DRUG BUST PAYS FOR POLICE TRAINING CENTER
Pubdate: Fri, 15 Dec 2006
Source: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
Copyright: 2006 Sun-Sentinel Company
What was once described as the largest single seizure of drug profits in U.S. history is helping to finance what local officials tout as the nation's finest police and fire training operation. Boca Raton's International Center for Leadership and Development is scheduled to open in the spring after the $9 million renovation of a 118,000-square-foot building at 6500 Congress Ave., once a Sony Corp. manufacturing plant. "It will be kind of cool to be training law-enforcement officers with bad-guy dollars," said John J. Sullivan Jr., director of training and professional development for the Boca Raton Police Services Department. Many area law-enforcement agencies, including the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, are expected to use the center. "I'm sure we'll take advantage of it," spokesman Paul Miller said. Sgt. Fred Parker, training officer for the Delray Beach police, said his department also would be interested in using the facility. "If they have classrooms, it is always good to get people [officers in training] away from their usual setting. We would be open to something there," he said. The $7.1 million the city paid for the building came directly from the city's $13 million share of a $280 million forfeiture that followed the arrests in the 1990s of Colombian drug lord Julio Nasser David and several U.S.-based associates. Federal agents busted up the smuggling ring after Boca Raton police in 1988 captured a boat hauling 1,100 pounds of marijuana that eventually led agents to the Nasser David organization. Boca Raton, along with the Monroe County Sheriff's Department and several federal agencies, each took a piece of the forfeiture. Once completed, the renovation by Kaufman Lynn Inc. general contractors will give the city a home for its training center that city officials hope will be nationally known. "My goal is that within five years, I'd like the center to be recognized as the premier training organization for first responders in five or six areas of specialized training," said Sullivan, a retired U.S. Customs Service special agent. The center, in the Arvida Park of Commerce, would partner with Florida Atlantic University to offer academic courses on subjects such as defensive tactics, homeland security and natural disasters, Sullivan said. Renovations of the building include a new roof rated to withstand hurricane winds of up to 140 mph, according to Jason Roth, project manager for Kaufman Lynn. "We gutted the interior and started from scratch," Roth said.
I say: Well after the strings of hurricanes that hit South Florida over the past three years, at least the Police and their families will be safe. I mean these facilities are used by them during the storms. I find it ironic that the Salvation Army and Red Cross always place their food huts, giving out free food and supplies, at these locations. Maybe starbucks and dunkin donuts can always give them a helping hand.
If you do not believe me after the next storm go to a Law Enforcement Building, Public Works Building, Fire Station, or any facility managed by civil servants; those who receive their pay checks, health care benefits and retirement paid by our tax dollars, and you will witness it for yourself. Questions visit me andrewstine.com
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
New Sentencing Supreme Ct Decision
US SUPREME COURT RULING SENTENCING
In striking down California's sentencing law yesterday which allowed judges, as opposed to juries, to determine aggravating factors warranting an increase in a criminal sentence, the Supreme Court further solidified the principles it began with its Apprendi, Blakely and Booker decisions.
First, the prior cases in a nutshell:
Apprendi invalidated New Jersey’s hate-crime statute, which gave judges the power to make the specific factual findings that converted an ordinary crime into a hate crime, with an enhanced sentence. The court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury gave that role to juries. Meaning that a jury and not the judge has to determine if the defendant acted with the intent towards a certain person because of race or religion as examples.
....Blakely v. Washington.... invalidated Washington’s sentencing guidelines for giving judges the power to impose sentences beyond the normal range based on specific findings about the defendant’s conduct.
Then came Booker in United States v. Booker, the court applied that reasoning to the federal sentencing guidelines, ruling that the guidelines could be deemed constitutional only if they were regarded as “advisory” rather than mandatory. No mandatory sentences.
Yesterday's opinion was written by Justice Ruth Ginsberg. Joining her were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Souter.
Dissenting: Justices Alito, Breyer and Kennedy.
As to the California law the Court ruled invalid:
The 1977 law adopted what is known as a determinate-sentencing approach. Each crime carried three possible sentences. The middle sentence was presumed to be the correct one unless the judge made findings that justified the higher or lower alternatives.
Since I practice primarily in federal court, I'm going to be more interested in a case argued next month:
Next month in Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, the court will hear arguments on whether a federal sentence within the guidelines range should be presumed to be reasonable.
If the court rules against the reasonableness presumption, judges will have even more latitude to impose a non-guideline sentence. The guidelines took effect in 1987. I've had ten years of cases pre-guidelines and 20 post-guidelines, and I have to say, I prefer non-guideline sentences. There's something about determining a person's future by mathematical calculation that just doesn't sit right with me.
