We handle appeals regarding many types of street and vice criminal matters, including but not limited to assault, battery, burglary, driving under the influence, drugs, guns, manslaughter, murder, robbery, sex crimes, Stand Your Ground immunity, and theft.
Our notable victories include obtaining affirmance of the grant of Stand Your Ground immunity to a defendant charged with second degree murder. See State v. Amore, 192 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
We have also taken many other street and vice crime appeals to oral argument, including United States v. Reese, 611 Fed. App’x 961 (11th Cir. 2015) (10-day jury trial regarding cocaine conspiracy involving Batson, Rule 404(b), and sufficiency arguments), cert. denied sub nom. Pettus v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1834 (2016), Valesano v. State, 185 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (30-year sentence for possession of child pornography), United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2017) (three-day jury trial regarding firearm possession, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 379 (2017), and United States v. Unrein, 688 Fed. App’x 602 (11th Cir. 2017) 688 Fed. App’x 602 (11th Cir. 2017) (four-day jury trial regarding attempted child enticement and possession of child pornography).
Our sample briefs include:
Certiorari petition and reply brief in Davis v. United States, No. 16-9642 (S.Ct.) (whether Congress intended and the Double Jeopardy Clause permits simultaneous prosecution for one instance of corrupt persuasion of a witness under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), which addresses witness tampering, and the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which addresses obstruction of justice);
Appellant’s brief and reply brief in United States v. Trejo, 551 Fed. App’x 565 (11th Cir. 2014) (whether dog sniff violated Fourth Amendment when dog alerted 97.4% of the time, yet the ensuing search uncovered drugs only 41.3% of the time);
Answer brief in State v. Amore, No. 2D15-1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (whether ruling that defendant was immune from prosecution for murder under Stand Your Ground statute was supported by sufficient evidence);
Appellant’s brief and reply brief in United States v. Unrein, 688 Fed. App’x 602 (11th Cir. 2017) (whether district court abused discretion or committed structural error when it forbade defendant from presenting an entrapment defense or story);
Initial brief and reply brief in Valesano v. State, No. 2D14-4628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (whether 30-year sentence for possession of child pornography should be vacated and remanded for resentencing before a different trial judge);
Appellant’s brief and reply brief in United States v. Griffin, 724 Fed. App’x 808 (11th Cir.) (whether jurisdictional nexus evidence for Hobbs Act robberies was sufficient); Certiorari petition in Travis v. United States, No. 13-1531 (S.Ct.) (whether simple vehicle flight qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause).