West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog : Ronald Chapman: West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer | Florida Criminal Attorney: DUI, Assault & Battery, Felonies | Criminal Law Firm

          It is the law in Florida that when a person accused of committing a crime claims that he acted in self-defense, the case should be dismissed by the trial judge when the prosecution's evidence is legally insufficient to rebut the claim of self-defense.

          For example, in the case of G.T.J. v. State of Florida the undisputed evidence showed:

          1.  G.T.J. was outside an apartment occupied by two individuals named Hernandes and Miranda;

          2.  G.T.J. and a friend of his got into a fight with Hernandes and Miranda;

          3.  Hernandes and Miranda chased G.T.J.;

          4.  G.T.J. turned and struck one of the men who was chasing him in the face with a stick; and

          5.  G.T.J. swung his belt at both Hernandes and Miranda but missed.

          In deciding that the trial judge should have dismissed this case, the appellate court noted that G.T.J. presented unrebutted testimony that:

          a.  He swung a rod at Hernandes and Miranda only after Hernandes first swung a knife at him and then proceeded to chase after G.T.J. while accompanied by Miranda; and

          b.  He swung his belt at the two men only after one of the men began choking him.

          The appellate court continued on by observing that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not rebut G.T.J.'s testimony regarding the violent, aggressive behavior of Hernandes and Miranda insofar as neither of the latter two individuals denied that Hernandes had threatened G.T.J. with a knife.  Nor did they deny that G.T.J. had been choked. 

          Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that trial judge should have granted G.T.J.'s request that his case be dismissed.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court held that a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment as did a prohibition against rendering any lawful gun in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

          The relevant facts in the Heller case are that Dick Heller was a District of Columbia special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center.  He applied to register a handgun that he wanted to keep at his home, but the District of Columbia denied his request.  Heller then filed a lawsuit in federal court in which he sought to prevent the District of Columbia from doing the following three things:

          1.  Enforcing a ban on the registration of handguns;

          2.  Enforcing a licensing requirement that prohibited the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license; and 

          3.  Enforcing a trigger-lock requirement that prohibited using an operable firearm within a home.                                                                                                                  

          Although the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Officer Heller, it nevertheless pointed out that the Second Amendment, like most constitutional rights, does have its limits.  For example, the Court noted that the law has long prohibited such things as:

• concealed firearms
• the possession of guns by convicted felons
• the possession of guns by mentally-ill individuals
• carrying guns in places like schools and government buildings
• the commercial sale of firearms without restriction

         If one looks today at the website for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, one sees that the following eight restrictions apply to anyone who is currently attempting to register a firearm in the District of Columbia:

          1.  He cannot have been convicted of a crime of violence or have any prior weapons offenses; 

          2.  He cannot currently be under indictment for a crime of violence or weapons offense;
 

          3.  He cannot have been convicted within the past five years of a narcotics or dangerous drug offense, threats to do bodily harm, or assault;
 

          4.  He cannot have been found not guilty of any criminal charge by reason of insanity or adjudicated as a chronic alcoholic by any court within the past five years;
 

          5.  He cannot have been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to any mental hospital or institution within the past five years;
 

          6.  He cannot suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for that individual to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly;
 

          7.  He cannot have been found negligent in any firearm mishap causing death or injury to another human being;

          8.  She cannot have been convicted of any felony or prostitution-related offense.

          Additionally, this website states that properly registering a gun still does not permit a person to carry that gun outside her home or place of business except to move it for a lawful recreational purpose.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following article appeared in the April 30, 2008 edition of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Ron Chapman represented and obtained a favourable outcome for the defendant Ramirez.
 

By Nancy L. Othon
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
April 30, 2008

Two men who were racing cars and driving drunk when their friend was killed last year after a house party in Boca Raton received what a judge called the 'deal of a lifetime' Wednesday and were sentenced to one year in the Palm Beach County Jail after pleading guilty to DUI manslaughter.
Just days away from hitting their 21st birthdays, Jhonathan Ramirez, of Miami, and Matthew Swaney, of Boynton Beach, were immediately taken into custody to begin serving their yearlong sentence. They each faced a maximum of 15 years in prison if convicted of DUI manslaughter.

Circuit Judge Krista Marx warned the men that she would not hesitate to send either man to prison if they slip up during the 15 years of probation both men must serve, even if a probation violation is a technicality. She also said the defendant's attorneys got them a 'rare deal' that she hoped they were worthy of receiving.

Marx accepted the plea agreement despite an emotional argument from victim David Martin's mother, Bonne Martin of Boynton Beach, who told Marx that her only son's life was worth far more than a year in jail.

'I'm actually begging you to not go along with the plea, judge,' Martin said, shaking.

David Martin, 20, had gone to a party in Boca Raton along with Ramirez and Swaney on Feb. 17, 2007, when all three friends drank and smoked marijuana, according to police reports. Martin was a passenger in Swaney's car when Swaney lost control of his car on Clint Moore Road and hit a tree. Martin was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash.

Witnesses told police Swaney and Ramirez were racing each other. All three men had blood-alcohol levels of 0.10 percent and had marijuana in their system at the time of the crash, prosecutor Ellen Roberts said. The legal alcohol limit in Florida is 0.08 percent.

'I can't even begin to fathom your pain,' Marx told Martin. 'I cannot be more sorry for your loss.'

But Marx accepted the plea, telling Martin that Roberts is one of the toughest vehicle homicide prosecutors in the state and that she had the utmost confidence in all of the attorneys involved in the case.

The terms of the deal also call for Ramirez and Swaney to do 50 hours of community service annually for 15 years and each pay more than $12,000 in restitution to Martin - a condition that prompted Marx to issue a strict warning to the men.

'I don't care if you have to work two jobs, gentlemen,' Marx said.

After the hearing, Roberts said the deal was appropriate in this case because Martin was not an innocent victim on the street, but rather someone who chose to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana with his friends who got behind the wheel.

'It didn't make sense to do anything else,' Roberts said, adding that the terms of the 15-year probation are extremely strict and won't be easy for the men.

She also said that even if convicted of DUI manslaughter, Marx likely would not have sentenced either man to the 15-year maximum. Martin wanted the men locked up for life, Roberts said.

Martin said she left the hearing feeling 'let down' by the judicial system.

'My life has just been ripped away,' she said.

In a letter that Martin wrote to Marx last week, Martin said the terms of the plea agreement are 'an insult to my son's memory and a slap in my face.'

'I believe, that if the state wants to stop drunk driving and road racing, they need to impose sentences that are on par with the offense,' Martin wrote. 'A year in jail for killing a human being is a joke, and sends the wrong message to the community.'

Source: http://www.topix.net/content/trb/2008/04/2-get-deal-of-a-lifetime-in-drag-racing-dui-crash-that-killed-boynton-man

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link