While crimes may be the same, those who commit them are not. Simply dividing them, as the Guidelines mandate, into levels one through six based on their criminal history is very de-humanizing and takes away the Judge's ability to impose a sentence based not only on the seriousness of the offense but the character and history of the offender.
FLORIDA
As a Florida Criminal Defense lawyer we are stuck with the Criminal Punishment Code, which is how defendants are primarily sentenced. See Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.740 and 3.992. The above Federal Cases only affected a few of the Florida areas: Apprendi and Blakely affected upward departures in Florida Sentencing beyond the presumptive range under the guidelines, and beyond the statutory maximum under the Criminal Punishment Code. Thus, when the defendant’s sentence was increased because of a prior conviction, as described exactly akin to the prior sentence, the prior conviction must be submitted to the jury and be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the State before the sentence could be enhanced. NO LONGER would a Judge find this as a matter of law at the conclusion of a trial.
Apprendi and Blakely have no affect on Florida’s capital sentencing scheme. See Spencer v. State, 842 So2d. 52 (Fla. 2003); Prison Release Reoffender (PRR) is also unaffected. See Robinson v. State, 793 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2001); Habitual Offender (HO) sentence is not within Apprendi and Blakely. See McBride v. State, 884 so. 2d 476 (4th DCA 2004).
If you have questions or comments please post them or contact the office at ANDREWSTINE.COM or 561 832 1170.
In striking down California's sentencing law yesterday which allowed judges, as opposed to juries, to determine aggravating factors warranting an increase in a criminal sentence, the Supreme Court further solidified the principles it began with its Apprendi, Blakely and Booker decisions.
First, the prior cases in a nutshell:
Apprendi invalidated New Jersey’s hate-crime statute, which gave judges the power to make the specific factual findings that converted an ordinary crime into a hate crime, with an enhanced sentence. The court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury gave that role to juries. Meaning that a jury and not the judge has to determine if the defendant acted with the intent towards a certain person because of race or religion as examples.
....Blakely v. Washington.... invalidated Washington’s sentencing guidelines for giving judges the power to impose sentences beyond the normal range based on specific findings about the defendant’s conduct.
Then came Booker in United States v. Booker, the court applied that reasoning to the federal sentencing guidelines, ruling that the guidelines could be deemed constitutional only if they were regarded as “advisory” rather than mandatory. No mandatory sentences.
Yesterday's opinion was written by Justice Ruth Ginsberg. Joining her were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Souter.
Dissenting: Justices Alito, Breyer and Kennedy.
As to the California law the Court ruled invalid:
The 1977 law adopted what is known as a determinate-sentencing approach. Each crime carried three possible sentences. The middle sentence was presumed to be the correct one unless the judge made findings that justified the higher or lower alternatives.
Since I practice primarily in federal court, I'm going to be more interested in a case argued next month:
Next month in Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, the court will hear arguments on whether a federal sentence within the guidelines range should be presumed to be reasonable.
If the court rules against the reasonableness presumption, judges will have even more latitude to impose a non-guideline sentence. The guidelines took effect in 1987. I've had ten years of cases pre-guidelines and 20 post-guidelines, and I have to say, I prefer non-guideline sentences. There's something about determining a person's future by mathematical calculation that just doesn't sit right with me.
While crimes may be the same, those who commit them are not. Simply dividing them, as the Guidelines mandate, into levels one through six based on their criminal history is very de-humanizing and takes away the Judge's ability to impose a sentence based not only on the seriousness of the offense but the character and history of the offender.
FLORIDA
As a Florida Criminal Defense lawyer we are stuck with the Criminal Punishment Code, which is how defendants are primarily sentenced. See Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.740 and 3.992. The above Federal Cases only affected a few of the Florida areas: Apprendi and Blakely affected upward departures in Florida Sentencing beyond the presumptive range under the guidelines, and beyond the statutory maximum under the Criminal Punishment Code. Thus, when the defendant’s sentence was increased because of a prior conviction, as described exactly akin to the prior sentence, the prior conviction must be submitted to the jury and be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the State before the sentence could be enhanced. NO LONGER would a Judge find this as a matter of law at the conclusion of a trial.
Apprendi and Blakely have no affect on Florida’s capital sentencing scheme. See Spencer v. State, 842 So2d. 52 (Fla. 2003); Prison Release Reoffender (PRR) is also unaffected. See Robinson v. State, 793 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2001); Habitual Offender (HO) sentence is not within Apprendi and Blakely. See McBride v. State, 884 so. 2d 476 (4th DCA 2004).
