Tag Archives: DWI & DUI

Possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010). Is section 893.13 facially unconstitutional for the reasons expressed in Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, No. 6:07-cv-839-ORL-35, 2011 WL 3236040 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011).

Law Offices
of
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.
708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357
Call Today! 24/7

If You Have Been Arrested for a Crime or are being Investigated for A Suspected Criminal Action, you need legal advice and the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer. Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. to begin protecting your rights TODAY….Phone (954) 788-1355

Possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13(6)(a), Florida
Statutes (2010). Is section 893.13 facially unconstitutional for the reasons expressed in Shelton v.
Secretary, Department of Corrections, No. 6:07-cv-839-ORL-35, 2011 WL 3236040 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011).

The Florida 4th DCA  disagrees and uphold the constitutionality of section 893.13 and conclude that section 893.101 does not create a strict liability crime. We find the reasoning of Shelton unpersuasive and decline to adopt its holding.

In Shelton, a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida found section 893.13 to b e unconstitutional on substantive due process grounds. Shelton, 2011 WL 3236040 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011).  The opinion concluded that section 893.101 removed all mens rea as an element from section 893.13, thereby creating a strict liability offense.  Id. A s a strict liability offense, the court declared section 893.13 unconstitutional because its penalties are too severe.  We first note that this court has already held that section 893.101, Florida Statutes, is constitutional. Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla.  4th DCA 2005). Moreover, decisions of lower federal courts, including  the facial constitutionality of a statute can be raised for the first time on direct appeal. Jean v. State, 764 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 1982).

Rrulings that a state statute violates the U.S. Constitution, are not binding on state courts; rather, they are persuasive, if well reasoned. State v. Dwyer, 332 So. 2d 333, 334-35 (Fla. 1976); Bradshaw v. State, 286 So. 2d 4, 6-7 (Fla. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 919 (1974). We find Shelton unpersuasive, as the decision is based on the faulty premise that section
893.101 removed all mens rea from section 893.13 offenses, such that a defendant is strictly liable for any unknowing possession or delivery. In our view, section 893.101 did not remove the guilty knowledge element from these offenses, thereby converting section 893.13 offenses into strict liability crimes. Instead, it merely abrogated the additional
“knowledge of illicit nature” element, added by the supreme court in Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996). Section 893.13 remains constitutional.

Courts are obligated to construe statutes in a manner which avoids an unconstitutional interpretation. State v. Giorgetti, 868 So. 2d 512, 518 (Fla. 2004). Interpretations of statutes as not requiring a mens rea element are disfavored, and absent clear legislative intent to dispense with scienter, courts will assume guilty knowledge is required and will
read a guilty knowledge component into a statute that is silent as to mens rea. Id. at 515-20. Although knowledge of presence is not expressly required by the text of section 893.13, such knowledge has always been required in drug possession cases. Id.; State v. Oxx, 417 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Section 893.13 is no exception. Indeed, the standard jury instruction for possession of a controlled substance requires the jury find that “([d]efendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance.” Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.)

In Chicone, the court recognized that “guilty knowledge” is required for a conviction under section 893.13 and that knowledge of presence must be established in a drug possession cases. Chicone, 684 So. 2d at 740-41. However, Chicone went further, creating an additional scienter requirement: Knowledge of the “illicit nature” of the substance. Id. at 744. The legislature superseded this fourth element with the enactment of section 893.101. Miller v. State, 35 So. 3d 162, 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). See also Garcia v. State, 901 So. 2d 788, 791-93 (Fla. 2005)
(recognizing that “guilty knowledge” includes knowledge of presence and is an element of the offense of possession that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a substance is distinct from lack of knowledge of the presence of the substance. See Barrientos v. State, 1 So. 3d 1209, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); De La Cruz v. State, 884 So. 2d 349, 351 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A defendant’s claim that he or she did not know that white powder was concealed in an item possessed is different from the claim that he or she did not know that the concealed powder was an illegal drug.

In response to the holdings in Chicone and Scott v. State, 808 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2002), the legislature enacted section 893.101, which provides: (1) The Legislature finds that the cases of Scott v. State, Slip Opinion No. SC94701 (Fla. 2002) and Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996), holding that the state must prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of a controlled substance found in his or her actual or constructive possession, were contrary to legislative intent. (2) The Legislature finds that knowledge of th e illicit
nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this chapter. Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to
the offenses of this chapter. (3) In those instances in which a defendant asserts the affirmative defense described in this section, the possession of a controlled substance, whether actual or constructive, shall give rise to a permissive presumption that the possessor knew of the illicit nature of the substance. It is the intent of the Legislature that, in those cases where such
an affirmative defense is raised, the jury shall be instructed on the permissive presumption provided in this subsection. Id. (emphasis added). “The statute does two things: it makes possession of a controlled substance a general intent crime, no longer requiring the state to prove that a violator be aware that the contraband is illegal, and, second, it allows a defendant to assert lack of knowledge as an affirmative defense.” Wright, 920 So. 2d at 24 (emphasis added).

The statute does not indicate any intent to do away with all guilty knowledge or to remove knowledge of presence as a n element. A s such, “[a] defendant charged under section 893.13 can concede all the elements of the offense, i.e., possession of a specific substance and knowledge of the presence of the substance, and still be able to assert the defense that he
did not know of the illicit nature of the specific substance.” Burnette v. State, 901 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (emphasis added). Section 893.101 recognizes that “actual or constructive possession” must be found for the presumption to apply. See also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.7 (“[Y]ou are permitted to presume that (defendant) was
aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) was in actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance”) (emphasis added). The State must prove knowledge of presence in order to establish actual or constructive possession.3 Thus, the permissive presumption that a defendant knew the illicit nature of
the substance does not apply if a defendant is unaware of the presence of the substance. Section 893.13 offenses are general intent crimes and, although not expressly stated in the statute, require that the defendant voluntarily commit the proscribed act. See, e.g., Linehan v. State, 442 So. 2d 244, 246-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (describing the distinction between general and specific intent crimes). Contrary to the holding of Shelton, the statute does not punish strictly an unknowing possession or delivery.

