Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Sex Offenses

A person charged with a sexually-motivated offense faces severe possible consequences in several aspects.  The possible incarceration is lengthy and potentially indefinite; the person will be required to register for an indefinite period of time, and the person may be unable to find a residence outside of the statutory exclusion zones. As you will see below, there are numerous different statutes at issue, and each statute has very particular evidentiary requirements.  For all of these reasons, it is imperative that you find an experienced attorney such as Mr. Glassman who can defend you against these charges.  

Sexual Battery, F.S. 794.011

A charge of simple possession of drug paraphernalia or cannabis is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to 364 days in the county jail. Possession of any other controlled substance is a third degree felony punishable by up to 5 year of incarceration in

Lewd or Lascivious Battery/Assault/Conduct, F.S. 800.04

The second class of drug offenses are drug dealing offenses.  If the defendant makes an actual transaction, the defendant may be charged with delivery of a controlled substance.  If, however, the police do not witness a transaction, but see evidence that is

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, F.S. 943.0435

The third class of drug offenses are trafficking offenses. While trafficking brings to mind drug arrests involving many pounds of drugs and numerous co-conspirators, the law in Florida allows for trafficking charges in much simpler circumstances. For example,

Possession of Child Pornography, F.S. 827.071

The second class of drug offenses are drug dealing offenses.  If the defendant makes an actual transaction, the defendant may be charged with delivery of a controlled substance.  If, however, the police do not witness a transaction, but see evidence that is

Relevant Links

Recent Appellate Cases

  • State v. Losada, 175 So.3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) – Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s “a/any” test and the rule of lenity, the defendant’s transmission of multiple images via a file-sharing program constituted only a single violation of each applicable statute, rather than one count for each individual image contained in the transmissions. 
  • State v. Boltri, 178 So.3d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) –  It is clear that the Legislature did not intend for offenders to merely “report in person” to a Sheriff’s Office and then leave without talking to anyone or providing the required information.  The law may be able to make accommodations for legitimate obstacles to compliance, but cannot accept an admission of defeat at the first sign of resistance.
  • Cotton v. State, 176 So.3d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) – The State Attorney should not have presented evidence form defendant’s daughters about prior sexual batteries as they were not similar to the charged offenses and thus its probative value was minimal contrasted to the substantial risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. 

News Articles