If you have questions or comments please post them or contact the office at ANDREWSTINE.COM or 561 832 1170.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Jackson v. State, (4th DCA Dec. 2006). Appellate Law UPDATE.
In Jackson, and now the new law within the Fourth District Court of Appeals, a Defendant whose appellate counsel withdrew from his case under Anders could seek relief on the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The defendant's appellate counsel allegedly failed to submit an appellate brief despite instructional error and a Brady violation. Although such claims lacked merit, the District Court of Appeal receded from the holding of Johnson v. Moore, which had served to preclude ineffective assistance claims of defendants who through the Anders procedure had been given an opportunity to make any arguments that arguably should have been raised by their counsel. Remember Anders v. Calif., allows Appellate Counsel to not file an adversarial brief alleging lower Court Error. That is correct; your right to an appeal under the Florida Constitution has been eroded by the activists Courts.
At the Law office of Andrew D. Stine, and after speaking with other predominant Criminal Law Offices, the only time we see Anders issues is when Trial Counsel is wholly ineffective. Basically when trial counsel is unprepared and does little preparation.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal receded from Johnson v. Moore, 744 So. 2d. 1042 (4th DCA 1999). In Johnson, the Fourth District Court of Appeals, the jurisdiction of: Palm Beach, Broward, Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Indian River Counties, held that a defendant whose counsel has withdrawn under Anders, and who, the defendant, has failed to file his own brief, cannot seek relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Thus, under Johnson, if Appellate Counsel files and Anders brief, the Fourth District wanted convicted individuals to file their own appellate briefs to preserve their constitutional right. But through some wisdom from the other appellate courts, the Fifth (Hollinger v. State) and Second (Barber v. State), the Forth receded.
State v. Ratner, Jan. 11, 2007 (Fla.). Interlocutory Appeals
Issue for review to the Supreme Court was whether or not an Interlocutory order denying motion in limine and certifying question ripe for appeal to District Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of Florida has held, in Ratmer, that a county court's interlocutory order denying the state's motion in limine seeking to admit an alleged victim's hearsay statement to a police officer in a prosecution for domestic battery and certifying a question of great public importance was appealable to the circuit court under the rule permitting the state to appeal a nonfinal order in a criminal case as provided by general law, in view of the statute permitting the state to appeal orders suppressing evidence in limine to the circuit court.
Thus, the state could appeal the order directly to the District Court of Appeal, under the rule granting the District Courts of Appeal discretion to review a county court order that certified a question of great public importance if the order would otherwise be appealable to the circuit court in its appellate capacity.
The Florida Constitution provides in relevant part:District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts, including those entered on review of administrative action, not directly appealable to the supreme court or a circuit court. They may review interlocutory orders in such cases to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court. The fine issue of law becomes, whether the Supreme Court of Florida adopted a rule that would give review of the county court certified question to the district court. Thus, the district courts of appeal can only review an order of the county court which certifies a question to be of great public importance if the order, without regard to certification, would otherwise be appealable to the circuit court in its appellate capacity under Fla. Supreme Court Rules. The bottom line is the County Courts; those that are vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate Misdemeanor Cases, can bypass the Circuit Court Appellate Jurisdiction if the County Court Judge(s) certifies the issue to be of great public importance.
In Jackson, and now the new law within the Fourth District Court of Appeals, a Defendant whose appellate counsel withdrew from his case under Anders could seek relief on the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The defendant's appellate counsel allegedly failed to submit an appellate brief despite instructional error and a Brady violation. Although such claims lacked merit, the District Court of Appeal receded from the holding of Johnson v. Moore, which had served to preclude ineffective assistance claims of defendants who through the Anders procedure had been given an opportunity to make any arguments that arguably should have been raised by their counsel. Remember Anders v. Calif., allows Appellate Counsel to not file an adversarial brief alleging lower Court Error. That is correct; your right to an appeal under the Florida Constitution has been eroded by the activists Courts.
At the Law office of Andrew D. Stine, and after speaking with other predominant Criminal Law Offices, the only time we see Anders issues is when Trial Counsel is wholly ineffective. Basically when trial counsel is unprepared and does little preparation.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal receded from Johnson v. Moore, 744 So. 2d. 1042 (4th DCA 1999). In Johnson, the Fourth District Court of Appeals, the jurisdiction of: Palm Beach, Broward, Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Indian River Counties, held that a defendant whose counsel has withdrawn under Anders, and who, the defendant, has failed to file his own brief, cannot seek relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Thus, under Johnson, if Appellate Counsel files and Anders brief, the Fourth District wanted convicted individuals to file their own appellate briefs to preserve their constitutional right. But through some wisdom from the other appellate courts, the Fifth (Hollinger v. State) and Second (Barber v. State), the Forth receded.