Finally, the existence of the affirmative defense set out in section 893.101 undermines the notion that the legislature has created a strict liability crime. To this point, we agree with the reasoning set forth by the First District in its recent opinion of Flagg v. State, No. 1D11-2372, 2011 WL 4865137 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 14, 2011): [Shelton] misperceives the operation of the affirmative  defense in section 893.101. The statute does not, as Shelton implied, require the defendant to establish his innocence by proving a lack of knowledge, see Wright, 920 So. 2d at 25 (explaining that section 893.101 “does not require the defendant to prove or disprove knowledge”); rather, the statute provides that if the defense is raised, the state has
the burden to overcome the defense by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of the drugs. Id.; see also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.7 (explaining that the jury should find the defendant not guilty if they “have reasonable doubt on the question of  The State is entitled to a jury instruction allowing a jury to infer knowledge of presence from actual or exclusive constructive possession. See  State v. Williamson, 813 So. 2d 61, 64-65 (Fla. 2002); State v. Medlin, 273 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1973). This inference allows the State to make a prima facie case of knowledge of presence without direct proof but does not eliminate knowledge of presence as an element that the jury must find to convict. Permissive inferences, which are also known as permissive presumptions, have repeatedly been upheld and ruled constitutional because they do not shift the burden of
proof. See County Court of Ulster County, N.Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 156-57 (1979); Walker v. State, 896 So. 2d 712, 715-20 (Fla. 2005). whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance”).

Furthermore, because lack of knowledge is not a defense to a true strict liability crime, the availability of the affirmative defense in section 893.101 undermines the essential premise in Shelton that the offenses in section 893.13 are strict liability crimes that may not be constitutionally punished as felonies. We hold that section 893.101 did not remove scienter from section 893.13 offenses and did not create an unconstitutional strict liability crime.

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney, Broward County, Criminal defense, Florida law, Law, Lawyer

Charges under Section 800.04 in Florida of both lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious conduct violate double jeopardy

Law Offices
of
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.
708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357

If You Have Been Arrested for a Crime or are being Investigated for A Suspected Criminal Action, you need legal advice and the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer. Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. to begin protecting your rights TODAY….Phone (954) 788-1355

Charges under Section 800.04 of both lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious conduct violate
double jeopardy.

The Fifth Amendment “protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989).

Because double jeopardy issues involve purely legal determinations, the standard of review is de novo. See Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362, 365 (Fla. 2002). Sections 800.04(5)(a) and 800.04(6)(a) for conduct against the same victim during the  same episode are duplicative and violate double jeopardy.  Section 800.04, Florida Statutes, defines various lewd or lascivious offenses under Florida law. Subsection (5)(a) defines lewd or lascivious molestation, providing in pertinent part as follows: “A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation.” § 800.04(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004).2 Subsection (6)(a) defines lewd or lascivious conduct, providing that a person who “[i]ntentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner … commits lewd or lascivious conduct.” § 800.04(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2006), receded from in part by Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009). In Paul, the defendant had touched the victim in the genital area  over the clothing and kissed the victim on the neck while in the living room. For the episode in the living room, the defendant was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation under section 800.04(5)(a) for touching
the victim’s genitals, and lewd and lascivious conduct under section 800.04(6)(a) for kissing the neck.

In Gordon v. State, as cited in Paul, our supreme court explained: “The prevailing standard for determining the constitutionality of multiple convictions for offenses arising from the same criminal transaction is whether the Legislature ‘intended to authorize separate punishments for the two crimes.’” 780 So. 2d 17, 19 (Fla. 2001), receded from in part by
Valdes (quoting M.P. v. State, 682 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 1996)). If there is no clear “legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes” then a court employs the use of the Blockburger3 test “to determine whether separate offenses exist.” Id. at 19-20. Finding no clear statement of legislative intent in its review of section 800.04, the
Paul court applied the codified Blockburger analysis set forth in section 775.021. Paul, 934 So. 2d at 1172. Noting that the Blockburger test applies to crimes occurring in only
one criminal transaction or episode, the Paul court explained that the first step is to review whether there was one criminal episode or multiple episodes. Id. In determining whether offenses occurred during a single criminal episode, courts must “look to whether there are multiple victims, whether the offenses occurred in multiple locations, and whether
there has been a temporal break between offenses.” Id. at 1172-73 (citation and internal quotations omitted).

A court must then “apply the Blockburger test to each criminal episode to determine whether multiple punishments are authorized.” Id. at 1173. The Blockburger “same elements” test “prohibits courts from imposing multiple convictions for an act or acts which occur in one criminal episode if each offense does not contain at least one element distinct from the other offenses.” Id. at 1172. Under the “same elements” test, each offense is considered separate “‘if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.’” Id. at 1173 (quoting § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005)) (emphasis in Paul).

In reference to offenses under sections 800.04(5)(a) and (6)(a), the Paul court explained:  In comparing the elements of sections 800.04(5)(a) and 800.04(6)(a), we hold the same elements test will not permit multiple convictions. Specifically, section 800.04(6)(a)(1) defines “lewd or lascivious conduct” as a n y intentional touching of “a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner,” while section 800.04(5)(a) defines “lewd or or lascivious molestation” as the intentional touching “in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator.” § 800.04, Fla. Stat. (1999).

Any violation of subsection (5)(a),  which prohibits the lewd touching of particular body parts of a person under sixteen years of age, will also violate subsection (6)(a), which simply prohibits any lewd touching of a person under sixteen years of age. Thus, one cannot say “each offense has an element that the other does not.” While subsection (5)(a) has an element that subsection (6)(a) does not, the converse is not true – that (6)(a)(1) has an element (5)(a) does not. Therefore, dual convictions and punishments are not permitted for these violations. Id. at 1173-74 (emphasis in original). The court concluded that Paul could not be convicted of both a violation of section 800.04(5)(a) and section 800.04(6)(a)(1) for the two acts in the living room.

You cannot be convicted of both when the  two charges arose out of one criminal episode, and both acts were performed on one victim in the same location and with practically no temporal separation. S e e Paul. Furthermore, the “same elements” test establishes that  both section 800.04(5)(a) and section 800.04(6)(a) are for conduct in the same criminal episode. Id. at 1173-74. Therefore, his conviction and sentences for both crimes violates double jeopardy.

