South Florida Criminal Law Blog

Florida law allows criminal defendants who are also chronic substance abusers to ask a court to withhold judgment and sentencing and instead place the person on drug offender probation or into a treatment-based drug court program. In McGrill v. State, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explains that persons charged with drug possession can seek such alternative sentencing even if their sentencing guidelines "score" exceeds the maximum statutory level.

Appellant Curtis McGrill was charged with cocaine possession under a number of state drug laws, including section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2008). He plead no contest and also filed a motion for an alternative sentence under section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2009). The statute allows a court to impose an alternative sentence:

If it appears to the court upon a hearing that the defendant is a chronic substance abuser whose criminal conduct is a violation of s. 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), or other nonviolent felony if such nonviolent felony is committed on or after July 1, 2009, and notwithstanding s. 921.0024 the defendant's Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet total sentence points are 52 points or fewer....

Prepared by the State Attorney's office, a Criminal Punishment Code (CPC) scoresheet is used to "score" a criminal defendant based on state criminal sentencing guidelines, which take into account a wide variety of factors including the nature of the crime committed, any injuries caused as a result and the defendant's prior criminal record. The maximum CPC score in section 948.20 has since been raised to 60.

On appeal, the Fourth District overturned a lower court's ruling that McGrill was not eligible for an alternative sentence under section 948.20 because his CPC scoresheet tallied 78.4 points. In so doing, the Court found the maximum CPC score provision applies only to those defendants seeking an alternative sentence under the "other nonviolent felony" portion of the statute.

Finding the statute ambiguous on this issue, the Court looked to the statute as drafted prior to its amendment in 2009. This version allowed only those defendants charged for drug possession under sections 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a) to seek an alternative sentence and did not take into account these defendants' CPC scores. Thus, the Court found that the legislature intended that the maximum CPC score provision in the amended statute apply only to those defendants seeking an alternative sentence under the "other nonviolent felony" portion of the statute.

In stating its opinion, the Court made clear that it was not ruling that McGrill is necessarily entitled to an alternative sentence, only that he may seek one. "We hold only that McGrill's scoresheet does not bar him from obtaining an alternative sentence; it is simply a factor the trial court should consider before deciding whether or not to impose an alternative sentence," the Court stated.

Continue reading "Ruling Makes it Easier for Drug Possession Defendants to Seek Alternative Sentencing - McGrill v. State" »

In U.S. v. Ricketts, a federal court in Florida explains how judges consider whether the prosecution in a federal criminal drug trial can introduce evidence about the defendant's prior convictions.

Defendant Rodrigo Ricketts was indicted on one count of attempted possession of cocaine for distribution, a federal violation under 21 U.S.C. § 847(a)(1). According to the government, Ricketts told a confidential informant that he wanted to buy "several kilograms" of cocaine from the informant and was arrested when he allegedly tried to trade his car for one kilogram.

At trial before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which hears cases in Orlando, the prosecution attempted to introduce into evidence Ricketts' prior convictions: in 1993 for marijuana possession; and in 2001 for possession of drug paraphernalia. Through his attorney, Ricketts challenged the move, arguing that the risk of unfair prejudice outweighs any probative value in introducing the evidence.

It is a fundamental tenant of federal criminal trial law - codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) - that evidence related to a defendant's prior convictions is not admissible to prove the defendant's character in order to show action in conformity with that character. Such evidence may be admitted for another purpose, however, if its probative value outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice.

Ruling in Ricketts' favor, the court explained that it operates under a three-part test in considering the admissibility of prior conviction evidence:

First, the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character. Second, as part of the relevance analysis, the evidence must be sufficient to support a finding that the defendant actually committed the extrinsic act. Third, the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Continue reading "Florida Court Explains the Rules for Using Evidence of Previous Convictions in a Criminal Drug Trial - U.S. v. Ricketts" »