Defendant Prevails in DUI Appeal Proves to be a Hollow Win

Defendant Prevails In DUI Appeal Proves To Be A Hollow Win

The defendant contendedthat the trial court wasin error by denying a ...More
The defendant contendedthat the trial court wasin error by denying amotion for mistrial afterthe assistant stateattorney improperlycommented in openingstatement concerning thedefendant's right toremain silent. Afundamental rule ofcriminal sentencing isthat, when a defendant issentenced by the court,he or she is required tobe sentenced inaccordance with the lawthat were in place at thetime the criminal offensehappened. Less

Defendant Prevails in DUI Appeal Proves to be a Hollow Win

to get instant updates about 'Defendant Prevails In DUI Appeal Proves To Be A Hollow Win' on your MyPage. Meet other similar minded people. Its Free!

X 

All Updates


Overview:
On appeal defendant contended that the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion for mistrial after the state attorney made improper remarks in opening statement about the defendant's right not to tesitfy. A fundamental principal of sentencing is that, when a defendant is sentenced, he or she is required to be sentenced in accordance with the laws that were effrective at the moment in time the criminal offense transpired.
Description:

When a defendant appeals a Judge's order not granting a mistrial due to an inappropriate remark made by an assistant state attorney, the State bears the burden of showing to the court of appeal that there exists no reasonable probability that the statement or remark affected the verdict. Basically the State must show that the evidence against the appellant was so substantial that he or she would have been ultimately convicted even without the remark.

A basic principal of sentencing is that, when the defendant is sentenced by the court, he must be sentenced according to the laws that were in place at the time the crime transpired. For example, let's say that an individual commited a crime that was punishable by a maximum of one year in Florida state prison. Six months after the criminal offense happened, but before the trial, the legislature passed a new law which made that same crime punishable by mandatory minimum punishment of 3 years in jail. The maximum possible penality for the defendant would be 1 year incarceration. Creating a criminal sanction that is more severe & making the punishment retroactive would be considered an Ex Post Facto law. Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. While the opinion below looks like a shallow victory, it is a good example of our courts functioning properly and upholding the United States Constitution.

In the case of Massengale v. State of Florida the Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant's convictions for manslaughter by DUI, driving with license suspended and/or revoked, DUI causing damage to a person or property, and DUI causing serious bodily injury. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the $100 fine assessed by the court and sent it back to the trial court with directions to strike it from the judgment.

On appeal the defendant argued that the trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion for mistrial after the prosecutor improperly commented in opening statement concerning defendant's right not to tesitfy. The First District Court of Appeal concluded that the state met the burder on proof showing there was not a reasonable possibility that that error affected the jury's verdict.

On appeal, Defendant also asserted error in the circuit court's imposition of one hundred dollars for cost of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2008). The state conceded the error because the incident occurred prior to the statute became effective.For additional information on Criminal Attorney Miami FL , Criminal Lawyer Miami FL and Violation of Probation Miami FL please contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 South Biscayne Boulevard

28th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

(305)429-3285

No feeds found

All
Posting your question. Please wait!...


About

The defendant contended that the trial court was in error by denying a motion for mistrial after the assistant state attorney improperly commented in opening statement concerning the defendant's right to remain silent. A fundamental rule of criminal sentencing is that, when a defendant is sentenced by the court, he or she is required to be sentenced in accordance with the law that were in place at the time the criminal offense happened.
No messages found
Suggested Pages
Tell your friends >
about this page
 Create a new Page
for companies, colleges, celebrities or anything you like.Get updates on MyPage.
Create a new Page
 Find your friends
  Find friends on MyPage from