When dual convictions of the same degree are found to violate double jeopardy, the proper remedy is to “vacate the conviction and sentence on one of those counts.” Binns v. State, 979 So. 2d 439, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

At the Law Office of Edward J. Chandler, P.A., our clients come first. Every client is treated with courtesy and is guaranteed effective representation. Our experience and integrity have earned us a reputation as one of Florida’s premier legal firms.

Attorney Chandler knows the system.  He knows how to win jury trials.  He prides himself on getting a just result for his clients. He believes you deserve a fair outcome. His consistent track record of uncompromising ethics instills confidence and trust.

Since 1991, attorney Edward J. Chandler, Esq. is dedicated to achieving the best outcome for every client. With the Law Office of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. on your side, you will come out on top.

Aggressive and Effective Legal Representation for Divorce, Child Custody and Federal and State Criminal Defense!

Serving Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties

“Since 1991 – When Experience Counts” 

“FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM”

Payment Plans Available

FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION

Law Office

of

Edward J. Chandler, P.A.

708 East Atlantic Blvd.

Pompano Beach, Fl 33060


Tel: (954) 788-1355
Fax (954) 788-1357

AGGRESSIVE EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE

Edward J. Chandler, Esq. is a dedicated legal professional well-versed in criminal law since 1991 in the State of Florida and Federal court.  He brings his legal experience to the table to fight for you. This gives the Law Office of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. an edge when dealing with complex legal matters. 

Whether you are looking at 6 months in the county jail or life in prison, you need an experienced trial attorney on your side.

Don’t waste your money on an attorney without
the experience or the courage required to help you get the results you need and deserve for your case. Ask the other guys about how much experience they really have, then give attorney Edward J. Chandler a call
at 954-788-1355. Edward J. Chandler, Esq.  has 20 years experience as a trial attorney and will tell you the truth about what he can (or can not) do to help you.

His goal is to represent his clients, as he would want to be represented, always putting their interests first and diligently working to fully understand and serve their needs. In short, to do whatever it takes for the successful resolution of their cases.

In criminal cases my fees are based on the seriousness of the charges (felony or misdemeanor, prior offenses, etc), where the case stands, and the amount of work and court dates we anticipate. For experience and sound legal counsel, call the professionals at The Law Office of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. today!

Edward J. Chandler, Esq.has been practicing criminal law in Florida since 1991.

No single element is more crucial in creating a successful relationship between a client and a law firm than the quality of the service performed by the professionals involved. “Quality,” of course, is expressed by key characteristics such as knowledge, skill, experience and dedication. In that sense, it is an intangible. An expression of quality is strategic problem solving which takes the form of expert legal counsel and, when necessary, aggressive court action.

The Law Office of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. offers free initial consultations.
He represents those under investigation or arrested for Federal and State crimes and will take your case to trial if necessary.He will file necessary pre-trial motions such as a motion to suppress a search, evidence or statements made in violation of your constitutional rights, and can file a motion to dismiss the charges.

FEES:

  •  In criminal cases my fees are based on the seriousness of the charges (felony or misdemeanor, prior offenses, etc), where the case stands, and the amount of work and court dates we anticipate.I usually charge flat fees, so you won’t have any surprises.
  • I will take credit cards if that makes it easier for you.
  • If you have special circumstances or needs, a payment plan is possible.
  • I work in courts in Broward County, Dade County and Palm Beach County. Fort Lauderdale, Miami and West Palm Beach.

FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE:Facing federal charges is a stressful experiences, even with one of the best Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys in Florida at your side.

By the time you realize that you are the target of federal criminal investigation, the government has already built a strong case against you. The Feds and its criminal investigative agencies, DEA, FBI, Homeland Security, and the Treasury Department,  have almost unlimited material and human resources to prosecute their cases. Federal prosecutors obtain conviction in more than 95 percent of federal criminal trials!

The U.S. sentencing guidelines, although not mandatory anymore since Booker, are still used in the sentencing process and the guidelines are harsh.  The federal criminal justice system does not usually provide for parole. In most cases, convicted individuals will serve most of their sentences except the last six months in a half way house.. All these issues make defending against federal charges more complex.

I can help and as your attorney who may impact the government’s case by various strategic and legal procedural methods to gain an advantage possibly in a motion for suppression of evidence, and possibly a case dismissal, reduction of charges, or a favorable plea bargain.

I am prepared to take it all the way to trial if necessary.

Your chances of a successful outcome of your case depends on how soon I get involved as your lawyer. You should be represented as soon as you discover that you are under investigation, or as soon as possible after your arrest. If you are a target of grand jury inquiries or federal investigation, I can help. I can handle all federal criminal charges including:

* Federal Drug Crimes
* Firearms Crimes
* Bank Fraud Crimes
* Wire Fraud Crimes
* Accounting Fraud Crimes
* Bankruptcy Fraud
* Embezzlement
* Forgery
* Tax Evasion Crimes
* Insurance Fraud
* Money Laundering Crimes
* Mortgage Fraud Crimes
* Identity Theft Crimes
* Health Care Fraud Crimes
* Mail Fraud Crimes
* False Statements
* Perjury Crimes
* Computer Crimes
* International Extradition
* Federal Sex Crimes, including pornography charges
* Federal Import-Export Crimes
* RICO Crimes

  • Crimes of Violence
  • Theft
  • Criminal Mischief
  • Forgery
  • Identity Theft
  • Vehicular Assault
  • Homicide/Manslaughter
  • Criminal Mischief
  • Arson
  • Kidnapping
    • Traffic violations
    • Suspended License
    • No Valid DL
    • Domestic Violence and Battery
    • Shoplifting
    • Harassment
    • Fighting/Disorderly Conduct
    • Cruelty to Animals
    • Possession of Marijuana/Paraphernalia.
    • Weapons charges
    • Child Pornography

Choosing The Best Criminal Attorney For Your CaseAnyone facing an allegation that they have violated state or federal law needs a strong and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney they can respect and trust. Money, jailtime, and even someone’s life may be on the line and a criminal lawyer has to be trusted to fight hard for his client’s best interests.

