involves an element of vulnerability: your presence in the another’s home. Let’s take a look at some common defenses. The Structure is Not a Dwelling The difference between a conviction for burglary of a structure and burglary of a dwelling is quite substantial. Burglary of a structure is a first-degree felony with penalties of up to five years imprisonment, compared to 15 years imprisonment for burglary of a dwelling. As such, having your charge “downgraded” is an excellent negotiation tool to minimize the risk of liability. Dwellings are rather broadly construed under the law, and the definition covers all buildings that have a roof and are occupied for the purpose of lodging overnight. This definition includes associated structures, such as connected buildings and spaces. If you were to break into an individual’s large residential property and steal valuable statues from the courtyard next to their house, that act would likely qualify as burglary of a dwelling. When putting forth this defense, you’ll want to show that the structure had some other primary purpose and was not intended for use as lodging. Alternatively, you can show that the building was not occupied. For example, a farmhouse that is unoccupied for years will not qualify as a dwelling. Your Entry Was Authorized Burglary charges require unlawful entry. If you were authorized to enter by the individual that owned or possessed the property, then you cannot be held liable (absent other circumstantial issues) for burglary. For example, if the victim invites you to a party at their home and you steal a vase from their bedroom, you may be held liable for theft, but not for burglary — the unlawful entry element is not satisfied under such circumstances. There Was No Intent to Commit a Criminal Offense Burglary is a specific intent crime, and as such, if you did not have the intent to unlawfully enter the victim’s property, or the intent to commit a criminal offense on their property, then a burglary charge will not stick. For example, suppose that you enter your neighbor’s house at night, thinking that it is your own house (and that you’re locked out). You break in and take cash off the table before leaving to rejoin your friends. All of it is a “mistake,” and you did not have the intent to unlawfully enter the neighbor’s house or to commit a crime (stealing their money). Given the circumstances, you could not be held liable for burglary. Mistaken Identity Oftentimes, burglaries are committed at night, and as such, visibility is limited. Police may not make an arrest until hours or even days later once the facts are pieced together. Mistakes can be made, and it’s certainly possible that you did not commit the burglary but have been mistaken for the actual burglar. If you have been charged with the burglary of a dwelling, you could be exposed to significant criminal liability. Given the high stakes nature of burglary charges, it’s critical that you consult early with a qualified attorney who has extensive experience handling such disputes.
0 Comments
Obtaining property -- in other words, goods, services, and other things of value -- by issuing a check that you know isn’t backed by sufficient funds may seem like a rather minor offense. But in Florida, you could be punished severely. Penalties may include several years of imprisonment and thousands of dollars in fines.
ISSUING WORTHLESS CHECKS VS. OBTAINING PROPERTY BY WORTHLESS CHECK Section 832.05 of the Florida Statutes describes the offense of “Obtaining Property by Worthless Check.” Under the law, it is illegal for any person, firm, or corporation to issue a check, to use a debit card, or to otherwise make a written order on any bank or depository, knowing that there are insufficient funds to cover the purported payment. There are two related offenses in Florida: Issuing Worthless Checks and Obtaining Property by Worthless Check. They are similar in that knowing issuance of a check (or use of a debit card or written order) is a requirement for criminal liability, but distinct in that Obtaining Property by Worthless Check involves a receipt of goods, services, or other things of value that was induced by the illegal behavior (i.e., issuance of a bad check). For example, suppose that you write a check to someone to pay for a car and you take the car off the lot and into your possession. The victim later attempts to cash the check, only to find that there are insufficient funds in the bank to cover the payment. You could be held liable for Obtaining Property by Worthless Check. Had you not yet taken possession of the car, you could be held liable for Issuing Worthless Checks. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE If you did not “knowingly” issue a bad check, you cannot be held liable for Obtaining Property by Worthless Check. Knowing inducement is a fundamental element of the offense. As such, it’s likely that your attorney will investigate the case so as to present evidence that establishes your lack of knowledge (or mistaken knowledge) regarding the amount of funds backing the issued check. PENALTIES Depending on the amount that you obtained by knowingly issuing a worthless check, you will be prosecuted differently. The grading of the offense is as follows: First-Degree Misdemeanor If you obtained less than $150 by issuing a worthless check, then you may be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a year imprisonment, a year of probation, and up to $1,000 in fines. Third-Degree Felony If you obtained $150 or more by issuing a worthless check, then you may be charged with a third-degree felony, which is punishable by up to five years imprisonment, five years' probation, and up to $5,000 in fines. Crimes of Dishonesty or False Statement It’s worth noting that theft offenses -- such as Obtaining Property by Worthless Check -- are crimes of dishonesty or false statement. This can have consequences that extend further than those associated with standard crimes. For example, your credibility as a witness (in a court of law) may be challenged on the basis of your conviction for a crime of dishonesty. If you’ve been charged with a criminal theft offense in Florida -- or have been arrested or accused of such offense -- then you may be feeling rather overwhelmed by the prospect of criminal litigation. Theft offenses (depending on the circumstances and nature of the crime committed) may lead to substantial penalties, including imprisonment and fines. Contact a qualified criminal defense attorney to learn more about your case and the steps you need to take to shield yourself from liability. If you have been charged with a crime in Florida, then — in all likelihood — you’re concerned about the progression of your case and what strategies the prosecution might employ so as to find you guilty. Though many Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the basics of criminal litigation thanks to the popularity of entertainment media on such cases (i.e., police procedurals and shows about State prosecutors), character evidence issues are still relatively unknown to the general populace.
