University of Central Florida Students Charged with Crimes – UCF

I represent a significant amount of students from the University of Central Florida whose families hire me to represent their children in a variety of criminal charges.  The offenses range from serious felonies to simple misdemeanors like possession of alcohol by a person under 21 years old.  Not only are these students at risk of losing their financial aid and ability to attend UCF, but they also still have to face to prosecutors of Orange or Seminole County and the respective Judges.  In my experience, each county is different.  Punishment for having an open house party in Seminole County, for example, might be much harsher than it would be had it occurred in Orange County.  There are various reasons for this, which I would be happy to discuss with any student or their parent(s).

UCF has something called the Golden Rule Student Handbook.  The Office of Student Conduct takes this very serious.  You can find information on this at this link - http://goldenrule.sdes.ucf.edu/

It also seems that most of the cases referred to me are mostly from the Greek community – meaning involving students from fraternities or sororities.  Whether a student is in a fraternity or sorority, however, should not make any difference in the resolution of the case.  UCF PD or the University of Central Florida Police Department seems to patrol quite heavily around the area of the Greek housing units.  But that could be attributable to the fact that there is a lot of university housing and local bar establishments (such as the Knight Library, FUBAR, and the like) right around the corner.  The below is a list of the charges I frequently get questions on from students from UCF or their families.  If you have any questions involving these charges or any others, please feel free to call me.  Whether or not UCF learns of the pending charges is not always certain.  But in the cases I have been involved in, pending criminal charges could mean academic probation, suspension or worse.  It is highly advisable to contact an attorney right away if you are charged with any crime.

1) Driving under the influence (DUI/DWI)

2) Possession of Cannabis (Marijuana)

3) Possession of Alcohol by a Minor (under 21)

4) Sexual Battery (date rape)

5) Disorderly intoxication

6) Resisting an officer without violence

7) Resisting an officer with violence

8) Reckless Driving

9) Possession of Cocaine

Read Full Post »

The Knowledge Element in Drug Cases – Possession of a Controlled Substance – 893 Offenses

You may already know that when you are charged with a crime in Florida, the burden is wholly on the State to prove each element of the crime beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.  The defense does NOT have prove anything.  But let’s look at the Statutes.  Florida Statute 893.101 tells us that “knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance” is not an element of any offense under chapter 893.  But then the statute also tells us that “lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance” is an affirmative defense to any offense charged under 893.  The two sound conflicting, don’t they?  From this conflict, case law continues to evolve as to the constitutionality of Chapter 893.

To be found guilty of the crime of possession of a controlled substance (let’s say cocaine, for example), the State has to prove that you had “guilty knowledge” of the cocaine.  This involves a two-part analysis: (1) knowledge of the presence of the substance; and (2) knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.  So a person might know there is a small powder-like substance in the car with them, but if they don’t know that powder-like substance is illegal to possess (e.g., cocaine, cannabis, hydrocodone, etc.), they do not have the “guilty knowledge” required for a guilty verdict.  In other words, they do not possess the requisite mens rea or criminal intent.

So where are we then?  If you merely possess cocaine or cannabis or hydrocodone, without more, there is insufficient mens rea or criminal intent.  To hold otherwise would mean that this is a strict liability offense.  If you have it on you, you’re guilty.  And that’s not right.  Imposition of a felony punishment for a strict liability offense violates due process.  So if you find yourself charged with a felony possession of a controlled substance charge, talk to your defense attorney about the knowledge element and see if he or she is aware of the two-part analysis.  For more, see Shelton v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D11a (2011).

Read Full Post »

Trafficking in Cannabis – Weight Calculation – Water in Cannabis – “Excess Water”

In this case, the Court of Appeals found that water can be used in calculating weight of cannabis – even if it pushes the weight from a non-trafficking amount to a trafficking amount!  It held that water is naturally present in cannabis plants and that only “excess” water should be excluded in calculated weight for trafficking purposes.  ”Excess” water is defined as water that has been extrinsically added to the marijuana or accidentally acquired by the marijuana.  Here, the weed was cut and was right away transported when it was seized.  It was not exposed to anything “excessive.”  Therefore, the defense’s argument of “wet weed” did not fly with the Court of Appeal.  The type of water that later drained from the plants while it was in evidence storage was “inherent” in this plant’s vegetable matter.  When the marijuana was seized, it weighed 26 pounds.  When it dried later, it only weighed 24 pounds.  If it’s more than 25 pounds, it’s a higher felony.   And based on these circumstances, the higher felony count could be sustained.  Scary!

This case can be found at State v. Estrada and State v. Cortina (Florida Law Weekly 3DCA 2771a)

Read Full Post »

Dissolution of Marriage – Calculation of Alimony

In a recent case out of the 2nd District of Florida, the District Court of Appeals held that, in calculating alimony, the earning capacity of the wife should be considered in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded.  This additional accounting would reduce the amount of alimony necessary to meet her needs.  This case is Zambuto v. Zambuto (Florida Law Weekly 2DCA 2758).  In cases like this, it is always a good idea to hire a vocational expert who can inform the court as to the earning potential of a person (the wife, in this case) based on their education and experience, among other factors.  The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court, which should result in a substantial lowering of the alimony amount owed to the spouse.

Read Full Post »

Tampering with Physical Evidence – Statements by Defendant – Establishment of Corpus Deliciti

For anyone who might be faced with this charge, this case might be very beneficial to read.  It’s a very recent case out of the Second District Court of Appeal (See 2DCA 2756a in the Publication entitled Florida Law Weekly) – Reinlein v. State.

In the case, the Defendant was suspected of buying narcotics in a transaction from his pickup truck.  Officers had observed two individuals in an alley pacing back and forth.  The Defendant was seen entering the alley and making contact with one of the men there.  Police then watched his truck drive away within seconds of making contact.  Officer believed a drug was made but did not see anything change hands – they only saw the Defendant (the driver of the truck) make contact with the men in the alley and drive away shortly thereafter.

Officers followed the Defendant’s truck and pulled him over for a traffic violation not long after.  The Defendant was the only occupant of the truck.  When they pulled him over, officers saw the Defendant “throw” something into his mouth, chew it around and then swallow it.  After being read his Miranda rights, the Defendant admitted to going into the alley to buy the crack cocaine for $10.  He admitted to swallowing it as well to get rid of the evidence.  This admission would normally be devastating to most criminal cases.  However, not so in this case.  Not under these circumstances.

You see, in order to prove the charge of tampering with physical evidence the State must prove that you intended to alter, destroy, conceal, or remove something that is the object of an investigation.  If the officers had stopped the Defendant in this case during the transaction and yelled, “Stop! Police!” whereupon the Defendant then popped the cocaine into his mouth, that might be enough to prove the case.  But here, the Defendant was pulled over for a traffic infraction.  And apart from his admission, the State offered no physical evidence that the Defendant knew that what he was destroying was the object of the investigation.  Without the Defendant’s admission, the State cannot prove the body of their case in chief (or the corpus delicti).  So the State cannot be allowed to use the Defendant’s admission against him.  The Defendant was convicted at trial but that conviction was later reversed by the Court of Appeals!  The trial court should have granted the defense’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

This case illustrates why it is critical to thoroughly review your case with your defense attorney.  More importantly, in my opinion, is having an experienced defense attorney.  Even the most intelligent person might overlook this narrow corpus delicti issue – I would hope, however, that a seasoned defense attorney would catch it.  To discuss this issue further, please feel free to contact me.

 

Read Full Post »