Edward Chandler is dedicated to helping people who are facing criminal authorities in arrests, allegations, investigations, trials, or appeals. He is a criminal defense lawyer who wants what is best for each client, and works hard to find a resolution that will most likely help his client to erase the past and begin a new future. Time and again, he has gained dismissals, acquittals and reductions for his clients.

Before deciding on the right criminal defense lawyer for your case, you should talk with the attorney and get a feel for how you will work together. There’s no bond like that between a criminal defense lawyer and his client, and deciding who to hire as your criminal defense attorney may be the most important decision of your life.

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney, Broward County, Criminal defense, Family Law, Law, Lawyer

Probable Cause for issuance of Search Warrant in Florida

Law Offices
of
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.
708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357
Call Today! 24/7

If You Have Been Arrested for a Crime or are being Investigated for A Suspected Criminal Action, you need legal advice and the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer. Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. to begin protecting your rights TODAY….Phone (954) 788-1355

Probable Cause for issuance of Search Warrant in Florida

Where the issuance of a search warrant based upon a probable cause affidavit is at issue, the reviewing court is required to give “great deference” to the magistrate’s probable cause determination. State v. Abbey, 28 So. 3d 208, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting State v. Rabb, 920 So. 2d 1175, 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (other internal quotation
marks omitted)). The “duty of reviewing courts is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for . . . concluding that probable cause existed.” Rabb, 920 So. 2d at 1180 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

The magistrate’s duty “is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision, whether, given all the circumstances set forth [within the four corners of] the affidavit before him . . . there is a fair probability that . . . evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 1180 (quoting DeLaPaz v. State, 453 So. 2d 445, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)); see also Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002) (to determine whether probable cause exists, the court must make a judgment based on the totality of the circumstances).

Good Faith Exception.  Garcia v. State, 872 So. 2d 326, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), held that, where there is a lack of facts, a real paucity of facts, a very weak
case, the law is well established that where “the supporting affidavit fails to establish probable cause to justify a search, Florida courts refuse to apply the good faith exception.” When an affidavit for a search warrant is so lacking in indicia of probable cause “as to render an official’s belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,” the good faith exception is not
applicable. Dyess v. State, 988 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting Montgomery v. State, 584 So. 2d 65, 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)).  The good faith exception does not apply where the affidavit is so lacking in probable cause and fails to establish a nexus between the objects of the search and the residence to be searched. Gonzalez v. State, 38 So. 3d 226, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Garcia, 872 So. 2d at 330. Although a magistrate’s probable cause determination is entitled to “great deference” when based upon a probable cause affidavit, the court
should not defer if there is no substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Rabb, 920 So. 2d at 1180-81. As stated in Polk v. Williams, 565 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990):  Probable cause is a practical common-sense question. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2328, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 543 (1983). It is the probability of criminal
activity, and not a prima facie showing of such activity which is the standard of probable cause. Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969). The
determination of probable cause involves factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. Brinegar v.
U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L. Ed. 1879, 1891 (1949).

“As long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that search would uncover  evidence of wrongdoing, the Fourth Amendment requires no more.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 193 S. Ct. at 2331, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 547. Polk, 565 So. 2d at 1391. See also Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 806.

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney, Broward County, Criminal defense, Florida law, Law, Lawyer

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

  KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

Aggressive and Effective Legal Representation for Divorce, Child Custody and Federal and State Criminal Defense!

Serving Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties

“Since 1991 – When Experience Counts” 

“FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM”

Payment Plans Available

FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION

Law Office

of

Edward J. Chandler, P.A.

708 East Atlantic Blvd.

Pompano Beach, Fl 33060


Tel: (954) 788-1355
Fax (954) 788-1357

 

When your future is on the line…Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.  at (954) 788-1355  24/7 immediately! Your phone consultation is free and completely confidential.


         My goal is to represent my clients as I would want to be represented, always putting their interests first, diligently working to fully understand and serve the clients’ needs. In short, to do whatever it takes for the successful resolution of the
clients’ causes.

         If you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense, you need to seek the advice of Edward J. Chandler, Esq., an experienced Florida Federal and State criminal defense attorney since 1991! Right now, you may be filled with fear, confusion, embarrassment, and anger. You probably have a thousand questions and want to know your rights and how to proceed. With your future as stake, you need to think smart and speak with an experienced Florida criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Since a criminal conviction may affect your future, your reputation and your chances of getting a job, it is critical that you seek out an experienced Florida criminal defense attorney such as Edward J, Chandler, as soon as you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense. The right Florida criminal defense lawyer can evaluate your case, determine legal strategies, and defend you in court, increasing your likelihood of staying out of jail and protecting your future.

Given the complexity of criminal defense in Florida, it is important that you choose a Florida criminal defense lawyer that knows the Federal and State systems, and who combines experience with a track record, and who has a thorough understanding and familiarity with the law, the prosecutors and the local courts. If you have been accused of a crime, your time to get the right experienced Federal or State criminal defense attorney is limited. Regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty, you deserve aggressive, experienced legal representation.

Violating the laws in Florida can result in harsh punishments, such as incarceration and fines. However, being charged with a Federal or State criminal offense does not have to devastate your entire life.  Edward J. Chandler, Esq, is here to ensure that you get your life back, your peace of mind and your freedom. “I employ an aggressive defense, often convincing the prosecution to reduce the charges against you or, in some cases, dismissing them. My sole priority is to achieve a resolution that you can live with.”

Attorney Edward J. Chandler has successfully represented numerous clients charged with criminal offenses throughout the State of Florida.  Edward J. Chandler  prides himself on aggressive representation with a personal touch. Armed with Federal and State legal knowledge and experience, he can build a winning defense. Edward J. Chandler, Esq. is accustomed to taking on the criminal justice system and achieving the best results for his clients. In addition to personally handling your case from investigation, arrest, bond hearing, arraignment, discovery and through jury trial, Edward J. Chandler, Esq. will be available to you during every step of the criminal procedure. Edward J. Chandler guarantees that you and your case will receive his undivided attention.