State v. Ratner, Jan. 11, 2007 (Fla.). Interlocutory Appeals
Issue for review to the Supreme Court was whether or not an Interlocutory order denying motion in limine and certifying question ripe for appeal to District Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of Florida has held, in Ratmer, that a county court's interlocutory order denying the state's motion in limine seeking to admit an alleged victim's hearsay statement to a police officer in a prosecution for domestic battery and certifying a question of great public importance was appealable to the circuit court under the rule permitting the state to appeal a nonfinal order in a criminal case as provided by general law, in view of the statute permitting the state to appeal orders suppressing evidence in limine to the circuit court.
Thus, the state could appeal the order directly to the District Court of Appeal, under the rule granting the District Courts of Appeal discretion to review a county court order that certified a question of great public importance if the order would otherwise be appealable to the circuit court in its appellate capacity.
The Florida Constitution provides in relevant part:District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts, including those entered on review of administrative action, not directly appealable to the supreme court or a circuit court. They may review interlocutory orders in such cases to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court. The fine issue of law becomes, whether the Supreme Court of Florida adopted a rule that would give review of the county court certified question to the district court. Thus, the district courts of appeal can only review an order of the county court which certifies a question to be of great public importance if the order, without regard to certification, would otherwise be appealable to the circuit court in its appellate capacity under Fla. Supreme Court Rules. The bottom line is the County Courts; those that are vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate Misdemeanor Cases, can bypass the Circuit Court Appellate Jurisdiction if the County Court Judge(s) certifies the issue to be of great public importance.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
My name is Andrew D Stine and I am a criminal defense attorney in South Florida, see ANDREWSTINE.COM. Since 2001 I have been protecting the rights of the accused throughout all of Florida. My law firm is located in downtown West Palm Beach, Florida.
I have defended those accused of criminal acts in Palm Beach County, Broward County, Dade County, Martin County, St. Lucie County, Okeechobee County, Highlands County, Orange County, Duval County, and Indian River County; and throughout the Federal courts within the State of Florida.
I have extensive experience in helping those accused of all criminal acts like: Murder, Trafficking in Human Beings, Federal Communication Piracy, Trafficking in Cocaine, Trafficking in Hydrocodone, Possession and Sale of Cocaine, Possession and Sale of Marijuana, Possession and Sale of Heroin, Possession and Sale of Meth, Aggravated Assault with a Firearm and other Deadly Weapons, Firing a Deadly Missile into a Dwelling and Automobile, Aggravated Battery, Sexual Assault, Grand Theft over $100,000.00, Organized Scheme to Defraud, Prostitution, Petit Theft, Driving Under the Influence, Driving Under Suspension, Domestic Battery, Injunctions from Abuse and an endless number of other criminal acts numbering into the thousands.
I have been accused of representing the “Top Six.” I do not even know who they are, as none of clients have ever divulged such a revelation to me. I have read about their alleged affiliation in the Palm Beach Post and heard the Nightly News reports. I have even received numerous requests to speak about the Top Six, the Haitian Gang from Lake-Worth and Lantana Florida, but I cannot speak of something I know nothing about.
I have represented the worst animal cruelty cases founded within the State of Florida. On every occasion the accused had their animals returned and the County ostracized my work in the local nightly new and print media. Hell my family and I even received death threats. I love all animals; I own dogs, horses and even fish. It is the government and their abusive power that I dislike.
I represented one of the first defendants in the Federal Courts for Trafficking in Human Beings. Everyone has seen the nightly news were criminal defendants charged with the crime of trafficking in humans; receive sentences of life (the wheel) or years measured in decades. The Government had the smuggler’s confession. The victims were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony and the cherry they received resident alien status. The client I represented, a Guatemalan National, received a sentence of 14 months. The key to the case and the lenient sentence was my motion practice, I made the Government work. The law office of Andrew Stine files motions. Make them work!
My experience of representing those accused of drug and narcotic crimes is measured in volumes. Representing an accused for possession, sale or trafficking in: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth., hydrocodone is really individualized. What does that mean? Well the theory of defenses changes drastically from one defendant to the next. Therefore, each client accused of a drug crime provides exciting and new challenges for the office.
Some might say “you are beating your own chest.” This Blog is an advertisement. Well I provided the above to hopefully demonstrate my experience and skills. Well so what your website at ANDREWSTINE.COM tells me that, why is any different here?