If you’re being prosecuted in Florida, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Florida criminal defense attorney, and that you do so in a timely manner. Your attorney will not only evaluate your case and advocate on your behalf but may also be able to challenge the introduction of character evidence that could undermine your arguments. Character Evidence is Generally Inadmissible As a general rule, character evidence (i.e., evidence of a person’s character or a trait of their character) is inadmissible at trial. Note: When discussing evidentiary rules, the use of complicated legal terminology can get out-of-hand, so we’ll be using a few examples to clarify. If you have been charged with DUI, for example, the prosecution cannot introduce testimony concerning your negative reputation: that you have a tendency to throw loud parties despite the neighbors having requested that you not do so. Though the prosecution might benefit from the introduction of such character evidence (which implies that you have an irresponsible nature), Florida law prohibits it. It’s worth pointing out, however, that Florida law does provide for the introduction of character evidence by you — the criminal defendant. You can proactively introduce positive character evidence that undermines the prosecutorial arguments. For example, you would be entitled to introduce testimonial evidence of your reputation as a highly responsible community member to show that you are not the sort of person who would operate their vehicle while intoxicated. As the criminal defendant, introducing character evidence is not entirely unlike “opening Pandora’s Box.” If you make your character traits — positive or negative — an issue in the case, then the prosecution is entitled to introduce character evidence. You should carefully consider the benefits before proactively introducing character evidence. The Williams Rule and Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs and Acts Though Florida’s general rule against admissibility of character evidence also applies for specific, past crimes, wrongs, and acts, the state applies what is known as the Williams Rule (described in section 90.404 of the Florida Evidence Code) to carve out a diverse set of exceptions. Whether you effectively navigate the Williams Rule can make or break your case. The rule does not allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of past crimes, wrongs, or acts so as to prove that you have bad character, or that you have a propensity to commit a crime — instead, it allows the prosecution to introduce evidence of past crimes, wrongs, or acts to establish proof of:
How does this play out in reality? Suppose that you have been charged with theft of a convenience store. The prosecution might introduce evidence that you purchased a gun a few days prior to the theft incident, and that you paid a friend to be your getaway driver — they will argue that this evidence is relevant because it establishes proof of preparation, and that you had a plan in place. In many cases, however, the prosecution will attempt to introduce character evidence that does not quite fit the Williams Rule exceptions. For example, suppose that you have been charged with the crime of intentional battery. The prosecution attempts to introduce evidence that you have been involved in a fight in the past with a racial minority in the past, and they argue that it is evidence of motive since it proves that you harbored a racist motive in attacking the current victim: who also happens to be a minority. The two situations are unrelated, however, and the race of the victim is merely coincidence. Whether a court will allow certain character evidence to be introduced depends also on its likelihood of causing unfair prejudice. In the above example, the jury might be unfairly biased against you if the prior evidence of a fight was introduced. Contact a criminal defense attorney today to discuss your options under the law. Florida is famously aggressive with regard to its self-defense laws and the application of such laws. As such, if you have been charged with a violent crime in the state of Florida, you may be able to assert a defense on the basis of self-defense — whether the defense is successful depends largely on the total attack/defense situation, and whether you acted reasonably given the circumstances.
Florida Self-Defense Laws Section 776.012 of the Florida Statutes governs both the justifiable use of non-lethal and lethal force. Pursuant to the statute, an individual is legally entitled to use non-lethal force in order to protect himself if such force is necessary in order to protect himself against another person’s unlawful use of force. Florida law does not require that a victim retreat — or to look for avenues of retreat — in the event that he is being attacked (or are in imminent danger of being attacked). Florida’s self-defense laws have gained something of a reputation in recent years, with various high profile cases (involving self-defense claims) making national news. As these cases gained traction with the media, laypeople were familiarized with the term “Stand Your Ground” and its relation to self-defense. So, what exactly does it entail? The “Stand Your Ground” Rule The Florida “Stand Your Ground” rule was enacted into law in 2005 as a response to concerns about the duty to retreat in situations involving the use of deadly force. Before “Stand Your Ground” was incorporated into Florida law, individuals who were under imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm were first required to look for ways to reasonably avoid the dangers (including but not limited to making a full retreat). Implementation of “Stand Your Ground” made two significant changes to Florida self-defense law in situations involving the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Let’s examine each in turn. An individual is not required to retreat or to even attempt to find alternative means of avoiding the danger presented by an attacker. The removal of the duty to retreat led to an expansion of allowable behavior for the victim. Because there is no duty to retreat, the potential victim must be entitled to reasonably defend himself against imminent death or serious bodily harm. The law therefore entitles an individual to use deadly force to defend himself against an attacker, so long as the individual reasonably believed it necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm. It is critical, then, that an individual establish that he reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm. The “Stand Your Ground” rule creates a presumption of imminent death or serious bodily harm in situations where the attacker has unlawfully entered a residence or vehicle. As such, an individual may reasonably use lethal force to defend himself if the attacker has made an unlawful home/vehicular entry. An individual is therefore not required to reasonably believe that lethal force was necessary in the circumstances. The key determination for a jury when assessing any self-defense claim (lethal or non-lethal), is whether it was reasonable to believe that the use of such force was necessary, and whether there was the imminent threat of harm in the first place. If the defendant can prove that it was reasonable to believe that there was an imminent threat of harm, and that the use of force was justifiable given the circumstances, then the self-defense assertion is likely to be successful. If you have been charged with a violent crime, speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. |
Author:
|