When your future is on the line…Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.  at (954) 788-1355  24/7 immediately! Your phone consultation is free and completely confidential.

Professional Organizations:

   * Florida Bar since 1991
* Broward County Bar Association
* Association of Trial Lawyers of America -ATLA
* Federal Bar
* Federal Court -Southern and Middle Districts of Florida
* Supreme Court of United States
* 4th District Court of  Appeals
* 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
* United States Tax Court

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney, Broward County, Criminal defense, Florida law, Law, Lawyer, Uncategorized

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION GUIDELINES

Welcome to the 

Law Offices 
of 
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.

708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357
Call Today! 24/7 “FROM ARREST TO TRIAL “
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION GUIDELINES MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE – Authority and General Application Principles . .. . . . . . . 1

Part A-Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1
Part B-General Application Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

CHAPTER TWO – Offense Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Part A-Offenses Against the Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       45
1. Homicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      . . 45
2. Assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     . . 48
3. Criminal Sexual Abuse and Offenses Related to
Registration as a Sex Offender . . . . . . . .                                                   54
4. Kidnapping, Abduction, or Unlawful Restraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . 67
5. Air Piracy and Offenses Against Mass Transportation Systems . . . . .  . . 70
6. Threatening or Harassing Communications,
Hoaxes, Stalking, and Domestic Violence . .                                              . 72
Part B-Basic Economic Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1. Theft, Embezzlement, Receipt of Stolen Property, Property Destruction, and
Offenses Involving Fraud or Deceit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2. Burglary and Trespass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104
3. Robbery, Extortion, and Blackmail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
4. Commercial Bribery and Kickbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5. Counterfeiting and Infringement of Copyright or Trademark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6. Motor Vehicle Identification Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Part C-Offenses Involving Public Officials and Violations
of Federal Election Campaign Laws . .                                                                 124
Part D-Offenses Involving Drugs And Narco-Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
1. Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, Trafficking, or Possession;
Continuing Criminal Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
2. Unlawful Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 181
3. Regulatory Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 183
Part E-Offenses Involving Criminal Enterprises and Racketeering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
1. Racketeering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 185
2. Extortionate Extension of Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
3. Gambling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 189
4. Trafficking in Contraband Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco . . . . . . . . . .  . . 190
5. Labor Racketeering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Part F-[Deleted] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 195
Part G-Offenses Involving Commercial Sex Acts, Sexual Exploitation of Minors,
and Obscenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
1. Promoting A Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct . . . . . . . . . 196
2. Sexual Exploitation of a Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 203
3. Obscenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Part H-Offenses Involving Individual Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
1. Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
2. Political Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . 219
3. Privacy and Eavesdropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 220
4. Peonage, Involuntary Servitude, and Slave Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Part J-Offenses Involving the Administration of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Part K-Offenses Involving Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  234
1. Explosives and Arson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  234
2. Firearms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  241
3. Mailing Injurious Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Part L-Offenses Involving Immigration, Naturalization, and Passports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
1. Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  255
2. Naturalization and Passports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 261
Part M-Offenses Involving National Defense and Weapons of Mass Destruction . . . . . 266
1. Treason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
2. Sabotage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
3. Espionage and Related Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  267
4. Evasion of Military Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  272
5. Prohibited Financial Transactions and Exports, and Providing Material Support
to Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
6. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Materials, and Other Weapons
of Mass Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 276
Part N-Offenses Involving Food, Drugs, Agricultural Products, and Odometer Laws . 280
1. Tampering with Consumer Products . . . . . . .  . . . . . .. . . . . . 280
2. Food, Drugs, and Agricultural Products . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
3. Odometer Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Part O-[Not Used]
Part P-Offenses Involving Prisons and Correctional Facilities .. . 284
Part Q-Offenses Involving the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
1. Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
2. Conservation and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 295
Part R-Antitrust Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Part S-Money Laundering and Monetary Transaction Reporting .. . . 302
Part T-Offenses Involving Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 308
1. Income Taxes, Employment Taxes, Estate Taxes, Gift Taxes,
and Excise Taxes (Other Than Alcohol, Tobacco, and Customs Taxes) .  308
2. Alcohol and Tobacco Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 317
3. Customs Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  318
4. Tax Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  320
Part U-[Not Used]
Part V-[Not Used]
Part W-[Not Used]
Part X-Other Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 321
1. Conspiracies, Attempts, Solicitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  321
2. Aiding and Abetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .324
3. Accessory After the Fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  324
4. Misprision of Felony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 326
5. All Other Felony Offenses and Class A Misdemeanors . . . . . . . .  326
6. Offenses Involving Use of a Minor in a Crime of Violence . . . . . . 328
7. Offenses Involving Border Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  329
Part Y-[Not Used]Part Z-[Not Used]
CHAPTER THREE – Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Part A-Victim-Related Adjustments . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Part B-Role in the Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
Part C-Obstruction and Related Adjustments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Part D-Multiple Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Part E-Acceptance of Responsibility . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
CHAPTER FOUR – Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood . . . 364
Part A-Criminal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . 364
Part B-Career Offenders and Criminal Livelihood . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
CHAPTER FIVE – Determining the Sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 391
Part A-Sentencing Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
Part B-Probation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 394
Part C-Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 403
Part D-Supervised Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Part E-Restitution, Fines, Assessments, Forfeitures . . . . . . . . . .. 418
Part F-Sentencing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
Part G-Implementing the Total Sentence of Imprisonment . . . . . 432
Part H-Specific Offender Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  440
Part I-[Not Used]
Part J-Relief From Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  445
Part K-Departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  446
1. Substantial Assistance to Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  446
2. Other Grounds for Departure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  447
3. Early Disposition Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
CHAPTER SIX – Sentencing Procedures, Plea
Agreements, and Crime Victims’ Rights . .                           . . 465
Part A-Sentencing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 465
Part B-Plea Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
CHAPTER SEVEN – Violations of Probation and Supervised Release . . . 474
Part A-Introduction to Chapter Seven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  474
1. Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
3. Resolution of Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  475
4. The Basic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .477
5. A Concluding Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 477
Part B-Probation and Supervised Release Violations . . . . . . . . 479
CHAPTER EIGHT – Sentencing of Organizations . . . . . . . . . . 487
Part A-General Application Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 488
Part B-Remedying Harm from Criminal Conduct, and Effective Compliance
and Ethics Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
1. Remedying Harm from Criminal Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 492
2. Effective Compliance and Ethics Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
Part C-Fines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  501
1. Determining the Fine – Criminal Purpose Organizations . . . .. 501
2. Determining the Fine – Other Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
3. Implementing the Sentence of a Fine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  517
4. Departures from the Guideline Fine Range . . . . . . . . . . . . .520
Part D-Organizational Probation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . .. 524
Part E-Special Assessments, Forfeitures, and Costs . . . . . .  529
Part F-Violations of Probation – Organizations . . . . . . . . . . 531
APPENDIX A – Statutory Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532
APPENDIX B – Selected Sentencing Statutes . . . . . . . ..  555
INDEX TO GUIDELINES MANUAL . . . . . . . . . . . .  . .662
SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUMES
APPENDIX C (Volume I) – Amendments to the Guidelines Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(effective November 1, 1997, and earlier)
APPENDIX C (Volume II) – Amendments to the Guidelines Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(effective November 1, 1998, through November 5, 2003)
SUPPLEMENT to APPENDIX C – Amendments to the Guidelines Manual . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(effective November 1, 2004, through November 1, 2007)