Here I am going to provide a forum for updated motions and legal opinions free of charge. The motions will be the actually ones I filed throughout the State of Florida and in the Federal Courts to help my clients accused of crimes. The squibs and briefs of those opinions will be crisp and concise. The briefs or squibs will be useful to practicing attorneys who need updates on the law and for those who want to learn about the law. If there are any questions about the motions, briefs or squibs, I can be reached at either (561) 832-1170 or ANDREWSTINE.COM.
I will also try to keep all readers current on Law Enforcement Officers who get arrested, indicted or are under criminal investigation; so that if that officer is involved in one of the readers pending cases, it could be beneficial for the reader to know. I also behest all readers to post their own sediments and advice within the contents of this Blog. But please be careful about what you say or post as the evil eyes are always watching. As we all know, our Constitutional Rights are eroding on a daily basis. I also ask that if other lawyers post information that they too be careful not to mislead the readers; as the readers will certainly use the information within this Blog to help themselves out of a jam or prevent themselves from becoming just another number.
I have defended those accused of criminal acts in Palm Beach County, Broward County, Dade County, Martin County, St. Lucie County, Okeechobee County, Highlands County, Orange County, Duval County, and Indian River County; and throughout the Federal courts within the State of Florida.
I have extensive experience in helping those accused of all criminal acts like: Murder, Trafficking in Human Beings, Federal Communication Piracy, Trafficking in Cocaine, Trafficking in Hydrocodone, Possession and Sale of Cocaine, Possession and Sale of Marijuana, Possession and Sale of Heroin, Possession and Sale of Meth, Aggravated Assault with a Firearm and other Deadly Weapons, Firing a Deadly Missile into a Dwelling and Automobile, Aggravated Battery, Sexual Assault, Grand Theft over $100,000.00, Organized Scheme to Defraud, Prostitution, Petit Theft, Driving Under the Influence, Driving Under Suspension, Domestic Battery, Injunctions from Abuse and an endless number of other criminal acts numbering into the thousands.
I have been accused of representing the “Top Six.” I do not even know who they are, as none of clients have ever divulged such a revelation to me. I have read about their alleged affiliation in the Palm Beach Post and heard the Nightly News reports. I have even received numerous requests to speak about the Top Six, the Haitian Gang from Lake-Worth and Lantana Florida, but I cannot speak of something I know nothing about.
I have represented the worst animal cruelty cases founded within the State of Florida. On every occasion the accused had their animals returned and the County ostracized my work in the local nightly new and print media. Hell my family and I even received death threats. I love all animals; I own dogs, horses and even fish. It is the government and their abusive power that I dislike.
I represented one of the first defendants in the Federal Courts for Trafficking in Human Beings. Everyone has seen the nightly news were criminal defendants charged with the crime of trafficking in humans; receive sentences of life (the wheel) or years measured in decades. The Government had the smuggler’s confession. The victims were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony and the cherry they received resident alien status. The client I represented, a Guatemalan National, received a sentence of 14 months. The key to the case and the lenient sentence was my motion practice, I made the Government work. The law office of Andrew Stine files motions. Make them work!
My experience of representing those accused of drug and narcotic crimes is measured in volumes. Representing an accused for possession, sale or trafficking in: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth., hydrocodone is really individualized. What does that mean? Well the theory of defenses changes drastically from one defendant to the next. Therefore, each client accused of a drug crime provides exciting and new challenges for the office.
Some might say “you are beating your own chest.” This Blog is an advertisement. Well I provided the above to hopefully demonstrate my experience and skills. Well so what your website at ANDREWSTINE.COM tells me that, why is any different here?
Here I am going to provide a forum for updated motions and legal opinions free of charge. The motions will be the actually ones I filed throughout the State of Florida and in the Federal Courts to help my clients accused of crimes. The squibs and briefs of those opinions will be crisp and concise. The briefs or squibs will be useful to practicing attorneys who need updates on the law and for those who want to learn about the law. If there are any questions about the motions, briefs or squibs, I can be reached at either (561) 832-1170 or ANDREWSTINE.COM.
I will also try to keep all readers current on Law Enforcement Officers who get arrested, indicted or are under criminal investigation; so that if that officer is involved in one of the readers pending cases, it could be beneficial for the reader to know. I also behest all readers to post their own sediments and advice within the contents of this Blog. But please be careful about what you say or post as the evil eyes are always watching. As we all know, our Constitutional Rights are eroding on a daily basis. I also ask that if other lawyers post information that they too be careful not to mislead the readers; as the readers will certainly use the information within this Blog to help themselves out of a jam or prevent themselves from becoming just another number.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)