Welcome to the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.

The Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. is a full service law firm providing aggressive representation to clients in the areas of Family law, Personal Injury, Criminal Defense, Real Estate, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Loan Modification, Short Sales, Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure, Commercial Litigation, Business, Unfair Competition, Fraud, Personal Injury, and Criminal Defense.

Biography of Edward J. Chandler, Esq.

Mr. Chandler is licensed to practice law in both Florida and Wisconsin, and is a member of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, the United States District Court for the Southern District and Northern District of Florida, 4th District Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. Tax Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Chandler received his undergraduate degree from the University of Miami and his law degree from St. Thomas University School of Law, where he was a marshall in the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity.

Mr. Chandler lives in South Florida.   His practice has expanded to include such areas as criminal law, Federal Criminal Defense, personal injury, family law, business law, commercial litigation and real estate.

Federal Criminal Defense
Business Law
Family Law
Constitutional Law
Criminal Matters
Commercial Litigation
Debt Negotiation
Family Law
Personal Injury
Real Estate
Technology Law
Wills, Trusts, Estates
Criminal Representation
Foreclosure Defense
Mortgage Loan Modification
Business & Civil Litigation.

If for some reason we cannot assist you in any legal matter, we will refer you to a trusted colleague who may be able to help you.

The history of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Federal sentencing guidelines were established by Congress in 1987 to create uniform sentences for similar crimes across the country.  Unlike mandatory minimum sentencing laws which can eliminate judicial discretion, the guidelines require a sentencing judge to consider various facts about the specific crime and defendant to justify a sentence within the guidelines.  Judicial consideration of these facts lead to a “guideline range,” for example: 18 to 24 months.  Mandatory minimums are “one-size-fits-all,” but the guidelines allow for upward or downward departures in unusual cases.Unfortunately, mandatory sentencing laws supersede or “trump” the sentencing guidelines, so judges first must determine if a defendant has been convicted of a crime which triggers a mandatory minimum penalty.  If so, the mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed regardless of the sentencing guidelines recommendation. Current federal sentencing guideline tables can be found at the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s website.

There are only two ways to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence.  First, a defendant can provide “substantial assistance” to the government by turning in other defendants.  Second, a defendant in a drug case only can qualify as a “safety valve” defendant.  Congress created the “safety valve” in 1994 to address excessive sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.  Congress created the “safety valve” in 1994 to address excessive sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.  It is very difficult to qualify as a “safety valve” defendant, and thousands of nonviolent drug defendants are still sent to prison for decades under mandatory minimum sentencing laws.  But a low-level, nonviolent offender who qualifies for the “safety valve” can be sentenced at the judge’s discretion under the sentencing guidelines instead of mandatory minimum laws.  You qualify for a “safety valve” only if your “criminal history category” is a Category I under the sentencing guidelines, you did not threaten violence or possess a gun, your offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury; you were not a leader in the offense; and you agree to provide the prosecutor with all the information and evidence you have concerning the offense and related offenses.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were created by the United States Sentencing Commission in the 1990’s.   They purported to be a statistical compilation of sentences imposed in the federal courts throughout the nation for a given crime and where given sentencing factors were present.  The purpose was to establish a degree of uniformity in sentences throughout the nation.

The Sentencing Guidelines were binding on the federal judges until 2006 when the United States Supreme Court declared that the guidelines were unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court declared  that the guidelines were advisory and not mandatory on the judges.

How calculate a federal sentence:
 
You must determine the offense conduct:
Chapter two of the guidelines sets forth the “base offense level” for the crime with which you are convicted.

You must determine the Offense related adjustments
In Chapter Three you will see a number of offense-related adjustments.

“Acceptance of responsibility”   §3E1.1. Acceptance of Responsibility  provides a reduction of two or three points (depending on your base offense level)

You must determine the Criminal history category
They will assess one to three criminal history point (which is different than a guideline point) for each prior conviction depending upon the length of the conviction.  You then consult the criminal history table.   It provides as follows:

Catetory      Points

I                 (0 or 1)
II                (2 or 3)
III               (4, 5, 6)
IV              (7, 8, 9)
V               (10, 11, 12)
VI              (13 or more)
You must determine number of months and dusted offense level from The sentencing table range;
On Page 392 the  “adusted offense level” is found by adding or substracting the offense-related adjustments to the base offense level. Then determine the criminal history category.  Using the table you will then be able to determine your sentencing guideline range.                                           KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!


         My goal is to represent my clients as I would want to be represented, always putting their interests first, diligently working to fully understand and serve the clients’ needs. In short, to do whatever it takes for the successful resolution of the
clients’ causes.

         If you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense, you need to seek the advice of Edward J. Chandler, Esq., an experienced Florida Federal and State criminal defense attorney since 1991! Right now, you may be filled with fear, confusion, embarrassment, and anger. You probably have a thousand questions and want to know your rights and how to proceed. With your future as stake, you need to think smart and speak with an experienced Florida criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Since a criminal conviction may affect your future, your reputation and your chances of getting a job, it is critical that you seek out an experienced Florida criminal defense attorney such as Edward J, Chandler, as soon as you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense. The right Florida criminal defense lawyer can evaluate your case, determine legal strategies, and defend you in court, increasing your likelihood of staying out of jail and protecting your future.

Given the complexity of criminal defense in Florida, it is important that you choose a Florida criminal defense lawyer that knows the Federal and State systems, and who combines experience with a track record, and who has a thorough understanding and familiarity with the law, the prosecutors and the local courts. If you have been accused of a crime, your time to get the right experienced Federal or State criminal defense attorney is limited. Regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty, you deserve aggressive, experienced legal representation.

Violating the laws in Florida can result in harsh punishments, such as incarceration and fines. However, being charged with a Federal or State criminal offense does not have to devastate your entire life.  Edward J. Chandler, Esq, is here to ensure that you get your life back, your peace of mind and your freedom. “I employ an aggressive defense, often convincing the prosecution to reduce the charges against you or, in some cases, dismissing them. My sole priority is to achieve a resolution that you can live with.”

Attorney Edward J. Chandler has successfully represented numerous clients charged with criminal offenses throughout the State of Florida.  Edward J. Chandler  prides himself on aggressive representation with a personal touch. Armed with Federal and State legal knowledge and experience, he can build a winning defense. Edward J. Chandler, Esq. is accustomed to taking on the criminal justice system and achieving the best results for his clients. In addition to personally handling your case from investigation, arrest, bond hearing, arraignment, discovery and through jury trial, Edward J. Chandler, Esq. will be available to you during every step of the criminal procedure. Edward J. Chandler guarantees that you and your case will receive his undivided attention.

When your future is on the line…Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.  at (954) 788-1355  24/7 immediately! Your phone consultation is free and completely confidential.

Professional Organizations:

   * Florida Bar since 1991
* Broward County Bar Association
* Association of Trial Lawyers of America -ATLA
* Federal Bar
* Federal Court -Southern and Middle Districts of Florida
* Supreme Court of United States
* 4th District Court of  Appeals
* 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
* United States Tax Court

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney, Broward County, Criminal defense, Florida law, Law, Lawyer, Uncategorized

What does the judge consider when imposing a Federal Sentence?

Welcome to the

Law Offices
of
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357

Call Today! 24/7  “FROM ARREST TO TRIAL “

The sentencing judge must consider all “relevant conduct” for certain offenses, mostly drug, theft, and fraud offenses where the “offense level” is based on quantity.  “Relevant conduct” is any conduct that has a common scheme or plan, including charges that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.  For this reason, plea agreements are often less beneficial than they first seem.  The government still has to prove that you actually committed the crime dismissed in a prior plea agreement.

The sentencing judge must consider all “relevant conduct” for certain offenses, mostly drug, theft, and fraud offenses where the “offense level” is based on quantity.  “Relevant conduct” is any conduct that has a common scheme or plan, including charges for which you were “not guilty.”

When a jury finds you “not guilty,” they have only determined that the prosecution has not met its burden of proving you guilty of all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  The jury has not made the determination that you did not commit the crime.  In a subsequent case a sentencing judge need only determine whether it is more likely than not that you engaged in the conduct previously charged against you.

Since it seems terribly unfair and is disrespectful of a jury’s verdict, some judges in some cases refuse to consider charges for which a person was found not guilty.

                                           KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!


         My goal is to represent my clients as I would want to be represented, always putting their interests first, diligently working to fully understand and serve the clients’ needs. In short, to do whatever it takes for the successful resolution of the
clients’ causes.

         If you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense, you need to seek the advice of Edward J. Chandler, Esq., an experienced Florida Federal and State criminal defense attorney since 1991! Right now, you may be filled with fear, confusion, embarrassment, and anger. You probably have a thousand questions and want to know your rights and how to proceed. With your future as stake, you need to think smart and speak with an experienced Florida criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Since a criminal conviction may affect your future, your reputation and your chances of getting a job, it is critical that you seek out an experienced Florida criminal defense attorney such as Edward J, Chandler, as soon as you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense. The right Florida criminal defense lawyer can evaluate your case, determine legal strategies, and defend you in court, increasing your likelihood of staying out of jail and protecting your future.

Given the complexity of criminal defense in Florida, it is important that you choose a Florida criminal defense lawyer that knows the Federal and State systems, and who combines experience with a track record, and who has a thorough understanding and familiarity with the law, the prosecutors and the local courts. If you have been accused of a crime, your time to get the right experienced Federal or State criminal defense attorney is limited. Regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty, you deserve aggressive, experienced legal representation.

Violating the laws in Florida can result in harsh punishments, such as incarceration and fines. However, being charged with a Federal or State criminal offense does not have to devastate your entire life.  Edward J. Chandler, Esq, is here to ensure that you get your life back, your peace of mind and your freedom. “I employ an aggressive defense, often convincing the prosecution to reduce the charges against you or, in some cases, dismissing them. My sole priority is to achieve a resolution that you can live with.”

Attorney Edward J. Chandler has successfully represented numerous clients charged with criminal offenses throughout the State of Florida.  Edward J. Chandler  prides himself on aggressive representation with a personal touch. Armed with Federal and State legal knowledge and experience, he can build a winning defense. Edward J. Chandler, Esq. is accustomed to taking on the criminal justice system and achieving the best results for his clients. In addition to personally handling your case from investigation, arrest, bond hearing, arraignment, discovery and through jury trial, Edward J. Chandler, Esq. will be available to you during every step of the criminal procedure. Edward J. Chandler guarantees that you and your case will receive his undivided attention.

When your future is on the line…Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.  at (954) 788-1355  24/7 immediately! Your phone consultation is free and completely confidential.

Professional Organizations:

   * Florida Bar since 1991
* Broward County Bar Association
* Association of Trial Lawyers of America -ATLA
* Federal Bar
* Federal Court -Southern and Middle Districts of Florida
* Supreme Court of United States
* 4th District Court of  Appeals
* 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
* United States Tax Court

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney, Broward County, Criminal defense, Florida law, Law, Lawyer, Uncategorized

How Much of a Federal Sentence must be Served?

How Much of a Federal Sentence must be Served?

Welcome to the 

Law Offices
of
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.
708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357


Call Today! 24/7
“FROM ARREST TO TRIAL “

How Much of a Federal Sentence must be Served?

You will serve almost all of your sentence.  There is no such thing as parole in the federal system for all crimes committed after November 1, 1987.  If your sentence is longer than one year, you might qualify for a small reduction for “good time” which is earned at the rate of 54 days for every year of the sentence.  Although the statute that governs good conduct time, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), states that prisoners may earn up to 54 days per year, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) awards a maximum of 47 days for each year of the sentence imposed.

In addition, you may spend the last 10 % of your sentence, up to 6 months, in a community corrections center, or “half-way house.”  The recently passed Second Chance Act requires the BOP to issue regulations allowing prisoners to be placed in community corrections centers for up to twelve months, but the BOP has not yet issued such regulations.  Not all inmates are eligible for half-way house.  For example, those with immigration or other types of detainers are ineligible, as are sex offenders.

Time calculation is complicated.  You will generally receive credit for every day you spend in “official detention” after the offense for which you were convicted as long as those days were not credited toward another sentence.  Unfortunately, the definition of “official detention” is not always clear.  For example, time in a halfway house or in home confinement is not counted.  The basic rule is in section 3585(b) of title 18 of the United States Code, but this is an important issue to discuss with your defense attorney because it is so complicated.  In some instances, an attorney may be able to persuade a court to adjust the federal sentence to account for any potential discrepancies between the credits that the Bureau of Prisons will count, on the one hand, and the time the judge thinks should count on the other.

If you were in state custody and were brought into federal custody pursuant to a “writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum,” the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) will generally only give you credits against your federal sentence if you did not receive state custody credits.  But if you were in state custody and the state dropped charges in favor of a federal prosecution, you will probably receive credits against your federal sentence even for the time you spent in state custody before the federal charges were filed as long as that time in custody occurred after the offense for which you were convicted federally and as long as you did not receive credit in the state against another state sentence.

Time spent in immigration custody may or may not be considered “official detention.”  It is important to discuss this issue with your individual attorney so he or she may attempt to work out a resolution that will result in the time being credited.

The initial appearance in magistrate court is not, ultimately, determinative of how your time is counted.  What is important is the question whether you were in “official detention.”

Usually you will get credit for all of the time you have been in custody while facing a federal charge.  There is an exception when you are serving another sentence either in state or federal prison.  For example, if you were in state custody and were brought into federal custody pursuant to a “writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum,” then the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) will generally only give you credits against your federal sentence if you did not receive state custody credits.  But if you were in state custody and the state dropped charges in favor of a federal prosecution, you will probably receive credits against your federal sentence even for the time you spent in state custody before the federal charges were filed as long as that time in custody occurred after the offense for which you were convicted federally and you did not receive credit in the state against another state sentence.  Because this issue is so complicated, it is important to discuss any possible credits issues with your attorney before you are sentenced.

In some instances, an attorney may be able to persuade a court to adjust the federal sentence to account for any potential discrepancies between the credits that the Bureau of Prisons will count, on the one hand, and the time the judge thinks should count on the other.

Law Offices
of
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.
708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355


Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357
Call Today! 24/7

“FROM ARREST TO TRIAL “

                                           KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

         My goal is to represent my clients as I would want to be represented, always putting their interests first, diligently working to fully understand and serve the clients’ needs. In short, to do whatever it takes for the successful resolution of the
clients’ causes.
         If you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense, you need to seek the advice of Edward J. Chandler, Esq., an experienced Florida Federal and State criminal defense attorney since 1991! Right now, you may be filled with fear, confusion, embarrassment, and anger. You probably have a thousand questions and want to know your rights and how to proceed. With your future as stake, you need to think smart and speak with an experienced Florida criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.Since a criminal conviction may affect your future, your reputation and your chances of getting a job, it is critical that you seek out an experienced Florida criminal defense attorney such as Edward J, Chandler, as soon as you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense. The right Florida criminal defense lawyer can evaluate your case, determine legal strategies, and defend you in court, increasing your likelihood of staying out of jail and protecting your future.

Given the complexity of criminal defense in Florida, it is important that you choose a Florida criminal defense lawyer that knows the Federal and State systems, and who combines experience with a track record, and who has a thorough understanding and familiarity with the law, the prosecutors and the local courts. If you have been accused of a crime, your time to get the right experienced Federal or State criminal defense attorney is limited. Regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty, you deserve aggressive, experienced legal representation.

Violating the laws in Florida can result in harsh punishments, such as incarceration and fines. However, being charged with a Federal or State criminal offense does not have to devastate your entire life.  Edward J. Chandler, Esq, is here to ensure that you get your life back, your peace of mind and your freedom. “I employ an aggressive defense, often convincing the prosecution to reduce the charges against you or, in some cases, dismissing them. My sole priority is to achieve a resolution that you can live with.”

Attorney Edward J. Chandler has successfully represented numerous clients charged with criminal offenses throughout the State of Florida.  Edward J. Chandler  prides himself on aggressive representation with a personal touch. Armed with Federal and State legal knowledge and experience, he can build a winning defense. Edward J. Chandler, Esq. is accustomed to taking on the criminal justice system and achieving the best results for his clients. In addition to personally handling your case from investigation, arrest, bond hearing, arraignment, discovery and through jury trial, Edward J. Chandler, Esq. will be available to you during every step of the criminal procedure. Edward J. Chandler guarantees that you and your case will receive his undivided attention.

When your future is on the line…Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.  at (954) 788-1355  24/7 immediately! Your phone consultation is free and completely confidential.

Professional Organizations:

   * Florida Bar since 1991
    * Broward County Bar Association
    * Association of Trial Lawyers of America -ATLA
    * Federal Bar
    * Federal Court -Southern and Middle Districts of Florida
    * Supreme Court of United States
    * 4th District Court of  Appeals
    * 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
    * United States Tax Court


Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney, Broward County, Criminal defense, Law, Lawyer, Uncategorized